Questions about being 'bible based' : the Diocese of the Southern Cross

The recent news about a creation of a new "diocese" based in Canberra has included the somewhat ambiguous claim that the supporters are "bible-based". The claim was expressed most starkly in the slogan quoted from a founding priest, Peter Palmer, that "It's either all of the Bible, or none of the Bible". (SMH,August 20, 2022)

Such a slogan joins the varied thousands of others in the history of Christianity. It is just onetradition. It is not a revelation. The interpretative tradition employed in this instance has to face the uncomfortable fact that its tradition, at times, overrides biblical propositions. Also, itseems to be an assumption in the minds of the users of the slogan thattheir particular interpretative tradition is infallible. Given that tradition's selective cherry-picking of supporting biblical passages, it seems to be more infallible than its Bible.

The catalyst for the creators of the new religious entity is their objection to the blessing of the marriage of same-sex partners by Anglican clergy. While the scriptures contain a number of passages (that we shall note in general, and not in particular detail) that address homosexual practices, there is no discussion in the scriptures of the modern practice of same-sex marriage.

That is not surprising given that the scriptural passages were written in ancient historical social contexts and not contemporary ones. Hence their silence on the practice.

As will be noted below, the same silence is discerned in the scriptures as regards acknowledgingand opposing domestic violence. Are "bible-based" believers required to rule that both issues are to be dismissed? There is to be no discussion of same-sex marriage, and no discussion of domestic violence against women, because their bible maintains that silence?

So my first and, I trust, obvious observation: the particular issue of same-sex marriage was never considered within the historical context of the biblical writings.

My second observation is in relation to the presentation of the "No" case leading up to the plebiscite held on 17 February, 2017 in regard to the question: "Should the law be changed to allow same-sex couples to marry?".

Overall those Christians supporting the "No" case were quite coy in regard to their citing – or, in reality, their non-citing – of biblical passages that refer to understandings of, and penalties for, homosexual behaviour. I favour their coyness because such citations are damaging for the existence, morale and wellbeing of LGBTI personnel. And citing the negative (and cruel) biblical judgments would have shocked many of their fellow Australians.

Has nothing been learned about homosexual behaviour over the last two thousand years since the first century? Has nothing been learned even over the most recent century? Instead, is the limited perspective from the first century not only infallible, but also the only permitted perspective? Do we thus erase all contemporary research?

In recent times, in Western societies both sides of the issue have been given public space. And conservative Christians are divided in their views. We are familiar with the objection voiced by supporters of the new Canberra religious entity. But to give a brief example from another conservative voice: the following words come from a speech that David Cameron, the then presiding Tory Prime Minister of Great Britain (and a committed Anglican) gave on the issue of same-sex marriage equality in 2011:

And to anyone who has reservations, I say: Yes, it's about equality but its also about something else: commitment. Conservatives believe in the ties that bind us; society is stronger when we make vows to each other and support each other. So I don't support gay marriage despite being a Conservative. I support gay marriage because I'm a Conservative.

As noted earlier, the silence of the scriptures also applies to another field of human experience. I refer to the biblical and historically very long-lasting lack of Christian concern over domestic violence against women.

If one is required to be fully 'bible-based', presumably that means that one is to maintain the 'bible- based' almost complete silence in regard to the ongoing practice of domestic violence against women. Does that explain why the silence has been broken at Australian synods only very recently, from the late twentieth century onwards into this century?

A third example of the gap between the first and the twenty-first century explanations of phenomena can be found in the explanations given for epilepsy. If one is to be "bible-based", then presumably parents of children who experience epileptic seizures are to be told by such Christians that their child is possessed of an "unclean spirit".

Three of the biblical gospels – Matthew, Mark and Luke - tell the story of a child experiencing an epileptic seizure in the presence of Jesus. The account in Mark 9:14-29 is generally regarded as the main source for the other two accounts. In the story in Matthew 17:14-21 the first century medical term for epileptic seizure is used (17:14) but the account undergirds the Markan source's reference to demonic possession (17:18).

So if one employs a 'black letter' interpretation of the scripture, in Mark's rendering no recourse is to be made to any medical response to the condition because, to quote scripture, "This kind can only come out through prayer". So much for employing modern medical knowledge or encouraging a child's parents to seek medical care.

No one aware of the varied content of the Bible, and its historical contexts, would publicly endorse biblical injunctions that enjoin violence, or tacitly (silently) condone violence. I have refrained from referring to biblical texts that enjoin violence in contexts other than those noted very generally above. And the middle eastern honour-shame context that indelibly shapes these and other injunctions is not the socio-religious context that shapes the theological understandings of contemporary Australian interpreters. All theologies are contextual, not inerrant.

There are instances both in the past and in the present of Christians basing their lives on clearly expressed biblical injunctions. I refer to the members of religious orders in the Catholic, Anglican and Orthodox churches. Nuns and monks in those traditions have taken to heart the injunctions encountered in passages such as Luke 14:33 and 12:33 ("So therefore none of you can become my disciple if you do not give up all your possessions".)In the field of economic discipleship, the members of religious orders are undeniably "bible-based".

But in the Australian Anglican context, those religious sisters and brothers who have made such a biblical commitment have not been made welcome in "bible-based" dioceses. Strange that!

Will such "bible-based" economic practice be welcomed (and practised) by the leaders of the new Canberra religious entity?

The glib slogan quoted at the beginning of this piece cannot stand close scrutiny. This article has simply scratched the surface as regards whether that slogan is verified by the history, or the current practice, of "bible-based" churches.

I suggest that self-designated 'bible-based' priests or pastors should be encouraged to rethink their slogan (and thus their theology). Unless they consider themselves infallible, would that not be a Christian thing to do?