Skip to content

When the offended decide to go on the offensive

Being an Aussie living in the UK sometimes leads to bizarre experiences. Like when I’m talking to a Brit, and he or she makes a joke based on the premise that Aussies are descended from criminals. That, in itself, isn’t a bizarre experience (usually the joke is quite witty and droll, in true British style). The bizarre experience comes when the person who made the joke, about 5 seconds later, apologizes to me because they’re afraid they’ve offended me.

I try to explain that Aussies are proud of being descended from convicts; indeed, if you can trace your ancestry back to the first fleet, you’re virtual aristocracy Down Under. Our de facto national song, Waltzing Matilda, is about a bloke who stole a sheep and got chased by the police. Our former Prime Minister, Keven Rudd, is descended from underwear and sugar thieves, and forgers. And he’s proud of it. Go Kev! The British joke-tellers never quite believe me, though. They seem to think I should be ashamed of being a member of the criminal classes. Bizarre.

But I’ve come to discover that there’s a reason why people might be so afraid of offending me. It seems that their joke about my convict heritage might, in fact, be against the law. You see, if I decide that the joke has offended me (even if they didn’t intend to offend me), then I might be able to initiate proceedings against them. This atmosphere of hyper-vigilance isn’t just a joke. It seems that proceedings have indeed been initiated against a blogger here in the UK for causing offence by carrying the following ad for the Coalition for Marriage:

The blogger in question (who styles himself on my favourite Archbishop), says:

Apparently there have been a number of complaints about one of the advertisements His Grace carried on behalf of the Coalition for Marriage. He has been sent all manner of official papers, formal documentation and threatening notices which demand answers to sundry questions by a certain deadline. He is instructed by the ‘Investigations Executive’ of this inquisition to keep all this confidential.

Since His Grace does not dwell in Iran, North Korea, Soviet Russia, Communist China or Nazi Germany, but occupies a place in the cyber-ether suspended somewhere between purgatory and paradise, he is minded to ignore that request. Who do these people think they are?

[…]

He is informed:

We intend to deal with the complaint as a formal investigation, which means it will be considered by the ASA Council. We will then draft a recommendation for the Council based on your response to us. Once the Council has made a decision, the adjudication will be published on our website.

…We require you to explain your rationale for the ad and comment specifically on the points raised in the attached complaint notification…

They need to see ‘robust documentary evidence to back the claims and a clear explanation from you of its relevance and why you think it substantiates the claims. It is not enough to send references to or abstracts of documents and papers without sending the reports in full and specifically highlighting the relevant parts explaining why they are relevant to the matter in hand’.

Of course, I would be a hypocrite if I, too, didn’t endorse the views of the Coalition for Marriage. In my colonial homeland, I am an Anglican Minister, and I have conducted quite a few weddings using these words from An Australian Prayer Book, “A Service for Marriage (second form)”:

Our Lord Jesus Christ said of marriage that ‘From the beginning of creation God made them male and female. “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one.” So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.’

Marriage should be honoured by all, and is not to be entered into lightly or carelessly, but with reverent and serious respect for those purposes for which it was instituted by God.

Marriage is a gift from God for the well-being of humanity, and for the proper expression of natural instincts and affections with which he has endowed us.

It is a life-long union in which a man and a woman are called so to give themselves in body, mind, and spirit, and so to respond, that from their union will grow a deepening knowledge and love of each other. In the joys and sorrows of life, in prosperity and adversity, they share their companionship, faithfulness, and strength.

In marriage a new family is established in accordance with God’s purpose, so that children may be born and nurtured in secure and loving care, for their well-being and instruction, and for the good order of society, to the glory of God.

I guess that now I have also displayed the ad (in this case, gratis), and reproduced the words of An Australian Prayer Book, I may have offended somebody. Please be assured that I am not intending to offend; I am simply seeking to endorse a campaign that is, quite transparently as far as I can tell, attempting to engage in a current and important political debate. This particular debate has been ignited by certain actions of members of Her Majesty’s Government. The various voices on the debate deserve to be heard. The Coalition for Marriage is one voice in this debate. It is a voice which clearly has popular support, and which I endorse. If you agree with me, sign their petition. If you disagree with me, don’t sign their petition. And disagree with me. And offend me too, if you like. That’s how a modern liberal democracy is supposed to work.

However: if any Brits do decide to be offended by this blog post, it might interest you to know that I am seeking to return from the UK to Botany Bay, in Sydney, New South Wales, in just under two months’ time. If you would please time your prosecution accordingly, I would be grateful. That way, you might get me a free trip to Botany Bay, and the opportunity to return home as a convict, which would enhance my reputation enormously in my colonial homeland. It might even mean that I have a chance at being Prime Minister one day.

Published inEthicsMinistrySexuality

One Comment

  1. Still weeping with laughter at your last paragraph 5 minutes later

Comments are closed.

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • Lift Your Eyes: Reflections on Ephesians

Recent blog posts

  • The Shambles, York, UKBuilt together (Ephesians 2:20–22)
    Is every church on its own? How are Christian believers connected with other believers with whom we don’t meet regularly: in our region, nation, and world?
  • “Do not weep for me, weep for yourselves…” (Luke 23:28)
    Why do Christians lament? Sometimes we lament out of sympathy, but sometimes we weep for ourselves. This is the kind of lament that Jesus calls for here.
  • Busts in Vatican Museum, RomeNo second-class Christians (Ephesians 2:19)
    Even if we don’t say it out loud, we can often act as if there are different classes of Christians. But the gospel teaches us there are no second-class Christians.
  • Photo by Larm Rmah on UnsplashChrist the missionary (Ephesians 2:17–18)
    Christ is a missionary. Christ does stranger evangelism. Christ preaches to the choir. Christ crosses cultures. Christ brings peace. So says the Apostle Paul. What does he mean?
  • Fragment of the Berlin WallChrist the wall breaker (Ephesians 2:14–16)
    In this broken and rebellious world, our healthy boundaries often become hostile walls. But the cross of Christ breaks down walls and brings reconciliation.
  • Photo by John Tyson on UnsplashThe blood that brings us close (Ephesians 2:11–13)
    Despite our best desires and efforts, we humans are not very good at living up close with others. This has become devastatingly obvious in the recent Christchurch shootings. Yet in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul talks about a conflict that really was healed. This passage is about a real closeness that all believers in Christ must remember: a closeness that is fundamental to our identity.
  • Photo by foundinbklyn on Flickr (CC BY 2.0)Good works and salvation: What’s the connection? (Ephesians 2:8–10)
    A joke letter from an Australian church offering its financial donors priority access to heaven raises questions for all of us. Do our good deeds give us access to heaven? Or are our good deeds irrelevant? Where do our good deeds fit when it comes to salvation?
  • Security Threat. Photo by Andrew Neel on UnsplashA question of security (Ephesians 2:6–7)
    As I write this, New Zealand is shocked and grieving. My own nation Australia is shocked and grieving too, along with them. But news stories about terror attacks and shootings in our world are far too common, aren’t they? And whenever we hear of them, they bring to mind all sorts of questions. One of them is the question of security. As we grieve for the victims, we also think a little about ourselves. We wonder whether some day we too might be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a seemingly random attack happens. It’s unsettling. It’s not just a matter of national security; it’s also a matter of our own personal security. Paul is talking in Ephesians 2:6–7 about a security that belongs to everyone who believes in Jesus Christ. It’s not a guarantee of perfect national security or job security or financial security or security in relationships and health. Nor is it a guarantee that we will always feel perfectly secure. But it is still a real security, more unshakeable and deep-rooted than any other kind of security could be. So what is this security, and where does it come from?
  • Walking past a telephone booth in OxfordThis love (Ephesians 2:4–5)
    “God loves you”: if I say just those three words, you may not hear what I want you to hear. This is because of a communication problem that arises whenever Christians try to talk about biblical concept of God’s “love”. When we say “love” we mean one thing—something wonderful and life-changing. But the word means quite different things to many English speakers. For example, the word “love” often means “strong desire”. So if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God has strong feelings for you”. Another, increasingly common, understanding of “love” is the idea of “unconditional approval”. In this view, the way to “love” somebody is to affirm and approve of everything they do. So if I don’t approve of your actions and actively affirm everything you do, then by definition I’m not “loving” you (in fact, by definition I’m “hating” you). On this common definition of “love”, if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God affirms everything about you and your actions”. But that’s not what the Bible means by God’s “love” either. Given this communication problem, how can I best explain the idea of God’s “love”? Well, it’s not actually that hard. The best way is to see how the word works when the Bible uses it. In Ephesians 2:4–5, Paul uses the word “love”. But he doesn’t just say “God loves you”. He explains and spells out what that love means. And he helps us to see what God’s love really means, and how amazing it is.
  • Entering a tomb in PompeiiWe too: the offenders (Ephesians 2:3)
    Judgmentalism. It’s a bigger problem than we think. Judgmentalism is certainly a danger for God’s people. That’s because God’s people have God’s word. God’s word helps God’s people to see how wonderful God is, and how terrible humanity is in comparison. But Ephesians 2:3 contains two highly significant, emphatic words: “we too”. We too, says Paul, were the offenders. We, too, were the disobedient. These words aren’t talking about all those horrible people “out there”. They’re talking about God’s people. And it’s something we, too, need to hear. These words tell us something incredibly important—something that we ignore at our peril.

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor