Brigadier Jim Wallace, Managing Director of the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) has responded quickly to Salt Shakers’ recent attack on ACL’s ‘relationship register’ policy (see Brian’s Blog, 8 May 2006). Wallace presents himself as the voice of sweet Christian reason, warning against sitting in judgment on others and offering this (apparently) trivial memoir:

Some time ago I met a Christian whose son was homosexual. Given his own faith and Christian leadership responsibilities, it was obviously a source of much hurt and some embarrassment to him. Nonetheless he resolved to demonstrate his love to his son without qualification, while making it plain that he did not support the sin. I could not help but think as I heard this man’s story that it was exactly how I would expect God would want him to act … (ACL National Newsletter, May 2006, 1, available at www.acl.org.au)

Wallace then informs ACL members that:

Salt Shakers, a Melbourne-based Christian ethics group, has heavily criticised ACL’s position on the ACT Civil Unions Bill because ACL is prepared to accept a relationships register ensuring legal rights for caring relationships, including homosexual ones.

Wallace’s main argument is that, in keeping with the ‘love thy neighbour’ principle, you shouldn’t deny homosexuals justice ‘in the flow of legal rights that are implicit given the legal status of homosexuality’:

The same applies to heterosexual de facto relationships: although not a biblical teaching we still support their legal entitlements.

Might conservative evangelicals who support ACL feel that Jim is going a bit weak at the knees here? After all, Salt Shakers claims to have put its case to many other ‘Christians, Pastors and Christian groups’ and been approved by all and sundry. ‘Steady on’, says Wallace:

When challenged by Salt Shakers, I then widened [the counsel I had already received] to include some of the most prominent evangelical church leaders in Australia, who unequivocally supported the approach we had taken.

Nice trump there, Jim. A touch of the ‘mine’s bigger than yours’, but I’m sure we’re all very impressed.

Wallace concludes by emphasising a point of principle:

The ACL vision statement says very deliberately that our aim is to see Christian principles and ethics influencing the way we are governed. Our role, and we believe that of the Church, is not to seek to establish a Christian government or a theocracy, but rather to influence governments for Christian values.

As I’ve pointed out elsewhere, ACL would in practice welcome the establishment of an Australian Christian theocracy. Significantly, though, Wallace seems to imply here that Salt Shakers is a much more overtly theocratic organisation than ACL. How will the Melbourne group respond to this thrust?

STOP PRESS
Richard Egan (long background in National Civic Council/Australian Family Association, WA) has now written an analysis of the ACT legislation which supports Salt Shakers’ position. Egan’s paper is being distributed by Festival of Light Australia (SA), so it’s clear that other Religious Right groups are lining up against the ACL. Against this we see Jim Wallace claiming the support of ’some of the most prominent evangelical church leaders in Australia.’

Come on, Jesus, who are you barracking for?

Filed in: Christian Right, Sexuality