Australia

3 Reasons for reciting the Nicene Creed

/ MurrayCampbell

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

/ MurrayCampbell

“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?

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

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

/ MurrayCampbell

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.

A message for the King

/ MurrayCampbell

King Charles and Queen Camilla went to church in Australia last Sunday. They attended a regular service held at St Thomas’ North Sydney.

Kanishka Raffel, who is the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney, preached a sermon for all, whether they were Kings or kids, monarchs, musicians or mechanics.

What might an Archbishop preach about in the presence of the monarch? Of all the subject matter in the world, both large and small, what message is worth pressing home?

Kanishka spoke on Acts 8:26-40. Long before the Gospel ever reached the shores of England, and Europe, the good news of Jesus Christ came to an Ethiopian man who then took God’s message home with him.

‘The Good News of Jesus’. I can’t think of a better message for everyone to hear.

Where is our mission confidence?

/ MurrayCampbell

Last week, I enjoyed Xiao Long Bao with the family in a restaurant just behind Bourke Street in Melbourne City. On our way back to the car, we walked past two billboards casting their messages onto the famous Swanston and Flinders Street intersection. 

The first billboard was hilarious; it advertised Melbourne’s Fringe Festival by emulating Paris’ Olympic Opening Ceremony with a Last Supper mock-up. Melbourne’s creatives apparently have the comedic and artistic flair of the inside of a vacuum: ‘Let stupidity repeat itself’! (no I’m not offended, except by the boorishness).

The second billboard stands outside St Paul’s Cathedral. This gothic lookalike sits on the busiest intersection in Melbourne’s CBD. It is a favourite spot for news reporters, city workers, protesters, and more. In every direction a tram is clicketing with passengers heading to the MCG or to theatre shows and the symphony. 

With this kind of amazing frontage, which is probably unbeatable anywhere else in all of Melbourne, what message would you like to convey to the 100,000s people who pass by every day? Your Church has an opportunity to say something interesting, provocative, or encouraging to Melbournians on their way to work and home at the end of the day, what button should we press?

I’m not a climate sceptic, so don’t dump that label on me, but is it really the best message we can send to the city? St Paul’s isn’t alone in this. In fact, it has become the norm for churches to talk about and be known for social concerns. This isn’t new. The term ‘wowsers’ entered the Aussie vernacular because of Christian concerns over alcohol and related social problems. Of course, Churches since the earliest days have cared for the vulnerable. Praise God!

At the same time, Churches understood and prioritised Gospel proclamation, making disciples of Christ and growing churches. Today it sometimes feels that this task is either getting lost, or in too many cases, is no longer believed to be necessary 

In other words, we are losing the vertical priority of the Gospel in favour of the horizontal. By vertical, I’m referring to the Bible’s idea that God is above all in holiness, authority and glory, and that sin is foremost a rejection of God’s rules and purposes. The primary issue facing people today is that we are separated from God on account of sin and are sitting under his rightful judgment. Hence, the greatest need we have is God’s forgiveness and reconciliation that is freely given through Jesus Christ.

By horizontal, I’m talking about relationships between people, hence social issues and creation care.  

This shift from evangelism to social action didn’t happen overnight, but it has become a huge problem and one we need to talk about. The reasons for preferring the horizontal over the vertical are fairly obvious. Social issues are more tangible than talk about heaven. We can see family discord and poverty. We can hear about the terrible plight brought on by gambling and alcohol. We are regularly reminded of environmental issues facing the globe. The horizontal appears more pressing because in one sense it’s more obvious than talking about the wrath of God and needing God’s mercy and the cross of Jesus. 

Social concerns are also more agreeable to the broader community. The city loves churches that provide foodbanks, clothing, and shelter. It’s a win!

People from all walks of life appreciate when churches do the heavy lifting for social needs. Such activities and messages are way less offensive than the bits of Christianity that involve preaching and talking about sin and hell and the cross and resurrection. Promoting the horizontal is palatable whereas focusing on the vertical is vulgar. 

It’s not that the horizontal is unimportant. Loving our neighbours belongs to loving God.  I think both the Mosaic Law and Jesus were pretty clear: we are not loving God if we are not loving our neighbours. There is something odd if we think that preaching a sermon is suffice and that somehow it’s okay to neglect my neighbour’s broken fence or ignore a child’s cries for help. The resurrection of Christ proves that the whole person matters. But let’s not fool ourselves into thinking we are faithful to God’s mission if we are not prioritising the proclamation of the Gospel to make disciples of Christ and grow his church. Indeed, we’re not fully loving people if we’re not speaking the Gospel into their lives. Don’t buy into delusional hubris that thinks we hit a 6 when the media praises a diocesan decision or the local council gives you another grant. 

We don’t choose between the vertical and horizontal. Did Jesus? No. But neither did He allow pressing issues to hijack his mission in the world, 

 “Let us go somewhere else—to the nearby villages—so I can preach there also. That is why I have come.” (Mark 1:38)

“Now my soul is troubled, and what shall I say? ‘Father, save me from this hour’? No, it was for this very reason I came to this hour.  Father, glorify your name!” (John 12:27-28)

In fact, by minimising the Gospel priority of the vertical, we distort the horizontal and the mission becomes less effective. It’s the Melbourne mirage; let’s do what the community wants so that we become more ‘successful’. We think we’re kicking goals. To state the obvious, why would people join your church or become a follower of Jesus if our offerings are little more than a cheap version of what the Government can give us?

Read statements from Archbishops and scan agendas for denominational meetings. Listen to Easter and Christmas sermons, what’s the message? How often does your Church talk about and encourage evangelism? How much of your church’s budget is given to spreading the Gospel and starting churches? When your denomination meets annually, is preaching Christ and calling people to repentance and saving faith in Jesus Christ on the top of the agenda? Does it even appear? 

The recent Lausanne gathering in Seoul, South Korea is a case in point.  I was invited to attend but due to other commitments was unable. This gathering of 5000 Christian sisters and brothers from around the world to discuss and pray about world evangelisation must have been an incredible experience. The privilege of listening to and learning from brothers and sisters from every corner of the earth would be a joy of a lifetime, a foretaste of heaven.

Each Lausanne Conference produces a paper to reflect, articulate, and explore the nature of reaching the nations with the gospel. For some time there have been some concerns, or at least questions raised, that evangelism and verbal proclamation of the gospel seem to be losing its central place amidst other important issues facing the world today.

There is much to commend in the Seoul Statement. I love the section calling on Christians to holiness. The Seoul Statement includes sections on technology and on human sexuality and gender. There is much to praise God for in these statements. The affirmation of biblical anthropology is a key issue in the 21st Century, where rejecting the Bible’s teaching about men and women leads to a rejection of the Gospel. These things are all really helpful and important. However…

Ed Stetzer is among notable voices who are, however, expressing mild concern that the vertical is being lost. Lost is perhaps too strong a word, but Gospel proclamation seems smaller because of the way horizontal issues are being framed and focused upon. He writes,

“Lausanne: The Need to Prioritize Evangelism…in a time of aggressive religious pluralism (when evangelism receives such significant pushback), evangelism (“declaring”) needs greater focus, particularly in a time of evangelistic decline….“The full name of the Lausanne Movement is the Lausanne Committee on World Evangelization. A stronger statement on the priority of evangelism would help the Seoul Statement. These statements will influence a generation, far more than the congress itself, so let’s make it stronger and not leave #L4Congress without the world knowing that we know mission drift happens—and is already happening in many places in evangelicalism. Let’s help an entire generation know that we are deeply committed to holding evangelism central to the mission.”       

I share Ed’s concerns.

Again, Christians shouldn’t choose between the vertical and horizontal. This is not an either/or situation, but neither is it quite a both/and situation. There is an ontological and time priority to the vertical (preaching the gospel and making disciples).  Think of it this way, when an oncologist diagnoses a patient, they will treat and care for presenting symptoms and tackle secondary causes, but they will also delve into the root cause. Sin is foremost against God. The Christian mission is about articulating the Gospel of what God has accomplished for us in Christ through his death and resurrection, which brings Divine forgiveness and reconciles us to the living God. This subsequently reconciles us to one another. This incredible coming together in peaceful relations then results in drawing further praise to God (cf Ephesians 2). 

The problem is, that too many churches are either giving up on evangelism or no longer see evangelism as essential or it’s getting lost in the myriad of needs. I recall a missions seminar I attended in my denomination where the speaker focused solely on social action. When he was asked about evangelism, it was simply not on his radar.  

When has evangelism ever been cool? When has explaining sin and salvation ever been popular on the community charts? When has evangelism ever been easy? And yet without evangelism, churches decline, Christians lose hope, and people go to hell. 

Melbournians can be forgiven for thinking that our problems are primarily horizontal ones and God appears little more than in the shadows. Indeed, some churches explain away the vertical dimensions of sin with such Bultmann-like force that we are left wondering whether God is little more than a sociological or psychological category to justify human longings. Stripping God of his Divine power and denuding the Gospel of its vertical imperative is the ultimate humansplaining. 

As Tom Holland recently suggested to Christians, “*Keep Christianity Weird… Don’t accommodate to the ideological mainstream, instead major on the supernatural…”

To be clear, I am not suggesting that St Paul’s Cathedral isn’t doing or not believing in evangelism, but their messaging is symptomatic of a disappearing Gospel confidence to provoke people in the best of ways, and to comfort them in eternal ways. The irony is, while the St Paul’s billboard communicates a positive image to one part of society, it’s saying something radically different for those who disagree with zero carbon. And will anyone who agrees with the billboard’s message be warmed to Christianity and think, you know what, I need to get with God? The message wasn’t necessarily wrong, but it’s not the church’s mission.

At the previous Lausanne meeting, held in South Africa, John Piper put it like this, “We care about all suffering now, especially eternal suffering”.

If your Church or denomination has a problem with that statement, then your church or denomination has a problem


			

	


			
				


	

							
Christopher Watkin speaks on creating a healthy society
						

			 / MurrayCampbell								

			


		

		

On July 25th at Mentone Baptist Church, Dr Christopher Watkin will be addressing one of the key social issues facing Australia in the 2020s:





‘How can we build a healthy society in a fractured age?’










Australia is wrestling with important issues surrounding religious and social freedoms and responsibilities. Dr Watkin will help us navigate a way forward.





In 2021, Chris addressed political and community leaders in Parliament House, Canberra, outlining a positive vision for civil society. It’s a great opportunity for Melbournians to engage with ideas that can shape tomorrow. 






Dr Christopher Watkin is the ARC Future Fellow at Monash University. He is the author of the award-winning book, ‘Biblical Critical Theory’ and numerous other volumes including, ‘Difficult Atheism’.





Reserve your tickets today:





https://events.humanitix.com/building-a-healthy-society-in-s-fractured-age






			

	


			
				


	

							
Is Christianity ‘plummeting’ around Australia?
						

			 / MurrayCampbell								

			


		

		

Yesterday at church we enjoyed our biggest Good Friday service yet. That’s not a message for boasting, but rather one of thankfulness. Other churches are reporting similarly.





Over this Easter weekend, our friends at The Age newspaper decided on taking a different angle. They want readers to feel a disenchantment over Christianity and the merit of alternative faiths.





One of Australia’s worst-kept secrets is how nominal Christianity is declining. Naturally. Even the Bible speaks of the inevitable slow death of empty religion. The story is not new so why is it a feature story over the Easter weekend?





Society is at pains to honour and respect the sacred days of various world religions. Football Clubs produce special messages. Politicians offer the now obligatory salutations, often accompanied by a visit to the local Temple or Mosque, with a news camera or six! I’m knocking not them, but simply observing. We ought to respect our neighbours (even when we disagree with them) and be thankful for the religious toleration that still exists in our country.





The Age has chosen to commemorate Christianity’s most ‘holy’ days with 2 articles speaking of the rise of world religions in Australia and of Christianity ‘plummeting’.





“Meanwhile, Christianity has plummeted by more than 26 per cent during the same period, and once grand houses of worship are battling a mass exodus and shrinking congregations.”





Whether this is designed to be a kick in the gut or they naively thought that this is a suitable way for the newspaper to celebrate Easter, I can’t help but see a parallel with the first Easter. Of course, the two are dissimilar in very big ways, but nonetheless, the jab in the side is noticeable.










Don’t get me wrong, sociological studies exploring the beliefs of Australians is an interesting and important task, and worthy of media reporting. I am simply noting that the data is not new, the research isn’t recent. I have engaged in conferences and conversations about the waves and currents of religion in Australia for many years. The timing for The Age’s expose is ironic to say the least. Like a Pharisaical jibe at Jesus as he hung on the cross, it’s open season for slamming Christianity.





In our reading at church yesterday,





“they began to call out to him, “Hail, king of the Jews!” Again and again they struck him on the head with a staff and spit on him. Falling on their knees, they paid homage to him. And when they had mocked him, they took off the purple robe and put his own clothes on him. Then they led him out to crucify him.”





And this,





“Those who passed by hurled insults at him, shaking their heads and saying, “So! You who are going to destroy the temple and build it in three days, come down from the cross and save yourself!” In the same way the chief priests and the teachers of the law mocked him among themselves. “He saved others,” they said, “but he can’t save himself! Let this Messiah, this king of Israel, come down now from the cross, that we may see and believe.” Those crucified with him also heaped insults on him.





Like a gambling addict, these sceptics were far too quick to claim Jesus had failed. Two days later, the earth erupted when Jesus physically rose from the dead. The world has never been the same. And even if Western nations like Australia convince ourselves that Christianity is on the way out, Christianity worldwide has never been bigger. Praise God! It is we who are missing out.





Unlike Jesus, Christians sometimes react to social movements with the angry rant of an American President or the rage of the latest mob blocking traffic in the city. Christians respond to negativity with hateful words need to be called out.





Like Jesus, Christians can respond to critics with kindness and grace. He didn’t retaliate. He didn’t hate on them. He absorbed the wrath of God in their place.





The Age expose includes this observation about the chessboard of Australian religious affiliation,





“Andrew Singleton, associate professor of sociology and social research at Deakin University, says the growth of religious minorities is tied to migration trends in Australia.”





I am a big supporter of migration. Our nation is largely built on the blood and sweat of millions of migrants. Come along to Mentone Baptist one day and you see the nations represented in just one small Church; it’s fantastic.





This is one major difference between Christianity and world religions. Christianity grows by conversion. Yes, I know ‘conversion’ is an ugly word in Victoria, even an illegal one, but if Jesus and the Apostles preached for conversion, so do we.





Conversion isn’t our society’s great sin; it is the great moment of liberation: God in Christ brings forgiveness. He justifies and reconciles. The Good news of Easter isn’t religions offer of enlightenment to those who work hard enough and who acquire sufficient levels of holiness, far from it. The good news of Easter is a gift; God’s loving gift of redemption. Jesus isn’t about merit, he is mercy.





We are seeing a plethora of reports tabled by Government and legislations produced, designed to further limit religious freedom. Hardline secularism opposes healthy pluralism, which values freedom to preach and persuade and engage. Christianity grows via conversion and conversion is about reasoning and persuading and people coming to believe the gospel for themselves. How different is the approach of authoritarian secularists who create laws to force-convert what Christians may and may not teach and practice. It is as though they googled Emperor Domitian or Communist China’s Sinicization program and concluded, that’s what we need here.





Of course, such opposition to the Christian faith is doing little more than reinforcing the Bible’s anthropology and the significance of the cross. Those who mock the cross are not undoing Christianity but simply exposing the human condition and thus our desperate need for divine mercy.





Unfortunately,  I don’t think Australia has yet reached peak secularism; the reigns of power are rarely loosened without struggle. We are however beginning to see cracks appear and falling through these holes are real people whose lives have been promised much by life without God, and the results are often catastrophic: Not peace, but narcissism. Not freedom but bondage to self-realisation.





The one fact that The Age hasn’t explored is why and how classical evangelical churches are growing. I’m not referring to the super cool tribe who have the resources to stage a concert every Sunday, but churches who believe, open and teach the Bible, who preach about Christ crucified, who love to sing and praise God, and who are actively loving and serving the other.





It is important to differentiate between churches that hold to orthodox Christian beliefs, and those who don’t. I suspect the major fault line between churches that decline and those that grow is this one. Yes, there are other factors, changing demographics and sociological phenomena, and individual preferences that play into service styles. But there are too many ordinary churches where music is possible and the preaching okay, but who experience a work of God and more people becoming Christians.





Whereas, the churches that face most decline are those that move away from classical Christianity. Churches that embrace each latest iteration of sexology, who erase the Bible’s tricky bits, who explain away the resurrection, who argue against the penal aspect of the atonement, these are churches who race their congregations off a precipice and into a spiritual grave.





As Tom Holland famously quipped, 





“I see no point in bishops or preachers or Christian evangelists just recycling the kind of stuff you can get from any kind of soft left liberal because everyone is giving that…if they’ve got views on original sin I would be very interested to hear that”.”





So thank you to The Age for interesting and poorly timed articles. And next time, dig a little deeper and you’ll notice the stronger currents that are at work in Christianity around Australia today. 

			

	


			
				


	

							
Cate Blanchett, Easter is for you
						

			 / MurrayCampbell								

			


		

		

I appreciate that the title may sound a little presumptuous, but hear me out. 





Cate Blanchett is one of the world’s finest actors…and she hails from Melbourne!





The first movie I recall watching that starred Cate Blanchett was Elizabeth. My wife and I were living in London at the time, the very city where Queen Elizabeth 1 had lived, reigned and died. I already loved historical movies, but watching the film while immersed in Elizabeth’s city brought about a visceral connection. It’s a great movie.





As we enjoyed Elizabeth, Susan commented, ‘Murray, I went to school with Cate.’





I looked at Susan, and with my eyes pressed for more information. 





Susan, typically downplaying such things, added only a few words,





“We weren’t friends. Cate was a few years ahead of me.” 





That was it. That’s all Susan said. I suspect there was a little more to it, after all, Susan had clear memories of Cate being at the same school with her. But today I learnt something new about Cate Blanchett, albeit from the newspaper and it’s about those school years.





At the age of 10, Cate’s father suffered a heart attack and died. To lose a parent at any age is difficult, but at such a young age, one can only imagine the pain, grief, and disorientation created by such a sudden loss. 





Speaking with a journalist while filming a new movie near her old suburban home and school, Cate reflected on how her Dad’s death caused her to turn away from both Church and God.





 “As a child I wanted a religion. I wanted the strong hand of God to put a hand on my childish shoulders to say, ‘Your father is with me. He’s having fun. You’ll see him in 60 years. 





“But that didn’t happen. And so as a ten-year-old I fled from the church and moved down to the river and spent my childhood propelled into nature”. 





“If I’d stayed inside the Methodist church I’d have a lot of bad guitar playing, but instead I rode my bike, thinking I was Nancy Drew, down by the Yarra River. I remember that as profoundly as I remember the hymns”. 





She was asked whether she left religion because it didn’t give her what she wanted,





“It was not so much about what I wanted…more what I was hoping for. Also, I was ten. 





“But religion contains a sense of hope and also a sense of community. And, in a way, that desire for something greater than myself never left me”. 










First of all, I agree with Blanchett’s fears of bad guitar playing. As a former classical musician, many a time have I cringed and groaned at the sounds wafting over a congregation. But fear not, it is also possible to find excellent guitar playing in churches today.





Music aside, I am reminded of something Timothy Keller wrote years ago as he borrowed from C.S Lewis,





“Horrendous, inexplicable suffering, though it cannot disprove God, is nonetheless a problem for the believer in the Bible. However, it is perhaps an even greater problem for nonbelievers. C. S. Lewis described how he had originally rejected the idea of God because of the cruelty of life. Then he came to realize that evil was even more problematic for his new atheism. In the end, he realized that suffering provided a better argument for God’s existence than one against it…





My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of “just” and “unjust”?… What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust?… Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too— for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my private fancies…. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple.”





Let’s take as an example,  John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’. Imagine doesn’t articulate the highest intellectual efforts to sustain unbelief in God but it does represent popular sentiment. Indeed, Imagine has become something of an international anthem in recent years. For a moment, let’s play out the song’s logic of imagining a world without God, without religion, and without heaven and hell:





Imagine there is no ultimate meaning or goal toward which our lives are headed.





Imagine there is no overarching design and no inherent significance. 





Imagine if our lives were reduced to the potluck outcome of billions of years of impersonal atoms and molecules running around hitting and missing, making and destroying.





Imagine a world where the reality of conscience and moral choice has no grounding in a purpose beyond that of group survival in the evolutionary race to the top.





Imagine human affections are ultimately an illusion, a cruel joke orchestrated by the impersonal rules of physics.





Imagine all the people living for today, for tomorrow is the end.





This view offers no consolation to a gravely ill person. Nothing to help grieving families who have just witnessed a loved one being ripped from their lives.





It offers no hope to someone who is a victim of injustice, for there is no judgment and vindication to come.





In fact, the song collapses in on its own irrationality, like a sandcastle overrun by the incoming tide.  Lennon imagines ‘living life in peace’, and there being no “greed or hunger”. We affirm this sentiment but peace requires a common purpose between people and demands reason and design in the world beyond us. A universe without God does not allow for the idea of universal peace.





As Cate Blanchett shares her personal testimony from God to nonGod, she admits, 





“desire for something greater than myself never left me”.





It is as though a Divinely given conscience keeps poking and prodding at us despite our cognitive and emotional rescripting of life. 





None of us comprehend all of the events we experience or see in this life. To have that kind of knowledge is to be omniscient, and not the brightest or most prophetic have the kind of understanding. But Easter reminds us that there is One who has gone before us and for us. Hope is not defined by my ability to create or sustain it, but by trusting the one who can gift it. Even faith, fragile and compounded by tragic loss, is given assurance through the Easter event.





As a father, I appreciate the limited capacity of my children to grasp concepts both significant and small. It’s not that a child is necessarily wrong, but like adults, our beliefs and commitments are trialled and formed by many kinds of circumstances, inquiries and tests. This is one reason why the message of Easter is so compelling and continues to offer consolation. The death and resurrection of Jesus Christ took place inside history and is thus subject to our scrutiny, but it also punches through time and into eternity and therefore offer timeless hope and assurance.





Last Sunday I preached on Hebrews 5:1-10. The text provides one of the wonderful explanations of why and how Jesus today serves as our faithful representative before God in heaven. There is a tangible and sustainable connection point between our world and heaven, between humanity and God; the God Man Jesus Christ. 





The text explains, 





“During the days of Jesus’ life on earth, he offered up prayers and petitions with fervent cries and tears to the one who could save him from death, and he was heard because of his reverent submission. Son though he was, he learned obedience from what he suffered and, once made perfect, he became the source of eternal salvation for all who obey him”.





Never think the cross was easy for Jesus. We should never conclude that suffering didn’t impact Jesus. He is utter love and light and goodness. He did not deserve to suffer even a scratch. And yet he committed himself to his father’s will to endure the greatest evil ever perpetrated. 





No story ends before it begins. No movie is shown at the cinema before it is first written, shot, and produced. In the moment by moment, God is valuing the world and each person who lives. More than that, God didn’t press fast forward to the end of the story, but his Son pressed in every moment and every day, for it is through his suffering and atoning death that God brings about forgiveness and life. Not only does Easter declare an ultimate hope over tragedy but Easter proves that we have an empathetic High Priest in Jesus. 





Cate Blanchett’s impulse as a 10-year-old is relatable for many, and so is her constant companion who reminds her that there must be something more, something better.  Several members of my church have suffered loss in recent months, the death of a parent or child. Death is horrible. Death is, to quote the Bible, the last enemy.





Easter is for the unbeliever, it is for the doubter and for the lifelong transgressor. Easter is for those who know death and suffering.  This confidence lies outside ourselves in the only one who can claim to outdo death. As these beautiful words from Hebrews 4 tell us, 





“Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. 15 For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. 16 Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need.” 

			

	


			
				


	

							
England’s Ban should lead to rethink in Australia
						

			 / MurrayCampbell								

			


		

		

As an Aussie, I’m bound to knock and mock the English, but just occasionally we should pay attention. During the same week as England banned puberty blockers on minors, the NSW Government introduced legislation to ban ‘conversion practices’. The irony isn’t lost.





England’s National Health Service (NHS) has banned prescribing puberty blockers for children and teenagers. A report states, 





“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time.” 





This report came about a pressure mounts from past patients at the Tavistock Clinic. Most notable is the High Court Case of Bell vs Tavistock.





In 2020, Keira Bell won a landmark High Court ruling against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, for its dangerous treatment of children who have gender dysphoria. Ms Bell was prescribed puberty blockers at age 16. As an adult Ms Bell sued Tavistock, alleging that young people do not have sufficient awareness to make an informed decision to undergo invasive treatments that will have long-term effects on their physical and mental state. Three judges ruled in her favour





Notice the clear language quoted by the The Times,





“under-18s in gender clinics need “far better mental health services to help them to reconcile themselves to their (sex) — not life-changing physical interventions that might alleviate short-term distress at the price of long-term trauma”.















Tavistock Clinic has since been shut down, and this week the NHS announced that such treatment for children suffering from gender dysphoria is banned. England is following other European countries who’ve recognised the same dangers. This is but the latest red flag signalling a fundamental problem with the way our society views gender and sex and the way we care for the vulnerable. 





Evidence is mounting; the real and dangerous conversion therapy involves pumping children with hormones and chemicals that stall or prevent puberty, alter the physical appearance, that may bring about infertility and often lead to the surgical removal of healthy body parts.  While England and Europe begin to move away from these experimental treatments, Australia is doubling down. 





Enter NSW.  The NSW Government this week released its conversion therapy Bill. The NSW proposal is not as extreme as the Victorian Laws that were introduced in 2021, but they prove that there is both political pressure and capital by submitting to groups of gender theory activists. No one disputes that among a few marginal religious groups, there were some weird and harmful practices. These practices do not have their origins in the Bible but were influenced by secular education taught to psychiatry students in the 1960s. Origins aside, Victorians were led to believe that there was a major and evil problem going on in Churches around Victoria, but when reports were published and evidence presented,  it was clear that almost no one knew of let alone practised these so-called therapies. The real target was mainstream and normal religious activities such as talking and praying. 





What is going on is that the latest self-appointed preachers representing ‘expressive individualism’ have a clear agenda to destroy what it is to be male and what it is to be female, and therefore what it is to be human. Hence, in part, when the Victorian laws were being debated, groups behind the legislation and some of the most vocal proponents, targeted Christian churches, and in effect created laws to prohibit 2000 years of orthodox and classical Christian teaching and practice about gender and human sexuality.  Remember, that it is illegal in Victoria to discuss with an individual the Bible’s presentation of gender and sex, lest the individual is somewhere influenced.





Abigail Shear (who is not a Christian), has highlighted the sociological phenomenon that is fuelling the extraordinary rapid rise of gender dysphoria in Western societies. In her book, Irreversible Damage, she shows that before the 2010s, the number of people with gender dysphoria was incredibly small. The percentage amounted to roughly 0.01% and that group consisted almost entirely of boys. Today, transgenderism has become commonplace, with somewhere between 4-10% of children now identifying with the opposite gender (or identifying with one of the now 70 possible gender identities that apparently exist), and girls, in particular, are being affected by this. Shier notes,





“Between 2016 and 2017, a number of gender surgeries for natal females in the U.S. quadrupled with biological women suddenly accounting for, as we have seen, 70% of all gender surgeries. In 2018, the UK reported 4400% rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatment. In Canada, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, clinicians and gender therapists began reporting a sudden and dramatic shift in the demographics of those presenting with gender dysphoria from predominantly school-aged boys to predominantly adolescent girls.”





This new trend has become trendy. A uni student shared with me how they feel socially lesser and out of touch because they are not experimenting with their sexuality and identity. That is not to say gender incongruence isn’t a real and very difficult thing for some individuals, but there is more going on.





At the time of the ‘conversion practices’ debate, clinics in Melbourne saw a drastic rise in the number of children undergoing the very kinds of treatment that took place at Tavistock.  Instead of reasoned debate and reasonable laws, the Victorian Government under then Premier Daniel Andrews shouted down concerns as belonging to bigots of the worst kind,





“Cruel and bigoted practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity will soon be stamped out across Victoria, thanks to new laws introduced to Parliament today.    





The Bill denounces such practices as deceptive and harmful, reinforces that the ideology behind these practices is flawed and wrong.”





Here lies a major obstacle in Australia. We are not permitted to have the necessary conversations and inquiries to examine what is going on in the clinics and what kinds of long-term impact treatments are having on our children.  Last year,  a senior staff psychiatrist was stood down in Queensland after raising concerns about ‘best practice’ for caring with gender dysphoric children. 





In Victoria, anyone challenging the new orthodoxy faces threats of re-education programs and even criminal charges. Even reluctance can be deemed ‘suppression’ and see children taken from the home. Any conversation or prayer with an individual about these issues can result in allegations and a visit to court. 





Progressive activists and politicians have effectively stifled conversation and today the law is a live weapon that’s held over anyone who dares present an alternative. Instead of caution, it’s full steam ahead in Victoria, with school programs designed to encourage children to question their bodies and doubt their biology. We’re yet not witnessing the end of this tragic chapter; in the meantime, real people and children are being used. 





What cost are we willing to pay before we end this horrific abuse of vulnerable children? There have been recent attempts made in both the Victorian and South Australian Parliaments to open an inquiry into the medical treatment of children suffering from gender incongruence; both were blocked.  Shouldn’t England’s decision at the very least validate a real and thorough investigation into the process, practices, and ethics behind what is going on?





In the meantime, The Victorian Premier has backed a public ‘performance’ coming to a Melbourne theatre where a female actor will ingest a cocktail of tranquillisers to fall unconscious and is then sexually assaulted by fellow performers, live on stage. Yes, this a criminal act, but because it’s a performance somehow it is morally acceptable. 





May I suggest, that when it comes to sexual ethics, we have a problem.





It’s another reason why I am so convinced by the person and promises of Jesus. He doesn’t manipulate or abuse. He can love without affirming. He can empathise and help. He doesn’t diminish the individual, but came ’to seek and save the lost’. 





This week I have the privilege to explore these amazing words from the book of Hebrews. When we fail to understand each other whether deliberately or ignorance, even parents or friends or teachers or Governments, there is one who does get us, 





 “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need”. (Hebrews 4:14-16)



































The NSW Parliament adopted the conversion practices legislation on March 22