top of page

Esteeming singleness 

in God's household today

ESTEEMING SINGLENESS (430 words, read time 2 min) ~~ Advocating for singleness to be esteemed in God's household is not about favouring singleness over marriage. It is suggesting that everyone should be esteemed, or honoured, or respected, in the same way. “Esteeming one another in honour” (Rom 12:10 BLB), is what we read in the Bible. In my experience, marriage and families are already highly esteemed within the church in Australia. However, without a conscious effort to ensure that singleness is likewise esteemed, an unintended consequence may be the perception that singleness is of lesser value and importance to God than marriage. Research conducted in the UK, found, within the life of the church, evidence of people being treated differently based on marital status.[1] How language and words like 'family' or 'family focus' are used within the church, and the messaging it conveys, is an example. Often illustrations and examples are used in teaching and preaching that normalise marriage and family life and portray singleness as abnormal. Much of the teaching and preaching in the Protestant Church comes from a marriage and family perspective because it reflects the position of most of its leaders. There are church programs and events that are geared toward marriages and families and which marginalise single people. Similarly, in Australia, marriage and families often have a prominent focus within the church, resulting in single people being unintentionally marginalised. Statistics show that almost half of the Australian adult population are single. They also show and that single people are vastly under-represented within the church in Australia [3]. The under-representation of single people in the church today is a social indicator, a type of 'canary in the coalmine', warning that something much larger is awry. Prominent American Christian ethicist, Stanley Hauerwas, suggests that one of the most important needs of the Western church is to determine the place of marriage and singleness within the life of the church.[4] The Old Testament prophet Isaiah declared that God's ways and thoughts are higher than ours (Is 55:9). As we explore God's word we should expect to find the guidance and direction needed to deal with the problems facing the church. When we worship God in the way He wants us to worship Him, we will have the best outlook and mindset to deal with the need that Stanley Hauerwas has identified. Worship acknowledges the lordship of Jesus and sovereignty of God which cultivates in our hearts a willingness and inclination to place God's sovereign will above our own. This posture of faith is the appropriate starting point for looking further into the matter of singleness in the church. Endnotes: 1. Single Friendly Church website: singlefriendlychurch.com/research-archive 2. see Hourihan, Fleur (2023) “Australian Singles – A Church and Community Comparison” (Sydney, National Church Life Survey Research), NCLS Report, Appendix A of book Singleness, Marriage and being God's Family by I Blight (2023) 3. Hourihan, (2023) tables 1-2, 4, 21-26 4. Stanley Hauerwas (1986) A Community of Character (Notre Dame, IN, University of Notre Dame) p189; Philip. B. Wilson (2005) Being Single – Insights for Tomorrow's Church (London, Darton, Longman and Todd) p191 Bible Reference: BLB – Berean Literal Bible (Public domain)

The phrase, 'gift of singleness', misrepresents what the apostle Paul was saying.

'SINGLENESS' IS NOT THE GIFT ~ ( word count 589, Read time 2 min) ~~ The 'gift of singleness' is a concept used by some theologians to justify the view that marriage is a command of God for us today. Jesus was completely obedient to His Father's will, and He did not consider it a command from God to marry, therefore we should immediately dismiss this idea. However, uncertainty persists and is prolonged by the concept of the 'gift of singleness'. The reasoning some theologians use, is that a select few have the 'gift of singleness' while, for the remainder of the contemporary church, marriage and families are either normal or expected.[1] In the beginning, God said to Adam and Eve, “be fruitful and multiply” (Gen 1:28 ESV). Adam and Eve's offspring were all incorporated within the ‘first Adam’, say some theologians. They view God's words to Adam and Eve as God’s command, which could be extended to all of Adam and Eve's descendants.[2] A problem with this view arises when godly people like Jesus and Paul are considered, because they were faithful to God and yet unmarried. The proposition put forward by some theologians, that singleness is a gift from God, is primarily based on 1Corinthians 7:7, in which the apostle Paul says, “ I wish that all were as I myself am. But each man has his own gift from God; one of one kind and one of another” (ESV). As Paul was single, some interpret this passage to mean that he was referring to 'being single' as a gift from God.[3] However, Paul goes on to say, “to the unmarried and widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion” (1 Cor 7:8-9 ESV). Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers specifically comments that Paul is not saying that everyone should be single as he is: rather, he is referring to continence (i.e., self-control) as the gift with which he was endowed.[4] The gift is the ability to be single, which is an important distinction. Further to this, a gift of the Spirit would not excuse or exempt a person from being obedient to one of God's commands. God spoke through the prophet Ezekiel saying, “and I will put my Spirit in you and move you to follow my decrees and be careful to keep my laws” (Ezekiel 36:27 NIV). There are no crossed purposes within the Trinity. All persons of the Trinity are in perfect unity with each other. The life of Jesus demonstrates that marriage is not a command from God for us today, and there is no gift of the Spirit that would contradict this. Everyone is born single, and that is how we all are unless something occurs to change the way we begin life. To say to the unmarried, that singleness is a physical gift from God, then, appears to be saying that God would give us a gift of … nothing! With the 'gift' nothing would change. The status of singleness belongs to the natural world and is apart from the realm of God's eternal kingdom, which is spiritual in nature. Therefore, neither does it seem feasible for singleness to be referred to as a spiritual gift. Singleness is simply a description of a person who is not married rather than something that can be given as a gift. A more complete discussion of this topic can be found in my book, Singleness, Marriage and being God's Family (2023), pp 178-188. Endnotes: 1. Andreas J. Köstenberger and David W. Jones (2010) God, Marriage and Family: Rebuilding the Biblical Foundation (2nd edn.). (Wheaton, IL, Crossway) p67, pp171-173 2. see Robert. H. Gundry (2010) Commentary on the New Testament: Verse-by-Verse Explanations with a Literal Translation (Peabody, MA, Hendrickson) p685; Pulpit Commentary (circa 1890s): https://biblehub.com/commentaries/genesis/2-18.htm 3. ibid. p171 4. Charles John Ellicott (n.d.) Ellicott's Commentary for English Readers (London, Cassell): www.biblehub.com/commentaries/1_corinthians/7-7.htm

Author webpage:

Singleness, Marriage and being God's Family

     by  Ian Blight

~~ Snippets from the book ~~

Back Cover: … Is marriage a command from God for today? Is singleness a gift from God? This book addresses all of these and many other questions. It looks into the contemporary church, at a marriage and family focused culture, with the intent of working toward a better biblical understanding of where singleness belongs in God's family. What is certain is that God loves and values those who are unmarried or childless or from broken marriages or broken families as much as he does those who are married with children. Yet many single people are alienated from the church. ~~~~~ Contents: Introduction Families and singles in the church A conversation The big picture in Australia Chapter 1: A Review of “Being Single” Historical–sociological overview Pre-Christian Celts Christian influence The Reformation – Europe The British Isles – Puritans The British Isles – “Christian humanism” Influence of capitalism The Victorian novel Declining influence of the church 1960 to the present The church's response to social change Consequences for single people A biblical perspective of singleness Modelling a way forward Review summary Chapter 2: Secular Wisdom and God's Wisdom Social change Underlying issues God's higher wisdom The omission of the cross An illustration of what God says Effect of marriage on well-being Contrast of the secular approach Social philosophies Spectrum of secular ideas Problems at both ends Starting at the centre The church – precious to God Enemies of God and His people The well-being of the church Building on the rock Chapter 3: Foundations Defining love Factors influencing change Two distinct approaches A biblical approach A secular approach Detrimental to the church Marriage and families replacing Christ Building blocks of society Foundational institution of society Foundation of society A flourishing society Holding nations together The greatest hope of humanity Flow-on effect Love within families The converse situation Detrimental to marriage and families Chapter 4: A Broader View Elements of marriage The natural family The family and persecution As goes the family, so goes the nation Members of our household Link between self and family The measure of faith Looking to the future What is normal? Chapter 5: The Image of God A significant concept The image of God Attributes Implications Relevance today Classifying the interpretations A relational view A functional view A substantive view Interpretations of Genesis 1:27 Included in the image of God Not included in the image of God The image of the invisible God Diverse interpretations What the image of God does not mean Chapter 6: An Overview of God's Plan Overview – the Fall God's promises to Abraham Moses and the Passover God's promise to David Prophecy Foretelling fulfilled The outcome of God's plan The first Adam and the last Adam Hope of Israel Reflection Chapter 7: The Beginning and the 'Last Days' Natural then spiritual The last days A new birth A different perspective on family No longer alone Helper Alone does not mean single Fruitfulness No exemption The family of God is one body A greater blessing Slavery and freedom Chapter 8: Dealing with the Cause Trusting that God is good Ministry of reconciliation Delight in God's law Categories of biblical law Revealing sin Our inability to fully observe God's law Following God's law A social trend Progression A pressing concern Prior to the change The change and the response Initiation of the problem Impact on singleness Shield of faith The contemporary situation Self-perpetuating cycle Chapter 9: Being Single in God's Family Is being single a gift? When God gives Not a spiritual gift Evaluating the interpretations The world's misleading wisdom Looking further God chooses us The wedding banquet God chooses the lowly People of faith Seeing things differently The psalmist's experience Tough love Chapter 10: Closing Reflections The dilemma Oblivious Ambient acceptance New challenges Looking forward God's guidance Final word ~~~~~ Introduction p15 … “Someone should write something about this” was a nagging thought that would recur from time to time. One of those occasions was after I had been communicating for a while with a young woman interstate, who I had become acquainted with through a friend in Sydney. She had written to me about her deep feelings of abandonment within the church. She had previously been married and experienced great love and support in her church fellowship. The stark contrast of how she, as a single person in her thirties, was now received, had left her feeling isolated and disillusioned. This heartfelt expression of her feelings and emotions resonated within me. Not because I had previously experienced life within a church fellowship as a married person, but I had observed and experienced how single people were often treated differently. Naturally, married people and single people often have different interests and socialise in different ways, but the real issue was something deeper. Having worked and lived in numerous regions across two states for several years, I had enjoyed the fellowship of various churches of different denominations as I was transferred from place to place. Always in a church, some would be very supportive of single people, but often something rooted deep within the church culture and mindset made a single person feel they did not fit in. I was beginning to experience this feeling more and more as time went on. I have since returned on a more permanent basis to my home state of South Australia. Here, over a period of several years, I experienced a few instances of what seemed to be over-exuberant support for the position of marriage and families within the church. The unintended consequence was to devalue the position of single people. Jesus, however, inspires honour for both singleness and marriage (Rom 12:10). To Him, single people are loved and valued no less than any other ... ~~~~~ Chapter 1 p26 … The background and insights presented by Wilson provide a good basis on which to continue the conversation relating to singleness within the church. To facilitate further discussion, this chapter summarises and reviews some of the main points made by Wilson ... ~~~~~ Chapter 2 p43-4 …Fleur Hourihan's (2023) NCLS report, Australian Singles – A Church and Community Comparison [the 'NCLS Report'] examines the number of people attending churches in Australia in each of the years in which the survey was conducted. It reveals the proportions of people differentiated by their marital status within the Australian church community. Comparing these results with the national census data, the NCLS Report shows that single people are under-represented within the Australian church compared to their corresponding demographic within wider Australian society. Even taking de facto marriage relationships into account, single people are still significantly under-represented within the church. This is particularly evident in the middle years from approximately thirty-five to sixty-five years of age. Even though not all single people are alienated from the church, these statistics suggest that many are. An important question to ask is: why is this occurring and how can it be remedied? ... ~~~~~ Chapter 3 p78 … Firstly, it is noted that the greatest concern resulting from the social change since the 1960s and 1970s has been the increased breakdown of marriages and families. This, in itself, gives sufficient reason to suggest that families are unsuitable as the foundation of society as they are susceptible to breaking down. Marriage and families are good within themselves; however, society needs a more stable foundation than the one that families can provide. God's word tells us that Jesus' kingdom that we are inheriting cannot be shaken (Heb 12:28). Christ and His word are a stable foundation on which a society can be built (Heb 1:3). In recent decades our society has built on foundations, other than Christ. Only through Christ can the cause of the problems associated with the social change be addressed ... ~~~~~ Chapter 4 p96-7 … Secular philosophers conclude that if we focus on building up families, concentrate our attention on supporting families and generally exalt the position of families within society, we will be building up our nation. However, within the church, we should look beyond human thoughts and wisdom and look to what we learn from God's wisdom ... If, as God's word tells us, it is Jesus, the Son of God, in whom all things hold together and who sustains all things by His powerful word (Col 1:17; Heb 1:3), then families, communities and nations are all built up by the same honour for God and by abiding by the same word of God. We need to carefully identify what is the cause and what is the effect. Is focusing on families the cause of a nation being strong, or is focusing on the powerful word of God the cause, with strong nations, communities, individuals and families being the effect? ... ~~~~~ Chapter 5 p116-7 … The observation by Erickson that no direct statements in scripture define the image of God helps to explain why different people reach vastly different conclusions about what this term means. The objective of this chapter is not to reach a definitive resolution of what is meant by the image of God. Rather, three important outcomes relevant to our broader discussion on marriage, families and singleness are being pursued. The first is simply to acknowledge the diversity of interpretations. The second outcome is to recognise the large impact that each different interpretation of the image of God, and of Genesis 1:27, can have in understanding matters related to marriage, family and singleness. Thirdly, in the context of our discussion, understanding what 'the image of God' does not mean is a more profitable and obtainable outcome than attempting to understand what it does mean ... ~~~~~ Chapter 6 p135 … Adam and Eve were the first married couple and, together with their children, formed the first family. Since then, marriages and families have followed the pattern they set. The secular approach of placing hope in marriage and families to build a community or nation places hope in the temporal pattern set by the first Adam. However, the message given to the church is that the hope of humanity lies only with the spiritual pattern set by the 'last Adam' ... ~~~~~ Chapter 7 p147-8 … The contemporary church’s understanding of Genesis 2:18, “it is not good for the man to be alone; I will make a helper suitable for him”, impacts on how issues relating to marriage, families and singleness are viewed. What does it mean to not be alone? Does this mean that singleness is “not good”? Is God saying that marriage and having a family is more pleasing to Him than singleness because marriage is “good”? Did God's intention for Adam refer to him being married or to him belonging to the resultant community and therefore not being alone? In the contemporary church in Australia, in my experience, it is not uncommon for the interpretation of Genesis 2:18 to be that, in God's view, it is 'not good' for a person to be single. Therefore, it is concluded that marriage and having a family is, in God's view, 'good' and more pleasing to Him than singleness. I would even suggest that, in the pews at a local church level, this interpretation of Genesis 2:18 is one of the most common theological reasons used for the undue elevation of the position of marriage within the contemporary church. However, this interpretation, and the conclusion that marriage and having a family is more pleasing to God than singleness, should be questioned. It does not give regard to Jesus’ words that we are never alone because he is with us always if His Spirit dwells within us. It also overlooks the apostle Paul's teaching when he advises some that it is good to not be married (1Cor 7:8) ... ~~~~~ Chapter 8 p168 … Godly marriage and families are good within themselves, as are romance and a love story. However, when secular literature paints a picture of marriage or families as the desired destination and purpose in life, it starts losing perspective. When our desire for something that has been created and has been given to us is greater than for the creator and giver of these good things, our desire is misplaced. This also applies when our ultimate purpose is found in what has been created rather than in the one who created it ... ~~~~~ Chapter 9 p187 … Self-control and faith are both spiritual qualities: it is feasible that both can be, and are, given by God as a gift to those in His family. However, singleness is a temporal characteristic. The reference made by contemporary theologians and commentators to the 'gift of singleness' is more in keeping with the description of either the gift of continence (or self-control) to which the apostle Paul referred or to the spiritual gift of faith in a single person. Clarifying this helps to avoid any misunderstanding, because, in my experience, confusion often arises when reference is made to 'the gift of singleness'. At a local church level, this is most often taken to mean that the physical status of singleness is a gift from God ... ~~~~~ Chapter 10 p214-5 … Marriage and families are important and will continue to be a part of our temporal identities and our natural communities in this world until Christ returns (Mat 24:37-39; Luke 17:26-30). The biblical expectation of agape love within our marriage and family relationships remains as high as it has always been. However, they are not the primary purpose for which Jesus has called us. Under the New Covenant, it is those born of the Spirit of God, with faith in Jesus, the Messiah, who are the family of God. Neither being married nor being single has any bearing on whether we, like Paul, are able to take hold of that for which Christ Jesus has taken hold of us ... ~~~~~

Book order form

Multi-line address
Singleness, Marriage and being God's Family (Including postage within Australia)
AUD
AUD$25

* For ordering in Australia only* Overseas -   please contact your local book supplier

Singleness, Marriage and being God's Family by Ian Blight

Special book sale:
Strathalbyn Churches Bookshop
(11 Dawson St)
~In Store only~ $20 

Prayer: Lord Jesus, please help us open our spiritual eyes so we may see as you see.

~~ Blog ~~

ACCEPTABLE WORSHIP OF GOD IN OUR INTERNET INFLUENCED AGE ~ (744 words, read time 3 min) ~~ From the beginning, while some expressions of worship have been acceptable to God, others have been unacceptable, for example, Cain and Abel’s contrasting expressions of worship. Today, cultural factors unseen in past generations are exerting their influence on Christian worship music, so vigilance is essential to retain acceptability to God. These cultural factors include the modern marketing strategies developed to suit online communication. Also, in today’s world, music can be quickly popularised and the source of large financial rewards. Although this is not necessarily bad, a greater enticement exists today, more than in previous generations, for Christian worship music to be popular, appealing and profitable, rather than faithful and true to God's word. Popular general use of the internet began in the 1990s, leading to the emergence of new commercial marketing strategies to adapt to the changing information technology. Marketing consultant, Charles Lange, in his Linkedin Pulse article, “Why Storytelling is the Secret Weapon in Modern Marketing” (7 Sept 2024), describes how the rise of social media, search engines and review platforms has provided access by consumers to an overwhelming amount of information, making it more difficult for brands to stand out. He writes that, in adapting to these changes, storytelling is now a powerful tool in marketing: “storytelling in marketing goes beyond just selling a product; it involves creating a story that places the customer at the centre”. He suggests that its power as a marketing tool lies in its focus on the emotions. Similarly, Maria Alonso, of Forbes Communications Council, in her Council post, “The Power of Storytelling in Modern Marketing” (5 Aug 2024), writes that: “at its core, storytelling in marketing involves crafting a narrative that resonates with your audience on an emotional level”. She adds that creating an emotional connection will build trust and loyalty, extending beyond simply promoting a product or service. According to Giles Lury, the deeply rooted basis of this marketing trend is the human need to be entertained (Wikipedia “Storytelling – In Marketing”). Applying this subtle marketing strategy of the internet age to music lyrics used in Christian worship is how problems can arise in worship music. A marketing focus is evident in much popular Christian worship music today. It creates a narrative around the 'consumer', forming an emotional connection that builds trust and loyalty. It places us, and our feelings, at the centre of the narrative, rather than focusing on God and glorifying Him. Modern marketing in our internet age is designed to influence and shape our feelings or emotions, with the consumer at the centre, whereas worship declares the truth of God's greatness and holiness, with the focus on God, not on us. Modern marketing seeks to create an emotional environment, whereas worship focuses on the revelation of God's glory and majesty, based on His word. Emotion may legitimately be a response to truth, but it should not be a replacement of it. A modern marketing approach has a connection to our need to be entertained, whereas worship focuses on our acknowledgement of our loving and almighty Creator and Judge. Through today’s internet influenced modern marketing, the focus turns to us, appealing to our pride: however, worship turns our focus away from ourselves to the glory of God and His kingdom above (Col 3: 1-3). Marketing attracts us to what we want for ourselves, whereas worship focuses on our submission and surrender to God and His truth. Marketing is drawn from our common experience of life. In contrast, we worship God in the beauty of holiness (Psalm 29:2). Holiness is that which is separate from the common and profane and set apart to God. Therefore, it is not appropriate to apply marketing and consumer psychology to worship music. Our holy fear of God should restrain us from doing so. God and His grace cannot be reduced to being a commodity. Jesus said, “How dare you turn My Father's house into a marketplace!” (John 2:16). The message of God being our Creator and Judge and that we are all sinners needing to repent and receive saving grace through the cross of Christ, is not popular and appealing as a sales message. Yet, it is central to the truth of the gospel and to our humility in worship. Words, valid in any age and particularly in our internet age, come from the letter to the Hebrews (12:28): “[so, let us] ... worship God acceptably with reverence and awe”.

BLOG - ... more to come soon ...

Esteeming singleness in God's household today: esight.com.au - Adelaide and Hills SA

“Esteeming one another in honour” (Rom 12:10 Berean Literal Bible)

Read Articles:

Should Mothers Day be celebrated in the church?

~ MOTHERS DAY AND THE CHURCH ~ (857 words; read time 3 min)~~ 'Mothers Day' is a public celebration, much like Christmas and Easter. However, unlike Christmas and Easter, Mothers Day did not begin in the church. Although it is meritorious for Christians to celebrate Mothers Day in their families, it is not specifically a Christian event. Mothers Day is not a time of celebration for everyone in the church. It can be a painful reminder for women who have had to give up children or have lost children. It can be a painful and alienating time also for childless couples, and for single women who are not mothers but would like to be, and also for children who have suffered psychological or physical abuse from parents. It can marginalise people who have been orphaned, or adopted, and those who do not even know who their biological parents are. In the culture of the Old Testament nation of Israel, the bearing of physical descendants for Abraham was important. The expectation, also, was that, among Abraham's descendants, a Messiah would be born. Therefore, being barren meant not only failure to be part of fulfilling God's promise to Abraham of many descendants, but also being excluded from the hope of bearing the Messiah. Bearing children was viewed as being included in God's plan for the salvation of His chosen people, and having children was considered a blessing and evidence of God's favour. Therefore, barrenness was viewed as a 'reproach' or a 'disgrace', and was scorned. However, a further unveiling of God's purpose for humanity was revealed with the advent of Christ into the world. In the new community that Jesus came to establish, He placed the spiritual and the eternal before and above the physical and the temporal. In the unfolding of His purpose for all of humanity, He placed the family of God before and above our natural families. He turned our focus toward His family of faith in inheriting God's promises and away from the central focus on natural families. Jesus redefined who He viewed as His family, when He said, “my mother and my brothers are those who hear the word of God and do it” (Luke 8:21 ESV). In His home Jesus would have loved His mother, Mary. However, outside of His natural family setting, Jesus shifted His followers’ cultural focus from the blessing of children in the natural world to the greater blessing of being in God's family. This is illustrated when Jesus was speaking to a crowd of people: “as Jesus was saying these things, a woman in the crowd called out, 'blessed is the mother who gave you birth and nursed you' ”(Luke 11:27). Jesus responded to her by saying, “blessed rather are those who hear the word of God and obey it” (Luke 11:28). Our standing in God's household of the New Testament comes from being 'in Christ'; therefore, says Paul, each part should have equal concern for every other part (1Cor 12:25; Gal 3:26-28). Under the New Covenant, those who are single or from broken marriages or broken families are as important in God's household as are those who are married and have children. Our importance to God comes from being 'in Christ' and not from being 'in marriage' or 'in family'. The apostle Paul uses allegory in saying, “Abraham had two sons, one by the slave woman and the other by the free woman. His son by the slave woman was born according to the flesh, but his son by the free woman was born as the result of a divine promise. These things may be taken figuratively, for the women represent two covenants ... Now Hagar ... corresponds to the present city of Jerusalem, because she is in slavery with her children. But the Jerusalem that is above is free, and she is our mother. For it is written, ‘Be glad, barren woman, you who never bore a child; shout for joy and cry aloud, you who were never in labour; because more are the children of the desolate woman than her who has a husband’” (Gal 4:22-27). There is no favouritism with God, all are equal before Him (Rom 2:11; 1 Cor 12:25). He cares for all women, whether they are mothers or not. However, when Mothers Day is celebrated in our society, concern is not extended equally to all people, because some may feel excluded, detached, or alienated. I believe that words spoken by Jesus in another context are applicable to Mothers Day. Jesus said, “Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's” (Mark 12:17 ESV). The application of this to Mothers Day, would be that our natural mothers are celebrated at home by natural children in our natural families, and spiritual children of God within the church, celebrate, not our natural mothers, but the 'Jerusalem that is above who is our mother'. 'The Jerusalem that is above is free', and represents freedom from the law and freedom from sin for those who are born of the Spirit and have life in Christ.[1] This would bring unity for all in God's household, and a surer understanding of God's purpose for the church. © Ian Blight, May 2026 Photo by Daiga Ellaby on Unsplash Endnotes: 1. see Barnes,Photo by Daiga Ellaby on Unsplash Albert. (1834) Barnes' Notes on the Bible. [Barnes 1798–1870]. biblehub.com/commentaries/galatians/4-26.htm

~ 'CANBERRA DECLARATION' - A STATEMENT FOR THE CHURCH, OR A TROJAN HORSE FOR SECULARISM? ~ (1486 words, read time 5 min)~~ The intention behind the Canberra Declaration was right, to restore the Australian nation’s trust in Almighty God. But when the Canberra Declaration was launched on Friday 23 July 2010, was the right direction being taken to achieve the objective? The Canberra Declaration did bring many people together and, at the time, gained much support from the church in Australia. Since then, over 90,000 people have signed the document. The Canberra Declaration begins by referring to the preamble to the Australian Constitution and its wording 'humbly relying on the blessings of Almighty God'. The Declaration states that 'we too put our trust in Almighty God', and equates historical Western civilisation with Christian civilisation. It declares that our nation’s values are based on the Judeo-Christian belief system which owes much to the 'belief in the dignity of the human person as created in the image of God'. It adds that, 'when Christian values are respected and allowed freedom of expression … society is richer and healthier'. The inference is that failure to trust in God will cause social decline. The Declaration then cites just three symptoms of this decline: curtailing of religious freedom, decline in the stability of marriage and the family, and lessening of respect for the sanctity of human life. However, from this point in the Declaration, a switch occurs between the symptoms and the cause. Rather than placing faith and hope in Almighty God as the foundation on which to build society, the selected symptoms are now viewed as the foundation of society. The Canberra Declaration, in its conclusion, states that 'religious freedom, marriage and family, and the sacredness of human life have provided the foundation enabling democratic societies to flourish'. While the issues of 'religious freedom' and 'sacredness of human life' apply equally to everyone in a community, the issue of 'marriage and family' does not. Singling out the 'marriage and families' demographic as society’s foundation, with no biblical basis, and disregarding other groups, such as those who are single, childless or from broken marriages or families, is likely to be divisive. After this switch, in the Canberra Declaration and on its website, much is made of secular philosophy, but little mention is made of God's word. Historian Arnold Toynbee is quoted as saying, 'nations rise and fall with the health of its families', suggesting that families hold nations together. Families are also viewed as the main building blocks of society. In contrast, God's word states that Jesus and His powerful word hold all things together, and that it is the righteousness of all people that contributes to building a nation, without distinguishing between people by their marital or family status. The Canberra Declaration website quotes the secular wisdom of former United States (US) President Lyndon Johnson when he states, 'the family is the cornerstone of society'. However, the website does not quote the biblical wisdom that Australian society desperately needs to hear, 'the stone that the builders rejected has become the cornerstone'. Jesus is the cornerstone, not the family. The website home page states that 'we are a powerful voice to our federal and state leaders'. To return to the original question: was the right direction taken when forming the Canberra Declaration? Answering with another question: is it the right response to elevate the position of marriage and families, using secular philosophy, when trying to persuade our federal and state leaders not to rely on secular philosophy but, instead, to return to trusting in Almighty God? The formation of some of the damaging social values addressed by the Canberra Declaration, can be traced back at least to the Victorian era. Author Rev Dr Philip Wilson [UK] (Being Single 2005), describes how authors of Victorian novels, such as Charles Dickens, Anthony Trollope and the Bronte sisters, shaped people's views of what was normal in society. By the late nineteenth century, marriage had become the desired destination and purpose in life for many people, contrasting with the prior biblical ethos of our greatest desire and purpose being found in God. In the early twentieth century, the impact of this changing mindset was interrupted by two World Wars and the Great Depression. Australian author Kevin Andrews (Maybe I Do 2012) and Wilson (2005) identified that social philosophies promoting the ‘deconstruction’ of traditional marriage and family originated in the 1960s. Andrews observed that 'Jacques Derrida, regarded as the founder of deconstructionism, combined Marxist social analysis and Freudian psychological techniques to deconstruct the pillars of western civilisation, including marriage and the family'. A question to consider is whether these 'deconstruction' philosophies that arose in the 1960s, were a response to the overly favoured position gained by marriage and family in the Victorian era. The 'deconstruction' and 'favouritism' of marriage and families are social values on two extremes of a spectrum, with ideas from each end provoking a passionate response from the opposite end. Like in the Canberra Declaration, the greater battle is often thought to be against ideas from the deconstruction end, however, more subtle, and just as destructive, compromises lie at the favouritism end. When our greatest desire and purpose is found in Christ, we are assured in Scripture that we will overcome opposition. However, when marriage and family become the desired destination and purpose, there is no scriptural assurance of overcoming, because it is not a posture of faith. When marriage and families are favoured in this way, a consequence appears to be a penetrating and injurious targeting by social opponents. The response to this targeting is more favouring, which causes, in turn, a higher level of targeting. Today, this self-perpetuating cycle of action and reaction is evident to the detriment of marriage and families. A biblical response starts at the centre of the secular spectrum, at a point which embraces neither the deconstruction nor the favouritism of marriage and families. The only successful approach is to return to exalting, not marriage and families, but Christ and His righteous word. When those who are married with families have greater needs, it is scriptural to give them greater assistance, however, greater needs are not synonymous with greater importance. Only when Jesus and His righteousness become the most important part of building a society will that society function as God intended. Our importance to God comes from being 'in Christ' and not from being 'in marriage' or 'in family'. The suggestion here is that the secular philosophies to which the Canberra Declaration refers, align the Declaration and its website too closely with errors at the 'favouritism' end of the spectrum. In dealing with social problems, Australia appears to be influenced by the US, where a co-ordinated response to the ‘deconstruction’ philosophies arose in the 1970s. The National Federation for Decency (NFD) was formed in the US in 1977, defining itself as 'a Christian organisation promoting the biblical ethic of decency in American society'. At about that time, Tim LaHaye [US] (The Battle for the Family 1982), observed that humanist activists, although only sixteen per cent of the population, exercised an inordinate influence in government bureaucracy, the media, and education. He observed that twenty per cent of the population were born-again Christians and, when including the secular pro-family demographic, the pro-family movement represented the views of about eighty-four per cent of the US population. In the US a switch came in 1988, when the NFD changed its name to the American Family Association, changing its emphasis to 'moral issues that impact the family'. The emergent pro-family political movement, including many who view, not Christ, but marriage and having a family, as the greatest desire and purpose in life, is widespread in the US, and its influence has extended to Australia. It has led to a syncretism between Christian values and those of the secular pro-family demographic. In defending the favouritism of marriage and families, the attempted solution may now just be prolonging the problem. Prominent US Christian ethicist Stanley Hauerwas [US] (A Community of Character 1986) suggested that determining the place of singleness and the family was one of the Western church’s most pressing concerns. The vast under-representation of single people in the church today suggests this problem remains. This under-representation is a social indicator, a type of 'canary in the coalmine', warning that something much larger is awry. Secular ideas and philosophies that overstate the position and importance of marriage and families seem to trigger a response by the enemies of Judeo-Christian norms, whereby marriage and families become the target of their opposition, with children often being the first in their sights. The Canberra Declaration website declares that, 'we stand with our children first and foremost'. For this statement to be meaningful, a careful review of the Canberra Declaration and its website is needed to bring a biblical perspective on marriage and the family, rather than embracing secular philosophies and the problems that result.

CREATED TO WORSHIP -... coming soon ...

Get in touch

bottom of page