The Manly 7. G'day I'm Martyn Iles and this is 'The
Truth of It'. Well, I think every Australian knows about it by
now, that the Manly Sea Eagles - the National Rugby League Team -
introduced a pride jersey with the rainbow emblem on it for
their players to wear at an upcoming match. And in a
courageous move, 7 of the players declined to do so, by
reason of their faith and conviction, and they have
therefore been stood down for the match. Now the theme that
has been pushed by the officials, the media, the
various advocates of the Pride jersey is 'inclusion'. That's the
word we're seeing absolutely everywhere. They say that wearing this
jersey was about inclusion. Just one quote, however, should
demonstrate how incomprehensible this is. This
is Peter V'Landys, the chairman of the NRL, and he has said
this: quote, 'Everyone knows the position of the game. If you
don't want to be inclusive, you can stand down. The game will
always be for everyone.' Yeah, it hurts my head too. I'll read it
again. 'Everyone knows the position of the game. If you
don't want to be inclusive, you can stand down. The game
will always be for everyone.' So apparently it's for everyone,
but you can stand down. It's double speak, it's brain dead
nonsense. It cannot be inclusive from the get-go, to
force somebody to identify with a political symbol. Is it
inclusive to force an Aboriginal player who doesn't
want to, to wear an Australian flag? Would we do that? Or
any player indeed, to wear a cross or an ichthys - a Christian
fish - or a hammer and sickle, or a feminist symbol, or a black
fist, or a star of David, or the logo of a political party? The
pride rainbow is another political symbol. It's no
different. And if you say, 'You must wear this, or else there'll
be consequences', that's the dead opposite of inclusiveness.
That's exclusive right? Inclusion is accommodating
people's convictions. You may make an argument, you may make
an appeal, you may try to convince people, sure. But human
nature is still such that differences of conviction will
persist. At that point, live and let live, is as inclusive as it
gets. And it works pretty well, and it was working pretty at
Manly, with white guys, non-white guys, gay guys,
straight guys all united around the sport. Now they're divided,
and they're excluded. Seven of them are excluded, in the name
of inclusion! It's double speak. Only a person without an
IQ could say it, or a person who knows they're double speaking,
and this is the more likely, but is doing it for a political
agenda. And then you get the third category of person, not
naming names, but a weak person, who is interested in their own
status and career. A person who believes in little outside of
his own destiny, so he'll say whatever it takes to preserve
that destiny. The kind of person, the kind of man our
political and our corporate systems are currently
absolutely blighted by. Not like the seven men of
conviction who quietly, confidently, boldly, said 'no',
despite the potential cost. And it was a risk. I mean, we all
remember surely, when Israel Folau transgressed the pride
movement - he was hunted out of the country. He now has to play
in Japan. Some have criticised - and that's, by the way,
despite being the best player, so, anyway - some have criticised
the Manly 7 for saying no to this new pride rainbow
jersey, yet accommodating other things like gambling and
alcohol sponsorships, to which I want to reply this. You're
doing what the pride lot are doing. You're asking why these
guys don't share your conscience and convictions, and
you're punishing them for it, in a context where it is not
relevant; namely, the playing of a sporting match. See, that is
not how conscience issues work. Their line is not your line, of
course. Very few people have exactly the same line. But
tolerance is respecting people's lines, even when they're different to
your line. But, having said that, I am going to engage with the
point for a second. It isn't relevant to the issue of
respecting conscience. But it is relevant to the theological
nuts and bolts going on in the minds of any Christian person
who would say that. The Christians who are thinking
that way are making quite a serious error. They've put all
of these things on the same level. They're not on the same
level. Take a brand of beer. Yes, beer is a big problem.
Scripture contains many warnings about beer, about
alcoholic beverages. But alcoholic beverages, in and of
themselves, are not sinful. The six-coloured pride rainbow
represents something concerning which that qualification cannot
be made. Indeed, there are very few things which scripture
treats more seriously, and takes more gravely, and I think that
we too often, like to sweep that fact under the carpet. But let's
come back to the fact that they did draw a line in the sand. They
did say no. I want to make a comment about this, because I
think there's a lesson in it for us all. When Daniel, in
scripture, stood firm and said 'no', he drew a line, alongside
three of his friends in Babylon, and he stood apart, at
potentially great cost - not just to his career prospects,
although they were an issue. But also, it seems from reading
the text that there was some concern for his life. He would
have been widely criticised, widely doubted, widely
misunderstood, and widely questioned for his stand. I
know that, because none of the youths joined in the protest,
except Daniel and his three friends. Why not? Well, partly
I'm sure, because their destinies were at stake. They
were being offered great place, power, and political status. They
were on the fast track to all of these things. That's why
they were in the university course that they were in. And
when you get men who believe in little more than their own
destinies, you get men who compromise. You actually get
weak men. You get the kind of men who currently dominate our
political and corporate systems. And that is why
they're closing their eyes to the advance of evil. That is
why they are successful, very successful at self advancement,
and total failures at advancing the common good. I very much
agree with Doctor Jordan Peterson, who
says, 'If you think strong men are dangerous, wait
until you see what weak men will do.' Daniel was a strong
man. One of the quintessential examples of a strong man in the
Bible, because he knew something. He knew that he
could not control destiny and his destiny, better than God
could. And he knew that by not compromising, he was putting
his future in God's hands, not his own. And in that respect,
his obedience was an act of faith. It was to trust God for
the outcome, not himself. And that is strength, in submission.
That is the definition of meekness. One of the character
traits of the Kingdom of Heaven according to Jesus in Matthew 5.
That is true strength. And I believe the obedience of
the Manly 7, is an act of faith and meekness. And
importantly, when Daniel did it, he was right. And it was the
first day of the rest of his life, because God did see it.
God did honour it. And that faith was not misplaced. And it
was not that his life was always easy. It absolutely,
certainly was not. But he was preserved, and used for God, in a
hostile place. And the testimony of Daniel and his
friends in Babylon - it was really tremendous. It seems a
king was converted because of him. He spoke truth to power. He
demonstrated godliness to his peers, in a idolatrous and a
very, very ungodly society. The Bible records his story, which
has blessed countless people for millennia. What a guy. We
need men like that today. Men who believe in something
greater than their own destiny. Men who are strong, men who
live in obedience to God, no matter what. And the testimony
that will come from that, will transform this "Babylon"
- Australia, and where we are right now - and you'll be used
for things that are far greater than yourself, even for eternal
things. Please, and I'm speaking specifically to Christians now,
prepare yourself to be this person. Be inspired by Izzy
Folau. Be inspired by the Manly 7. Be inspired by Daniel.
Daniel purposed in his heart beforehand to make the decision
that he made. We would be wise to stop living in denial that this
shouldn't happen, and that this mustn't happen, and to
acknowledge that this is actually part of the Christian
life, as the New Testament tells us over, and over, and over
again - All who seek to live godly in Christ Jesus will
suffer persecutions says the Apostle Paul. It will happen.
We need to accept that it will happen, and we need to
purpose in our heart before it happens, that we will be the
one who stands firm, on the day in which it does happen. As the
Apostle Paul says, '...having done all, to stand, and to stand
firm'. And just as a footnote, never underestimate the impact.
And it might not be the impact you're expecting. But here's
just one impact that I've noted from this sporting team issues
over the last few years. I note that these guys have been
treated far, far, far more lightly than Israel Folau was. Partly
because there's seven of them, I know. But partly because I
wonder, whether some little space has opened up. Because of
the tremendous cost to the sporting codes of the Israel
Folau issue, because Israel stood firm. Some little space has
opened up, however small, for such men to keep their careers
when they stand firm. And that's because a Daniel went first, a
man who I greatly respect, in Israel Folau. Mark my words,
it is our continued boldness, in the face of these things, that
will leave an impact. We need men like Daniel. I'm Martyn Iles
and that was 'The Truth of It'.