The churches of Australia guard with absolute determination the right to hire and fire according to the ancient sex rules of their faiths. Orthodox Jews and Muslims claim and exercise the same right, too. But across the faiths and denominations, religious leaders are far happier talking the talk of religious liberty than detailing the human cost.
Are de factos on the list? “Yes.” Single mothers? The bishop pauses. “General carte blanche, no. You need to know why.” The key is repentance: an unmarried mother is employable if she repents of the “behaviour” that occasioned conception. Indeed, everyone on this list of shame can save themselves ”“ and their jobs ”“ by being seen to wrestle with their sins.
[Robert] Forsyth, who speaks on this issue for the Anglican Church in Australia, says it isn’t a matter of proving harm or showing someone can’t do the job. The damage to church organisations is inevitable: “In the long run, someone behaving in a way that is consistently immoral working for an organisation is going to depower and chill the fervour and the life of the organisation.”
What a joke. Like most trendy liberals, David Marr does not appear to care in the least about single mothers, most of the time. But he is quite prepared to bring up any “hard cases” that he can, in order to push the gospel of whatever is the current “issue”. In this case, his ultimate aim is to break down the mainline churches’ resistance to blanket acceptance of practicing homosexuals in leadership positions.
Marr writes:
[blockquote] 1. “It is not a boutique issue. The faiths are big employers. Indeed, the Catholic Church is one of the biggest private employers in Australia and claims the right to vet the sexual morals even of the gardeners in hospital grounds.” [/blockquote]
Precisely. Australia’s public sector would break down overnight, if it were not for the numerous social services provided by the churches. WHEN the government starts to provide all the services itself, then David Marr might have a right to demand that the churches abandon their values!
[blockquote] 2. “At something like a dozen inquiries over the past five or six years, the exemptions have been challenged by human rights advocates, peak law bodies, gay and lesbian advocates and a handful of determined politicians.” [/blockquote]
In other words, challenged by a few liberal activists who have little practical involvement in the actual delivery of social services to people that really need them. Unlike the churches, who are at the coalface.
[blockquote] 3. “At the heart of this story is a political mystery: where are the votes in giving the religious privileges so distasteful they are rarely used?” [/blockquote]
David Marr is utterly clueless. The “votes” are in the millions of people who have had assistance from church groups at a difficult time in their lives, who have had medical or palliative care provided to them or their loved ones, who have been comforted at funerals by the presence and teachings of a church. It is because of their regard for the social mission of the churches, that most politicians (sensibly) don’t want to touch this.
[blockquote] 4. “But even in the ranks of the religious, there is deep disquiet about these privileges to discriminate. The Anglican bishop of Gippsland, John McIntyre, says …” [/blockquote]
Congratulations, David Marr. You have been able to find an Anglican bishop who wants the Anglican church in Australia to accept practicing homosexuals as clergy and bishops. You will probably find a few other bishops who also want this but are mostly afraid to admit it. But the vast majority of Anglicans don’t follow the trendy values of +McIntyre.
You know, I wish they’d focus like a laser beam on other sins or shortcomings in the manner that they do on sexual practice. Fornication, adultery, homosexual practice and the like are just one category of a long list of sins.
For instance, will they refuse to hire fat people who are unrepentant about their piggish practices? (gluttony) Or those who spend an exorbitant amount of time and money on their personal appearance? (pride) What about those whose primary mission in life seems to be keeping up with the Joneses? (envy)
In my decades of life, I’ve heard many traditional, orthodox pastors wonder why we tend to fixate so heavily on the “pelvic sins” when Jesus didn’t spend much of His time and teaching on them. I wonder, too. And it’s not because I’m a “pelvic sinner.”
#2: Yawn. Next time you hear of a sermon or a ‘church group’ extolling the *holiness of gluttony, vanity or envy, be sure to inform us all. Until then, consider what ‘sin’ means.
#3 What on Earth do you think the “prosperity gospel” extolls? That gang preaches that if you accept Jesus as your Lord and Savior and pray to Him, He’ll favor you with a beautiful house, a top-of-the-line car, a gorgeous spouse, etc. God will make you rich and the envy of your neighbors!
The excesses of capitalism are ruining many people and pastors/rectors rarely take those issues head-on, I suspect out of the fear of offending generous benefactors. There still exists the underlying notion that God blesses (materially) the righteous and the poor did something to deserve their plight.
Nowhere did I say that sexual immorality should be ignored. But, my goodness, can we get some perspective? The “pelvic sins” are among many troubling issues but, for some reason, it is OK to call out and punish people for their sexual habits while ignoring other more common and widespread sins.