The standard: For better or worse

What’s the point of a lifelong commitment? A writer on the Sydney Morning Herald website (http://www.smh.com.au/lifestyle/lifematters/should-marriages-have-an-expiry-date-20101025-16zpb.html) recently suggested that since divorce is so common nowadays, marriage certificates should have ten year expiry dates. The romantic ideal of growing old together seems to be getting rather… well, old.

An antidote to this cynical view might be for us to consider the biblical ideal for marriage. In the beginning, God made man and woman, and it was a good thing (Genesis 2:18). Much later, the apostle Paul explains husbands and wives should have the same sort of love as Christ and the church (Ephesians 5:22-28). The picture of unconditional love here is Jesus laying down His life for His church. It is important for us to remember that not once did Jesus ever say, “But what about me?!”

The idea of love is to put the need of the other before one’s own. Not just when one feels like it. The concept of God’s love is a ‘doing’ verb which encompasses the past, present and future (Jeremiah 31:3). Feelings (strangely enough) are not central in the act of loving. We know that Jesus did not feel like being crucified (Mark 14:36) but out of love for His Father, Jesus went though it anyway.

And that is the theoretical aspect of love as per the Bible. In reality though, many of us (yes even Christians) regrettably fall short of this standard. In this fallen world, each one of us often looks to our own interests first. We are constantly reminded that we need to do what is right for me. But in the Biblical ideal, it’s not about me and without God’s help we might as well have that ten year expiry date.

Weddings should be an opportunity for a man and a woman to stand before God, family and friends, promising to look to the best interests of the other person for as long as they live. Central to the Christian wedding is the promise made to God by the couple but also requesting His help in keeping that promise. It’s about working towards a standard.

The immeasurable value of life

Apparently 85% of Australians support voluntary euthanasia. Or that’s what a billboard on the Hume Highway in Sydney is saying. The Sydney Morning Herald wrote an article about it this week noting that even the Prime Minister has promised debate on the matter.

Euthanasia is an emotionally packed subject. There are those who go through days filled with pain on end or live with limited physical abilities that many of us take for granted. The argument for euthanasia is that those who desire it should have a right to end it all. But there are endless questions to ask and debate, and many of them will probably not be met satisfactorily.

For example, what defines quality of life? And who defines it? Can someone going through a traumatic phase of life (or depression) be in the right frame of mind to make right choices? And who decides what we do with all those who fall short of our ‘quality of life’ definition? How can we know their motives are faultless and completely objective? Do we have to right to decide who can live or die? Should anyone be even allowed to bear this terrible burden? It is also ironical that politicians who debate on whether those who do not feel they have sufficient quality of life should be allowed to end their lives, would equally oppose the death penalty of drug dealers in other countries, keeping in mind that the scourge of drug abuse dramatically reduces the quality of life of not only the addict, but the entire community he or she lives in.

As Christians though, we believe that everything we have comes from God and should be used in His service. If we look to the Bible, we find that life is a precious gift from God (Genesis 2:7, Job 12:10, Acts 17:25) and is therefore sacred (Genesis 9:5, Exodus 20:13). Humanity was created to glorify God and to enjoy Him forever and while we may lay down our lives in service to God or each other, the unsanctioned taking of life (Genesis 9:6) is and should be forbidden.

A Perspective on Truth

Once upon a time Bruce Guthrie was a very powerful man. In a recent interview with Kerry O’Brien on ABC’s The 7.30 Report, he recounted how former Prime Minister Kevin Rudd would send him text messages from football games. But that was when he was still editor in chief of the Herald Sun which (according to its own website) sells more than 554,000 copies a day.

In November 2008 however, he was dismissed from his job and he proceeded to take the owners of the paper to court. In Mr Guthrie’s opinion, he had done his job well and did not deserve to lose his position. The court ruled in his favour in May this year and ordered News Limited to pay him $580,808 plus interests and costs. Mr Guthrie then wrote a book (as one does) with the rather cheeky title of Man Bites Murdoch. For as we all know, Rupert Murdoch is the owner of News Corporation Limited.

In his interview with Kerry O’Brien, Bruce revealed that he did his job well, but just never did well in work politics. If he’d played by the rules, he’d still have his job. Bruce shared that all the news in the company had to go through particular filters: “What will Rupert think? What will the Murdoch family think? What will the corporate partners think? Is this in the business interest?” In other words, there were some specific perspectives which journalists there had to consider. Does this mean all the news from News Limited can be discarded as untrue? Not really. As most journalists will be able to tell you, having a particular perspective on an issue does not make it untrue. All people will have some sort of perspective. Nobody is entirely free of bias.

And this is something we need to consider when we hear criticism of the Bible as biased reporting of historical events. As Christians, we believe that the Bible was inspired by the Holy Spirit, but it was also written by people. A shepherd, a doctor, a king, a fisherman and many others. Their particular perspective does not invalidate their testimony (see Luke 1:1-4).

Who was that Man?

If you’re ever sitting at a party, bored out of your skull with nothing interesting coming up in conversation, there’s always one question which you could throw into the pot (and stir up all sorts of opinions and volatile passions). “What do you think of Julia Gillard?” or Tony Abbott, or any other political leader in this country. Depending on your company, you could discover all sorts of new things you never knew before about the person you were asking about. Sometimes you find out all sorts of things about the company you’re with too.

One of the questions which Jesus asked his disciples was what the general public thought of himself (Matthew 16:13). The responses were quite uniform in that most people thought he was a dead person who had come back again. Some said he was John the Baptist (who had recently been beheaded) while others thought he was Elijah or Jeremiah, both of whom had not been seen for hundreds of years. It is interesting that no one among the crowds thought of Jesus as the Promised Deliverer of all Humanity (aka the Messiah).

Simon Peter however (and the disciples) recognised his true identity and divine nature which is why they followed and worshipped Jesus. For if the good news is that Jesus really is God incarnate (who came to deliver us from the corruption of the fall and eternal damnation), then the bad news is that recognising the lordship of Christ involves total dedication. This is possibly one of the reasons why no one among the crowds could acknowledge Jesus as the Messiah. Probably why people today (confronted with evidence of Jesus’ existence) still do not. Half heartedness is not an option, it is all or nothing.

As beings who are created for eternity, we can never find fulfilment in temporal existence. Only an Eternal Being can give hope and purpose to a people created for infinity. In the words of Jesus, “If you try to keep your life for yourself, you will lose it. But if you give up your life for me, you will find true life.” (Matthew 16:24-25 NLT)