Melbourne came alive 2 nights ago as the Matilda’s turned around their World Cup by defeating Canada 4-0 in their final group stage match). As exciting as it is to see Australia progressing and finding form, there was another different story making news this afternoon from the Soccer World Cup.
The Herald Sun is reporting that a significant number of professional women’s soccer players have missed the World Cup due to knee injuries or have sustained injuries during the early parts of the competition. It is not just the numbers that are concerning but the fact that the numbers reflect a failure to recognise the difference between men and women athletes.
The paper quotes this interesting observation from England’s Captain Leah Williamson. She says,
“There’s so many things (different between men and women). Our hips are aligned slightly differently, hormones and stress all contribute.”
In one sense, Williamson hasn’t said anything outrageous or controversial, but in another way, she has just kicked a goal against a big social heresy: she’s admitted that men and women are not identical. Contrary, to the mass verbiage that seeks to downplay and even deny difference, sometimes reality spills out and scores on the counterattack.
We are conditioned to believe there are no differences between men and women. Men and women are identical and even interchangeable. Try suggesting at work that that’s not the case and see how long it is before the HR Department invites you in for a special meeting. If there is ever any difference that can be admitted, it’s that Ken is bad and Barbie is good.
Built into many of these conversations is a flawed premise. These days ‘difference’ has become a trigger word, a slur implying inferiority or lesser status. Of course, that’s not the case. Genesis, for example, declares an inherent goodness in the distinction between male and female, and together they share the imago dei. Different bodies and different hormones and psychological differences in no way indicate degrees of worth, but rather, a beautiful complementarity (yes, I did use that word!).
A sense of equality between men and women doesn’t derive from chasing the evolutionary wheel of the strongest and fittest, or from the imaginings of Greek myths, but in those ancient words which Jesus upheld and which remain powerful today, informing and providing Divine meaning for men and women alike,
“So God created mankind in his own image,
in the image of God he created them;
male and female he created them.”
The Herald Sun story goes on to point out,
“The little research there is suggests that female players are at least three times more likely to do an ACL than men.
Williamson wants to see an immediate improvement for how young female talent is prepared before professional to ensure their bodies are not shocked by dramatic changes in training regimens.
“The women’s game, my generation; one day we’re a kid playing football and the next we’re a professional,” she said.
“We got form training a few times a week to training every day, playing Champions League, World Cups, European Cups etc.
“Until it changes to be more like the boys where they’re literally bred for it from day one of being signed at six years old, this will happen more.
“We’re not ready for that. There’s so much now that we need to make more focused to women or this will happen over and over again. Our bodies are completely different, the studies around professional sports women are few and far between.”
None of this comes as a surprise to me, having 3 children who have played a lot of sports over the years, including a daughter. I hope Football Associations and medicos take note of these players pleas. But I suspect like a harmonic clash, we’ll keep preaching one message and practicing another.
It is possible that we overplay differences between men and women (let’s be honest, this can sometimes leads to harmful outcomes), but as these professional footballers are informing us, rejecting difference also produces injurious outcomes.
There is something good and vital about valuing the substantive overlap between men and women, and there is something good about respecting and honouring where difference exists. Instead of playing foosball with sex and gender, in the real world biology does matter and does shape our physical and psychological activities.
As women and men take note of important differences, there will be frustration. Sometimes it’s because there is lurking misogyny. Sometimes it’s moral or intellectual laziness. The cause is just as likely to be something else: We live in a highly defensive culture. Our sexular age doesn’t score many goals but its fervour for defending dangerous tackles and throwing out creational rules is second to none. You can receive a yellow card for admitting any gender difference, and be disqualified from the tournament altogether. The problem is, who suffers? Women do.
It may not be today, and probably not tomorrow, but a time will come when we can say without hesitation, embarrassment or fear of repercussion,
“There’s so many things (different between men and women”…so praise God for we are wonderfully made.
The Ashes is the ultimate sporting test. Australia versus England over 5 Test matches (each is 5 days in length) across 5 weeks.
The Ashes have been played every 2 years since 1882, play alternating between England and Australia. The teams contest the famous Ashes trophy, which has got to be one of the tinniest sporting cups in the world, standing at a minuscule 10.5cm.
Anticipation over the famed rivalry has been growing for months, and once the first ball was bowled on June 16, every eye in Australia was glued to the big screen all night, every night.
The already frenzied series burst the thermometer on the final day of the second Test, when England batsman, Jonny Bairstow was dismissed. The gentlemen of the Marylebone Cricket Club forgot their manners as boos swept across Lord’s Cricket Ground and tirades of abuse let slip against the Australian players. Commentators argued and the Aussie supporters applauded, as a solemn Jonny walked off the ground.
Was he out? It’s not cricket! What about the spirit of the game? It was the umpire’s decision.
For the 6 and a ½ Aussies who had their power cut and haven’t heard this most pressing news story, Bairstow missed a delivery bowled by Australia’s Cam Green. Our wicketkeeper, Carey, took the ball and with a single action threw it at the stumps. Bairstow, not realising, left his crease and was given out, stumped!
Even the Victorian police can’t stay away from this one!
According to the rules of cricket, he’s out. There is no murky area in the rules as to whether he should be out or not. When the ball is in play and the batsman is out of his crease, he can be run out by the fielding side.
But according to the English (and a few Aussies too), it seemed as though Bairstow believed the over was completed and the ball was no longer in play, and so he started walking up the pitch to chat with fellow batsman and Captain, Ben Stokes. This so-called ‘sneaky’ play by the Aussies has been deemed unsportsmanlike and contra the spirit of cricket.
The English believe the decision cost them the Test match (and the Ashes series?), but I’m not so sure. Stokes’ brilliant century came as a near direct response to the Bairstow decision. Without it, would Stokes’ have taken on the Aussie bowlers as aggressively and combatively as he did? It’s all speculation, isn’t it?
As Twitter raged and the gentlemen of the MCC lost their gentlemanliness, and the British PM attempted to ball a rhetorical googly, footage emerged of Bairstow attempting the very same move against Australian batsman Marnus Labuschagne, only 2 days earlier. And more than that, England’s coach, Brendon McCullum, is threatening to abandon the after Ashes drinks with the Aussies, despite McCullum employing the same tactics when he himself played for New Zealand.
So there we have it, cricket is a serious sport played by professional sportsmen who use the rules to their advantage and claim ‘spirit and sportsmanship’ when those rules seem unfair.
The cricket community is divided between those who follow the rules and those who want to follow the ‘spirit of the game’. Or to introduce a theological category, are you a law-based person or a grace-based person?
The reality is, if the shoe was on the other foot, the English public would be clapping and applauding, ‘jolly good play’, while we Aussies spat the dummy. That’s the temptation of human nature; there’s a smudge of hypocrisy in all of us.
How much more is this the case on the bigger scale of life: we acknowledge and follow rules when they work in our favour, but we can be quick to jump to ‘grace’ when we feel as though these rules are harsh and unfair. Sometimes the rules are unfair. Sometimes the rules are misapplied. Sometimes rules are unequally practiced.
On the biggest stage of all, how can we account for a God of justice and God of grace? How can the Lord of the universe consistently apply righteousness and judge lawbreakers, and yet offer grace and mercy to those of us (namely, all of us), who by the letter of the law are out?
Sometimes we’re lazy and ignorant. A lot of the time we know what’s right and good and yet we decide to go the way. Cheating God’s ethic and pretending holiness is optional, is the status quo. It’s like we declare any ball from God a no-ball.
Here are a few stunning sentences from the Bible that give us the answer to the world’s greatest quandary, how can Divine justice and mercy exist and become our experience?
“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)
“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us. If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10)
“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:21-26)
I think these Bible verses are worth contemplating because in the game of life, real justice matters and real grace is desperately needed. We can’t live without either but as in cricket, we side with one and not the other.
Are you a justice person or a mercy person? The reality is, we can’t live without a measure of ultimate right and goodness. Life requires axioms for real, secure, and free living. We also need grace, because we all fall far short of the glory of God. If I look at myself, I stand short of the crease, exposed and there’s no coming back from that. Thank God, he didn’t declare, not out. Rather, he walked in my place, taking all that shame and guilty verdict so that we can enjoy the cricket of life forever.
That’s the thing with God and what makes Christianity, Christian. Jesus Christ is the Don Bradman of the universe, only better. He never played a bad shot. He never missed the ball and never stepped away from the crease. Every shot he played perfectly and yet he gave himself out. He bled out on a cross so that we be welcomed back into the game. No hypocrisy, no double play, no breaking the rules, but perfect justice and perfect grace.
On Sunday afternoon as the sun shone in Canberra, a shadow emerged as the cross was removed from Calvary Hospital. The blue cross that hung on the building front and centre, was taken down as the ACT Government prepares to take control of the Hospital Monday morning.
Calvary Hospital is (was) owned and run by the Catholic Church, along with the ACT”s only inpatient palliative care home, Clare Holland House. As of Monday, both will. be under the control of the Government, a government that is also preparing to introduce legislation allowing 14 year old children access to euthanasia.
Whether it’s the youngest or the terminally ill, Catholic hospitals are renowned for believing in the sanctity of life. We don’t take the life of the unborn and we don’t assist the terminally ill to take their own life. As we sit fit to turn our backs on the God of the Bible, Western cultures are turning to ideas and practices that so often belittle the vulnerable, and in the name of ‘kindness’ or ‘choice’, we invite and protect their killing.
Christian Churches have long been associated with hospitals and hospices. Indeed, Australia continues to rely upon these healthcare providers to carry the weight of caring for the sick, the injured, and the dying. Aussie society may be turning its back on Churches, but whether it’s education, social work, and medical care, we require the organisations that our churches have started and support. Monday morning will see a hospital and hospice join the ranks of our post-Christian culture that perceives the message of the cross as objectionable and interfering with our preferred ethics of life and death, truth and lie.
Calvary is a Bible word, describing the location outside Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified. The symbol of shame has been removed from Calvary Hospital by the Government. I’m not one for displaying religious images, icons, and crosses. We are a people of the word not iron illuminated icons. But leaving aside the question of physical representations of the faith, the sight of a government taking down the Christian cross is telling. It’s as though through the blindness or perhaps sheer arrogance of government officials, they think that removing the cross is a mark of progress. Far from it!
The cross, now so familiar to the world, carries with it disdain and misunderstanding. For some, it is a fashion item to wear around the neck imbedded with jewels. For others, the cross represents an era of human history that we will do well to move on from.
The cross has caused offence for millennia. The Romans understood the ignominy and shame attached to this cruel machine of torture and execution. More recently, ISIS crucified Christians in Syria and Iraq as an attempt to terrorise populations into submission. Philosophers and comedians alike continue to ridicule the cross, as though it’s worthy of a public mocking.
The early Christians were aware of both the political and personal shame attached to the figure of the cross, as was Jesus. The Apostle Paul famously picked up on this theme of shame in his letter to the sex crazed city of Corinth. Writing to the Christians of Corinth, he said,
“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written:
“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”
Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”
The cross is the ultimate emblem of suffering and shame. The cross is also the symbol of salvation and life. For in that single death, our shame was taken by the one without, and he died the death that sinners deserve. The cross also confuses and collides and will not allow us to ignore it: we either embrace its message or push against it.
Perhaps there are internal politics going on between the government and calvary care that we are not privy to. But from the information that has been published and made public, it’s difficult not to conclude that there is something hideous about a government punishing an organisation for not welcoming death for young and old alike. There is no sophistry in denigrating the cross. There is no wisdom or pride found in removing Christian freedoms and stamping the authority of the State on religious institutions. What you call the stench of death, the believer finds the aroma of life, for in the crucified and risen Christ is the greatest stimulus for love for neighbour and care for society’s most vulnerable.
To build an ethic of medicine and care while rejecting the Lord of life is doomed to failure. But the long and dark road is likely to be littered with the bodies of the unwanted and the inconvenient. My mother died recently, following a long illness, and the care she received in both hospital and hospice was excellent and ensured her pain was managed. If hospitals are in short supply of effective pain management for the terminally ill, then we would do well to better finance and equip doctors and nurses for such essential care.
As Jesus hung on the cross, gasping for breath, muscles contorted, and with blood, running down his fastened body, he cried out these words which have echoed through the generations,
“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
Subsequent to public statements made including by Archbishop Christopher Prowse who explained,
“The very first thing a totalitarian government does, when it seizes Christian assets, the very first thing they all do … they take down the crucifix…When the religious cage is shaken by a wolf, when the cross … is taken down, we realise how important our religion is, when it’s under attack’,
The ACT Government and Hospital Board have each produced a statement, saying that it was the Hosptial who took down the cross and not the Government (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-03/former-calvary-hospital-becomes-north-canberra-hospital/102554384). The distinction in this case is little. It’s a case of semantics as the Govt has taken control of the hospital (despite Calvary appealing to the Federal Court to stop the take over). The removal of the cross is symbolic of this forcible snatching and bringing Calvary health under the control of the ACT.
As one friend has suggested, given the Government wasn’t behind the removal, are they now prepared to reinstate it?
There are plenty of grudge matches fought out on football fields, cricket pitches, and tennis courts. There are teams we love to hate and athletes who infuriate us. To win, athletes and spectators alike need a certain intensity and killer instinct. However, once the final ball is bowled and when the siren blasts, you shake hands, give respect, and even renew friendship.
Ian Chappell and Ian Botham are two of cricket’s greats. As a young boy, I remember spending summer hours watching cricket on television. I’m old enough to have seen both of these cricket legends play. In 1977 (I’m not so old that I remember this incident!) At the Hilton Hotel in Melbourne, something happened which spurned a dislike between these men that continues even today.
The original incident is very much a ‘he said’ and he said’ scenario, and I suspect we’ll never know the truth unless one Chappell or Botham fesses up. I’m in the same boat as everyone else. We weren’t present when the alleged ground zero event took place which has led to this nearly 50-year feud. As the documentary traced their history and interviewed them today, the animosity between Chappell and Botham sounds and feel quite real. I, and presumably other viewers, anticipated that the documentary is one of those ‘bad to good’ stories, where hating parties find reconciliation. The program climaxed with the two men meeting in person to discuss their grievances. Everything was set for a manly heart-to-heart and where some semblance of common ground is found. That was not to be the case.
When pushed to say something positive about the other man, Ian Botham managed to speak well of Chappell cricketing and captaincy prowess, whereas Chappell could offer nothing other than further insult. There was no agreement, no acknowledgement of wrongdoing and the verbal sparring was as heated as ever.
One friend suggested, “Chappell is awful. Implacably so. From the earliest days. Botham is just laddish.” The summary resonates, although none of us really knows. While I suspect many viewers were left shaking their heads and thinking, seriously, makeup, shake hands and share a beer, in the real world the Chappell and Botham story isn’t so unusual. Fueds and grudges are about as ancient as history itself.
Genesis tells two stories of persons holding a grudge.
There is Esau who held a grudge against his brother Jacob for wronging him.
Later there is Joseph whose brothers sold him into slavery. Years later, when their father died, they thought that their younger brother would take advantage of the moment to, ‘What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?”
The grudge isn’t a friend. It’s a form of anger (that may or may not have justified causation) that evolves and twists, creating excessive and unjust feelings and wanted responses. The grudge doesn’t want, ‘an eye for an eye’, but a head for an eyelash or foot for a toenail. The grudge is a form of bitterness whose taste sticks and refuses to let us go.
It takes a man to admit fault and to ask for forgiveness. It takes a man to offer forgiveness. Time can sometimes soften hearts and create space for healing and reconciliation. It can also the true that time calcifies the heart and makes us unwilling to budge and extend a hand of friendship. There are some offences so impactful and hurtful that reconciliation isn’t possible and without repentance, forgiveness isn’t possible. There are other pains caused by harmful words and actions that may dissipate with time and we can overlook them. Not every offence is a sin. Some sins against us are forgiven but the relationship is so broken that normalised relations can’t be rebuilt, although there is civility and an aspect of peace now lived.
This is one of the staggering truths about Jesus; we caused him offence beyond measure, such that an eternity of hell is the fitting end. And yet, in insurmountable love and mercy, he grabbed all our offences and bore our punishment on the cross. Jesus was prepared to die for his enemies so that we might become his friends. That’s the kind of story ending we long to see. The world needs a super saviour with such integrity that he doesn’t compromise on righteousness and yet is able to restore us to peace.
Of course, this requires humility on our behalf. Not a weak or insipid capitulation to social pressure, but a strength that owns our own sins and says yes, to that blood-soaked cross where Divine mercy is given.
The Botham vs Chappell feud wasn’t good television. It was sad. The rawness of these men’s pride is all too common. If there’s any message coming from the program it is this, don’t carry a grudge to the grave. Seek peace while we may. This may be something to act upon in the immediate, and for other circumstances, this may take years. Yes, because we live in a world that’s screwed up, we may not find that place where forgiveness and peace are renewed; where and when we can’t, leave it with God.
Esau’s grudge against Jacob continued, and the schism continues to this day.
In the case of Joseph’s brothers, they asked for forgiveness. Joseph listened to their words and wept. He then said,
“Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.”
How much more has Jesus offered this message to us.
“I choose the Australian church for my first “mission trip” because no one cares about white Christian Westerners.”
Michael Foster is an American Pastor who is coming to Australia later in the year on a mission. Apparently no on cares about ‘white Christian Westerners’ in Australia and the issue is so pressing that we need an American to fly across the Pacific and bring salvation.
Foster has never visited Australia, and yet in recent days he issued a series of clarion calls on what is wrong with Australian Christianity and he has the guts to fix our ills!
“Im spending two weeks in Australia in September.
I never planned to leave my country.
I love it here.
But then 95% of the church in Australia caved to totalitarianism in ‘20.
So I count it privilege to fly out there and encouraged the 5%.
May God grow their numbers.”
Leaving aside Foster’s superficial take on the cultural and Christian landscape of a nation he’s never spent time in, what point is he trying to make when he alleges, ‘no one cares about white Christian Westerners’ and what is his mission?
Does this American not realise that Australia has the highest percentage of migrants of any country in the Western world? Is this a bad thing?
That aside, what does this tweet suggest to the huge numbers of Asian, African and Middle Eastern brothers and sisters who belong to our churches and who are amazing and vital members in the work of the gospel here?
What is Foster trying to say about churches in Melbourne that don’t speak English or who are majority Chinese or Persian or Korean and Vietnamese?
One of the places Foster is due to speak is a Melbourne suburb where 55% of residents were not born in Australia. More residents are ethnically Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Indian and Sri Lankan, than of Western descent. What kind of message is Foster’s tweet sending to this local community?
Does Keysborough need rescuing from some white American dude? And do white Christian Westerners require some kind of protection or assistance from this American preacher? If anything we can be learning lessons from our brothers and sisters in China and Iran and Nigeria.
If Michael Foster’s mission to Australia isn’t enough to throw up a red flag, there’s more. Foster is apparently coming to fight for the small number of Aussie churches who railed against Romans 13 during the COVID pandemic.
Titus 3:1 tells Church leaders to “remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good”. Foster has another mission.
Yes, the pandemic was an incredibly hard season for all Australians. Yes, the pandemic response has created all kinds of social, health, and economic pressures we will be addressing for years to come (as early as 2020 it was clear that prolonged lockdowns would have this effect). Yes, not everyone agreed with every Government policy. Yes, mistakes were made (hindsight is an easy tool to wave around). Yes, Christians have many responsibilities and our attitudes and decisions should be informed by multiple theological threads. Christians hold together multiple responsibilities at the same time. Yes, Christians have some warrant for concern by Government overreach on different issues. Yes, some Christians acted selfishly and promoted anti-authoritarian and even dangerous ideas. There were of course a few churches filled with self-taught epidemiologists and prophets who were able to discern that Covid was fake news, or at most, just a really nasty virus. The majority of churches however chose a different path, one that neither blindly disobeyed Government and one that didn’t cave into totalitarianism.
Foster’s shallow and even misinformed view of how Australian Churches lived through the pandemic is easy to call out. Although he doesn’t seem to be the type of guy who’s up for conversation. When I pushed back on him yesterday, he insisted that I be ‘defrocked’! Can you imagine defrocking a baptist pastor?!
I wouldn’t have known Michael Foster was visiting Australia later this year, nor would even know his name except that a friend messaged me yesterday and reminded me of an American Pastor who has a nasty habit of denigrating women.
The first time I came across Michael Foster was last year and once more a few months ago. The context was an online exchange between Foster, Douglas Wilson and others. I was appalled by how he spoke about and to women.
And before a reader asks, is Foster a complementarian? No, he is not. He rejects complementariansm and his online attacks (those I’ve seen) have been aimed against complementarian women.
Dr Dani Treweek is (in no particular order) a theologian, a Sydney Anglican, a Deacon, a complementarian, a woman, and single! Dani is a thoughtful and engaging academic who has recently published a significant work, The Meaning of Singleness: Retrieving an Eschatological Vision for the Contemporary Church. Dani is a gift to the church and her study on the subject of singleness is a blessing to Australian Christianity.
Last year, Dani challenged views expressed by Michael Foster and Douglas Wilson on a podcast.
“Wilson and Foster embark on a shared lament about the impending crisis facing churches whose pews are soon to be filled with lonely, unlikeable, tubby spinsters who have nothing in their lives and so spend their days endlessly seeking the benevolent attention of their ever-patient but extremely busy and very important senior pastor.”
She sums up Foster and Wilson’s views on single women as:
the reason women are single is because “Baby […] You can do better than this. You’re not likeable” or because they are too “tubby” to be considered of marital value to the men around them (at least the ones they haven’t driven into the arms of Islam);
single women are derogatorily dismissed as a “bunch of old spinsters”
anyone not married by the time they are 40 are issued the dire warning that they ‘will be lonely’
elderly widowed women are depicted as a tiresome burden upon the senior pastor’s time and energy
the only valuable and valid expression of love in action is if it is directed towards someone’s own offspring and then their offspring
single women are the harbingers of “chaos”
unmarried women don’t “have anything” in their lives”
If your pastor holds these kinds of attitudes toward single women, please save yourself and find another church.
Someone shared Dani’s material with Michael Foster over on Twitter and his initial response was this,
“I find all exegetical criticism suspect from any woman who calls herself a “Reverend.”
Thankfully several people pushed back on his tweet, including this,
“Really poor form to start your response to a carefully argued and Biblically sound critique “I find all exegetical criticism suspect from any woman who calls herself a “Reverend.” You could start by reading her article & repenting of your cavalier attitude to a godly sister.”
Sadly, this wasn’t a one off bad moment on social media. In an exchange this year, Michael Foster presented a tirade of condescending and sexist comments including these,
“Ma’am, I’m not interested in more of the same.
I’ll spend my time gutting this nonsense, normalizing marriage, & equipping couples to live happy & fulfilled lives serving God.
The trendiness of pandering to lifelong singleness is coming to an end. You’ll soon need a new trend.”
And this…
“Yes, it is you who needs me. The sun is setting on your ilk, Rev. Dr. Ma’am.”
And let’s not forget…
“Don’t let heartless PhD mislead you.”
And once again…
“My last word to you is God will hold you accountable for those who mislead.
It’s heartless and cruel to tell both men and women that the state of singleness is the same as a gift of celibacy.”
Condescension? Absolutely. Misogyny? Certainly sounds like it. But I’m told that Michael Foster has written the manual for men!
As it happens, I have many American friends. They are godly, thoughtful, and generous people. I love my American friends and spending time with them is a great joy. We in Australia have also benefited much from Christian men and women from the United States who share their gifts and time with us. We can and do learn from them. But let’s be honest, the United States is also famous for exporting some ideas and people that we can do without.
The last time an American visited our shores to preach about all that Aussie Churches were doing wrong, we listened politely and tried to find a useful strand amidst the straw. I don’t think we need another.
So why I have bothered putting together a few words about an American far far away? Because I think Foster’s online presence gives Christians a bad name and I think men who speak to women in the manner that he does, should be called out. Perhaps those inviting Foster are unaware of some of his ideas and words? I don’t know.
Of course, Christian organisations and churches are free to invite whomever they wish. Churches have a freedom to align themselves with teachers and teachings. Not everyone agrees with everything I write or every conference I’ve helped organise. I get that. No doubt, there is a market, albeit a small one, for Foster’s views about women and defence of ‘white Christian Westernism’. It is also appropriate for others to send up a red flare to signal, do we really need another preacher fostering these kinds of attitudes Down Under.
A school district in Utah has banned the Bible. This isn’t exactly a big news story for Australia, nor the United States for the matter, and yet the New York Times is reporting it. Even The Age has published a piece via AP. Perhaps a Fairfax Editor thought the story warrants sharing here in Australia. Or maybe, if the suspicious part of me speaks for a moment, the aim is to work up a little outrage in Australia and motivate a Bible ban in our schools.
When I initially came across the story I didn’t think much, but now that it’s considered newsworthy for an Australian audience, let me explain why I think the ban is ridiculous and yet, let’s admit that the Bible is a dangerous book.
Yes, the Bible is dangerous. The words of the Bible are not designed to merely inform or tell a story, they are written to transform those who read, and yes, even to change the world.
The Bible is honest about its aims. It doesn’t seek to hide or manipulate the author’s intention. For instance, the book of Hebrews explains,
“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:12-13)
The Bible is many things. The Bible is history, law, and poetry, it is prophecy and preaching. The Bible is also a story; from Genesis to Revelation the Bible tells the greatest story the world has ever known. The Bible is a human document and it is a Divine word. The Bible can be studied and analysed, and it can be admired and sung, it can confuse and anger, it can nourish and give life and joy.
The Bible is confronting. Let’s not pretend that the words and message aren’t provocative and uncomfortable. These Scriptures challenge the status quo and confront assumptions and life commitments. The Bible exposes our deepest inclinations and desires. The pages have the ability to stimulate thought, stretch the intellect and breathe life into the soul.
The Bible is without doubt the most influential writing in all history, and the most vital. Civilisations have risen and fallen on account of these words: the notions of equality between men and women find their origins in the Bible. The concept of ultimate justice and that this justice is good and fair, believing in a distinction between church and state, the idea of emancipation, and even ‘secular’ all find their roots in the Bible.
The Bible doesn’t mimic any given culture but has the remarkable ability to speak into every time and place. Just as the ministry of Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, and Daniel each confronted the cultural and spiritual norms of their society, it is also the case with the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles, and this remains so today.
The Bible is confronting because it is real to life. The Bible doesn’t provide us with religious escapism. We are confronted with the reality of evil, and the truth of human sinfulness, and the nature of a God who judges. There is of course an irony at work here: School libraries are filled with stories about sex and violence and racism and bigotry. I’m still shocked by some of the books my children have studied in English classes. The messaging and moods of some English texts is confronting and sometimes disconcerting. It’s not just the English novel, but I remember the non fiction books that I would pick up in the school library with images of warfare or social unrest. Think of the horrifying images of the holocaust or the Vietnam war. And let’s not forget the internet and how (at least in the State of Victoria) school kids are given access to ‘educational’ websites that contain pornography and all manner of harmful ideas.
The Bible doesn’t sugarcoat the human condition, as we might find in many a classroom psychology book (and even some churches!) The Bible is real and raw, and that is a good thing. The Bible healthily counters the ‘she’ll be right’ mentality and the ‘you be you’ sloganeering that dominates today. We need a story that is honest enough to explain that there is a major problem in this world and we can’t fix it, and suggesting so does little more than play into the hands of the very narrative that is diminishing lives and relationships and even the environment.
While the current story is coming out of Utah, this board decision isn’t completely unheard of in Australia. For example, the Victorian Government squeezed out Bible lessons from school classrooms several years ago. More recently, if specific Bible teachings are presented to individual persons (about sexuality and gender), you can fall foul of the law and face criminal charges with 10 years imprisonment.
The Bible does more than confront and challenge. The Scriptures have a remarkable ability to comfort and bring peace and healing. The Bible is God’s word of love to a messed up and sinful world. The words are written so that our conscience might be aroused and restored, and convinced that God is both right and good, holy and merciful. We won’t understand the great bits of the Bible without reading the hard bits. At the heart of the Bible is a message of reconciliation. God is, as Jesus wonderfully explains in the parable of the prodigal son, the Father who longs for the wayward to come back to him. The Bible is a word of reconciliation.
“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).
By removing the Bible we may live off its memory for a little while. The fact is, the air we breathe is filled with Bible truths:
‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’.
“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made”
“Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”
“Blessed are the meek,
for they will inherit the earth”
Banning the Bible will hardly protect the younger generation. All this does is breeds a temporary dishonesty about where our greatest ideas and values come from. The longer we cut off the oxygen supply, the faster we will lose the very key ingredients required for living and civil society.
The banning of books is as old as literature. Hate is a strong motivator, as is fear. To be honest, there are plenty of books that I believe are dangerous, and I’m happy to warn people about their messages. There is a vast difference though between informing people about a book’s content and removing those same volumes from libraries and blowing their ashes into the wind.
In 2018, the Chinese Government began work on a new version of the Bible, to ensure that the Bible affirms ‘socialism’ and doesn’t contain ideas that might subvert the Government. One can imagine how distorted the Holy Scriptures will become once this atheistic, militant, and totalitarian, regime has finished their rewriting project. In many regions of China, it is already difficult to own and read a Bible, let alone teach this book in a semi-public setting. Preaching ‘Jesus is Lord’ is likely to end in arrest and possible imprisonment.
As one Chinese Pastor shared,
“without the permission of the authorities, you can’t organize a Bible study. And if you do get permission, you’d better hold it in a Party-approved religious venue, at a Party-approved time, with a Party-approved leader and using the new Party-approved Bible, which contains quotations from Confucius and, of course, Xi Jinping.”
Not even Christians are permitted to change the words of Scripture, let alone a Government or school board that wishes to change and control its message.
“For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)
“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever.” (1 Peter 1:24-25)
Banning the Bible, or any part of it, is absurd. Its literary contribution is without parallel, and its historical import is paramount. The Bible isn’t just a book from yesterday, it is for today: the Bible’s power to persuade and present a reality greater than ourselves and yet including the self, is stunning and one worth our younger generation reading for themselves.
No doubt there will be a spectrum of reactions to the Utah school story. There will be people who strongly support the prohibition and hope that the ban will spread further. There will be some Christians and some libertarians who will go into full-on meltdown. I suspect many more, both Christians and non Christians alike, will view the school’s decision as overreach and a pretty juvenile response to the uncomfortable words of Scripture.
Yes, the Bible is dangerous, confronting and challenging. That’s pretty amazing, for who wants to believe in a God who does no more than parrot back our own thoughts back to us? If we want our children to better understand the world and to find answers to the greatest questions, surely it makes sense to let them read the text that has achieved such great good. As Jesus says,
“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.”
Last night’s episode of QandA on the ABC featured a discussion about God in Australian life, culture and politics. Questions and conversations were wide ranging, and like in the real world, God’s talk wasn’t far away, although I suspect Easter had something to do with it.
The program conducted an online poll, asking, ‘Should politicians still say the Lord’s Prayer at the start of each sitting day?’
Of course, conducting a poll on ABC today is like surveying AFL supporters and asking whether they prefer to watch AFL or lawn bowls?
The surprise wasn’t the 83.5% who said no to the Lord’s Prayer but the 13.6% who said yes. By the way, if you’re interested to read what is a typical Christian view on this topic, take a look at this article. You may find the answer surprising.
Conversations among the guests were cordial and void of the spite that is sometimes present. It’s not as though they were unified in political or religious agreement, but the Anglican Archbishop, Muslim Labor Senator, the Indigenous Academic, the young liberal, and the British journalist, went about it with a tone of respect and humility.
The online world is of course a different place. It’s like navigating the Australian bush, with sharp teeth and claws ready to devour any dislikable opinion. Throughout the show, tweets were displayed on our television screens, selected by the producers. These pithy opinions played out a regular pattern: religion should stay out of politics, Churches should stay silent on the Voice to Parliament, and others citing with certainty what Jesus would do today! In contrast, panellist Anne Pattel-Gray and an Indigenous woman from the audience both called on Churches to be more proactive in speaking about the proposed Constitutional changes.
I want to address one question in particular which became the focus of the final minutes of the program.
The question came from audience member, Oliver Damian. He asked,
“According to the 2021 Australian census, those declaring that they have “no religion”, the nones, increased to almost 40 per cent second only to Christianity. David Foster Wallace said “There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.” Do you think these “nones” really ditched religion or have they just shifted to worshipping things that are much worse? And what does this mean for the soul of our nation?”
Andrew Neil answered, “Of course. Reality television, worshipping themselves, validating things they believe in…”
People took offence at Neil’s suggestion and defended their non-religiosity.
I threw my hat in the ring and tweeted this,
“There are no religious free people. We are worshippers at our core”.
People were similarly offended. But should the nones take offence? It’s worthwhile exploring this phenomenon and further explaining the thesis that everyone worships.
First, we can’t escape religion.
Andrew O Neil observed on QandA how Christianity is declining in Western nations, including France and his own United Kingdom. Australia can be added to that list. While we can’t deny the trend, there are also counter trends. For example, the number of practising Christians living in London is increasing, and the number of evangelical Christians in France is also growing, with around 745,000 adherent today in contrast to around 50,000 in 1950. Then, of course, Christianity is growing at phenomenal rates in many other parts of the world today. What we view as dangerous, millions of people in Africa, Asia, and South America are discovering is good news.
Australia’s nones may claim neutrality as though there exists a pure secularist mindset freed from any religious entanglements. Such a posture is framed by self-righteousness and it’s one that is already beginning to fray and lose its shape.
We can’t escape religion. Built from a narrow bend in the Enlightenment road, we Westerners love to mock belief in God. Our hubris convinces us that the world no longer needs notions of heavenly realities and life to come. This world is all there is and there is no overarching design or purpose beyond that which we determine for ourselves.
The British historian, Tom Holland has demonstrated in his book Dominion that our culture is not the only indebted to Christianity, but Christian ideas remain t deeply embedded in our subconsciousness, such that they continue to direct and influence our moral categories and judgements today.
“If secular humanism derives not from reason or from science, but from the distinctive course of Christianity’s evolution—a course that, in the opinion of growing numbers in Europe and America, has left God dead—then how are its values anything more than the shadow of a corpse? What are the foundations of its morality, if not a myth?”
In cities like Melbourne, we are creating drought like conditions for the garden. That is, we are trying hard to remove theological language and spiritual concepts from the public space, but killing off every blade of grass and every root is harder than we might imagine.
As the book of Ecclesiastes puts it,
“God has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.”
We are wired to believe in God. Searching for meaning and hope beyond blood and brain, and behind the molecular and physics is instinctive.
While the amassing nones like to claim autonomy, and a sense of epistemic and moral maturity, in blowing off God, they are, in fact, still relying upon posits or values instilled in us via the Christian God. Hence what we have today is not less worship, but rather a distorted worship.
Indeed, to rid ourselves of Christianity is to uproot basic societal goods such as notions of equality, forgiveness, and tolerance. All these things and more find their origins in the God of the Bible. That is not to say that the atheist doesn’t have a moral framework, of course, she does. But these ethics have a Christian vein running through them and even when they don’t, they are ethics created in opposition to the Christian God.
Second, everyone worships.
Everyone worships. Worship does not necessitate a higher being or god of some description. Worship isn’t limited to temples, churches, prayers and choral music. Worship is about giving oneself to a person, object or idea. Worship means giving credence to and sacrificing for the cause that your heart most desires.
The Bible itself doesn’t reduce worship to acts of prayer and song that are contained within a religious ceremony and building. While there is a particular emphasis on communal worship (whether it is at the Temple or church), the language of worship extends to all of life. For example, Romans 12:1
“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”.
As both the law and Jesus teach,
‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Luke 10:27)
Not only is worship an all-of-life attitude, but it is also often centring on areas of life that might surprise. Timothy Keller has made this powerful and somewhat disturbing observation about American politics in recent years,
“They have put the kind of hope in their political leaders and policies that once was reserved for God and the work of the gospel. When their political leaders are out of power, they experience a death “
As philosopher Dr Christopher Watkin notes in his best selling book, ‘Biblical Critical Theory (an idol is a Bible way of describing substitutes for God),
“Any idol engenders this sort of dogmatic totalitarianism because it becomes, within creation, the ulti-mate measure of what is good, drawing a line down the middle of the created order and classifying some of its objects, impulses, and values as unmitigatedly good and others as unrelentingly evil. This is the lot of those who “have sup- posed that the Final Good and Evil are to be found in this life” and so “with wondrous vanity . . . have wished to be happy here and now, and to achieve bless- edness by their own efforts.”
The only way to escape this totalitarianism is to have an object of worship that is outside the created order. Any idol on the creature side of the creator- creature distinction will lead to a situation in which some thing or things in the world are pursued in an unqualified and undiscerning way, and other things (whatever gets in the way of or stands opposed to the chosen idol) will be denounced or loathed in a similarly dogmatic way”
The convinced naturalist or materialist isn’t without gods and idols, they simply take on a different form. Dr Watkin again,
“These idols have their own cultic rituals, argues Richard Bauckham, namely the advertising that mediates to us their values and desires. Adverts are not sell- ing objects; they are selling us ourselves, repackaged and dependent on the aura of this or that product to graft onto us a borrowed identity”.
Worship is an act and attitude of thankfulness, adoration, and love. It’s something we all do from the Internet to work, from the shopping centre and to the church. The only question is, who or what are we worshipping? Who or what are we giving our lives to?
Indeed, the ancient gods of Molech and Artemis may have changed their names, but their insatiable desires remain with us. We label them with sociological terms such as self determination and expressive individualism.
The worship of gods can be oppressive and problematic. The worship of self is arduous, stifling, and egocentric, for it means that everyone else and everything exists to serve me. We can’t deny the fact that religion is responsible for all kinds of heinous activities throughout history, both as a distortion of religions and sometimes as a result of faithful adherence to religious beliefs. It is also the case that our godless counterparts have been proud participants in what is called sin and evil.
Australia may be trying to move away from Christianity, but we can’t easily distance ourselves from the cross: that symbol of Divine love, justice and mercy. We do, after all, acknowledge Good Friday as a national public holiday.
For all our advancements and developments, we haven’t found a substitute for the cross of Jesus Christ, and neither do we need one. If Jesus should die for my sins and then defeat death on the third day with his resurrection, surely that should at least cause us to consider, does my religion or lack thereof, offering this kind of freedom and new life?
I’d never heard of Reuben Kaye until yesterday, but the shock value of Kaye’s ‘joke’ clearly fell flat across the country. The comment was more like a drunken Uncle misbehaving at a wedding reception: unpleasant, not funny, and kind of embarrassing.
I missed the great offence as I’m not a viewer of Channel 10’s The Project. I’ve since gone back and watched the 15 seconds of stinging jocularity. Yes, it was pretty offensive and yes, it was pretty unoriginal.
I’ve grown in an Australia where snide remarks and jokes at the expense of Christians are a common pastime. A lot of the comments may lack the deliberate bite that Kaye offered, but our political representatives regularly deride Christian beliefs, and so do teachers and university lecturers, and our mates on the sporting grounds. Christians have long been easy pickings for public insult. After all, what does it cost someone to crack a joke about Jesus or the church? Nothing If anything, you’re likely to win more adulation than less.
Let’s admit, there are some Christians whose behaviour probably deserves a few words of humour.
And yet, on this occasion, it seems as though people realised that there exists a line and Reuben Kaye had crossed it. I’m sure that the same joke will garner claps and cheers in the local comedy clubs, but there was something about adding sexual innuendo to Jesus’ death on a national television program that didn’t sit well.
Are we experiencing a conflict of conscience? Australians want to mock Christianity and yet we’re also taught to respect alternate views. After all, the media steers well away from mocking certain religions, so why should targeting Christians be allowed?
I’ve gone back and watched the clip in question, and yes, Reuben Kaye’s attempt to put down Christianity yet again, fell flat. I wonder why?
Insulting Christians is as original as crucifixion and as old as the Bible. That’s the sad irony about mocking the death of Jesus. Far from standing over the Christian faith with comedic judgment, you’re simply following the crowd who were present that day and jeering Jesus as he died. It wasn’t comedy, it was spite.
Luke’s Gospel records the so-called comedic hour at the crucifixion of Jesus,
“Jesus said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”And they divided up his clothes by casting lots.
The people stood watching, and the rulers even sneered at him. They said, “He saved others; let him save himself if he is God’s Messiah, the Chosen One.”
The soldiers also came up and mocked him. They offered him wine vinegar and said, “If you are the king of the Jews, save yourself.”
There was a written notice above him, which read: this is the king of the jews.
One of the criminals who hung there hurled insults at him: “Aren’t you the Messiah? Save yourself and us!”But the other criminal rebuked him. “Don’t you fear God,” he said, “since you are under the same sentence? We are punished justly, for we are getting what our deeds deserve. But this man has done nothing wrong.”
Attacking the cross is little more than a pale copy of what the Romans did. The first Christian knew it was a symbol of shame and disgust. The Greek intellectuals happily pointed out how absurd it was to consider the cross as an act of Divine love and redemption. But this foolishness turned out to be the answer that the world so desperately needs.
The attempted humour was offensive but that’s par of the course. It is important for the 6 Christians who watch The Project, and for the rest of us, to respond in a manner that matches how Jesus turned insult into grace. Don’t get fired up. Don’t write angry emails to Channel 10. Avoid spitting on your iPhone as you send that tweet.
Jesus says,
“Blessed are meek…Blessed are the merciful…Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me”
Jesus says,
Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you,
The Apostle Paul writes,
“Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse.” (Romans 12:14)
The Project co-presenters, Waleed Aly and Sarah Harris, have since offered a public apology. While never watching The Project I often read Waleed’s opinion pieces in the newspaper. His writing is thoughtful and worth consideration. I have no reason to doubt the genuineness of their apology. Thank you. We accept.
So if anyone is thinking about protesting outside Channel 10 today, maybe give it a miss and instead take a few minutes to share with someone why this cross of jokes is in fact more remarkable than they realise.
Australian of the year 2023, Taryn Brumfitt, is a worthy winner who is fighting an issue that is literally aimed at saving the lives of children. Brumfitt came to prominence through her relentless work to fight for children who grow up hating their bodies.
“”We really need to help our kids across Australia and the world because the rates of suicide, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, steroid use, all on the increase related to body dissatisfaction.”
She argues that this relationship with our bodies results from ‘learned behaviour’. Key to her message is that “we weren’t born into the world hating our body”. In other words, our society is teaching and influencing our children to have negative thoughts about their bodies, which of course can lead to serious consequences.
Brumfitt’s mission is to influence and encourage children to embrace their physicality, and not be defined by social influencers and so called culturally perfect images.
Any parent with a daughter (and sons for that matter) is committed to the well-being of our children. Sadly, this isn’t always the case but it is true 98% of the time. I imagine millions of parents, and Aussies more generally, resonate with and applaud the message from our new Australian of the year. We may or may not have first hand experience with body image disorders, but it is clear to most of us that Brumfitt is alerting us to a real problem that is capturing our young people. As Brumfitt testifies, it’s not only teenage girls who experience harmful views of their physical selves, but boys as well, and it is also present among young children,
“It’s getting younger and younger I have to say, I only spoke to a six-year-old recently who was dieting”.
There is something right and beautiful about Taryn Brumfitt affirming the goodness of the human body.
Australia has an uncomfortable relationship with the human body. As I heard the news of our new Australian of the year, it’s hard not to notice a massive disconnect, not in what Brumfitt said in her Australia Day speech but in the broader narrative in our society. You see, there exists a sizeable disjunction between the message Brumfitt is advocating and what is now mainstream thinking about the human body.
I don’t know Brumfitt’s views about transgenderism and how she makes sense of this new and sudden wave of bodily denial, but one thing is for certain, her calls to embrace our physical body is at odds with the ideology that is now sweeping our society and being forcibly taught and embraced from GP rooms to school classrooms and TikTok ‘programs’.
Our culture has adopted a modern day Gnosticism, where the ‘truest’ self is divorced from the physical. We are taught that the real you isn’t the physical body you inhabit but the immaterial desire and feelings that one experiences in the mind. Gender has been divorced from sex and personal identity cut away from physicality. We can’t of course reduce our humanness to physicality for we are spiritual and social beings and thinking and feeling beings. We are more than flesh and blood and DNA but we are not less than those things.
We are witnessing a generation of young people who no longer feel comfortable in their own skin, but are now taught from school to TikTok that their physical bodies betray them, and they may well be living in denial of their true selves.
The result is that 34% of 18-24 now no longer believe they are heterosexual, embodied beings attracted to the opposite sex, but rather they are spread across an imprecise and growing spectrum of self-defining and often bodily denying sexuality and gender.
Many girls and boys now undertake psychological and medical pathways to transition away from their physical sex. The number of young people beginning hormonal medications, psychological treatments, and eventual surgical mutilation of the body, is skyrocketing. We are talking about an increase in gender dysphoria by 1000% in just the space of a few years. Call me, Wiliam of Ockham but this drastic and sudden increase cannot be explained by natural selection. There is something else in the water. Indeed, the iceberg that looms beneath the surface is rightly scary and we’re ill equipped to do little more than chip away at it.
While gender related rejection of the body is deeply personal and impacts the individual, the worldview attached is fast becoming compulsory across all spheres of life. For instance, in the United Kingdom, women are having to fight the government to prevent male rapists from being sent to women’s prisons because the man wishes to identify as female. The World Athletics body has agreed to let transgender women compete against women. The next women’s soccer world cup will be open to men competing (those who say they are women). And when women speak up, they are ridiculed, ostracised and at times threatened. Take note of how the disgusting treatment toward JK Rowling.
Do we see the confusion? Here I say confusion because one wants to think the best of people‘s intentions. Parents who see their children in torment will do anything to find relief. And so if a doctor or counsellor says transition, then I understand them trusting the advice of the professionals. But surely there is also an ear of hypocrisy as well. How can we preach on the one hand, be comfortable in your body, and then insist on the other, reject your body and have it mutilated and permanently damaged in the name of this Gnosticism?
In her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, journalist Abigail Shreier explores the transgender phenomenon. She blames an ideology that has captured the heart of western cultures. It’s what Carl Truman refers to as ‘expressive individualism. Gender expression has become the trend, and because it’s now described in terms of human rights, no one is allowed to question, doubt or help adjust a child’s sense of identity.
In today’s Australia even questioning a child’s ‘felt’ gender is paramount to the worse kind of blasphemy. In Victoria, parents, teachers, pastors, and pretty much anyone can find themselves charged by the police and imprisoned should they not fully affirm and support a person’s preferred gender identity. We are now forcibly required to ignore the physical body and appearance.
Leaving aside the elephant in the room, it is a good thing when our Australians of the year highlight important social issues that impact the lives of real people. It’s one of the gains in recent years that has been awarded to us through this prestigious accolade.
Those living with discomfort and disconnect with their bodies need our care, not hatred, our kindness not our complicity with a dehumanising project. As much as awareness of these issues helps and as much as positive thinking and imaging may benefit youth as they learn to live in their body, I think Christianity has something to add. The Bible gives us what I believe is an even better message, one that is more secure. The ultimate resolution doesn’t lay in the self, for the self is existentially unstable. If the best of me can fail and disappoint, what about the rest of me? If this was not the case, we wouldn’t have a generation of Australians journeying down this dangerous and harmful pathway to physical destruction and mental anx. The Bible gives us a better story and greater hope.
Psalm 139 exclaims,
“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.
Your eyes saw my unformed body;
all the days ordained for me were written in your book
before one of them came to be.”
Grounding our personhood in the knowledge that we are wonderfully made by God, is liberating and securing. The Bible’s story doesn’t end there. The Scriptures also acknowledge ways we often hide from ourselves (and from God). The Bible points out the realities of the darkness in the world and in our own hearts. The story however doesn’t end with darkness and despair, for the Scriptures move us to the culmination of the story,
“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil— and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason, he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” (Hebrews 2:14-18)
There is a constancy in our world of body image flaws and troubles. There is an anchor for all the spiritual and material wants and sins. This Jesus, the eternal Son of God, didn’t abandon the body; he became human for us. He entered the physical and spiritual turmoil that fills the world, taking its sins and shame in order to bring redemption and life. He understands. He makes atonement. He helps. That is a good news message for Australians today.
Carols by Candle Light at the Myer Music Bowl in Melbourne is an annual pilgrimage for thousands of Melbournians. For many more, the 3-hour Christmas extravaganza provides background Christmas mood music on tv and radio for families madly wrapping Christmas and preparing food for the big day.
Perhaps it’s my grinch-like tendencies, but my enthusiasm for watching what is essentially a pentecostal styled pop concert (or Wiggles for grown-ups!) doesn’t appeal to my musical sensibilities. It’s hard not to notice the jarring vibrato of Australian artists singing the most sublime truths known to the world while disbelieving them in their hearts and lives.
Half of my readers are probably letting out a quiet nod of agreement (and the other half now have confirmation that Murray is the grinch). With that confession (or rather a criticism) out of the way, I want to share something that did strike me even as the show played on in the background of my home.
One of our nephews was performing and so we had instructions from the family to keep an eye (and ear) open for him. The band played on through our television when two quite wonderful performances came on stage, one after the other, both causing me to pause eating Christmas lunch ahead of schedule.
Silvie Paladino sang the not so Christmas carol, ‘How great thou art’, and then the Central Australian Aboriginal Women’s Choir sang an old German carol in their own native tongue, Western Arrernte and Pitjantjatjara language. This 19th century carol arrived in central Australia when Lutheran missionaries came to share the good news of Jesus. Generations later, these songs about Jesus have formed part of the local culture and are now been sung beautifully in aboriginal languages. The choral performance was indeed a special moment.
Anyone who watches Candles by Candlelight will know that the music is mishmash of secular and sacred songs. Rudolph with his red nose and Santa Claus coming are intermingled with ‘The First Noel’, and without any sense of distinguishing between fiction and fact. The entire evening is a jumble of feel good old time tradition.
Silvie Paladino’s song choice, at least for me, interrupted the show in the same way a lit candle intrudes on a darkened room.
She sang,
“And when I think that God, His Son not sparing
Sent Him to die, I scarce can take it in
That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing
He bled and died to take away my sin
Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art”.
These words reflect the heart of the Christian message. Christmas is about preparing for and pointing to that cross.
I don’t know about you, but when I heard those words, something good stirred inside. We’ve done a fine job sanitising the birth of Jesus, washing over many of the particulars that make the incarnation so extraordinary and thwart with danger and awe. However, it’s not so easy to give a PG rating to that bloodstained cross. 2,000 years on and that cross remains the most ignominious moment in history. We like the Christmas part of the story, but the death part? No one has lived as pure and innocent a life as Jesus, and yet he willingly walked the road to crucifixion and experienced the worst of evil. The cross is both the world’s greatest horror and the world’s greatest hope. The cross stupefies human power trips and intellectual exercises. The cross exposes human hubris, the reality of evil, the holiness of God, and the nature of true Divine love.
It’s hard enough convincing Aussies today of the reality of Jesus’ birth, let alone the death absorbing and life giving hope through Jesus’ death and resurrection. And yet, as Silvie Paladino sang, ‘That on the cross, my burden gladly bearing, he bled and died to take away my sin’.
As I read my Bible, I read something about the death of Jesus every week. Each Sunday as I have the privilege and responsibility to preach at church, I have the opportunity to explain this ancient story that continues and will forever define every generation and part of the world. At Christmas, I want to hear about the cross. The Bible tells us, that Jesus’ birth is designed to prepare for that cross and to miss it is to keep wonders from peoples’ minds and hearts.
Stan Grant wrote a moving piece on ABC about the Nick Cave concert he recently attended.
“But I sensed a space between the religion that Nick Cave speaks of and the desire of many in the audience for some connection.
They wanted the personal touch of Nick Cave the rock star. But did they want the touch of God?
Some, perhaps many, just like me, no doubt would have. But I could not help but think that many – if not most – in the audience would have been more comfortable with a spiritual experience.
This was a secular audience. How many of those with their hands outreaching would likely be found in the pews of church?”
Stan Grant points out, as does Nick Cave, the expressive individualism that dominates our current cultural sensibilities isn’t producing the freedom and life that we are looking for. Rather, it agitates and further debilitates the human longing. Stan Grant reflects on his indigenous heritage and points us to the same saviour whom the Central Australian Aboriginal Women’s Choir sang about and whom Silvie Paladino sought to highlight on Christmas Eve
“In times of grief, catastrophe or tragedy, do the secular shibboleths of reason or science or law or rights fill the God-shaped hole?
Cave says the modern faiths of politics or identity don’t answer those questions for him.
Religion matters, church matters to Nick Cave. It is where he draws closer to the crucified Christ.”
If this is the real thing, then the hymn writer is right to exclaim,
“Then sings my soul, my Savior God to Thee
How great Thou art, how great Thou art”
How much better is the story that God is there and he is greater and better than we ever imagined. It is more satisfying and exciting to consider this Jesus story than to carry around the baggage of self-hope and self fulfilment and self defining reality.
The Apostle Paul explains it this way,
“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us. (Romans 5:6-8)
Here’s my final word for 2022, don’t dismiss the songs we sang on Christmas day. Don’t disregard the message we heard as we visited Church over Christmas. Instead, consider, that maybe, just perhaps we ought to take another look at this message of the Christ.
MurrayCampbell.net 