The
definition of the word 'indoctrinated' on google is given as: to
teach (a person or group) to accept a set of beliefs uncritically.
In the
wake of Monday night's QandA with Kevin Rudd and the whole episode of
the question about Gay Marriage I have since seen many Christians
attacking Mr Rudd for misrepresenting the Bible. I have found their misrepresentation of Mr Rudd very frustrating. They have focused
solely on his summary of a Bible verse stating that 'slavery is a
natural condition.' Arguably he may have been a bit off the mark in
making this summary but you could make a myriad more by using the
book of Leviticus. What was clear to me was that it was not a summary
that he was ascribing to believing in. He was pointing out how just
taking verses out of the Bible to say what you want them to say is a
weak and dangerous thing to do to base your beliefs on.
He
actually went on to explain what he does believe and how he forms
those beliefs yet in the articles critising him they always fail to
mention (even one word) of his summary of the New Testament as having
a message of universal love. He explained how he goes about wrestling
with his beliefs over time, using critical thinking, using science,
using the greater context of the Bible as opposed to singular verses
and using his Christian concience. Is it wrong of him to do that as a
Christian? I would say that it is imperative that every Christian
walks this road.
It
seems some Christians give no validity to the rest of his statements
regarding the New Testament simply because he said something critical
of the Bible. Those people that hold the Bible up as the arbiter of
all wisdom are dangerous. Interpretations can be wrong, verses can be
twisted to say near anything. If you accept everything as black and
white then you miss the nuance of colour and diversity (thank you
Cecily Rosol for turning the grey areas into colour for me). The
Bible is important to the Christian but it is not to be worshipped
lest you make an idol of it, and besides; the Christian story goes on
with every new day, it hasn't ceased moving.
The
verses most couples use at their marriage from 1 Cor 13:1-13 speak to
what love is and from verse 11 (with the danger of using a verse from
the Bible) it says “When I was a child, I spoke and thought and
reasoned as a child. But when I grew up, I put away childish things.”
It goes on to say that all that I know is partial and incomplete and
further - that three things will last forever-faith, hope and
love-and the greatest of these is love. Was Rudd wrong in stating the
message of the Gospel to be one of love? Was he wrong to doubt his
earlier beliefs around homosexuality and reconsider?
William
Hughes an expert on critical thinking said “If we are not prepared
to think for ourselves, and to make the effort to learn how to do
this well, we will always be in danger of becoming slaves to the
ideas and values of others due to our own ignorance.” I applaud
Rudd's faith and logic in arriving to his conclusion on Gay Marriage.
And as uncomfortable as it was to see the Pastor who asked the
question having questions thrown back at him and the audience turn on
him it appeared that in the moment he had nothing much more to stand
on than indoctrinated beliefs.
Indoctrinated
beliefs are dangerous and not just in the realm of Christianity and
other religions. Indoctrination is a controlling mechanism – the
google definition of 'indoctrinated' goes on to give an example of
its use: “broadcasting was a vehicle for indoctrinating the masses”
and by golly haven't we seen that in widespread use over the last few
weeks by a Murdoch controlled press that want people to accept its
view of the world and its choice of Prime Minister in Tony Abbott.
And Christian media is doing the same now with their attack on Rudd,
trying to persuade people to vote on their agenda.
The
right's views on asylum seekers and mining and a carbon price and
just how badly our AAA credit rated economy is going has seen the
public debate around this election as a race to fan the flames of
fear in people and then come running in dressed up for the
photographers in firefighting gear. Peter Hitchens, brother of
prominent atheist Christopher Hitchens, followed a different path as
an atheist that came to faith. He said “Is there any point in
public debate in a society where hardly anyone has been taught how to
think, while millions have been taught what to think?” I think that
applies here.
So
don't attack Rudd for thinking for himself, turn the heat up on those
that don't. I'm finding it my responsibilty to no longer stand idly
by when a bloke at a BBQ starts spouting that climate change is crap
– that is ignorance – as if he knows more than 98% of the world's
top climate scientists. Or when someone accuses asylum seekers of
clogging the roads despite the fact that they can't afford cars.
If you
want to attack Rudd on his Christian values then ask him why his
asylum seeker policy is what it is now or why he has put off
increasing aid to the worlds poor, those may deal breakers for you
but to turn off him because he espouses loving thy neighbour as a
tenet of his faith is just hearing what you want to hear.
Jesus
was not about controlling people, he was about freeing people, often
from themselves. Christianity is not a cage, the New Testament
repeatedly says that we have a new covenant and repeatedly Christians
pull out the Old that should have been put to bed around 2000 years
ago and frankly I'm sick of it. The Gospels record Jesus saying “Love
the Lord your God with all your heart and all your soul and all your
strength and all your mind, and love your neighbour as yourself.”
The
indoctrinators from what I see around me do not want you to use your
heart or your mind or to love your neighbour, just to pay lip service
and maybe they'll give you what you want, regardless of what we
need.
