The long read: Same Sex Marriage

To plebiscite or not to plebiscite?

This election has been spruiked as a once in a lifetime election because of one issue: Same Sex Marriage (hereafter SSM). This is one issue that, if carried by parliament, will irreparably change Australian society forever more. Of the four major parties, there is a spectrum of opinions. The Liberal Party have a mixed opinion, with the member for Bennelong, John Alexander, remaining undeclared, and a mixture of supporters and dissenters among the Liberal Senate candidates. The official position of the Liberal party is that there would be a national plebiscite by the end of 2016, whereafter parliamentarians would be free to vote according to their conscience, which would mean either what they think, what their electorate thinks, or what the nation as a whole thinks. The National party, while in coalition with the Liberals, is mostly opposed to both the plebiscite as well as the idea of SSM, so would most likely vote against it in any instance. The Labor party currently have a conscience vote, although at their national conference last year, support of SSM from 2017  became a principle of membership. The member for Parramatta is listed as a supporter of SSM, and her party has pledged to bring about a parliamentary vote (with no plebiscite) within the first 100 days in office. Currently the Labor senators are mixed, but as mentioned above that will change from next year. The fourth largest party, the Greens, are not in favour of a plebiscite, but are in favour of SSM. It is worth mentioning in passing the Christian Democrats, who are unlikely to gain any members in the House of Representatives but may gain (or retain) a senator and thus be part of the cross-bench in the Senate who may be able to vote against changes in the marriage act.

Party	Plebiscite	Likely Vote
Liberal	Yes	Mixed
Nationals	No	Mostly No
Labor	No	Mostly Yes
Greens	No	Yes
CDP	Yes	No

What is still unclear is what the plebiscite would ask, what action would come from it, and what rights to a conscience vote members would have in light of the outcome. This is not a constitutional matter, so the plebiscite is simply a way of indicating our preference, as there is no legal compulsion upon parliamentarians to respond in any particular way. There is, for example, nothing to stop a theoretically defeated ALP or any private member entering legislation before the plebiscite and having it passed through into law. All of this raises the question of why the plebiscite was originally agreed upon. It seems it was former PM Abbott's attempt to kick the ball out of play for a little while without having to do anything. Part of the problem is you can't vote to not vote - you can't pass legislation to say you're not allowed to revisit the marriage act down the track. There have been numerous failed attempts to introduce SSM legislation, but the momentum in the media and inside parliament has been building to the point where one of the two major parties needs to do something about it. So perhaps a plebiscite was Abbott's hope of enabling a conversation about the societal outcomes of normalising SSM. Unfortunately such hopes cannot have been based on reality, as where such debates have happened, dissent has been put down, such as in the Irish referendum where people were reported choosing to don a 'Yes' badge despite intending to vote 'No' as anyone questioning SSM is inevitably labelled a bigot and homophobe. We have been discussing SSM for years now in Australia - I don't see the debate being at all clarified. All we have is extremes from both ends with the sane middle not getting a word in.

When I talk about the sane middle (and of course I include myself in this group!) I mean those who truly see the merits of the other side. For those pro SSM, it means understanding the novelty and untestedness of this change and the strong history of traditional marriage. It also means acknowledging this isn't really a push for 'marriage equality'; I hear no one advocating polygamy/polyandry, I hear no one advocating normalising and recognising incestuous relationships nor pederasty. This is not marriage equality, this is SSM. Using the term 'equality' is simply a political decision which implies dissenters desire inequality and are thus to be equated with those who endorsed slave trading and disallowed inter-racial marriage. Being in the sane middle from the SSM side means acknowledging as much. Being in the sane middle from the traditional marriage side means having genuine sympathy for the historic and ongoing hurts of people in same-sex relationships, or indeed anyone who does not fit neatly in the heterosexual box. There is genuine discrimination, there is all too real abuse, there are higher rates of suicide and self-harm among these people. To affirm traditional marriage at the expense of SSM without recognising the genuine felt needs of people to have relationships validated when so much of their life has been attacked from all sides is a great insult and continues hurt. I think this means there will be some who disagree with SSM who will nonetheless decide to vote Yes for the sake of their suffering neighbour; so too will there be those who vote No even though they themselves have suffered. People unable to recognise this will be forced to continue the yelling match from the poles, but hopefully there will be a more rational and generous debate in the centre.

The question is, will a plebiscite enable such debate between the sane middle, or will it be drowned out by the shouting from the sidelines?

One issue or several?

As I began, the push from several Christian groups has been to maximise this issue without reference to the other issues. This issue is a once in a lifetime vote, or votes, as it will mean voting first for the LNP and then voting No in a plebiscite. The thing that troubles me is the issues which generally determine my vote are not reflected at all by the LNP. I am in favour of supporting Medicare (the Liberals have said they will freeze indexation of rebates). I am in favour of treating refugees humanely (neither LNP nor ALP are willing to depart from the boat turnback, indefinite detention, offshore detention policy in place since Abbott). I am in favour of real action on climate change (LNP and ALP continue to support coal mining and penalising protesters). I believe in generous foreign aid (the LNP has both cut this aid and spitefully reappropriated funds into our punitive detention centres for refugees). I think electoral funding needs reform (silence from the two major parties). As I look through the advertising in our letterbox, as I scroll through policies, I can see maybe a tenth of the LNP policies I support, two fifths of ALP, one tenth of CDP, but four fifths of the Greens. What do I do with this? Of course, not all issues are equal. Is the possibility of a marriage plebiscite (the very plebiscite, let alone the result, being dependent on passing both houses of parliament!) enough to force me to vote against my love of neighbour and pursuit of justice with mercy on the other nine tenths? Or does the vehemence with which I disagree with the one fifth of Greens policies mean I should not vote for the four fifths of things I do agree with them on, where they brazenly stand apart from the LNP and ALP?

I could weight all the issues and work them out mathematically I suppose. I could also think about the numbers of people affected: if  say 3% of the population is same-sex attracted, of that work out how many are in long-term stable relationships and then how many both approve of the institution at all (hello, Marxists!) and also desire to be married? We are left with quite a small number, but then again, this will normalise adoption rights and there will be children without access to a traditional family - although, unless a surrogate baby - they would be without any parents as is. And then I balance that with the number of people being subjected to physical, sexual, medical and psychological abuse at our hands in offshore detention centres, those who are preferring self-immolation to further hopeless waiting. To that I could add the short-term thinking of fossil fuel extraction for surprisingly small gains and devastatingly long-term consequences. I think for me these two are of at least equal value with the marriage plebiscite. 

Of course I could complicate things with the NBN and foreign aid and safe schools and electoral funding etc etc etc. But those are my three: refugees, climate and marriage, and I think they are all worthy of consideration in my vote. For you, you need to do your own maths. Work out what are your biggest issues and how important they are and who best represents your concern. And then vote. But don't just vote, advocate. Tell your local member who you voted for why you did and/or why you didn't. Try to find out their views and speak sympathetically to that where you differ. If they agree with you encourage  them, and if they disagree explain why you do with respect. 

Because even if SSM does become legalised in Australia, what follows will in part depend on how we uphold ourselves now. If vitriol and hyperbole and apocalyptic language becomes our norm, then who could blame anyone for wanting to even the scores when they're in the ascendancy. We can remain part of the conversation or be fringe outsiders. Now, that day may of course come, but while we have the possibility of speaking truth with grace and love I think we should continue to do so.

Ecclesiastes Structure

I know the task of finding a structure of Ecclesiastes is the very definition of vanity, a chasing after the wind. Nonetheless this is what I'm working with and has been updated with links to individual posts as the series has gone on.

Opening
A Frame Narrator (1.1)
  B All is vanity (1.2)

First Poem What is man? 1.3-11

C Question about life under the sun (1.3)

  D paradox of people on the earth (1.4)

     E always moving sun (1.5)

        F untameable wind (1.6)

     E' always moving water (1.7)

  D' paradox of senses (1.8)

C' Statement about life under the sun (1.9-11)

Two ways to live and work 1.12-2.26
G  Introduction and presumptive conclusion (1.12-13)

  H Why be wise (1)? (1.14-18)

      I The pursuit of pleasure (2.1-11)

  H' Why be wise (2)?  (2.12-17)
      I'  The character that matters (2.18-23)

G' Conclusion: two ways to work (2.24-26)

Second Poem Understanding the time 3.1-15
J Statement about time (3.1)
    K Two extremes (3.2)
        L Four extremes (3.3-4)
        L' Four extremes (3.5-6)
    K' Two extremes (3.7)
            M' Two last extremes (3.8)
J' Question about time and what we can know (3.9-15)

Where is justice? 3.16-4.16
N I saw wickedness under the sun (3.16)
     O God will judge even the dead (3.17-21)
N' I saw that it's good to seize the day while you live (3.22)

P I saw oppression under the sun (4.1a)
     Q that power is with the oppressors makes me wish I was dead (4.1b-3)
P' I saw that working out of jealousy is vanity (4.4)

          R wisdom interlude linking sections either side (4.5-6)

S I saw vanity under the sun (4.7-8)
     T It's not good to be alone in this vain world - it's a miserable task (4.9-12)
     T' It's not good to be 'good' if you're not wise (4.13-14)
S' I saw under the sun that you shouldn't follow someone who'll be forgotten (4.16)

Wisdom Collection I 5.1-12
U Better to be obedient, therefore fulfil what you vow (5.1-4)
V Better to not vow, therefore fear God (5.5-7)
W If you see oppression, be assured that the worker can at least sleep well (5.8-12)

Finding good amongst tragedy 5.13-6.12
X I saw a sickening tragedy (5.13a)
     Y The tragedy discussed (5.13b-15)
X' The sickening tragedy (5.16-17)

Z I saw what is good (5.18a)
     a The good discussed (5.18b-19c)
Z' This is a gift (5.19d-20)

b I saw a tragedy upon humanity (6.1)
     c The tragedy and opportunity for good discussed (6.2-11b)
b' Three questions for humanity (6.11c-12)

Wisdom Collection II 7.1-14
d What is good in the midst of death (7.1-6)
e What is good in the midst of fools (7.7-12)
     f  Seeing what God has made will teach us to live wisely (7.13-14)

I've seen it all 7.15-9.13
ghg  I've seen it all (7.15-28)
iji  I saw that God made people upright; they pursued many schemes (7.29-8.9)
klk  I saw the wicked confused with the righteous (8.10-16)
mnm  I saw how hard it is for people to understand God (8.17-9.10)
     opo  I saw there is wisdom in understanding the limits of human perception (9.11-13)


Wisdom Collection III 9.14-11.10


Third Poem Approaching Death 12.1-7
! Statement about the Creator when death is near (12.1)

  @ when the eyes fail (12.2)

     # when the face degrades (12.3)

        $ when the hearing stops working (12.4)

     #' when the stomach degrades (12.5)

  @' when the frame fails (12.6)

!' Conclusion about God when death has come (12.7)

Closing 12.8-14
  B' All is vanity (12.8)
A' Frame Narrator (12.9-14)

Ecclesiastes 12.1-7

The penultimate section of Ecclesiastes is also the third poem of the book, and with a very similar structure.

1.3-11	3.1-9(-15)	12.1-7
Question	Statement	Statement
5 examples	14 pairs of examples	5 examples
Statement	Question & conclusion	Conclusion

The biggest question surrounding this section is the way to read it. If one were to read it literally, then it might well be describing the scene of a town perhaps in the aftermath of a plague. Many have died, this is yet another funeral procession, those looking on know their death is also nigh - the signs are there. 

Another way to look at it is to see past the literal to the metaphorical and ask: what do these signs represent? As such, what we see in 12.1-7 is the description of the effects of old age on the body. This follows on from the discussion in 11.7-10 highlighting the good of youth, yet always with reference to old age being ominously near. 

a Statement about the Creator when death is near (12.1)
  b when the eyes fail (12.2)
     c when the face degrades (12.3)
        d when the hearing stops working (12.4)
     c' when the stomach degrades (12.5)
  b' when the frame fails (12.6)
a' Conclusion about God when death has come (12.7)

To be clear, the language of this section is quite difficult, with words appearing here and here only in the whole Bible, and there are some questions remaining, but overall this appears to be the flow. 

For structure's sake, I would've loved to see verse 2 in the centre of the structure, as sight has been so pivotal to Qohelet's observation throughout, but to frustrate me (pun intended) he leaves it as the first example of the failing body. Qohelet may also be drawing on a Sumerian proverb quoted in Bendt Alster, Studies in Sumerian Proverbs (1975), quoted in Roland E. Murphy, Ecclesiastes, Word Biblical Commentary (1992):

My grain roasting fails,

Now my youthful vigor, strength and personal god

have left my loins like an exhausted ass.

My black mountain has produced white gypsum.

My mother has brought in a man from the forest;

he gave me captivity.

My mongoose which used to eat strong smelling things

does not stretch its neck towards beer and butter.

My urine used to flow in a strong torrent.

but now you flee from my wind.

My child whom I used to feed with butter and milk,

I can no more support it.

And I have had to sell my little slave girl;

an evil demon makes me sick.

The Sumerian poem obviously uses different images although there are many similarities, in particular the happy conflation of the literal and metaphorical. 

To conclude, when we note that our poem is bookended with references to God, this is an exhortation to direct our attention to him while we still can. There will be the day (should we live long enough) when our faculties will fail us. Until that day comes we must make every effort to know God and to live the life he has given us to live. For the day will come when joys will be taken, faculties will be taken, and ultimately even our spirit will leave our bodies when the decay has taken over.

Ecclesiastes 5.13-6.12

Again, this is another passage I won't be able to preach this time through, but with 1.12-2.26 and 3.16-4.16 before it, it marks a return to first person narrative and observation with the threefold ראיתי (I saw) structuring Qohelet's observations at 5.13,18 and 6.1. This continues until the second wisdom collection beginning in chapter 7.

Section 1: 5.13-17
5.13 begins with Qohelet seeing a 'sickening tragedy' under the sun, and concludes with the 'sickening tragedy' in 5.16-17. In between  (13b-15) he tells the story of the cruel master wealth.

Section 2: 5.18-20
The bookends to this section are positive, what Qohelet sees to be 'good' (5.18a), the 'gift of God' (5.19d). In between is a description of the good life as received and enjoyed as a gift of God.

Section 3: 6.1-12
This returns to the negative of the first section, with האדם (humanity) bookending the section. The tragedy under the sun which weighs heavily on humanity (6.1) raises three questions about humanity in 11c,12a,c. The discussion in between is one we've heard before in various places, but it is interestingly punctuated by some challenges to enjoy life - to fail to do so is our own problem (6.3b,6,9).

The broader structure of the whole section is A-B-A'; negative-positive-negative. Within them they share that same structure of a-b-a'; I saw x - discussion - x.

Ecclesiastes 5.1-12

I'm not preaching on this passage and I don't have heaps to say on it either. Unfortunately there are more sections than there are weeks and this one and the next will have to be left by the roadside, hopefully to be picked up again another day.

5.1-12 seems to be one of the wisdom sections that punctuate the book, as do the poems. 5.1-12; 7.1-13 and 9.14-11.10 have a very different feel to the first person narrative either side of them, but do maintain thematic similarities with the rest of the book, so they have been assembled/composed and arranged meaningfully.

5.1-4 Better to x, therefore y.
5.5-7 Better to z, therefore a.
5.8-12 If you see b, be assured that c.

x = be obedient, y = fulfil what you vow.
z = not vow, a = fear God.
b = oppression, c = you can sleep well.

As a section, this is perhaps then an attestation of the truths presented earlier, 5.8-12 in 4.1-6 for instance.

The only other thing to mention is the repetition of the negating particle על, which occurs 6 times in these verses, making the positive affirmations even stronger against all the 'shalt not's.

Ecclesiastes 3.16-4.16

Even though there is much from the poem of 3.1-8 that is repeated in the rest of chapter 3, the regularity and use of ראיתי (I saw) makes this a clear section, with the move to the first collection of wisdom sayings in chapter 5 delineating the end.

In this second section of extended first-person reflection (cf 1.12-2.26) the verb ראה is again used as a structural marker; in this case the 6 times it appears it seems to bookend three sections:

3.16-22 (ראה at 3.16,22)
4.1-4   (ראה at 4.1,4)
   4.5-6    wisdom interlude
4.7-15  (ראה at 4.7,15)

This leaves the questions of (1) the relation of the sections to one another and (2) the purpose of 4.5-6.

The sections
The first section (3.16-22) tries to understand the where and when of justice in the context of death. The conclusion is another carpe diem, as we can't know what will happen after death. Justice is in God's hands, so we can't be overly concerned with justice because with death always around the corner we can't let fighting for justice consume the few days we have.

The second section (4.1-4) shifts slightly to oppression, with the problem here that power is with the oppressor. His conclusion is that to gain power requires jealousy, which is vanity and chasing after wind. The despair of seeing this state of affairs causes Qohelet to suggest non-existence as a viable preference.

Finally (4.7-16) comes the longest section and the one with the most translation issues. The structure seems to be:

7-8 I saw the vanity of being a workaholic with no resultant goodness
   9-12 goodness of companionship compared to aloneness
   13-14 goodness of humble wisdom compared to foolishness with position
15-16 I saw the vanity of following someone who will be forgotten

As such, the section breaks into two halves, despite being grouped together by the 'I saw vanity' bookends. 9-12 gives the solution to 7-8, as does 13-14 for 15.16.

The hardest thing here is working out the referents in 13-16. It helps to break it down into the people discussed. 4.14 seems to be making us read it as one story about one character; that there was someone born poor in the kingdom, who was even imprisoned at some stage, who was a poor but wise youth, who rose to the rank of king. But as king he became foolish and no longer paid attention to warnings. This seems to mirror the frustration of 4.8 where you can work really hard only to have no rest and no contentment; here in 4.13-14 the wise man is rewarded despite his socio-economic status but falls into the same trap as so many before him.

Our English translations betray us a little in 4.15 as the idea of a youth 'who succeeds him' is an odd translation at best, and misleading at worst. It literally says 'who stands up under it/him'. Given the first stitch closes with 'under the sun', the most natural antecedent would be the sun. This, along with 'under the pot' (7.6) would be the only exceptions out of 34 occurrences in the book to 'under' referring exclusively to either the sun or the heavens. Thus in 15a we hear of a throng of people milling about under the sun, but in 15b there is a second youth (or young companion, if we are to be consistent with translating 'two' as 'companion' in the passage) - who stands up under the sun, and it is him they follow. Perhaps this is referring obliquely to Saul or even an anti-Saul, one who does stand up (rather than hide among the baggage) and who is followed - perhaps he is even the wise youth from 13-14 - but foolish or not, he will be forgotten.


Together then these three sections bookended with 'I saw' provide us with a discussion on justice. Where is justice under the sun? Because it is vanity and a chasing after the wind, while we don't ignore justice or act unjustly, we find our meaning in the things we can hold on to: God being in charge of securing justice, working with rest, companionship and humble standing.

The purpose of 4.5-6
The last piece of the puzzle is to work out where this fits. One option for this section is to read it as a quote Qohelet critiques, much as with some questionable things Paul says - is he telling us to be a fool or what?! But if you get mathematical and try to graph this section, it makes a bit more sense and connects very clearly with the sections before and after.

Who	Work	Food	Rest	Zone
Fool	None	None	Lots	Starvation
Wise	Some	Some	Some	Wisdom
Workaholic	Lots	Lots	None	Vanity

4.1-4 concluded that not being born is better than being dead, which is better than being alive AND YET we are alive. How then shall we live? 4.5 is one option, but that leads to starvation. 4.6a is the second option, which is consistent with earlier advice about moderation and the carpe diem sections. 4.6b is the last option, the option of workaholism, which links to the explanation in 4.7-8 that seeking meaning from too much work with no rest is not the answer.

Ecclesiastes 3.1-15

This week is supposed to be just chapter 3, but I'm not convinced that the section extends beyond v15. The regular use of ראה (to see) from 3.16 onwards, as in 1.12-2.26, seems to be an ordering principle that works through most of Ecclesiastes, with exceptions in the blocks of poetry, as we've already seen in the opening section of the book, and as we also see in 3.1-9 (-16).

3.1-15 has a very similar structure to 1.3-11, although in reverse order:

3.1 Statement 1.9-11
3.2-8 Examples 1.4-8
3.9-15 Question 1.3

One other difference is where 1.4-8 had five examples in a chiastic structure, with the theme of wind at the centre, 3.2-8 has fourteen pairs of alternatives for how time is ordered by God. The structure is quite Shakespearean (obviously an anachronism - so perhaps the sonnet was passed down from Ecclesiastes 3!), with a concluding couplet as follows:

A +-(x2)
      B  -+ (x4)
      B'  +- (x4)
A'  -+ (x2)
            C +- -+

Pluses are desirable outcomes, minuses are undesirable outcomes, and the last couplet has a nice little chiasm to conclude.

This tightly structured poem expands on the statement of 3.1, that 'for everything there is a season, and a time for every activity under heaven', as it works through the whole of life. Although not telling us about every single activity done by people, many of the pairs, and especially the opening and closing ones, provide us with merisms to point to the entirety of human experience: from birth to death and from war to peace. Whoever and wherever and whenever we are, we will be at one pole or somewhere in the middle.

With the opening statement and the fourteen pairs of examples, there is then a question which grounds the reflections of the next few verses on the poem. 'What does the worker gain from his labour?' (3.9) This is the same question asked before the poem (2.22), but we gain some kind of answer, as there is a discussion on the task (ענין at 3.10) and on time in general (3.11).
There are three answers to the question posed in 3.9, hinging off the three asyndeton qatal verbs which begin 3.10,12,14 as follows:

     I have seen the task (10) - God makes everything beautiful in its time (11)
     I know about mankind (12) - everything is a gift (13)
     I know about God (14) - whatever will be will be and has been (15) (cf 1.9)

In this sense, the conclusions are not hugely different to those of previous sections; what is emphasised here is the divine fittingness of every situation to its time. As P. G. Ryken says, every action is a divine action before it is a human action. God is the one who determines what is suitable for its time, so as those who receive all things as a gift from the hand of God, we in turn live as is appropriate to the time and place God has placed us.

Ecclesiastes 1.12-2.26

The second section we're working through is from Ecclesiastes 1.12, where the book in a sense restarts, up until chapter 3, where the famous 'for everything there is a season' poem starts a new section.

The first thing that stands out is all the 'I' language. You can see from the graph (made using Accordance Bible Software) that there is a real cluster of first person singular verbs in our section. 42 of the 81 first person verbs in the whole book occur in this section, with none before it, as well as none after 10.7.

This makes sense of course as this section is where Qohelet takes us through his observations. Webb in his NSBT examination (Five Festal Garments) explains there are alternating sections of observation and instruction, and Seow in his Anchor commentary sees the book similarly, although in far fewer sections than Webb:

IA, Reflection: everything is ephemeral and unreliable (1:2–4:16);
      IB, Ethics: coping with uncertainty (5:1–6:9 [Eng]);
IIA, Reflection: everything is elusive (6:10–8:17);
     IIB, Ethics: coping with risks (9:1–12:8).

Webb has twice as many alternating sections;

Observation  Instruction
1.3-4.16        5.1-9
5.10-6.9        6.10-7.22
7.23-29         8.1-8
8.9-9.12        9.13-12.7

As has been oft repeated, the problem with Ecclesiastes is that no-one can agree on a structure. Despite similar approaches (observation//reflection; instruction//ethics) Webb and Seow end up with very different results--apart from the section we're looking at!

So to return to Ecclesiastes 1.12-2.26, here is some kind of graph (I'm sure it's got a name) looking at the first person verbs* in our section - note again there are no first person verbs before and none after until after the poem beginning chapter 3.

I've grouped the verbs according to the theme; you note there are clusters around exploring, around boasting, around doing and also around failing. You will also note the verb ראה 'to see' is scattered fairly evenly through this section, and roughly divides the passage into the key parts of the argument. [Update - It also gives the structure a (much needed) chiastic shape]:

A 1.12-13  Introduction and presumptive conclusion (no ראה)
B      1.14-18 Why be wise (1)? (ראה at 1.14)
C             2.1-11 The pursuit of pleasure (ראה at 2.1,3)
B'     2.12-17 Why be wise (2)? (ראה at 2.13)
C'               2.18-23   The character that matters (no ראה)
              (NB. שנא (hate) at end of 17 and beginning of 18)
A' 2.24-26  Conclusion: two ways to work (ראה at 2.24)

There is also (and this is the last update, I promise!**) the 'task' which frames the whole section. It may or may not be intentional, but the miserable (literally 'evil' or 'bad' - רע) task given to the sons of men in 1.13 and the 'task' God gives to sinners (2.26) both times uses the word ענין, looks very similar to the word for sin or iniquity, עון. This may be me barking up the wrong tree, but whatever the case, this word is used very negatively for work. When work is received as task (Aufgabe in German) it is indeed a miserable thing. But when it is received as gift (Gabe in German) it is something altogether different - he gives wisdom, knowledge, and joy (2.26).





* the verb in 2.1 is an imperative, but it's said to himself, hence its inclusion.
** may not be the last update

Single-Issue Voting

The biggest difference between Christians when it comes to elections is not necessarily what issues are important, it's what to do with that. I see regular pushes from pro-marriage groups and coalitions and individuals to vote LNP or CDP because they and only they will stand up for marriage.

Now that's fine. And good. And I too want to support traditional marriage. But when I started putting together a table of other issues that I think are important, the groups I should support perform very poorly.

Issue\Party	LNP	ALP	Grn	CDP
Marriage	?	X	X	✓
Environment	X	✓?	✓	X
Tax	X	✓	✓	X
Treaty	X	?	✓	X
Welfare	X	✓	✓	X
Value early & late life	✓	X	X	✓
Anti-Corruption	X	X	✓	?
NBN	X	✓	✓	?
Refugees	X	X	✓	X

You might note I've tried to be positive here - I've said pro-marriage rather than anti-SSM, and I've said value early and late life rather than anti-abortion and euthanasia. 

Several things stand out to me:

• The major parties are in bed with the big end of town. Big coal employ many ex LNP and ALP politicians and staffers. And as ex-PM Tony Abbott admitted what everyone already knew last week, there is give and take. As for the smaller Christian parties, they aren't in the same position, but they haven't made a stand against corruption by opposing votes which clearly benefit big coal.
• Aboriginal issues have not been well thought through. Recognition is the only one that gets a mention, which LNP and ALP have jumped on, although this is not what many Aboriginals want. A retrospective treaty with the first inhabitants has been shown to be the one thing that would give rise to a new relationship and give hope in a way that the Recognise campaign never could. The way in which the 'intervention' was carried out is one example to show that a new way of relating is required. *since initially publishing, Bill Shorten mentioned he would be in favour of looking at a treaty. 
• As a follower of Jesus I believe caring for the most vulnerable is our duty. Doubly so when we are a wealthy nation. So a generous welfare policy and a thoughtful approach to tax are evidence of this. 
• Lib and Lab are virtually indistinguishable on Refugee policy. There are subtle nuances, and from talking to my local MP I understand the complexity is far greater than a simplistic answer. I am slightly more sympathetic to ALP on the possibility of a humane policy, but I'm yet to hear from either of the duopoly a commitment to treat refugees as human beings. 
• Lastly, the profligate approach to the environment since the infamous Rudd back-down and the reckless prejudicing of big coal's interests by the LNP are a massive indictment on our governments.
• As a late addition--NBN anyone?

Are there any others I should include on the list?

Any idea on how to weight and tally the results?


LNP = Liberal and National Party coalition
ALP = Australian Labor Party
Grn = The Greens
CDP = Christian Democratic Party

Ecclesiastes 1.1-11

Ecclesiastes begins next week.

So far two chiasms (only two I hear you cry!)

The first is pretty simple, yet encompasses the entire book:

1.1 Introducing the words of Qohelet
      1.2 The theme: vanity
            1.3-12.7 The theme discussed
      12.8 The theme: vanity
12.9-14 Concluding the words of Qohelet

This is fairly unremarkable, although where the introduction finishes is still a little up in the air as the book does seem to reset from 1.12.

But what this does demonstrate is:

1. There is a clear introduction and conclusion: in between we will hear from Qohelet on life under the sun.
2. There are two different assumed speakers: the 'frame' narrator, and Qohelet.
3. 1.2 and 12.8 state the theme: vanity, or 'hbl', is one way that all things can, for good or ill, be rightly described.

After the introduction:

• a question (1.3)
• five examples (1.4-8)
• a summary (1.9-11)

Compare this with the reverse order - statement, examples, question - in chapter three. But here is the chiasm of chapter 1.3-11:

3 - a question - why do we bother doing anything?

      4 the paradox of humans on the earth - we are in flux yet the earth is solid
           5 the example of the sun - always moving
                6 the example of the wind - untameable
           7 the example of the water - always moving
      8 the paradox of the senses - never satisfied yet weary from sensing 

9-11 a statement - nothing new achieved, no one will be remembered.

You'll notice that I've placed v6 separately to the other four examples; here Qohelet introduces the theme of the wind, which he will go on to say is impossible to tame, to grasp hold of, which he describes as the epitome of the vanity which is life: trying to grab hold of something intangible.

So what is the point? (v3) Nothing new will ever be achieved, and no one who does (if they could) would be remembered. (9-11) And yet even in the introduction we are given a hint, with a reference to Job 28. God is the creator of people, of the earth, of the sun, of wind and water. (4-8) Whatever the point of life under the sun might be, it begins with acknowledging God's sovereignty in creation and our absolute finitude.

Anzac Day and Qohelet

I often feel guilty on Anzac day. I've never fought in war; my immediate line includes only a grandfather who went to Darwin a bit too late for anything of consequence. For 30 years I've stayed away from the marches; even then I was on duty for any of the onlookers who might need a bandaid. I occasionally watch the Gallipoli dawn service, because at least that's on at a reasonable hour. But for the last few years,  nothing. 

But as the years go by, so increases my cynicism. I saw a picture of my cousin marching - why? For whom? Where did he get those medals? And why is the only mention of this rich history he feels he belongs to a secret the rest of the year, discoverable only through a facebook post? (He may have good reason - we've just never talked about it!)

But then I think about the causes of war, and with the rare exception, they're meaningless. Chasing land, resources, energy, prestige. At best, a principle misunderstood by most and forgotten not long into it. At least in the good old days, the kings and generals were in the fight and a loss would mean their life. 

But wars are fought and won and lost and life just goes on around it all. Death, disease, rape, pillage, destruction, PTSD, buried and forgotten landmines, retributive attacks… and then, once you've buried your dead, you are all supposed to get back to whatever life is left to you. 

I don't mean to say war isn't inevitable, but when is it ever best? When does it ever achieve what it's supposed to? Seriously, think back to any war you can, and when did it achieve good? It may have gone some ways to halting great evil, but did it bring about good? 

Reading the book of Ecclesiastes these last weeks has forced me to reflect on what we can actually grasp hold of - what is not just a chasing after wind? And whatever it is we seek in war, it always turns out to be such a task - trying to hold on to something intangible and elusive. 

So today we had lunch with family and friends. We made the most of life under the sun, because, despite the glory of the Commando comics I devoured as a child, war is hell, and life is too short to spend it fighting someone else's fight. 

Sanctuary - first secular or sacred?

In Australia at the moment, in response to the dehumanising treatment of refugees under our care, not a few churches have offered sanctuary to any refugees the government may want to deport against their wishes. Which led me to think about the origin of the word sanctuary.

Sanctuary in the Bible renders either the Hebrew word מקדש (miqdash) or the Greek word αγιος (hagios); sanctuary is the Latin version of a word which means holy place. You may be familiar with the word sanctification which means 'to be made holy.'

Some time in the middle ages, any church which had been sanctified and was thus a sanctuary could offer safe haven in the pattern of Numbers 35. There were to be cities in the land nominated as refuges (the word sanctuary is never used to refer to such a town) so that those worried they would be the victims of retributive justice after an accidental murder could flee and be assured of a fair trial.

What I am interested in is the order. The idea of sanctuary is that God is the true judge; his faithful officers are most able to administer justice when the other powers may have lost their way (think Psalm 2!). So the idea of sanctuary flows from our knowledge of God, and it is in his name that safe have is offered these people vulnerable to the whims and excesses of our governments.

Whether they have any legal status in this country or not is another question; despite the evils uncovered in the royal commission against institutional child abuse, the imagery of churches protecting the people is thankfully an even stronger statement, and one which most Christians will be ready to identify with.

Sabbath - first a noun or verb

In my work for Matthew 12 last week I had a think about Sabbath, what it looks like, and what Jesus is talking about in Matthew 12 with his grain-plucking disciples. (talk available here) Doing some work on the Hebrew word Shabbat - transliterated into English as Sabbath - yielded some interesting discussion on the primacy of either the verb or the noun.

The first time we meet the verb is in Genesis 2.2-3, where we hear that God shabbats after his 6 day creating week. He's done with his creating, now is time for his shabbat. When we talk about the Shabbat in Exodus 20, we find the verb accompanying is not shabbat but nuach - the verb 'to rest'. We also have a rich description of what is not to be done on that day - no one - human or animal, free or slave, is to do any work on that day. What they are to do is nuach - becaue that is what Yhwh did on the seventh day.

Where this gets interesting is that in some cognate languages the verb shabbat means not 'rest' or 'stop work' but 'celebrate the Sabbath'. The primary meaning is not to do with what is done - or should I say, not done - but with the day from whom the action (or inaction!) is named.

What the Pharisees have done is turn celebration and enjoyment of the creation God has made (one he also enjoys) into a regulatory nightmare, centering on what may not be done, so as to prohibit anything that might resemble 'work'.

What (I think) Jesus does in Matthew 12 with his 'the son of man is lord of the Sabbath' line is to explain that the very understanding of the word shabbat is wrong. It is and always has been about enjoying and resting in that joy, trusting that God is good and sovereign and trustworthy. There is no need for work, but a welcome into Sabbath rest - now for a day, but soon for eternity.

Matthew 13 Chiasm Structure

My work for Sunday. The three E's stand out as being key to understanding the chapter.

Power as a tax

As I've been trying to sift through the debates around energy, I keep coming back to this: the government needs to keep us using energy - their livelihood depends on it.

What do I mean? Well, despite repeated encouragements to buy energy-efficient appliances, turn off appliances that aren't being used, and, until recently, to invest in household solar, things have now reached a tipping point.

Energy use has decreased at over 10% for the last three years, whereas investment in the grid is $50bn, in what they fear are now 'stranded assets'. For every person that installs solar with no government feed-in tariff, that turns off lights, that upgrades to more efficient appliances, there are less kilowatt hours to spread the massive costs of the gold-plated poles and wires on to. And as the costs increase, so too do consumers do all they can to decrease their dependency.

But there are government guarantees (that energy companies can charge what they need to recover costs), there are taxes on privatised energy companies, there are always the jobs (gotta save the jobs!), and there are agreements, back-room or otherwise, relating to coal mines and power generation that need to be honoured.

But if it is a tax, and if decentralised, personal or community-based power generation and storage is the future, then why not just tax us, get involved, and do everything possible to move away from the whole damned coal/gas/petrol/nuclear industry to things which have a future.