Coming soon…a podcast for and about Melbourne, engaging in the big issues through the lens of the Christian faith
A NEW PODCAST FOR MELBOURNE
Australia
Correcting 3 Misnomers About Baptists
There seem to be 3 misnomers circulating regarding Baptist belief and practice, in light of the decision to remove 2 churches from the NSW/ACT Baptist Association:
- Freedom of conscience
- Freedom of association.
- It’s a matter of interpretation
I have written about these topics at length on other occasions, so I won’t repeat everything here. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile pointing out that while these 3 points are being used to criticise the Baptists’ decision, these very points in fact support the decisions that were made.
Of course, freedom of conscience, and its cousin, freedom of association, are important Baptist principles. These are ideals for which I am thankful. They do not exist however without context, form or boundary.
Speaking to the ABC, Belinda Groves (Senior Minister Canberra Baptist), suggested,
‘Baptist churches are not like the Anglicans or the Catholics – it’s not very hierarchical. We have what’s called local, you know, congregational autonomy. And when we gather together as an association, it’s recognising that our real governance happens in our local churches and that that association is really just a recognition of connection between us and a common commitment to do things together that take a bit more than just a small individual church.’
That’s mostly true. Groves doesn’t explain what this Baptist connection is and means (I sense she’s downplaying it), which is fine given it’s a short television interview, but when we begin asking the question, what is the glue that makes us baptists together, the answer given is often that being Baptist is primarily about freedom: freedom of conscience and freedom of association. Again, while these are cherished ideals, they can’t exist without definition and boundaries, otherwise, they become meaningless terms.
When I hear some voices declare that Saturday’s decisions cut against our Baptist distinctive (some of these voices are by non baptists), I want to respond by saying, you’re being historically myopic and theologically incorrect.
Baptists can rightly defend a person’s right to believe and practice their religion freely AND believe that freedom of association requires common agreement among those desiring to associate together. The fact that we have doctrinal bases demonstrates that there are commonly aligned theological convictions: the Trinity, penal substitution, faith in Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and more. When it comes to contemporary issues surrounding sexual practices, these were not disputed in former days, but now through what Carl Trueman describes as ‘expressive individualism’, matters like same-sex marriage have come about and therefore churches are required to form a view.
In 2009, theologian Hefin Jones wrote a paper for NSW Baptists where he offered an important historical survey of different strands of Baptist thought. While he is surveying NSW Baptists, the same groupings are found among Baptists worldwide. Jones demonstrates that when it comes to confessions and statements of association, there are broadly 3 Baptist groups: Anti-Creedalism, Non-Creedal Confessionalism, and Confessionalism.
That’s important for understanding those who are decrying the decision made by 2/3s of Baptist delegates last Saturday. When they argue that NSW is becoming anti-baptist and authoritarian, they are representing one line of historic Baptist thought, not the entirety.
Of NSW, Jones notes,
“Were Anti- or Non-Creedalism intrinsic to Baptist identity then NSW Baptists as a denomination have never been true to it…from the beginning of the NSW Baptist Union in 1868 it has been Confessional, the real question being, how Confessional? Unlike the associational rules of 1858 the 1868 constitution included a doctrinal basis.”
It’s interesting to discover that both freedom of conscience and freedom of association are linked historically to Baptists speaking against Governmental intrusion in religious matters or controlling the local church. More recently these have become an argument for Baptists to promote all kinds of ideas and practices. This, in my view, can lead to misrepresenting Baptist ideals.
It’s also the case that Baptists have always had mechanisms for removing pastors and churches. That our Unions have rarely resorted to these is a good thing but sadly sometimes it is necessary for the sake of Gospel clarity, unity and mission.
As much as some Baptists are crying ‘freedom’, we understand that the conscience isn’t infallible, nor is it the Lord of the Church. And Christian association, for it to be truly Christian, requires common ascent to the Gospel, and indeed to things like the Apostles Creed and Nicaea Creed. Baptists get along and disagree on many tertiary matters, but same-sex marriage isn’t one of them, and when we’re told that it is, I suspect progressives are ignoring their own clarion calls for justice and what they understand the gospel to be about.
This leads to the biggest misnomer of all, namely that same-sex marriage is merely a matter of interpretation and therefore not one that’s serious enough for breaking fellowship.
Bible interpretation is indeed a factor and there’s a whole discussion that can be had about hermeneutics, but is the Bible’s teaching on sexuality vague and contestable? The argument, ‘it’s just about interpretation’ serves more like a poor cover version of today’s sexual milieu. It’s an effective tool for muddying the waters, but little more. I suspect when progressive churches are transparent about their convictions (as I’ve heard some pastors argue behind the scenes), they believe sexuality issues are a love of God issue and a justice issue. Far from speaking about same-sex marriage as a second-tier belief, they often frame their position as crucial to understanding the Gospel and the character of Christ. If they are to be consistent, surely they appreciate and agree that the issue at hand isn’t one where we can all agree to disagree. It’s either a primary justice and love of God matter or it isn’t.
Same-sex marriage is a primary Baptist issue for 2 clear reasons: Jesus says sex outside heterosexual marriage is a sin and the Apostle Paul refers to exclusion from God’s Kingdom and what contradicts sound doctrine and the gospel. How can we embrace that which God says excludes? That’s not God’s hate language, this is God’s loving word who desires people to have life in His name.
The ABC presenter noted the banner that was positioned behind where Belinda Groves was speaking. It says, ‘Everyone’s welcome here’.
Yes, we want our churches to be welcoming and loving and kind. Please God, may they be a community where people from any background can come and be welcomed and hear the gospel. For the most part, our churches are. However, welcoming everyone into our churches, as Baptists do, does not mean embracing every belief and practice that walks in the door. No Christian Church can function that way; indeed no sporting club, school, or political party can function according to that principle. It’s the very fact that God’s love yet profoundly disagrees with us that shook the world and led to the cross and gives hope. I sinned, and yet he loved me. I rebuffed God’s ways, and yet he leads us to repentance and new life by his Son.
If Baptists choose to say no to the orthodox view of marriage, they are free to do so, but in doing so they have made a choice to tear themselves from this Baptist fabric. It’s not what anyone wishes, but God’s gospel of love and forgiveness and reconciliation matters so much that it’s incumbent upon churches to guard the faith once for all delivered.
The process undertaken by the New South Wales/ACT Association took longer than many of the key Church Councils throughout church history. I can’t think of how many meetings and conversations and Assemblies were held over the past 10 years that finally led to Saturday’s decision. People may or may not like the process, but one thing is certain, it was pretty exhaustive and exhausting, and rightly followed Baptist principles of the churches making decisions together for the sake of the gospel and gospel unity, health and mission.
I don’t know of anyone rejoicing over Saturday’s decision to remove the 2 churches. It was a sad day. It’s appropriate to grieve the loss of these churches and be thankful that a clear majority of churches chose to stick with Scripture and the good of future Christian witness. As the media take hold of the issue, it’s pretty obvious how the game will be played and who will be painted as the bad guys. So I reckon the Apostle Peter offers a timely word, ‘don’t be afraid’.
“Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us…Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. (1 Peter 2:12; 3:13-15)
Chutzpadik: Can America Survive Without Christianity? (and what about Australia)
This is the question posed by Bari Weiss. We can certainly ask the question of Australia. It’s not as though what happens in America will necessarily follow here in Australia, but their weather conditions often blow across the Pacific Ocean.
It comes to mind that there was the prophet from Crete quoted in Titus 1:12 and Epimenides gets a mention by the Apostle in his famed Areopagus speech. And let’s not to forget the Aussie band Crowded House who are getting a mention in this week’s sermon at church. There are moments when an unbeliever says something that is true either about God or about the world or Christianity, and their commentary is worth reflecting upon.
My mate Stephen McAlpine has been talking up Bari Weiss’ podcast, Honestly. Another friend drew my attention to one recent episode which I watched with interest yesterday.
For those who are unaware, Bari Weiss isn’t a Christian. She is a former New York Times journalist who famously resigned and now writes for other publications. Weiss is agnostic (former atheist?) and Jewish and a woman who’s married to another woman. There are obviously some things here out of sync with the message of Jesus Christ, especially the New York Times! (that’s a joke, sort of). Bari Weiss is among a growing throng of intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the cultural zeitgeist and who despite their unbelief, are warming to Christianity, or at least becoming positively disposed toward some of Christianity’s historical, ethical and sociological strengths. It’s as though they recognise that when a society dismantles Christianity, it’s like removing the steel frame from a building; it loses its sturdiness and begins to succumb to the environment and weather conditions surrounding it.
I have now listened to several of Weiss’ interviews, including a recent one with Jonathan Rauch. And it’s this interview that I wish to shine a light on.
Jonathan Rauch is an American journalist and Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institute. He has a pedigree from Yale University and writing for The Economist and The Atlantic. Like Weiss, Jonathan Rauch is not a Christian. He makes that clear in this podcast episode. Indeed, Weiss introduces him as an atheist Jewish gay man. As Rauch admits during the interview, he was no friend of Christianity and Christians and yet something is changing. He says,
“20 years ago I was in the camp that said America was secularising and isn’t that great. Religion is divisive and dogmatic and we’re going to have less of it and we’re going to be like Sweden or Denmark and Scandinavia, and we’ll be happier.
I was completely wrong about that. It has been the biggest mistake of my intellectual career.”
It is worth watching the full one-hour interview, both to hear Raunch’s interesting insights, and also just to hear how two thoughtful unbelievers are now engaging with Christianity.
During the conversation with Bari Weiss, Rauch wants to argue for Christianity in the sense that it provides the necessary pillars for liberal democracy. Rauch identifies 3 key pillars of Christianity and therefore of liberal democracy:
- Don’t be afraid
- Be like Jesus
- Forgive each other.
He explains how these ideas were and remain radical and derive from the Christian faith. I would quibble about what are the pillars of Christianity and we can talk about this another time. But these 3 ideas are nonetheless revolutionary and were introduced into the world by Christianity. They have been so successful that we often take them for granted today without realising that dismantling Christianity will create significant problems for social and civil flourishing.
My interest in this interview centres on Rauch’s explanation of thin Christianity and sharp Christianity. It’s how Rauch attempts to call out and even plead with Christians to be more Christian, not less.
‘Thin Christianity’, as the adjective suggests, thins out Christian distinctive such that society finds the ideas palatable. It’s classic theological liberalism. Let’s thin out all those tricky Bible ideas that progressive society finds offensive. That kind of Christianity is still around in the United States and Australia, but it’s generally easy to spot as it’s lauded by social pundits and found in emptying churches.
Rauch also observes the rise of ‘sharp Christianity’. He looks back to the 1980s and the rise of the political evangelical but notes how this has escalated in the last 8-9 years. It is his view that among American Evangelicals there is a drift from the character of Jesus. To be clear, he’s not clumping all evangelicals under this ‘sharp’ umbrella and of course, as an unbeliever, Rauch isn’t defining these issues in a gospel and theological way. Nonetheless, his point has merit.
Rauch talks about sharp Christianity being ‘political and polarised’. He goes into some detail about how President Trump played for the conservative Christian vote and offered a seat at the White House. As Rauch notes, the promise of power is an ancient one. I’ve read enough over the years to see some evangelicals sacrificing gospel humility and clarity for an invitation to a White House prayer meeting or inside conversations with policymakers.
Interestingly Rauch differentiates between the older politicised evangelical, which was a top-down movement, and the more recent interaction which is bottom-up. I have certainly heard stories where people began attending and joining churches based on the church’s political stance.
Rauch goes on to make this rather chilling comment regarding young adults in America,
“They no longer believed that the church believed what it’s meant to believe.”
Where this is true, there’s a major problem.
The rhetoric Rauch is hearing among the ‘sharp Christians’ is,
’We don’t want to hear about turning the other cheek, we want to talk about taking back our country’.
Similar rhetoric is becoming more commonplace among some Australian Christian voices. It may not be the dominant voice, but it is certainly a noisy one and one vying for influence. Just yesterday one Christian pastor suggested I was the Devil for saying Christians should be more like Jesus instead of adding to the anger and fragmentation that’s perforating all around us.
This politicisation of Christianity has the habit of confusing the gospel, conflating Church and State, and misplacing eschatological hope by trying to drag the new creation into the present. I’ve been writing about this unseemly conjugality for several years now. It is not that Christians have nothing to say or contribute to civil society. A liberal democracy enables and needs people of faith to bring their ideas and convictions to the table. And as Jonathan Rauch recognises, a healthy liberal democracy is a fruitful branch born from Christian theism. And yet, as Jesus and the Apostles made clear distinctions between common grace and particular grace, and between the two ages in which we live, so must Christians today.
1 Peter is very much on my mind as we preach through the Petrine Epistle at church. Peter is pretty clear about where Christian hope lies, what Christian identity is, and therefore how we relate to different parts of society.
He says,
“ Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.
13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:11-17)
If our language and speech toward others is frequently out of sync with the apostle’s instructions, there is a problem.
Both thin and sharp Christianity share a common goal even if their modus operandi differs. They both aim to win influence and people and to take the culture or country; the former does so by diluting Christian doctrine and life, and the other by using Christian ideas as a sledgehammer. Both may win approval in various quarters and even notch a few political wins, and we likely lose people’s souls and dishonour the Christ whom we claim to worship and follow.
I hope we can say that we want to avoid both thin Christianity and sharp Christianity. Instead, we need a Christianity that is both thick and grace-filled, deep and clear. And the only way to do that is to become more Gospel-centred, not less, more Bible not less, and more Spirit-filled not less. Christians can engage in the public square but don’t take your script from the culture. Public speech is to be conducted out of love for our neighbours, not about punching your opponents to the ground. Engagement in the culture should be about promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not ensuring your favoured political party wins the next election. I’m not suggesting that public issues are unimportant to the Christian; but surely we have a bigger mandate and vision in mind.
Bari Weiss and Jonathan Rauch are not confessing the Lordship of Christ or believing in the atonement. But their tune has changed. Let’s pray that their appreciation of Christ becomes a genuine trust in Him. If Nicodemus the scholar could approach Jesus at night to ask questions and realise there is something true and good about Jesus, then those asking serious questions in the light of day may also find what Jesus alone can give.
Christianity isn’t a commodity, it’s about a person. Christianity is more than a political theory or ethical system, but is knowing the God of the cosmos, and being reconciled to Him because of the brutality God’s Son embraced for us. As Peter explained to the early churches,
“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God”.
There is my Gospel call for today. Let’s return to Christians. The temptation to be a thin or sharp Christian isn’t new. How many times have I now heard someone wanting to be John Knox!
There is warrant to Rauch’s complaint, even if he falls short of where we need to be in following Jesus. Don’t be a thin Christian or a sharp Christian. Instead, be a Jesus Christian (as if there’s another kind!). For one final time, press closely to what Peter the Apostle instructs. Take a couple of minutes to read what Peter says and reflect upon our public voice in light of these verses. Sure, it’s unlikely to win an election or change society overnight, but it is better and it is desperately what the world needs of Christians today,
“Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,
“Whoever would love life
and see good days
must keep their tongue from evil
and their lips from deceitful speech.
They must turn from evil and do good;
they must seek peace and pursue it.
For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”
Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.’ (1 Peter 3:8-16)
If Peter’s exhortation grates on us, then take that as God’s alarm going off and seek his grace to work out how your heart might more align with His.
Does Daniel help Christians respond to the NSW Conversion Laws?
The NSW Parliament last week adopted a set of laws prohibiting the conversion of or suppression of peoples sexuality orientation and gender identity. The laws are not as extreme as those in the State of Victoria, nonetheless, there is clear government overreach.
Yes, these new laws in places are bad. They are bad because they introduce needless restrictions on normal Christian faith and practice. They are bad laws because they are defending against practices that are mostly mythical. The laws are bad because they take a smidgen of truth and a lot of illegitimate and aggressive sexology (to use Stephen Mcalpine’s word). The are bad laws because the give Government greater authority over religion (which is an odd position for anyone positing that we are a secular country).
Associate Professor Neil Foster has written a helpful explanation of what the laws do and do not mean and where is ambiguity. I would encourage people to read Foster’s article in light of some misinformation that is floating around and being circulated as fact.
However, Christians have begun to respond to these new laws. I’ve noticed more than a few turning to the Old Testament prophet, Daniel, and have begun quoting that famous incident that landed him in a lion’s den. I happen to think the story of Daniel is one of many helpful Bible places we can turn to as a guide and encouragement. But if we’re going to use Daniel ch.6 for our stump speech, there are a couple of details we need to first take into account.
Firstly, what kind of presence are we in society?
Notice how Babylon’s officials and powerbrokers describe Daniel,
“At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.” (Daniel 6:4-5)
Daniel is a wonderful example to Christians today. There is something that particularly resonates with us about the life and times of Daniel for he was an exile living away from his home, as are all Christians today. He is living and working in a context with foreign gods and ideas dominate the horizon and we’re worshipping God is part of a small minority. Part of the wisdom that we glean from the book of Daniel, and it is a book of wisdom, is how Daniel adapted to life in Babylon and worked hard and judiciously for the common good, and yes obeyed pagan Kings, yet without compromising faithfulness to the one true God.
There have been an inflation of open letters and public declarations of late, mostly from a particular quarter of the Christian faith. These are often highlighting genuine issues, but their content and tone often fall short of usefulness. As someone who has had moments in the past when I’ve employed too many strong adjectives, I’m more conscious these days about precision and not overblowing a situation. It is advisable to read and research before putting your name to a public statement.
As the enraged mood takes hold of so many quarters of society, a Christian voice should be different, but sometimes it is as angry and hyperbolic and therefore indistuishable from others. For example, if your public record is filled with distain for authorities and governments and making antiauthoritarian claims whenever you disagree with a policy or law, when a legitimate concern finally arises, why would those in positions of authority listen to you? It’s like the percussionist in a Symphony Orchestra who is always smashing the symbols as hard as she can strike and often out of time with the rest of the Orchestra. Soon enough the orchestra is going to send you down to the basement and lock you out!
Who wants to listen to the guy who is always shouting at everyone? Who takes seriously the voices who are decrying every issue as a threat to freedom and democracy and religion?
Defiance seems to be the default modus operandi for too many Christians today. However, this shouldn’t be our baseline approach to life in the world and it’s certainly not the way Daniel approached life in Babylon.
There will be some other Christians who have no issue with the new laws in NSW and who are trying to con us into thinking that anyone criticising the law is pulling a furphy. I suspect they’ll be among those who volunteer to be part of the firing squad.
Second, notice how Daniel responded to the unreasonable law.
“Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. So they went to the king…”
Daniel continues with what was his normal practice. He didn’t make a song and dance out of it. He simply continued to faithfully pray to God three times a day.
Daniel’s praying wasn’t attention seeking, or brash, he wasn’t revving up the social temperature or resorting to hyperbolic claims or allegations. The window was always open and he carried on as he had always done, with humility and faithfulness.
The problem is, and I understand because I know the injustice of the Victorian laws, too many people are wanting to be David swinging a rock at Goliath’s head, rather than a humble Daniel who went about faithfully serving the Lord and serving the common good of the city where he lived.
In case we think, maybe Daniel is just a one off, I’m about to start a new sermon series at Mentone Baptist on 1 Peter. With little imagination required, I’ve given our series the title, ‘Living away from home’. Like Daniel, Christians are exiles and sojourners, and Peter helpfully explains how Christians ought to live as exiles. In one place he says this,
“Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (1 Peter 3:13-17)
There is a sense in which we are to embrace suffering for the Lord’s sake. And the manner in which we do also matters according to Peter. Gentleness and respect…not resorting to malicious speech but with good behaviour. So like Daniel and Peter, choose faithfulness, and like Daniel and Peter (and Jesus), part of faithfulness is speaking and behaving with utmost integrity and with grace and refusing to be that clanging cymbal.
Would you sell out Jesus for $4.37 billion?
‘What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? ‘
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Nah, ‘surely not’, says the entrepreneur hungry for another dollar. As long as there is commerce, trade, and ingenuity, people have contended Jesus is wrong. You can have riches and God. You can have wealth and religion.
Why choose between the two? Can’t we have both, Jesus and a growing portfolio? Perhaps not $4 billion; let’s drop it down to a more reasonable $4 million, enough to live comfortably but not so much that my face and portfolio are splashed in The Australian.
It’s an Aussie dream story: success, celebrity status, and a partnership with Ferrari. Wouldn’t we follow these steps given the chance?
The Gospel of Luke tells the occasion when a young influencer makes a pitstop in front of Jesus while on the way to the Grand Prix (yes, there’s a touch of creative licence in this storytelling, but the point remains the same). Careful not to step his $1200 sneakers in a puddle beside the road, he approached Jesus. He was impressed by the man of Nazareth. This Jesus had a way with words and what he touched turned into something amazing. Jesus is useful.
This young dude introduced himself and spoke respectfully to Jesus. He may be young, but he was already enjoying his prosperity. He was going places, but there was this nagging question lurking at the back of his head: did he have it all?
So he asked Jesus, ‘“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus then went through a list, spelling out the requirements of God’s law: Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, and so on.
This pleased the man because he felt pretty solid on those grounds. But then Jesus went where the man did not want to go: his heart.
“You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
“When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Wealth remains one of the world’s great con jobs. It promises happiness and success and adventure and respect, and yet it is among the worst of addictions. Wealth can be obtained through family and through hard work. Many creative geniuses have made discoveries or invented new technologies that benefit society and have made a fortune through the process. Others have made millions through theft or deceit. And then there is gambling.
Laurence Escalante is Australia’s 32nd wealthiest person, with a personal fortune of $4.37 Billion. There is a feature story in today’s The Australian, with Laurence Escalante sharing his rags-to-riches journey, and from religion to Los Vegas.
Laurence Escalante grew up in a religious family, first attending a Catholic Church and then joining a large Pentecostal Church in Perth. Speaking to John Stensholt, he said,
“At the time I was very much into faith and religion. I was an acolyte”.
Apparently, Escalante has previously served as a church treasurer and started a Christian gaming company. In the vein of typically cringey Christian products, Escalante made video games based on Timothy and Titus, where players venture not to shoot all the bad guys, but to share the good news.
He left this debt-inducing business and subsequently started a new and massively successful business: casino games.
I’m interested in the way John Stensholt writes. Even he, a journalist, can sense the clash of worlds between Escalante’s Christianity and his worldly lifestyle. The article begins,
“If things had gone according to plan, Laurence Escalante would have had a career developing Christian computer games based on the Apostle Paul’s disciples, Timothy and Titus.
It may have been a decent earner, but it’s unlikely to have brought the level of success the 43-year-old has quickly attained in a decidedly less pious way and allowed him to live what is – judging from his social media accounts – quite the hedonistic lifestyle.”
And notice the headline, Saint to sinner? Or just a migrant kid who can now afford a jet. Even the editors can spot the scam.
Instead of bringing the good news of Jesus to the cyber world, Escalante is now making billions from the credit of the greedy and the foolish and the vulnerable. Stensholt can spot the contradiction, as can many a reader, but what about Escalante?
It would be interesting to hear how Laurence Escalante squares this with Jesus.
The podcast episode accompanying the article is tagged, ‘Guided by God to an online gambling fortune’. I’m not sure whether this is Escalante’s personal view or it’s an editorial interpretation. Either way, it’s not true. Can you imagine, ‘Guided by God to commit adultery’ or Guided by God to steal from my neighbour’? Neither can I. But how often do we reconfigure God in order to justify the life decisions we are making, regardless of what God has actually said (take a look at the Bible).
He wants to assure readers,
“While admitting he isn’t as religious as he once was, Escalante insists he is no sinner. He reckons he doesn’t worry about his reputation, and says he is simply revelling in success earned from hard work and learning from previous business failures.
“I’m having fun, enjoying life,” he says in a rare interview. “Being in the moment. I’ve always been that sort of person, [wanting] to enjoy life.
“I was always into cars; I just didn’t have the means to enjoy them. Now I can afford a jet … You have to enjoy life. You never know when it could disappear.”
Nowhere does Jesus say we can’t have fun in life and enjoy ourselves. But chasing the good life without God is like investing in counterfeit money and pouring your life savings into a scam. Are you running on a high? Sure, until reality hits home.
‘Those who trust in their riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.’ (Proverbs 11:28)
‘Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle.’ (Proverbs 23:5)
It is one thing to have wealth and it is another thing to consider how to be good stewards of our wealth. And it is an altogether different moral category when exploring by what means we accumulate our wealth.
But why choose between the two? Can’t we have both, Jesus and a growing portfolio? It’s an Aussie dream story: success, celebrity status, and a partnership with Ferrari. Wouldn’t we follow in his steps given half the chance? Before we throw the first cricket ball at Escalante, we might do well to consider our own hearts.
That’s the thing, Laurence Escalante is a God to riches story, and the appeal is strong. It’s easy to throw stones at this billionaire but what if we share his spiritual DNA? He’s simply succeeded where many more Aussies dream. Human nature hasn’t changed over thousands of years, and Jesus’ words are as sharp and confronting today as they were 2 millennia ago. We all too easily sell the soul for a few years of splashed excess.
Gambling is one of Australia’s favourite evils. We gamble in greater numbers than nearly every other nation on earth. We know it’s harmful. We know it destroys lives and families, and yet from Government to Sport, we’ve created this entanglement where we require gambling to sustain community projects and our appetite for a high standard of living.
To be clear, Escalante’s online casino games are illegal in Australia (from what I gather); he makes his money mostly from customers in the United States and in smaller countries like Malta.
Gambling is about playing on your hope through chance. It’s playing the odds as a means to change your life circumstances. Like every good addiction, gambling promises much and lies like porn. It exploits vulnerable people and strips them of further dignity, security and relationships.
If Escalante believes Jesus is okay with his billions, I urge him to think again.
How different is Jesus’ approach? Jesus isn’t utilitarian. He counted the cost. He chose sacrifice, even atonement for the sins of many. Jesus didn’t exploit the poor, he gave his life as a ransom for many. Instead of mingling with Melbourne’s celebrity culture over caviar and champagne at the Grand Prix, Jesus picked up the pieces left behind and gave life. He welcomed the humble and repentant, whether rich or poor.
That’s part of the problem, isn’t it? We want everything. How often are we told that we deserve everything? We create a list of desires and expect God to contribute, as though he owes us. It may not be a $ amount or material possessions, but likability or recognition or career success. What kind of screwed-up view of God that is. The very premise is mistaken. We neither deserve everything nor can we. If we treat Jesus like the non-essential extra to life, then not only do we miss out on Jesus, but in the end we’ll lose the lot.
What does Jesus tell us,
‘For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:35-38)
But what would Jesus know?
20 Lessons from 20 years of Pastoral Ministry
‘after all, is Apollos? And what is Paul? Only servants, through whom you came to believe—as the Lord has assigned to each his task. I planted the seed, Apollos watered it, but God has been making it grow.’
20 years ago today I was inducted as Pastor of Mentone Baptist Church. I won’t lie, it feels like 20 years! Our 3 children have literally grown up in the church. Prior to 2005, Susan and I had spent several years preparing for this scenario. I had always loved serving in my local church, although I had zero desire to move into pastoral ministry. It turned out that God had other plans. My pastor at Camberwell Baps was gracious enough to give me opportunities to teach the Bible; that idea of speaking and sharing God’s words with people got my heart pumping. But an immature 19 year old, is just that, an immature 19 year old! After finishing uni and getting married, Susan and I moved to London and then to Sydney, for training and gaining experience in churches, so that we could return to Melbourne and serve Christ here.
We returned to Melbourne from our place of exile and started at Mentone Baptist Church on February 6 2005.
I’ve wrestled with this for the past week, should I say something about the 20 years or not. I guess it is an anniversary of sorts. As some readers will be aware, I’m someone who writes more than a few words. Through this blog and writing for both Christian and secular publications, I enjoy talking about the gospel and trying to help others think through issues from the lens of scripture. I also love talking about music and cricket, and sharing with friends what my kids are up to and all their latest adventures. Talking about myself, isn’t something I generally do (leaving aside the compulsory self-effacing sermon jokes). I am conscious about not making Murray Campbell the topic of somethingness. It’s hard enough to see Jesus clearly, without my oddities standing in the way!
It was only this morning, as I read my Bible and read those verses in 1 Corinthians 3, that I decided, maybe I’ll put a few thoughts together. Maybe there is something I have learned from serving one church for 20 years that might be helpful to pastors elsewhere. Although, the last impression I want to suggest is that pastoral ministry is about the pastor. I’m not looking for praise (or the inverse!). And serving in the same church for 20 years doesn’t make the work any more or less important than pastors who only serve a few years. I’m also aware of how every church differs in some ways, and that means my particular experiences aren’t identical to a pastor who is serving in Mildura or Maroochydore. Then again, every minister of the Gospel shares the same Bible, the same mission and message, so perhaps similarities and parallels are not so few and far apart.
Here are 20 lessons that I have learned over 20 years of serving at Mentone Baptist Church. It’s not as though I didn’t believe or was unaware of many of these lessons prior to coming to Mentone. And it’s not as though I’ve reached the apex for these 20 themes. Most things in the Christian life are repetitive and a day by day process of sanctification. I’m not planning to provide detailed explanations and examples for these 20 lessons, but rather to note them in passing.
1. I still have much to learn.
I am often amazed at how little I know and how little I understand of the Scriptures and I’m excited at the prospect of continuing to dig deeper and discover more wonders of God in his word.
I’m still learning how to Shepherd a local church. Our Elders are currently reading Andrew Heard’s provocative book, Growth and Change, and am enjoying discussing penetrating questions about ministry and mission. It’s great. I love how the elders (and church) want to keep moving forward in the Gospel and to be more effective in seeing God’s Kingdom growing.
2. God answers prayer.
He really does. When the church has prayed, we have seen God work. Which begs the question, why do we pray so little?
3. God’s Gospel is powerful.
Just last year, our church heard testimonies and witnessed baptisms where the reality of Jesus Christ compelled and changed people’s lives. We have more planned in the early part of 2025. It is so strange to me to hear of churches smudging or avoiding clear and faithful presentation of the Gospel, as though that’s the best strategy for faithfulness and growth. So weird.
4. I’m still learning patience.
I like to run fast but there’s little point sprinting if the church isn’t ready. Sometimes though, I could probably encourage our leaders and members to walk a little faster!
5. God’s word really is beautiful and true and complete.
At Mentone, we use the Bible lots and we want to present God’s words in a way that reflects the treasure that it is. How amazing it is that God has given us a living word that speaks truth and grace today. That’s why we have 2 bible readings every Sunday morning and why we make sure our ministries, from Sunday school to youth group and 1-1 discipleship involve opening, reading and living out his word
6. People will hurt you (and at times you’re no saint either)
Learning to process hurt isn’t quick or easy. Having trusted and godly leaders is really important for working through these times.
7. I’m more convinced about the value of having a plurality of leaders.
The eldership hear me talking about this all the time. We want to grow the number of elders. A church needs a plurality of leaders: from pastors and elders, to deacons, and all kinds of lay ministry leaders. Paul didn’t lay out a paradigm in Ephesians 4 for us to ignore!
8. Make sure the eldership consists of godly men who share a broad breadth of personality, experience and skills.
A church requires greater wisdom than that of one pastor. However, we insist that there is profound and convinced agreement and unity on the church’s doctrine and direction.
9. Trying to set an example for others is hard.
The Bible says that pastors ought to set an example of life and godliness for the believers. It’s a balancing act, trying to share and show how I live outside the pulpit and yet doing so without handing out an autobiography each week.
10. Don’t do everything.
Set early and clear expectations and boundaries and be okay with saying ‘no’. Teach your congregation to be okay in hearing, ‘no’.
11. Membership really is important.
I believed this 20 years ago, and as the years have progressed I’ve become more convinced. Expressive individuals is a scourge on churches and hamstrings Gospel witness and effectiveness. Jesus meant every word when he said, “Love one another. As I have loved you, so you must love one another. By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Want to impact the world for Jesus? Then join a church and love the saints.
12. I will make mistakes and that’s ok.
13. The fear of losing people is common, but not dealing with problems generally makes the situation worse.
14. Technology is a curse.
Ok, not entirely. Tech is both good and bad, a useful servant and a terrible master. As technology changes, churches will often adopt and adapt and yet we also need to be wise in its use. Too often churches begin paying a cost without first thinking through behavioural changes that come about through smart phones or AI. Hey, even schools are now recognising these dangers!
I remember Carl Trueman suggesting once that the invention of the car changed people’s behaviours in ways that negatively impacted the local church. Cars are great, what a blessing it is to be able to move about easily and speedily. Cars give people more freedom and as Trueman explains, people started taking long weekends and pursuing more activities, and this turn impacted church attendance and participation. In other words, the car impacted the ministry and mission of the local church and does so even today.
15. We still need to cultivate a better culture of disciple making.
We talk about it and preach on it and we practice it in all kinds of ways, but I think we are yet to be convinced of how important discipleship is to the health and maturity of church.
16. Repetition is key to cultural change (thinking of point 14).
I’m learning that I need to say the same thing over and over again, and when I’ve done that, I need to repeat it again. I’m also trying to encourage our leaders to press repeat so that messages sink in and therefore lead to changed expectations or behaviours or whatever it is we’re trying to move forward.
Part of the issue isn’t reluctance from people, but leaders remembering that people live busy lives and their heads aren’t in the church 24//7 as mine is.
17. Church history is amazing and it matters.
I don’t need to be sold on history. I’ve always enjoyed reading history books and watching documentaries, even as a 3-year-old kid. I studied history at Melbourne University.
Many years later, I am more persuaded that churches should appreciate and understand that who we are today is the result of the sacrifices, thinking, preaching and lives of the saints from old. Churches make mistakes, take wrong turns, and lean into theological mess because we haven’t learned the lessons of church history.
We ran a course last year on Reformation history and this year we are talking about the Council of Nicaea.
18. Protecting my day off was a great idea.
Pastoral ministry isn’t just a job, it is a way of life. Family is family and church is also family. This makes setting boundaries often murky and imprecise. Susan and I have always wanted our children to view church as a family, and yet we never wanted to sacrifice them at the altar of ministry. I’m thankful for the clear and flexible boundaries that Susan and I set together and which the church embraced.
19. Theological liberalism is an easy gospel enemy to spot, but there is an emerging conservatism that we need to be aware of and keep away from the church.
Christian Nationalism which conflates common grace with the Gospel, and Church with State, is a growing concern not only in the United States but also in segments of Australian Churches.
This isn’t a biggy at Mentone Baps, but knowing this flavoured heresy is gaining popularity in some circles, I have already begun talking about these issues in sermons and discipleship (and of course on this blog). The Gospel is neither left nor right. Our mission isn’t defined by a side of politics, but by the Lordship of Christ and his Gospel that brings the forgiveness of sins.
20. There is so much work do to.
When all is said and done, the most pressing issue today remains the eternal state of people in light of the coming judgement of God. How many millions of people in Melbourne may know their left hand and right but are oblivious to Christ the judge and Christ the redeemer?
Pastoral ministry is the worst job in the world. Pastoral ministry is the best job in the world. I get to see and be part of people’s highest and lowest moments of life, to share their joys and sorrows. Pastors have the terrifying responsibility to preach the full counsel of God and dare suggest, see my life and follow my pattern of living. And we do, knowing that God will hold us to account for how we have shepherded his people. It really is a work that people should avoid and embrace.
I don’t spend a lot of time looking back over the years. To be honest, if you asked me for particular highlights in any given previous year, I may not be able to tell you with any precision. When I do reflect on the 20 years, I do so with some embarrassment and also much thankfulness: for Susan and my children, for a church that was patient and kind and who looks after the staff so well, and for God who never lets us down.
Mentone’s current associate pastor, Mike Veith has now been with us for 14 years in this role (and as a student pastor for 2 years before then), so that’s a milestone for which I am thankful.
I realise that 20 years in one church sounds a little bit unusual, but I know pastors who have served their churches for a great deal many more years. I think of Philip Calman from whom I learned so much during my 4 years at Chatswood Baptist as a student. He has been serving as their senior pastor for 28 years and counting. Praise God!
These are 20 of the lessons I’m learning from my 20 years at Mentone Baptist Church. There are many others, but perhaps among this this 20 there is something that might strike a note or encourage another pastor in their work for the Lord.
Sola Deo Gloria
3 Reasons for reciting the Nicene Creed
People enjoy a big celebration. Whether it is a family birthday, school anniversary or national holiday, people swing into the mood and remember significant milestones: often with food, music and fireworks.
This year, Christians worldwide are commemorating the 1700th Anniversary of one of Christianity’s pivotal moments: the Council of Nicaea. I’m not anticipating fireworks, but this is an anniversary worth celebrating.
I get it, 1700 years sounds and feels like an awful long time ago; that’s because it is! But this length of time doesn’t mean that Nicaea is irrelevant or unhelpful to us today. At Mentone Baptist this year, we’ll be joining with churches from Edinburgh to Egypt, as we affirm the Nicene Creed together and find helpful ways to reflect upon this historic event.
Some people love history, and others not so much. That’s ok. Not every Christian needs to read up on Athanasius and Basil, but neither is if sound or safe for churches to divorce themselves from the hard work these early theologians fought and affirmed, for the benefit of Christ’s mission in the world.
One of the basic rules of life is that who we are today is shaped by what has happened in the past. If we want to understand today, learn history. If we want to secure our churches in something more concrete than the latest weather predictions for Melbourne, ground our people and ministries in the deep truths of the faith, revealed by the Holy Spirit in Scripture, and helpfully posited in these documents known as Creeds.
To this day, churches around the world affirm four Creeds, all 4 were written in the first centuries AD. The Creeds don’t hold the same authority as the Bible, but they are nonetheless accepted as faithful and authoritative documents for churches, whether Anglican or Baptist, Charismatic, Orthodox or Catholic. Creeds are not the only theological statements that churches value. In addition to Creeds, down the centuries churches have produced Confessions; these were predominately written during the Reformation and post-Reformation centuries. It may surprise some readers to learn that it’s not the Presys who stood at the front of this queue, it is the Baptists who produced more Confessions than anyone! Confessions don’t sit in opposition to the Creeds nor do they claim similar standing, but they often provide further details on not only central doctrines but also secondary matters (including church polity). On a third and more local tier, denominations and Christian organisations normally have their own statement of faith, which marks out basic requirements for joining.
There are some church traditions today that still value the Creeds and where discipling new believers includes at least recognition of the Creeds. For many other churches, Creeds have largely fallen behind the pew and are collecting dust. What I want to do here is suggest 3 reasons why we should shake off the dust, copy and paste into PowerPoint and declare as churches ‘what we believe’.
1. Creeds are a way to summarise key Christian beliefs.
Creeds are not essays or sermons, they are a set of short and carefully worded statements that summarise foundational Christian beliefs, especially in regard to the nature of our Triune God.
It shouldn’t surprise most readers that I’m a sola Scriptura kind of guy. I wholeheartedly affirm the complete truthfulness and sufficiency of the Bible. I believe that the Bible is the final authority for matters pertaining to life and doctrine. But as theologians will rightly note, the reformation principle isn’t solo Scriptura, as though we only carry a Bible around with us and ignore the law or medical textbooks or systematic theologies.
When a visitor comes to church and asks what Mentone Baptist Church believes, I could simply hand them a Bible without uttering a word. We love giving away Bibles to people, to the joy of the office who are constantly replenishing our supplies. A visitor might ask, what do we believe about the incarnation or about the Holy Spirit? Straight away, as I speak, I am offering an explanation in using words and summarising the Bible’s teaching on that topic. I am synthesising in a pithy way (or convoluted as can be the case) what the Bible teaches. I’m already systematising and trying to explain our church’s beliefs. One of the benefits of Creeds (and statements of faith) is that they lay out in short form, what we mean by particular important doctrines. There are wiser heads than me who have done the hard work and created these useful summaries.
2. Creeds are a way to guard churches against false doctrine and the misuse of Bible words.
As one of the leaders at my church said recently, Creeds are useful for exposing cults and making clear distinctions between Christianity and other religions. For example, we are Trinitarians, not Muslims or Jehovah’s Witnesses.
How often have I heard someone say, ‘I believe in the Bible’ but when we’ve unpacked their ideas, I discover that they are misusing Bible verses and words.
Reciting a Creed as a church communicates something important to a visitor and it reminds church members of what we do believe. It’s easy for us to forget or even subconsciously drift from sound teaching. Creeds can serve as a useful reminder and correction.
The Creeds function not only to guard against what is false, they are primarily positive documents of what we affirm. For this end, they are helpful catechising tools and encouraging congregational reminders.
The Nicene Creed, for example, addresses particular theological issues that were being debated at the time. Nicaea didn’t create Christian beliefs about the Trinity and Jesus’ nature, rather they articulated and affirmed the Scriptures. Nicaea was important for drawing a line between Christian faith and Arius and his buddies (who were denying key aspects of Jesus Being and of the Trinity). This time situation doesn’t make Nicaea culture and time-bound like a Cyndi Lauper song. The Nicene Creed was universally adopted and quickly became a key document for churches to spell out what we believe.
Any quick read of the Creeds and we notice there are important issues not addressed. For example, not much is made of what has become today a massive issue: anthropology; what does it mean to be a man and a woman? No one says that the Creeds are saying everything important or that the only definition for who’s in and who’s out are the Creeds. Although I suspect, where Christians drift from the Bible on anthropology, they have probably already fallen away from Nicaea at some pivotal junction.
3. Creeds are a way to avoid cultish tendencies and express unity with churches across time and space.
In other words, we are not claiming special knowledge or being the only faithful church. We are not making up what we believe or deviating from the Christian faith, but are in line with historic and orthodox Christianity.
Carl Truman makes the interesting observation, that today’s expressive individualism is one reason why Christians are uncomfortable with Creeds and Confessions. The idea that there is a standard to which Christians should conform and shape their lives, is anathema to a culture that values ‘my truth’ over truth. This is one of the mistakes that some Baptists make when they place personal liberty and freedom of conscience as the highest value. Freedom of conscience is important, but it should not reign above God or be used to justify explaining away what God has spoken. Freedom of conscience for the Christian necessarily sits under the authority of Scripture.
I find it amusing that some who suggest, ‘no Creed but the Bible’, often don’t believe their own 5 word confession. Such anti-creedalists can often be found arguing for the Holy Spirit speaking new words outside of and beyond the Bible. How often have I heard the ‘no Creed but the Bible’ crowd argue for changing doctrine because of human experience and using current ethical theories as the key interpretive grid for reading and even removing parts of the Bible.
At the other end of the spectrum, are neo-fundamentalists, who with their KJVs (not knocking the translation, just the ‘KJV alone’ fan club), claim to be among the few remaining faithful believers on the planet. Creeds protect churches from cultish tendencies, like a road that keeps cars from swerving into houses and rivers and other obstacles.
There is something Gospel-minded and positive about recognising and giving thanks for Christ’s Churches scattered around our cities and countries, and throughout history. We are not the only holders of the truth. We stand with and stand on millions of churches and saints who have gone before us. Being a follower of Jesus can be isolating and lonely (join a church!). By declaring the Creeds we are reminding one another that we are not alone, but there is a great chorus heard even in heaven, of millions upon millions affirming the wonders of God and his salvation. Of course, we can do all this without Creeds, but these historic documents of the living faith will certainly add to this universal and joyful union.
Have you considered talking about and even reciting the Nicene Creed at your church this year?
A letter to the Prime Minister about child gender therapy and a view to real mercy
“The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him;” (Daniel 9:9)
100 notable Australians have written a letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling for a federal inquiry into kids gender therapy. The list of signatories includes senior medical professionals, academics, and politicians including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson. Lest we think this is a partisan statement, the names attached to the letter belong across the political spectrum.
I commend the letter to the Prime Minister, and indeed, to Victoria’s Premier Jacinta Allan.
This letter has been written off the back of growing evidence that vulnerable children are being led to permanent life-altering procedures without sufficient medical or ethical reasoning. Earlier this week, the Queensland Government was forced to act and pause transitioning procedures on minors when a hospital was allegedly caught performing dangerous procedures on children as young as 12, without the consent of parents. Also this week in the United States, President Trump signed an executive order, stopping Federal support for the gender transitioning of young people.
These actions are but the latest of a growing number of Governments around the world who have pulled the plug on radical gender interventions. Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, France and New Zealand are among the countries who are taking action to ban, or at least pause, medical intervention on children suffering from gender dysphoria.
It took the bravery of young people in Great Britain to sound the alarm, young adults who at the time were children and subjected to the transitioning movement in the UK health system. The result was the CASS review (2024). The doors were blown open and the UK Government was forced to shut down the Tavistock Clinic and hit the emergency button to stop pumping children with hormones, chemicals and even surgical procedures. Despite the preaching by gender progressives, evidence is scant (if not fabricated) that children are better off having body parts amputated or chemicals injected into their bodies.
The days of using children in the service of gender theories are numbered. I believe this is one of the great evils of our time, for it cuts against the very nature of being human, and being male and female. It is to our shame that our society ever encouraged such ideas. Governments may wait until they are swamped with legal action or they can take the moral ground and take action now.
Obviously, there are all kinds of important issues here. The note that I wish to sound in this particular article is one of mercy. Mercy is a word that has been used a lot over the past week in relation to gender and children. It is a word that can be used and misused, applied and misapplied, and so in light of the letter to Australia’s Prime Minister, I would like to add a word of mercy.
The question of gender fluidity and children changing genders is often framed around acceptance and intolerance, affirmation or bigotry. Unfortunately, this kind of binary approach is unhelpful and is often untrue. It isn’t hatred to affirm biology and to believe that biology determines gender. Neither is it intolerance to appreciate that there are children (and some adults) who struggle to accept their physical bodies and the gender that comes with that. Words matter.
We need to differentiate between these children who deserve our love and care, and those who promote the ideology of gender fluidity and who are responsible for inflicting lifelong damage onto these children.
For example, when Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde recently called for mercy and compassion, she wasn’t asking Americans to save children from gender therapy. She was calling on President Trump to affirm their gender confusion and enable the very social and medical processes that we know to be unethical and harmful. The Bishop may have used some of Jesus’ language but her meaning is a world apart from the kind of mercy Jesus offers and that we all need. We may or may not approve of President Trump and much of his character and rhetoric, but his latest executive order is sensible. As the letter to the Prime Minister demonstrates, the concerns are not left or right, but moral and medical.
I realise that there are some who have caste doubts over this interpretation of Budde’s views. But I am simply accepting her teaching. Words have meaning. The Bishop of Washington DC has expressed her views on sexuality and gender on other occasions, and lest she has experienced a Damascus road repentance in the last few weeks, her meaning in the sermon corresponds to her regular teachings.
The notion of Divine mercy is too good and holy for us to revise or use in the service of political progressivism (and political conservatism).
Mercy is showing kindness. Mercy is not telling children lies or encouraging them to believe in mistaken identities and shuffling them off to a hospital for puberty blockers and even castration. As the letter to the Prime Minister intimates, there are better ways.
Mercy involves patience and love, and hope. Mercy doesn’t deny reality or brush aside physical or psychological anxieties but learns to sit and journey with someone until the light of day.
As a Christian, mercy takes a Christ-like shape. I think of the episode when Jesus met a Samaritan woman (John ch.4). As far as society was concerned, this particular woman had 3 strikes against her name and so ostracising her was considered the right thing to do: She was a a woman, she was a Samaritan, and she had sexually broken past. Jesus didn’t follow those rules of engagement. Jesus didn’t reject her, he showed compassion. He engaged in conversation with her. He didn’t ignore or pretend that her sexual history was unimportant, but rather, Jesus went further and showed mercy. Mercy didn’t involve encouraging her to pursue sexual sin or impropriety. He revealed to her the hope of Israel and through this offered her living water that would quench her thirst forever.
Churches who choose to mimic the message by Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde are more damnable than any other group in society, for they claim to speak in the name of God and offer faux mercy.
Churches, if your community is not already a safe place of truth and kindness, goodness and mercy, you are not ready to receive the growing number of young Australians who need to know of the hope of the gospel. If your view of mercy means accepting the culture’s latest gender theory, then your church is not ready to care for those who experience trauma and who are struggling with their body, mind and soul.
What did the Apostle Paul say,
“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”
Prime Minister please listen to the concerns outlined in the letter. And Churches, learn mercy from Christ and not from our culture’s talking points.
As Jesus said, ‘go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’
Update: January 31st, 1:45pm, Federal Health Minister Mark Butler has ordered a “comprehensive review” into gender therapy practices for children in Australia. This is a good step. Let’s pray that it is indeed a ‘comprehensive review’. I will add, that until such review is complete, all such ‘therapies’ and practices should be paused, to avoid causing further harm to countless children
Do we need another Creed?
A new declaration, ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity,’ was launched late last year. I hadn’t heard of this Sex Creed until a friend on Facebook made a comment before Christmas, and another friend messaged me about it. Since then, I’ve read the website and asked for friends’ opinions. One question that immediately came to mind is, do we need another Creed?
I love and appreciate a good Creed. Indeed, to this day, the universal church subscribes to four formal Creeds: The Apostles, The Nicene, The Athanasian, and Chalcedon.
Despite the rumours, Baptists affirm the ancient Creeds. To be sure, some baptists insist upon the mantra, ‘no creed but the bible’, but they do so ignoring much of Baptist history and overlooking the Creedal material found in the Bible itself. Leaving aside that in-house debate, what do I think of the ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’?
First, I want to commend the idea of addressing biblical anthropology. There is merit (if not necessity) for churches, denominations, and paragroups to clarify and confess a Christian understanding of sex, gender, and the Gospel. What it means to be human is one of the biggest issues of our time. It is one reason why theologians like Brian Rosner and Carl Trueman are writing important volumes on the subject. Scholars like Dani Treweek and Christian apologists including Rebecca McLaughlin are speaking to vital questions surrounding human sexuality and being. It isn’t hyperbole to say that our society is confused about what it means to be a man and a woman. Even more basic, we live in an age that is increasingly unclear about what it means to be human. This haze easily hovers over and influences Christians in the pew. It is not easy to be a Christian in the workplace or at school and believe what the Bible affirms about marriage and sex.
It is the role of pastors to preach the full council of God, and with grace and gentleness teach the Bible’s vision for human sexuality and gender. It is incumbent upon denominational heads and Christian organisations to ensure we are guarding the faith and protecting the people under our care by providing sufficient affirmation of and clarity on these topics.
Churches need greater clarity and conviction on the Bible’s teaching on humanity, not less. We need better discipling in our churches to help people think in a Bible and Gospel way about what it means to be human. Accompanying truth, we need oceans of grace, kindness and patience. How we draw lines in the sand matters.
So what about the, ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’?
There are a number of church and parachurch leaders who have signed the document, although that number remains tiny in comparison to the actual number of denominational and church leaders across the country. Several notable evangelical leaders have signed, as well as a number of friends of mine, men for whom I have great respect and personal friendship.
(As a quick aside, I was amazed as I read the list to note how many Christian organisations exist in Australia. I had never heard of some of the organisations. It feels as though every Bob, Jane, and pet dog has its own registered ministry organisation, which all sounds very significant and important! The list also includes Roman Catholics, secular professionals, and a few from overseas.)
At this stage, I have 4 questions/observations, which I have asked of others and haven’t yet found adequate answers.
First, who wrote the Creed? The authors’ names are not published anywhere. From what I have gleaned after asking a friend who signed the Creed, a group called the Canberra Declaration is behind it. Apparently, there are so many people involved, that they didn’t wish to identify specific authors. That doesn’t quite wash given that if 100 people were involved, there would yet only be a small handful of people editing and finalising the end product. Knowing who is behind the document is important.
Second, while there is good theology contained in the statements (for which I’m thankful), where is the Gospel? The final article mentions forgiveness, but for a document that is supposed to summarise the Christian view on sexuality and gender, there is little weight given to the Gospel of grace and no attention offered to the eschatological vision for human sexuality and gender. In these two ways, the statement is lacking.
Third, I find the language of ‘Creed’ problematic. A Creed by definition is authoritative and formal and is universally recognised. This is one reason why in the history of the Church, the number of recognised Creeds is incredibly small: fourto be exact. Throughout history, other types of important documents have been written. For example, there are Confessions of Faith, which are more numerous than Creeds, and which hold weight for Christians within particular denominations or movements. Creeds, however, are considered more weighty. Even during the Reformation, which produced countless Confessions and Statements, the Reformers didn’t propose further Creeds. In the waves of 20th Century liberalism, where almost every Christian doctrine has been attacked or undermined by progressivism, Churches have not written a new Creed.
According to their website, the category of Creed is deliberate. On more than one occasion they refer to the Nicene Creed and assume a similar position for ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’.
“Every era has its particular heresies. In the 21st century, heresies abound in the area of human sexuality. The church has not been immune to these errors. We believe the time has come for a new creed that affirms the timeless teachings of the church regarding sexual integrity, and that articulates God’s glorious design for sex and marriage as revealed in Holy Scripture.
Our hope and prayer is that the Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity will gain global approval from biblically orthodox leaders in the Catholic Church, the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, and many more besides. We also welcome the support of Christian schools, charities, para-church ministries and missionary organisations.”
Lest anyone think that this Murray Campbell is hiding behind his laptop and unable to affirm a biblical anthropology, the record shows that I have been more vocal on these issues than many. In 2021 I featured on the front page of The Age newspaper for standing up to the Victorian Government which introduced dreadful laws that stifle Christian speech and practice about sexuality. Several years earlier, I received numerous lovely fan letters for advocating the classical view of marriage on the ABC. So, no, I’m not one of these compromising or complicit chaps. I do, however, disagree with using the category of ‘Creed’ for such a statement.
I note this 2024 conversation between Al Mohler and Carl Trueman. Trueman is no slouch when it comes to upholding Christian orthodoxy and he’s no poor student of history. He made these comments about the ascendancy of anthropology as a mark of Christian faithfulness,
“I still believe that the best way for churches to preserve the faith and to make sure it’s communicated in a stable way, both to the people in the pew today and for future generations, is to have creeds and confessions, or the equivalent thereof, in our churches functioning as a way of capturing the essence, the deposit of the faith. I think what has changed in the last couple of, well really in the last decade, the whole question of identity has become much more pressing, and that’s raised a whole host of issues that I didn’t anticipate at the time I wrote the first book, but which I think confessionalism also addresses. In addition to the stuff that I did cover, I would use an example, for example, gay marriage that popped up really. It was brewing, but it became a big thing sort of 2013 to 2015 in the United States, and I remember a lot of friends saying, “Do we need to add, say a chapter to the Westminster Confession, or the second London Baptist confession to address the issue of gay marriage?” And my answer was always, I don’t think so.
I think what we need to do is first of all use our confessions and apply them to the issues that arise today. But I also became aware in answering that question that way, that one of the things that confessions did that I think has become very, very important is precisely because they give a summary of the faith. They also show how different elements of the faith interlock and interconnect with each other, and they show the broad framework of Christian doctrine that then allows us to address, for example, questions of sexuality or identity by realizing that, well actually, we’re not looking for a Bible verse on this. We have to think in terms of holistic structure of Christian doctrine, and creeds and confessions really do help us, I think, see that sort of architectonic structure that is very, very helpful in facing the crazy stuff that we’re addressing at the moment.”
Unfortunately, by claiming ‘Creed’, the document comes across as a little pretentious, like some other recent declarations that claim to offer a prophetic voice to the Australian Church and society. I’m generally wary of such posturing.
If the aim is to be a truly national Creed, why not take proper time to work through formal processes? This comes to my fourth point,
Fourth, this document hasn’t gone through the necessary rigour and ecclesial channels to hold the weight of ‘Creed’.
Historically, Creeds were the outworking of ecumenical Councils where Church leaders attended and worked through presenting theological issues. Unless I’m mistaken or missed the invite in my inbox(!) this Creed has not undergone any such Synod or Conference.
My biggest issue with ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’ is that it purports to be something that it is not. It’s like claiming a PhD without going to university or driving on the road without a licence simply because you know how to drive. This Creed claims too much, and it lacks a transparent and considered pathway for instituting such weighty words. Perhaps these are among the reasons why the majority of Reformed evangelical leaders have not signed it.
Others have noted certain ‘nationalistic’ overtones on the Creed’s website and explanatory notes. The website authors themselves highlight a conscious decision to incorporate the Australian flag colours in the logo and to launch the Creed on the same day as the Australian Lighthouse Charge at Beersheba. Why draw such parallels? When one realises some of the groups who are putting their names to the Creed, their reputation of signalling Christian nationalism and anti-everything is telling, and unfortunate.
I understand the pull to sign a document. Christians are looking for clarity. Christians are looking for leadership. As we feel the assault of culture that is taking one blind turn after another, and causing grief and harm to people we care about, we want to see people healed and protected and coming to know the Lord Jesus. Had we not been in the situation where many Christian leaders have been reluctant to stand on Holy Scripture*, we may not find ourselves in a place where a group of unordained individuals have grabbed the bullhorn and produced a less than satisfactory piece of writing.
I appreciate that not everyone will agree, but there are better ways forward. I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise, but at this point in time, my view is that we don’t need another Creed. Statements, yes. Updated polices, Yes. We need ongoing clarity and commitment to biblical anthropology by faithfully teaching and living out God’s words and ways, and by Christian denominations finding constructive ways to affirm what God has ordained in his word.
—————————-
*this statement needs some qualifying for there are Christians leaders who have stood firm with pastoral conviction and love)
What Michael Leunig’s Art Said to Me
I was saddened to learn last night that Michael Leunig has died at the age of 79. It’s as though a little part of Australia has died with him.
Leunig’s family announced his death with these befitting words,
“The pen has run dry, its ink no longer flowing – yet Mr Curly and his ducks will remain etched in our hearts, cherished and eternal.”
25 years ago, Susan and I were enjoying dinner at a friend’s home when I saw it hanging on the wall above the dining table. It was a drawing of a man sitting at a grand piano. The man had a particularly large rounded nose, which I had seen before. There was little colour on the canvas. Like Matisse, the artist conveyed all he needed with two or was it perhaps three tones.
The etching was simple and clean, almost like a cartoon. It conveyed something of the simple pleasures accompanying the piano. As someone who had until that time spent virtually his entire entirety life learning to play this magisterial instrument, I was immediately drawn to his work by Michael Leunig; it made sense to me.
Leunig’s cartoons, drawings and paintings communicate life and provoke us to question and consider the Divine design behind the canvas.
Life is beautiful. Whether it’s the inquisitive duck or his vibrant trees or musicians, Leunig painted a beautiful life. Life is precious and is a wondrous gift. Acknowledging God who gives life, is both an obligation and a joy.
Imagine their existing a masterful painting on the wall at home and never stopping to gaze upon it, to understand and enjoy it. How often do we walk about and consume and enjoy the world without stopping to give thanks to the one who designed and enables us to live and participate?
Leunig was renowned for his use of subtle humour to elucidate critical thinking and moral evaluation. It reminds me a little of Jesus who added humorous, almost silly liners while teaching things of great import,
“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”
“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
One of Leunig’s better-known drawings is this betrayal of Jesus’s crucifixion. In a mood faithful to the original crowd who mocked Jesus on the cross, Leunig paints a soldier calling out,
“Look at that? Brilliant! You kill the leader and you nip the whole movement in the bud”.
The joke is on us. The cross makes us fools. The cross turns our power into ineptitude. Indeed, the joke is on us, filled with intellectual hubris and moral certainty, as we turn down the only redemption available.
Leunig’s work pushes us to say ‘no’ to ambivalence. It is a gentle and humorous rebuke toward an Australian culture that even today wishes to paint over the most pivotal moment in history.
I know next to nothing about Leunig’s personal life. Whether in concert or in contradiction, his work conveyed a bright message that is being overshadowed by a compounding grey.
Today Michael Leunig no longer needs his paintbrush, for he gets to see his Creator, the One who crafted with his word every colour and shape and mountain range, every ocean and even the stars. And the pinnacle of his creativity, making us, his image bearers.
Again life is beautiful. And life is too easily cut short even at 79 years of age. Life ebbs away, and the blotch of tragedy, sadness, and yes also, evil marks every home. How much do we need a story where such things are overcome.
MurrayCampbell.net 