Misrepresenting

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.