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.
The Church of England, like many Christian denominations, has faced trials and temptations down the centuries, from both outside in the culture and from within. Its beginnings were turbulent and yet the grace of God started what became a global witness for Christ, albeit a shaky one.
The Church of England is famed throughout the world, for its connections to King Henry VIII through to Westminster Abbey and the village church and is quintessentially English. More than that, the Church of England was once a beacon of light, preaching the Gospel of Jesus Christ and gathering men and women into Christ’s Church, producing theologians and pastors and missionaries who stood firm on sound doctrine and who loved the church. Sometimes this came at a great cost.
The Church of England establishment had an unhealthy dating program with the State and wanderings back into a religion of form and with cassock and golden crosses. At times it was the Common Book of Prayer with the readings of Scripture that kept a light flickering within ageing stone walls of St Mark’s and St Mary’s. Other churches grew and were centres of faithful Gospel proclamation. Indeed, when my wife and I lived in England 20 years ago, we visited and were so encouraged by numerous parishes who’d invited me to preach. Young and old, married and single, were united together by the Spirit of God and were hungry to feed from Scripture. It is of no surprise that the healthiest and largest Anglican Churches in England are mostly evangelical parishes, that hold to and teach the faith once for all delivered.
Indeed, at the General Synod this week, their voices were heard and their impassioned warnings and love for the church resonated around the meeting place In London. To their shame, all 3 Houses voted in support of the Bishops’ recommendations in the report, ‘Living in Love and Faith.
Everyone agreed with aspects of the report. There have been times when Christians have not loved others as we ought. We have treated people with disdain, not love, with fear not welcome. We ought to repent when we look upon others in a way that contradicts the Lord Jesus. Other aspects of the report, including the Bishops call to introduce same sex blessing services, are untenable to Anglicans who uphold the teaching of the Church of England.
Today, in London, the Church of England entered into what is essentially a de facto relationship with the Devil.
The Church of England’s press release today states,
“The Church of England’s General Synod has called on the bishops to take the next step to issue prayers which would enable same-sex couples to come to church after a civil marriage or civil partnership to give thanks, dedicate their relationship to God and receive God’s blessing.”
This is effectively a de facto relationship with the Devil. They haven’t (as yet) redefined marriage, but they have determined to however call holy, that which God calls sin. It is only a matter of time before the divorce is formalised and the new marriage arranged.
This is a historical moment. This is the undoing of centuries of agreed and believed doctrine for the sake of fitting in with a culture that is proud of its sex without borders ethics. The self is King and no one is to object or disagree with the sexual preferences of anyone. And as numerous MPs have said over the past week, the Church of England must embrace same sex marriage or be cast aside.
There are many parishes scattered around England that have declared their faithfulness to the Lord of the Church over and above an errant English Church. How they proceed now will require much wisdom and strength and courage. May the Lord honour their faithfulness to Jesus.
Without repentance, there is no saving the Church of England. Without a return to doctrinal orthodoxy and practice, the Church of England will be little more than an English version of Thyatira.
God is love. God is truth. His word is loving and true. The Gospel of Jesus Christ is good news for everyone who believes. It is not as though the Bible is unclear about matters concerning human sexuality, marriage, and life fulfilment. Churches for millennia and the majority of Christian Churches around the world today affirm the same theological understandings. Jesus never said that following him would be easy. Sometimes the world offers everything, if only we fudge His world a little, if only we excise that chapter or that verse and include a sentence from the hymnbook of today’s culture.
The Church of England’s song sheet is certainly sounding more like Sam Smith’s ‘unholy’ than it is God’s beautiful, gracious and life giving word.
One does not need to be a member of the Church of England today to feel a sense of loss, anger and great sadness. A small part of every Protestant believer has been betrayed. All our churches may come under greater social scrutiny and derision if we do not follow the now lost Church of England.
Today, as we did yesterday, and as we must tomorrow, take hold of the message of Jude,
“Dear friends, although I was very eager to write to you about the salvation we share, I felt compelled to write and urge you to contend for the faith that was once for all entrusted to God’s holy people. 4 For certain individuals whose condemnation was written about long ago have secretly slipped in among you. They are ungodly people, who pervert the grace of our God into a license for immorality and deny Jesus Christ our only Sovereign and Lord.
17 But, dear friends, remember what the apostles of our Lord Jesus Christ foretold. 18 They said to you, “In the last times there will be scoffers who will follow their own ungodly desires.” 19 These are the people who divide you, who follow mere natural instincts and do not have the Spirit.
20 But you, dear friends, by building yourselves up in your most holy faith and praying in the Holy Spirit, 21 keep yourselves in God’s love as you wait for the mercy of our Lord Jesus Christ to bring you to eternal life.
22 Be merciful to those who doubt; 23 save others by snatching them from the fire; to others show mercy, mixed with fear—hating even the clothing stained by corrupted flesh.
24 To him who is able to keep you from stumbling and to present you before his glorious presence without fault and with great joy— 25 to the only God our Savior be glory, majesty, power and authority, through Jesus Christ our Lord, before all ages, now and forevermore! Amen”
One thing worse than Sam Smith’s performance at the Grammys is the revisionist Bishops in the Church of England who are this week gaslighting both the sheep under their care and deceiving the general public.
Presumably, Sam Smith thinks that dressing up in a satan costume and performing a song called ‘unholy’ is making some kind of loud and shocking creative statement. Perhaps someone could tell him, he’s doing nothing more than copying a longish line of musicians. It is all rather boorish, except that mimicking the very personification of evil isn’t a particularly bright idea.
Over in old England land, ecclesiastical leaders have taken up that ancient inquisition of the Devil, by suggesting, “Did God really say?”
What have they done?
The Bishops in the Church of England wrote and issued a paper whereby they intend to introduce same-sex blessings services. They are not proposing same-sex weddings (at this stage), but wantng same sex blessing ceremonies. In other words, this change amounts to formally recognising same-sex relationships as a moral and God accepted good and that churches ought to offer services of prayer and blessing for these couples. Not every bishop agrees with the document, but clearly, there is sufficient consensus for its publication and presentation to General Synod for serious consideration.
In what can only be described as a dishonest riff, some Anglican leaders are insisting that the church’s doctrine on marriage isn’t changing…quite literally as they call for changes to the church’s understanding of sex and marriage. The same hypocrisy is being offered up by The Australian Law Reform Commission, albeit a legal entourage rather than a church one. Their recent submission to the Federal Government calls for religious schools to lose their freedom to practice traditional views of sexuality. For example, they are recommending legislation that allows Christian schools to teach a Christian view of sex and marriage, but they may also be required to teach alternate views. They will lose the right to employ staff on the basis of religious convictions. In other words, we’ll tolerate your religion so long as you tell and permit today’s sexology. That’s not compromise, it’s forced capitulation. That’s not co-existing with two unbridgeable views, that’s crossing over and demanding change.
This General Synod is happening on the other side of the world and in a Christian denomination that is different to my own, so why take interest in this debate? This particular case is important for several reasons: 1. I have many friends who pastor or who are members of churches in the Church of England. 2. The very public stature of this denomination (part through age and part through connections to the State) will garner significant media and public attention. 3. The Church of England is part of the worldwide Anglican communion which accounts for 10s million of believers, including Australia. 4. The same revisionist agenda playing out in the Church of England is present here in Australia, including among Baptists.
The flavour of the month is self-expression. In every sphere of life we are told that autonomy and self determination is an absolute, and questioning this ‘reality’ is the gravest of sins. From TikTok to the Bishop of York, the sermon proclaims that an individual’s sexual preferences and gender identity is the most fundamental aspect of reality…with a dash of God apparently giving approval. While this religious message will arouse a clap from the culture’s elites, notice how it doesn’t bring people to the cross or persuade them to follow Jesus and join a local church. What’s the point of Christianity if it does little more than mirror the culture’s messaging?
Numerous British MPs have responded to the House of Bishops’ recommendations and are demanding even more change. The Guardian reports,
“The repeal of a century-old act of parliament that allows the Church of England to govern itself is among options being considered by MPs frustrated at the church’s continued refusal to offer marriage equality to same-sex couples.”
…“If synod does not make greater progress than is contained in the bishops’ recommendations, I think parliament would take this matter very seriously,” said Ben Bradshaw, the Labour MP and former cabinet minister.
…On Thursday, Bryant asked Penny Mordaunt, leader of the Commons, to “allow time for legislation to push the Church of England into allowing same-sex marriages to be conducted by parishes and clergy who want to do so, if synod does not act.” Equality campaigners suggested that Mordaunt’s reply – “I know this is an issue that many members of this house will wish to pursue” – left the door open for legislative action.
While the Archbishop of Canterbury, Justin Welby, has come out and said that he keeping the unity of the church is more important than remaining as the establishment church, he risks losing both.
“A church must conserve historic Christian teaching. If a church simply adopts the beliefs of the culture, it will die, because it has nothing unique to offer.”
That is true for churches in America and England and Australia
The irony of the revisionist message is that assimilation with the dominant culture’s doctrine doesn’t grow the church. The Churches less likely to decline and most likely to grow are those that hold to classical (yes, evangelical) beliefs, including on human sexuality and marriage. As one recent study found, in the Church of England the largest churches with the most young people are those that teach the traditional view of marriage.
There is something quite perturbing at work among the Bishops of England. I understand the nature of love and wanting to love others, and I even get how we might make the misstep of thinking that love requires acceptance. Of course, that isn’t true. Love requires disagreement at times. There are occasions when true love is required to say no.
As I have noted many times in recent years, the people who often most struggle through these conversations are godly men and women who talk about their own personal experiences with same-sex attraction or gender dysphoria, and who believe and are committed to God’s vision. They believe that a person’s deepest identity, whether single or married, is found in Jesus Christ. They are convinced that sex outside marriage is sinful. They hold that the most profound security and joy and contentment comes from knowing Jesus. They are right! When the church or its leaders cave into the sexual molasses of the day, we are mistreating and betraying these brothers and sisters.
Should the Church of England lose its official status in the land it will not have lost anything. Of course, you would say that Murray, you are Baptist after all! That is true, but any church that wants to get into bed with State rather than remaining Facebook friends is likely to wake up one morning with a hangover. Take a look at the orthodox church in Russia or the way some churches embed themselves in the United States with the Republican party or the Democrat party.
Like the insatiable appetite of Henry VIII, our cultural overlords will as quickly court you one day and send you to the Tower the next. To quote Jesus, you ‘lose your soul’ and society still thinks you’re an irrelevant silly group of people who dress up in funny clothes.
Few in churches are demanding an unchangeable sterile presence, as though wooden pews and particular clothes and the KJV is the way to do church today. We may consider our style and sense of presentation. After all, we want to communicate unchanging truths in understandable ways. However, one of the Bible’s basic and consistent messages is that biblical orthodoxy doesn’t make Christianity irrelevant to Melbourne or Sydney, London and Durham. To paraphrase from the Bible passage that I’m preaching this coming Sunday. It’s like a light shining into a dark place.
When the Apostle Paul told a young Timothy, ‘Watch your life and doctrine closely. Persevere in them, because if you do, you will save both yourself and your hearers’, he didn’t mean, adapt and change Christian teaching and life according to what is socially acceptable. The Bible’s vision for human sexuality was radical and counter cultural in the First Century and it remains so in the 21st Century. The Gospel offers what we need and cannot find in all the mountains and rivers and cities of the world: forgiveness, redemption and hope.
The light that appeared in the world 2000 years ago is described by John the disciple of Jesus as ‘grace and truth’. If the Lord Jesus is grace and truth, and we believe him, then his church will become a community of people who are defined by and filled with this grace and truth. Not choosing one or the other, not preferencing one or the other, but holding onto both because grace and truth belong together and cannot exist without the other. Sadly, there are some churches that think holding to truth means bashing people into submission; they are also in the wrong and need to repent. But we don’t fix one issue (finding grace) by removing the other critical component, truth. There is nothing loving about a church that blesses sexual unions outside monogamous marriage between a man and a woman.
We living in Australia, should take note of how this Synod plays out and learn important lessons about how we should and should not proceed in our denominations. More importantly, we Christians living in Australia might like to pray for this Synod and ask the Father for his mercy, for repentance and for churches to uphold sound doctrine and godliness, for the sake of the people of England and the glory of God.
Who am I? Who are we? How can we even begin to navigate these questions?
I don’t know who needs to read these words, but I pray that they will reach many who are finding life distressing, overwhelming, and as though they are fighting a hopeless battle against despair.
This week I’ve been meditating on a prayer, Psalm 139. It is both poetry and prayer, communicating extraordinary truths about both God and us. It will be my privilege to teach Psalm 139 at Mentone Baptist Church on the first Sunday of 2023. But I thought I would preempt this upcoming sermon and share some reflections on this Psalm of David here on the blog.
I am hearing so many stories of people struggling with mental health issues, men and women trying to understand questions about personal identity and worth, and families trying to keep everything together in the midst of financial hardship.
Today, The Age headlined this story, ‘Mental health disorders increase among children as young as 18 months’. Yesterday, the media reported the dire situation facing families trying to access mental health care for their children.
There is also much anger and distrust being vented in society; much of it is justified, while some is misplaced. Far from communities becoming closer together, we are becoming more fractious.
Just as lurking behind the excitement and successes of the Football World Cup are terrible injustices and abuses, underneath the veneer of Australia’s prosperity are millions of Aussies feeling lost and searching for meaning and hope.
This is where Psalm 139 offers us insights into God and ourselves that are wonderful and necessary, poignant and so refreshing. My aim here isn’t to offer a detailed explanation of every word or sentence, but hopefully to say something of use that will encourage you the reader to ponder the words of Psalm 139 yourself, and even to share it with others.
The author of this prayer is David, the famous King of Israel. Despite his position ruling over a nation, he addresses God in a personal way. For David, God isn’t a remote or abstract Divine Being who is somewhere responsible for everything. He calls God, ‘Lord’, which is God’s special name given to his covenant people for them to address Him. To know God as Lord is to enjoy a personal connection and relationship with Him.
The Psalm consists of 4 stanzas. I’ll quote each stanza in turn, and offer a brief comment about each one.
1. God knows us intimately
1 You have searched me, Lord, and you know me.
2 You know when I sit and when I rise; you perceive my thoughts from afar.
3 You discern my going out and my lying down; you are familiar with all my ways.
4 Before a word is on my tongue you, Lord, know it completely.
5 You hem me in behind and before, and you lay your hand upon me.
6 Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.
This is a message that’s worth us getting our heads around: We are not unknown to God. In fact, David recognises how the Lord knows him better than David knows himself. We all have someone idea about our deepest convictions, desires, fears, and joys. We have some ability to hide aspects of our personality and ambitions from others. We might even successfully block out aspects of hearts from our own consciousness.
God however sees everything. He wouldn’t be much of a God if he doesn’t. David talks about how God peers into our minds and knows our thoughts. He knows what I’m going say before the words leave my tongue. This isn’t some spooky kind of trolling, but a picture of God who both understands us and who cares for us. For example, the metaphor in verse 5 of, ‘you lay your hand upon me, speaks of a gentleness and love that is active in God toward us.
I love David’s reaction in verse 6.
Such knowledge is too wonderful for me, too lofty for me to attain.
He isn’t just saying that this is an intellectual absurdity and therefore cannot be true. David’s point is, ‘God, you blow my mind’. God is above him in wisdom and comprehension. Einstein and Mozart are like simpletons, compared to the mind of God. This knowledge is formidable but not scary because this personal knowing is from the God who cares for us. This knowledge brings David comfort and assurance; God understands me.
2. We can’t hide from God.
7 Where can I go from your Spirit? Where can I flee from your presence?
8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there.
9
If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea,
10 even there your hand will guide me, your right hand will hold me fast.
11 If I say, “Surely the darkness will hide me and the light become night around me,”
12 even the darkness will not be dark to you; the night will shine like the day, for darkness is as light to you.
Jonah famously tried to do a runner and escape God, as though we can outstride or out-think God. As David exclaims, where can we hide from the God who made the universe? In our bedroom? In the desert? Under the ocean? What if I close my mind to God and eat the key?
Running away from God is futile and David knows it. As he considers the God of the Bible, he doesn’t want to remove God but instead rest in Him. Because God is truly God, we are safe in Him.
3. You made me
13 For you created my inmost being; you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
14 I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made; your works are wonderful, I know that full well.
15 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.
16 Your eyes saw my unformed body; all the days ordained for me were written in your book before one of them came to be.
These verses are replete with exquisite images that fill life with meaning and awe. Take for example, the stunning metaphor in verse 13, ‘God knitted us together in the womb.’
No wonder, David’s mind is again blown away,
17 How precious to me are your thoughts, God! How vast is the sum of them!
18 Were I to count them, they would outnumber the grains of sand— when I awake, I am still with you.
These words are true not only for David but also for every human being. This testimony has profound meaning and implications for how we view other people and also ourselves.
As the artist is devoted to his/her work and as a composer imprints their own glory in the music, so each and every human being has intrinsic value, glory and worth. Monet’s Water Lilies were no mistake and Schumann’s Piano Concerto was no misstep or blunder. You are not a gaffe or error. You are not a waste. You are not insignificant. We are profoundly known and loved by our creator God.
4. God, change me
19 If only you, God, would slay the wicked! Away from me, you who are bloodthirsty!
20 They speak of you with evil intent; your adversaries misuse your name.
21 Do I not hate those who hate you, Lord, and abhor those who are in rebellion against you?
22 I have nothing but hatred for them; I count them my enemies.
I appreciate how these verses may make some of us cringe or feel a little uncomfortable. Aren’t we meant to forgive everyone? Should we not look for the best in people?
There are a number of threads appearing in this final stanza, which are each true and somehow need to be held together despite apparent tensions or even contradictions with other parts of the Bible.
David is expressing to God how he is feeling as he reacts to enemies who are seeing his demise.
It’s okay to long for justice and for God to punish evil. We don’t want evil to win out in the end, but for wrongdoing to be punished, whether the perpetrators are individuals or corporations or institutions. Asking God to bring justice and to judge wickedness is an entirely right and good prayer. Christians may not stop at that point, for we also long for mercy and forgiveness, but we also believe in and trust in God who is righteous and who will hold the world account.
David’s enemies were often political, whether rebels attempting to usurp his throne or competing nations who waged war against Israel. David’s prayer reflects the system of government that existed and set the boundaries of God’s people at that particular time. This isn’t our situation today. The Church isn’t a nation-state or system of government. As we discover in the New Testament, our King is the true David, Jesus Christ. When churches are oppressed, our answer isn’t to go to war or to hunt down assassins, but “Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse” (Romans 12:14) and “Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you” Luke 6:27).
It is important to continue reading as the Psalm doesn’t end at verse 22, but with verses 23-24. David doesn’t end on a note of vengeance but with a plea for God to examine his (my) own heart.
23 Search me, God, and know my heart; test me and know my anxious thoughts.
24 See if there is any offensive way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.
It seems as though David’s aware that strong emotions can be misleading, and mixed up, and that he himself might have sin lurking about in his own life. David is praying, Lord is, sift through my prayer because you know what’s true and what’s not true, and where I’m right and where I’m wrong. You are able to do this because you know me well. Where and if there’s anything offensive in me, lead away from it and to the way everlasting.
David isn’t self-righteous or strident or judgmental. His prayer is, Lord, change me. This is of course a far cry from our cultural sermons which defines change as heterodox. Our prayers today are less, ‘Lord, change me, they are more often, ‘God affirm everything about me’. Our 21st Century prayers often finish at verse 22, judge my oppressors and justify me.
No wonder our streets and suburbs are filling with growing vexation, anxiety, and melancholy. The burden we are placing on ourselves is too great.
This Psalm can speak both of wonderment and of wrong. Wonderment in God who made us and wrong in what others do and even what I have done. Our culture can’t sustain this tension. The Bible is able to both speak of immense value and worth of every human being and also remind us of profound sinfulness. Any time when we hold onto one of these truths and not the other, we are only a short journey away from an identity crisis and social catastrophe. David was conscious of both and he found resolution and peace in the fact that hope isn’t found in himself, but in a God who can be trusted.
The ultimate and final fulfilment of this Psalm is found in that little child born in Bethlehem whom millions around Australia will soon be singing about as Christmas approaches.
The book of Hebrews reminds us,
“we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.
10 In bringing many sons and daughters to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the pioneer of their salvation perfect through what he suffered. 11 Both the one who makes people holy and those who are made holy are of the same family. So Jesus is not ashamed to call them brothers and sisters” (Hebrews 2:9-11)
On Saturday morning before going to vote at the Victorian State election, I sent out this tweet, quoting Psalm 146,
“Do not put your trust in princes,
in human beings, who cannot save.
When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;
on that very day their plans come to nothing.
Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob,
whose hope is in the Lord their God.”
This morning, the day after the election, I retweeted these Bible verses. The reason being, the words of the Psalm remain true, before and after the votes had been cast and counted.
I understand that in quoting Psalm 146, some people might be a little annoyed and perhaps a tad angry, especially among voters disappointed by the election result. I certainly don’t mean to sound unfeeling or facile, as though the election was unimportant. I happen to believe elections do matter because government plays a significant role in the life of society; controlling much power and influence. After all, Government is a legitimate institution that falls under the banner of God’s common grace. It may not be the main game, but government nonetheless plays an important supporting role.
It is also the case that Government has less influence in setting the direction for society as it is about providing the legal, economic, and social mechanisms by which society moves in the direction that it is already preferencing. The old adage about politics being downstream of culture is complicated but still true.
The reason behind sharing the Psalm 146 quotation is that I’m wondering if we are attaching too much responsibility on Government for fixing social ills and rectifying economic currents. This is true for both the left and the right of politics. Have we become too dependent upon Parliaments and MPs for addressing what was once the prevue of churches, synagogues, media, and an array of social organisations? If we have lost trust in those civil and religious institutions (which seems to be the case), faith in our governments is also in sharp decline. There lies perhaps some of our misplaced faith and therefore frustration and despair at the political scene. We are not meant to burden Government with all our hopes and demands and needs. A healthy society needs to spread that load. Indeed, a truly healthy society would not require government to create what we have in Australia: a society wrapped in red tape and wads of laws and rules stickier than gaffer tape.
There are better governments and worse; it’s rarely a zero-sum game. More Victorians than not prefer the given election outcome over the alternatives. After all, that is what the votes indicate. Many Victorians are pleased with the outcome, with many others perplexed or angered, and more than a few are underwhelmed by the choice of candidates that were on offer. I suspect there is also a deep suspicion of and discontent toward political parties across the spectrum. Sometimes it’s a case of choosing the least bad option available, or at least that’s how many voters are feeling: I don’t like this candidate, but at least they’re not the other candidates!
How did we respond to the election at church today? This morning my church prayed for the new state government, as we do regularly for whoever is in charge at Spring Street and in Canberra. And we also prayed for our local representatives in Parliament. That’s what Christians do. It’s one of the few constancies in the unpredictable world of politics; churches pray for those in authority. To the reluctant among us, let’s consider it this way, if the Apostle Paul could pray for the Roman Emperor, then we ought to pray for our governments.
We should pray for our political representatives because they carry significant responsibility. Given the platform that we build for our leaders (or scaffold as it may be), praying is the right thing to do. Of course, government isn’t the big game in town, but its role impacts life at every level and therefore great wisdom, patience, integrity and compassion are necessary.
Without some kind of cultural reorientation, I suspect Governments will become bigger and bolder. It is interesting to see how Australians, or at least Victorians, have become more comfortable with authoritarian personality and political styled governing. The myth of the convict, bushranger, and nonchalant Aussie digger may still exist in local sporting clubs, but as a people group, we are quite accepting of big government and monocratic-styled leadership. I’m not arguing a case either way here but simply noting the public trend.
Of course, my eyesight is myopic and so looking at the next 4 years is an imprecise art. There are, after all, no more prophets! My guess is that in the name of freedom, more laws and regulations will be introduced, and in the name of economic prosperity, more debt inducing spending will occur. If we follow the now predominant current, I anticipate that we’ll see tighter controls on social behaviour, fewer parental rights and a more pronounced religion-socio education drive.
I would not be surprised if we see religious freedoms further eroded during this next term of government. That’s no scare campaign, I’m simply noting the growing list of legislative changes that have been enacted in Victoria in recent years: from removing freedoms from religious organisations and schools to employ people of faith, to banning some religious conversations and prayers with threats of criminal charges and prison time, and now to Premiers interfering with workplace appointments because a football club appointed a Christian man who also serves on the council at his local church. I’d be surprised if the cultural vultures do not require more blood to be taken.
Of course, what Victoria is experiencing is simply a few steps ahead of the rest of the country and it’s indicative of an entire part of the world that has not only lost its moorings but is consciously tearing them apart and doing so without realising that without these foundations, we are left to be smashed about by the wind and waves.
So I go back to the verse in which I began, Christians should not look to government to be the saviour of society. Don’t put your trust in princes and premiers. Honour them and pray for them, but let’s not expect government to rescue society from the deepest and darkest of places.
This is one of the flaws present in left-leaning politics; it believes Government is the answer. Hence it’s no surprise to see legislative agendas enveloping society around a new moral religion. God is optional in the new religion, but the worship of the sexualised individual is compulsory. Anyone thinking otherwise just isn’t listening to Daniel Andrews and Victoria’s Human Rights Commissioner and a hundred other bureaucrats working with the Government.
There is a counterpoint emerging on the right side of politics that is also deeply concerning, and perhaps more so. Daniel Andrews may talk about how his catholicism influences his life, but people can see through the disconnection. Christian nationalism, on the other hand, has started to captivate some pew sitters and pastors and therefore it is more likely to create issues for Gospel ministry in Victoria. This theorem is thankfully marginal and I pray it doesn’t take hold as it is doing in parts of the United States, but nonetheless, I don’t wait for 100 mosquitoes to enter my house before dealing with the first one.
Christians, be careful of voices that speak more about politics than they do the Great Commission and use more words of anger than they do words of compassion and mercy. By all means, as commitment to common grace and out of love for your neighbour, keep government accountable. Christians might join a political party and stand for Parliament, but even the most Christian of political leaders and most Christian of political agendas isn’t going to redeem society. That kind of thinking ignores the testimony of Scripture, namely that the gospel is God’s power of salvation and the church is God’s big game in town. Our churches are more likely today to sit on the sideline of culture and be ignored by many, but nonetheless, the church is the centrepiece of God’s work. Therefore, whatever you do in the name of political inspiration, aspiration or disappointment, don’t confuse it with the Gospel, don’t conflate common grace with saving grace, and don’t fuse the church with the state.
The best way we can love our fellow Victorians is by serving your church and being clear on the gospel.
I’ll finish up here with one final word about misplacing hope and faith in political elections. During the Premier Daniel Andrews victory speech last night, he said, “Friends. Hope always defeats hate.”
The statement is true, although one might like to fill the word hope with some content and also define hate as something more than an imprecise aspersion on your opponents.
Also, the irony of this comment was not lost. The election campaign was about as spiteful and negative a campaign as I’ve seen, and it was true across the major parties. And yes, our Premier’s chosen rhetoric can at times be described as hateful. In fact, I can think of few political leaders excising as much hateful language as Mr Andrews, especially as he describes people of faith in Victoria. His verbal attacks are often little more than vicious mischaracterisations of people (think Andrew Thorburn), but verbal attacks of this kind garner wide support in Victoria because it fits the religious narrative that now dominates the horizon.
Daniel Andrews is not only an advocate but a victim of a worldview that sees all other views as anathema and a danger to society. The new dogma that he seems to preach demands that we either agree and follow the new moral absolutes or we belong to the devil. Love means full acceptance and tolerance means public affirmation, and any diverging from the narrow path is justification for public humiliation by our Premier and others. It’s a tricky path though because the definition of acceptance and tolerance are continually changing, like the staircases at Hogwarts. Orthodoxy one week is heresy the next, as public figures are finding out once they’re cancelled.
I am forever grateful to Jesus who didn’t affirm everything about me, and who didn’t accept some of the desires of my heart. God did something far greater and more loving. God disagreed and even called out my living as sin. The Bible even says it’s worthy of death, and yet God loved disagreeable people and his only Son gave his life on the cross. So yes, hope has defeated hate.
Last night in Melbourne, Christopher Watkin’s new book, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense, was launched. There will be further launch events in Sydney, UK and the USA over the coming days.
The room at RTC (Reformed Theological College) was filled with many uni students, academics, pastors in attendance, and many others from various works of life. The food, wine, and conversations kept flowing late into the night (in the end I had to ask people to go home!). Each one of the 4 speeches last night was impressive and interesting, reflecting on the content of Chris’ writing (of course!) and the value this book may bring to the world of thought, university, church, and society.
The only downside of the evening was that we couldn’t get our hands on enough copies of the book. The first print was sold out even prior to its formal release date. People took a number and we swirled those little pieces of paper in a large bowl and then picked out numbers. 12 very excited persons (think of the atmosphere for a winning auction bid), then purchased a signed copy of Biblical Critical Theory.
I cannot recommend this book highly enough. As a reviewer recently said of Biblical Critical Theory, all the hype really isn’t exaggerated, and each of the addresses last night, given by Dr Sarah Irving-Stonebroker, Mr Barney Zwartz, and Dr Andrew Moody, testified to this. I am hoping that these talks may become available on The Gospel Coalition Australia website in days to come.
Allow me to share what I said at the beginning of the evening and the prayer in which I closed the event.
“Good evening and welcome. On behalf of The Gospel Coalition Australia, it is wonderful to see you all this evening for this special event.
My name is Murray Campbell. I serve on the National Council and State committee for The Gospel Coalition and I serve as the Senior Pastor at Mentone Baptist church. It is a joy to call Chris a friend and brother. I’ve had the privilege to know Chris and Ali for the past 9 years and have followed his work and writing with great eagerness and interest and benefit.
We are here to launch Christopher Watkin’s new book, Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense
The author of the monumental work the City of God, Augustine, lived during the turbulent times of the Roman Empire crumbling.
Augustine wasn’t from the City of Rome, although he would visit during the course of his life. He was born in the small provincial North African town of Thagaste. He would later live in Carthage. Yet, Augustine’s influence reached Rome and throughout the Empire, and indeed even throughout the world today.
Perhaps Yorkshire is a bit like Thagaste, and Melbourne is a modern-day Carthage.
Biblical Critical Theory: How the Bible’s Unfolding Story Makes Sense offers readers a comprehensive view of the world through the lens of the Bible.
Chris’ writing is clear, irenic, and profound. Chris understands the complexity of both the Bible and our culture. The work is deeply biblical and culturally masterful.
Time will tell how important this work will become, but I suggest that this is a significant body of thought that we will do well to read slowly and carefully and consider with seriousness.
Tonight we have 3 guest speakers with us who are each going to give a short address speaking to the book.
Dr Sarah Irving Stonebraker is a Senior Lecturer in Modern European History at the University of Western Sydney.
Barney Zwartz is Senior Fellow at the Centre for Public Christianity and was the Religions Editor at the The Age for many years
Dr Andrew Moody is a Melbourne-based theologian and Editorial Director for The Gospel Coalition Australia.
I’d like to invite Dr Christopher Watkin forward and hand over to him.”
“Our Father in heaven, we thank you for the mind and understanding you have given Chris. We thank you for this book written to help us understand your world and life in it. We pray that you will use Chris’ writing to give people confidence in the Bible, to see that it is a fountain of knowledge and wisdom and goodness, and a lens through which we can understand the world.
May it be read widely and deeply and be part of that chain of Christian thought that echoes through the generations, to point people to your Son.
No, Baptists have not sold their soul over same-sex marriage. What they have chosen is faithfulness to God and upholding gospel unity.
New South Wales Baptists have reaffirmed the Bible’s teaching on marriage and are following Jesus’ teaching on human sexuality. They have also reaffirmed the importance of the Baptist doctrine basis by requiring accredited pastors and churches to affirm these statements.
While the majority of Baptist delegates have supported the motions, not everyone is happy and for several different reasons. Some dissenters don’t subscribe to Baptist theological beliefs nor do they accept the classical definition of marriage. Indeed, among those who reject the classical understanding of marriage, they often find issues with many other basic Christian beliefs. There are others Baptists, who have expressed concern at the NSW and ACT decisions because they value the idea of autonomy over and above other baptist principles.
Erin Martine Sessions is a delegate at the NSW and ACT Baptist Assembly. She is one of a minority of baptists who disagrees with the direction taken in NSW and she’s written a piece on the ABC Religion and Ethics site, ‘Have Baptists just sold their soul over same-sex marriage?’
At times, it is hard to manoeuvre around Martine Sessions’ use of language and hyperbole. Describing the meeting as The Red Assembly is kind of silly. Invoking the Spanish Inquisition and using analogies such as stake burning and the Spanish Second Republic-inspired thought-policing, does little to forward this important discussion. And the inclusion of Moore College and Sydney Anglican as a wink-wink swear word is a cheap and unnecessary shot.
Let’s look beyond the colourful and misleading rhetoric and point out two basic problems with Martine Sessions’ argument, namely that the Assembly decisions go against Baptist principles.
First of all, the author neglects much of Baptist history. It is true that Baptists view autonomy highly, but it is also true that Baptists in association gather around shared theological foundations. Both things are true. She asks,
“Why did we suddenly depart from history and make a new category of statements we must support? To put it bluntly, because Baptists don’t have a doctrine of marriage”
Throughout the history of the Church, many confessions, statements, and creeds have come about as the result of doctrinal crises, social change, and political necessity. It’s not as though these beliefs only came into existence when a Council met or Assembly approved, but rather, what was already orthodox became formally recognised in writing. Issues surrounding sexuality, marriage, and gender are but the latest theological and moral ground that requires Churches to affirm Biblical teaching. Historically, Baptists are not exempt from or non-participants in this process. As I have demonstrated elsewhere, Baptists historically associate together around common theological convictions. Indeed Baptists have written and affirmed more statements of faith and association than possibly any other Protestant denomination.
in the case of marriage, in 2011 Australian Baptists Ministries affirmed that marriage is, “the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life”. Baptist marriage celebrants can only conduct weddings according to this definition. Although, there are examples of pastors and churches deliberately circumventing these rules in a variety of ways, and thus acting against Baptist belief and practice.
This position on marriage was not invented in 2011, rather due to social and political changes, baptist leaders wisely decided that it’s necessary to make explicit in writing what has always been the case, indeed, to affirm what is the historic Christian understanding of marriage.
For Martine Sessions to claim the NSW motions are unBaptist, is to grab hold of one strand of baptist thought and to ignore the others. Baptists have always made and required statements of faith and practice for association. As someone pointed out to me, it’s somewhat amusing to read that in order to reject Baptist confessionalism, she relies on a confession of sorts, one that she teaches her students!
The article also underplays how the issues at hand relate to vital Christian beliefs upon which fellowship is had or not. The majority of churches understand that this is the case. Martine Sessions misrepresents the nature of the topic at hand when asserting, they don’t want to associate ‘with people and churches who think differently to them’. This isn’t just about ‘thinking differently’, this is about believing basic, obvious, and essential Christian teaching. To categorise the issues as a matter of ‘thinking differently’ is quite an understatement.
For an association to not only exist but grow and be healthy, there need to be shared values, identity and purpose. No one is suggesting uniformity across the board, but agreement upon the basics. Advocates who place autonomy near the top of the list often have a habit of limiting or downplaying what is required for association. I happen to think that the autonomy of the local church is an important principle, but I also note that an association of churches, by definition, requires sufficiently shared common ground. The issues at hand are, contrary to Martine Sessions, crucial and necessary for genuine Christian unity and partnership. How can fellowship exist when there isn’t shared belief in the same Gospel? How can churches partner in mission together when one says repentance isn’t required and the other says it is? How can churches serve together when one accepts the words of Jesus about marriage and another does not?
We can’t disconnect our view on marriage from other parts of Christian theology. Those small number of pastors and churches who no longer accept the Baptist view on marriage are also redefining many more Christian teachings, including the gospel itself and sexual morality and repentance and our doctrine of scripture.
Imagine a player at a cricket club who decides that they no follow the rules for LBW. In their mind, it’s an unfair rule and disadvantages players who like to use their pads in front of the stumps. Or what of a coach who declares that instead of playing cricket, the team should be playing a hybrid version of cricket/ golf, as though golf will broaden the appeal of the game and attract more players. In both cases, the answer is no. One may reject the shape of the game and one can call it whatever you like, but it’s not cricket. As someone who has been part of cricket clubs for over 10 years, I suspect that any player or coach who tried to introduce such changes would be told either to shape up or move on. I realise the examples are somewhat goofy, but the point is clear.
When Jesus defines sexual relations outside marriage as immoral and when the Apostles describe sexual relations outside marriage as keeping people outside God’s Kingdom and contrary to the Gospel, how can baptist churches argue that we can remain in partnership together?
Surely, it comes down to the question, do baptists believe we can associate & partner with churches/pastors who hold, teach (and at times, practice) SSM? (and the theological corollaries that give rise to and flow from this position). The majority of delegates in NSW have said the answer is no, while a significant minority indicate the answer is yes (they may not agree with SSM but believe it is possible and even desirable to partner with SSM affirming churches. The issue isn’t just autonomy, but it’s also about what theological and spiritual unity is required to work together
I appreciate how a lot of Christians are concerned about using categories of sin in relation to marriage and sex. Doesn’t it make evangelism more difficult? Doesn’t it come across as harsh and unloving. What are we saying to our neighbours by insisting on our churches sticking with classical marriage? Aren’t we saying, that Jesus knows best? Aren’t we saying, that people matter so much that we won’t let our churches blow here and there along with the current cultural whim? Aren’t we saying that God’s vision for humanity surpasses the dominant view in any society? Aren’t we saying, that in Christ, both truth and love are found and that both holiness and mercy are uncovered?
These Baptist motions follow a similar trajectory to Jesus who, when confronted by progressive ideas about marriage and sex, reaffirmed the Biblical pattern. Of course, orthodoxy without love is like a saucepan lid crashing onto a tile floor. However, love without orthodoxy is nothing more than sentimentalism that misleads. We don’t need to choose between truth and love, for they are necessary and beautiful partners. In Christ, we see truth and love in perfect union. It is unloving for Christians to affirm same sex marriage or to teach that God is okay with forms of sexual expression that contradict his word. For Baptists to affirm Jesus’ teaching is not less than unifying, it is essential for maintaining genuine Christian unity.
Erin Martine Sessions is one of a number of baptists who are concerned by the events at last weekend’s NSW Gathering. I have already responded to the arguments put forward by Mike Frost (whose ideas I believe shaped Martine Sessions own article). Others are thankful that Baptists are declaring their faith in God and trusting his word and ways, and acknowledging that partnering together into the future is more faithful and fruitful when we can soundly affirm the foundations of the faith.
New South Wales and ACT Baptists are meeting tomorrow to discuss and decide an issue that denominations across the world are facing. There are a set of motions requiring churches and accredited pastors to affirm “Marriage is a covenant relationship ordained by God as a lifelong faithful union of one man and one woman. Sexual intimacy outside such a marriage relationship is incompatible with God’s intention for us as his people”.
The topic is broader than sexuality. In 2021 the NSW & ACT Assembly affirmed that both churches and accredited pastors be required to affirm the “basic doctrines, objects and values of the Association”
A detailed read of the motions can be found on John Sandeman’s blog.
Depending on the outcome of the Assembly meeting, Baptist Churches that don’t affirm these positions may be required to leave the association and pastors lose their accreditation. This is of course a significant subject and one where we pray Christians will speak and listen graciously and especially listen to and believe what God has spoken in the Bible. Affirming marriage should not be a controversial issue among churches, and it is a sad indictment on churches that there is any dispute or disagreement here. To believe that God designed marriage to be between one man and one woman and that all other sexual relationships are sinful is doing nothing more than believing what Jesus taught and what the Apostles affirmed.
Sydney Baptist and Morling College lecturer, Mike Frost, has expressed disagreement with the move. He has written an article to presumably dissuade delegates from supporting the motions. While he is not saying that he supports same-sex marriage (I suspect he doesn’t), he argues that baptists can and should remain together even when we disagree over this issue. Frost’s position is problematic for several reasons.
First, he makes an important category error. He puts same-sex marriage under the umbrella of ‘non-core issues’. He uses the phrase repeatedly throughout his piece and he concludes with this sentence,
“But instead of rallying to fulfill these bold visions for Christian mission, we’re debating the ins and outs of how to expel a tiny number of churches that don’t agree with the majority on yet another non-core issue.”
Contrary to what Frost asserts, our understanding of sexual relations is a primary issue. Our understanding of sexuality and marriage is connected to our view of Jesus, the Bible, the nature of sin and salvation, and more. Jesus was clear when he described sexual relations outside marriage between a man and a woman is porneia.
The Apostle Paul is also clear,
“Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.”
Jesus and Paul define homosexual relations as sinful and keeping people outside the Kingdom of God. I don’t see how Frost can declare that this is ‘yet another non-core issue’ when the Bible is pretty clear that it is.
In 1 Timothy Paul spells out as unambiguously as anywhere in the Bible how any sexual relations outside marriage contradict sound doctrine and the gospel,
“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.”
Mike Frost telling his readers that this is a non-core issue doesn’t stack up according to the Scriptures. These are not matters on which Christians can agree to disagree. This is a primary matter. Where people cannot agree on the gospel, how can there be partnership and association?
Second, Mike Frost makes another category error. His heading proposes that requiring common assent to Baptist doctrine is, ‘Breaking up the family in pursuit of uniformity’.
The suggestion of uniformity is misleading. This isn’t about uniformity, it is about standing together on clear and gospel issues.
No Baptist is asking for agreement on every dot and flick and iota. No Baptist is demanding a uniform position on eschatology or the gifts of the Spirit. No one is asking for uniformity in the style of church service. Frost’s own article provides several examples of where Baptists have agreed to disagree. In suggesting that same-sex marriage is on par with these other issues is a serious mistake. Again, if Jesus calls an activity sin and if Paul says an activity keeps a person outside the Kingdom of God, how can we partner with churches who teach this harmful idea?
Genuine Christian unity is both theological and spiritual, and the two belong together. Paul writes to the Ephesians,
“Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace. 4 There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; 5 one Lord, one faith, one baptism; 6 one God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all…14 Then we will no longer be infants, tossed back and forth by the waves, and blown here and there by every wind of teaching and by the cunning and craftiness of people in their deceitful scheming. 15 Instead, speaking the truth in love, we will grow to become in every respect the mature body of him who is the head, that is, Christ”
Unity requires speaking truth in love and standing against teaching that is false and dangerous. It is because Christian unity is so precious, that remaining in that which unites is of such importance
I have argued elsewhere that baptists historically have written and affirmed doctrinal statements and positions when the need arose. There is a popular view today among Baptists that we are anti-creedal and that we don’t want or need statements of faith in order to join together. The saying, ‘no creed but Christ’ may sound appealing, but it’s neither historically true nor wise.
Throughout 400 years of Baptist history, various baptist fellowships have written confessions and statements of doctrine and required assent to them. One of the little-known facts about baptists is that we have more doctrinal statements than probably every other protestant denomination! The desire among NSW baptist churches to stand on the Christian view of marriage (and more) isn’t less than baptist, it is in keeping with many baptists historically (including those in Australia).
Third, Frost speaks of a bold vision for mission, but how can there be a shared mission when churches (or pastors) don’t share the same message?
Mission is about telling people the good news of Jesus Christ, but if two churches believe two different gospels, how we can partner together?
For instance, Baptist pastors and churches who support same-sex marriage do not accept that repentance is required, rather these relationships should be celebrated by churches. How can two churches go on mission together when one says repentance is necessary and the other says it is not?
Our neighbours and communities don’t need churches that play the lyrebird and mimic back to them their own moral and spiritual proclivities. The gospel of Jesus Christ is far more compelling, subverting and beautiful.
I recall an observation made last year by British historian Tom Holland,
“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”.
Affirming basic Christian beliefs will serve our churches well and our local communities. Anything else is a pathway to a brittle skeletal institutionalism and an irrelevance to the Kingdom God is building.
While it’s great to hear Mike Frost advocating mission, he’s sticking a cork in the breach here. How can shared mission take place when there isn’t agreement on the gospel and what it means to repent and what it means to be saved? Indeed how can there be partnership in any meaningful way when the very thing that unites Christians is disputed and even denied by some?
While Frost wants everyone to keep singing together, the reality is those baptists who advocate same-sex marriage are singing a different song; with different lyrics and melody. Their position not only contradicts the formal position on marriage, some are actively seeking to change this established position. The point is, these Baptists are unlikely to be satisfied until such time the denomination has changed to Australia’s latest views on sexuality and gender. After all, if they are serious about this being a justice and gospel issue, as I have often heard, how can they rest until the baptist view accepts same-sex weddings and marriages?
The notion that we can and will all live together in a joyful forward movement mission is somewhat disingenuous, given the ambition of some baptists is to change core baptist convictions.
I’m praying for tomorrow’s meeting. Of course, it is difficult. If our churches are not able to have these important conversations and if we are not prepared to affirm the very things for which Christ died, then what are we about? God honours the faithfulness of his people. It may not win us popularity votes or praise in ecclesial halls, but there is something remarkably simple and attractive and good about faithfulness and sticking with what God says.
The people who often suffer most through these conversations are same-sex attracted Christians who believe in Jesus and are living faithful and celibate lives for the sake of the Kingdom. To have churches teaching that they need not repent and should instead live out their desires is a great and terrible disservice to these brothers and sisters. Should we not support and encourage them in godliness by affirming the same Gospel together?
I trust other State Unions may look at what is transpiring in NSW and find courage to also stand and make these clear affirmations and positions for the sake of the Gospel around Australia.
The Andrew Thorburn story is returning to media attention. The Age is tonight* reporting that Thorburn “has hired legal counsel and is pursuing legal action against the club after he was forced to resign.”
Thorburn lasted as Essendon’s CEO for less than 24 hours. Journalists went hunting and tracked down several ‘controversial’ comments made in sermons at Thorburn’s local church some 10 years ago before Thorburn had joined. As newspaper columns appeared, Victoria’s Premier, Daniel Andrews came out and publicly attacked Thorburn’s church,
“those views are absolutely appalling.”
“I don’t support those views, that kind of intolerance, that kind of hatred, bigotry, is just wrong.
“Those sort of attitudes are simply wrong and to dress that up as anything other than bigotry is just obviously false.”
Within hours Andrew Thorburn was given an ultimatum by the Essendon board, choose the club or his church. Thorburn chose his church.
In a statement, Thorburn explained,
“Today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square, at least by some and perhaps by many. I was being required to compromise beyond a level that my conscience allowed. People should be able to hold different views on complex personal and moral matters, and be able to live and work together, even with those differences, and always with respect. Behaviour is the key. This is all an important part of a tolerant and diverse society…
…Despite my own leadership record, within hours of my appointment being announced, the media and leaders of our community had spoken. They made it clear that my Christian faith and my association with a Church are unacceptable in our culture if you wish to hold a leadership position in society.
This grieves me greatly – though not just for myself, but for our society overall. I believe we are poorer for the loss of our great freedoms of thought, conscience and belief that made for a truly diverse, just and respectful community.”
I’m not here to comment on any potential legal action, for such things are beyond my expertise. As this story will fire up again over the coming days, it is worth highlighting once more the extraordinary nature of the decision made by Essendon Football Club and the interference by Victoria’s Premier.
I was speaking with a member of the Victorian Government recently. He was quite open and adamant in his support of Essendon’s stance against Andrew Thorburn. One on the hand, he acknowledged that it’s against the law to discriminate against a person’s faith, but in the same breath, he insisted Thorburn shouldn’t lead Essendon given his connection with a Melbourne church. Not only that, this MP told me that any suggestion people of faith could lose their job because of their beliefs, is nothing more than ‘scaremongering’. Given that we were literally talking about a live example, I don’t think he was aware of the irony filling his words. Not only that, what a cold response to thousands of Victorians who now feel vulnerable in the workplace.
As I was thinking about the conversation afterwards, the issue is one of semantics or rather, it’s a game of bluff. He sees the issue through the lens of ‘values’, rather than religion.
He could say (correctly so) that it’s against the law to discriminate against someone in the workplace on the basis of their religion and yet he also believes it’s legitimate to force someone out of their job if their values don’t align (Ie their religious values). In other words, we don’t live in a society where there is a neat division between religion and secular, or between private and public. Everything is religious. Every value and action, every job and interest, is shaped by underlying commitments and views of the world, and these inevitably take on a religious flavour. It’s not as though some sexual ethics belong to a neutral space while religious views are found elsewhere. All values are religious in nature.
Victoria is like Ancient Rome where there is a god for everything. We’ve dispensed with the names; there’s no praying to Juno, Diana and Venus. We simply sacrifice to and live for sexual freedom, power, wealth, or whatever is our ultimate aim. Hence, when a religious view clashes with an assumed (or stated) value, the value wins out as though it’s morally omniscient. That is why football, like cricket and rugby league, is no longer about playing the game. Sport is attached to a set of dogmas, and sponsors often serve as the priests, making compliance certain, while the Board acts as bishop. Of course, an AFL Club isn’t a church or a Christian school where particular religious views are necessary. Having the right kind of religious view shouldn’t be a prerequisite for senior management in the ‘secular’ business or sporting world, but as the Andrew Thorburn case demonstrates, such distinctions no longer apply.
Values is simply a disguised way of talking about a person’s deep beliefs and practices. Values aren’t distinct from religion; values are always an expression of religious convictions, whether we attribute a god to them or not. The situation in Victoria, as our Premier has expressed, is that if a Christian’s ‘values’ don’t align with a place of employment, they may well find themselves receiving similar treatment to Andrew Thorburn. They may protest, as did my politician friend, ‘it’s values, not religion’, but such smoke and mirrors don’t fool anyone.
Essendon’s President David Barham also attempted to play this game of dodgeball. When announcing Thorburn’s resignation, he tried to blur the lines,
“I also want to stress that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our members, our fans, our partners and the wider community.”
Political theologian, Jonathan Leeman, is right,
“secular liberalism isn’t neutral, it steps into the public space with a ‘covert religion’, perhaps as liberal authoritarianism…the public realm is nothing less than the battleground of gods, each vying to push the levers of power in its favour.”
That is the world we inhabit. This is the air we breathe. It may take a little time for HR departments to catch up with the reality of what their guidelines and directives signify, but we no longer have to speculate or hypothesize: we have one very public case in point glaring at us.
Before I finish up, I noticed that there are a few details in The Age reporting that are incorrect:
First, City on a Hill is not a ‘small’ church. It is probably the largest Anglican Church in Melbourne, and one of the largest Anglican Churches in Australia.
Second, it is not a ‘conservative church’ as opposed to normal or standard. City on a Hill adheres to the same beliefs and practices that are typical of Christian Churches across Australia and the world. This Church sits comfortably within the same orthodox Christianity that has existed and flourished for 2,000 years.
Third, there is no homophobic material on their website. What one finds, as with other Christian Churches, is the Jesus driven belief that sex is a great God given gift reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. And let’s not forget, that Australian law reflected a classical view of marriage until 5 minutes ago. There is nothing phobic when Jesus called out sexual transgression. He did so because people matter and ignoring God’s design is a perilous trip. The extent to which Jesus loved was crucifixion. Jesus didn’t bleed hatred on the cross, but love and mercy toward the same people transgress God’s good ways.
One may not like or agree with Christianity but throwing around language like phobic is lazy and untrue. Churches follow Jesus’ example, by loving and welcoming everyone who comes along. We don’t have to agree with every word, action, and value in order to love and welcome another. If that ethic was true, then Jesus is the world’s worst social heretic! Thank God, that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)
*all the major newspaper were reporting the story by the end of the evening
Praise God for the good news of Jesus Christ that was preached across Victorian churches yesterday. In a weird kind of way, our newspaper friends seem to be obsessed with the casual clothes being worn by those speaking from the front, but whether in a t-shirt and jeans or in dressed in a robe of some sort, Christ was preached and for that, I say, Amen. Instead of throwing eggs at all of the folk who’ve been deriding Christians and churches this week, we prayed for them and longed for them to grasp how good is God’s grace.
While Christian churches enjoyed time together and welcomed visitors, I noticed there were a few religious voices preaching on the street corner from a different book. They are unhappy with Guy Mason and Andrew Thorburn, and Christians like them. Some have even come out in support of Essendon Football Club.
Writing in the Guardian, Uniting Church minister, Elenie Poulos, suggested that Andrew Thorburn’s exit from Essendon Football Club wasn’t a religious freedom failure.
“It is about leadership and organisational values. As many commentators and engaged observers have already pointed out, Thorburn’s appointment appears to have been a failure of the recruitment process. He found himself leading two organisations with values that clashed, one just happened to be a religious organisation.”
It seems as though a few people have bought into this theory.
One Melbourne Baptist repeated the rumour,
“It isn’t controversial or problematic to suggest that someone can’t lead two organisations with opposing values simultaneously. City on a Hill is a church organisation that espouses a very specific set of views on women and sexuality, among other things. They do not allow women to be ministers or to preach. They do not allow LGBT people full participation in the church. They have particular views on divorce and remarriage. The AFL have a different set of views. They clearly promote LGBT inclusion and equal rights for women. It’s clear that you couldn’t possibly lead with integrity toward these two opposing visions.
The former Essendon CEO was not sacked for being a Christian and was not punished for going to a particular church. He was asked to choose which organisation he would lead. He made his choice. That’s how religious freedom works.
Essendon’s grievous error was in failing to have the conversation before he was appointed. That’s on them.”
These attempts to reconstruct events that transpired only a few days ago is like returning to the scene of the crime and trying to hide the murder weapon while everyone is looking on.
As we know, revisionists are often the ones who write the history books, so it’s important to challenge this disinformation. Anyone who has read the Essendon Football Club’s statement and read Andrew Thorburn’s statements, listened to Premier Daniel Andrews, and a host of journalists and commentators, will know that this issue is precisely about the man’s religious beliefs and his association with a mainstream Christian Church.
Let us be clear, the only reason this became an issue is that the church Andrew Thorburn belongs to holds views about homosexuality and abortion that contravene the dogma of 21st Century authoritarian secularism. If only he had chosen the right kind of church, one that our Premier approves. If only Thorburn was Chairing one of those dying progressive churches in inner city Melbourne. We know the ones, we drive by and we see the, ‘for sale’ signs on the front gate.
Trying to split hairs over being Chair of the Board s vs being a church member, or belonging to church vs holding religious beliefs, is ridiculous and ignores the very words spoken by the various parties involved.
Andrew Thorburn knows why he was forced to resign,
“today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square”.
Essendon has even admitted that had they known about the beliefs taught at Thorburn’s church they would not have hired him in the first place. The Victorian Premier made it clear to the entire State that Christians holding to what are essentially normal Christian beliefs, is unacceptable. It is not without reason that many Victorian Christians are now wondering when they will be asked to leave their places of employment.
Ro Allen, the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner, is under no illusion. Allen told the ABC,
“It’s definitely a values conflict to employ someone who’s not just a passive member of a church [but on the board]…They’ve [City on a Hill] actively worked against LGBTI people.”
By the way, both of those comments are untrue.
If that’s not enough to convince the revisionists, read what The Age’s Business Columnist, Elizabeth Knight, said,
“A decade or two ago, corporations and their stakeholders may have tolerated Thorburn’s association with a church with strong views on the homosexuality and abortion. But not today.
Whether Thorburn personally holds those extreme opinions is irrelevant, Essendon is a valuable and highly recognised brand, and it cannot afford to be tarnished by any proximity to views that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan base and the broader community.”
It is sad although not surprising to find that among the revisionists are some voices who belong to certain churches. They are our modern-day Demas’ and Alexanders, and so it’s important to call them out. But let’s not allow their efforts to cast a shadow over what took place in Bible-believing, Jesus honouring, people-loving churches across Victoria yesterday.
Let’s thank God and rejoice in what was a great day for churches. I’ve heard exciting things from City on a Hill yesterday and my own church had a super day.
One of the things that struck me most during church was how the words of the songs came even more to life than usual. The reality of Jesus and his cross, the beauty of God, and the hope found in Him, really does matter more than everything. No wonder the congregation sang with such gusto and praise.
As we opened the Bible together and heard about Jesus, I was reminded how Victoria needs more of Jesus, not less. He may not be welcome at the footy or in the workplace or school, but there are communities of ordinary Victorians meeting every Sunday and getting to know him more. People from all kinds of backgrounds, ethnicity, sex, gender, and jobs, yet find in Christ the greatest joy and hope.
When we read the Bible, we discover how Jesus frequently disagreed with people’s morals, lifestyles, and beliefs. We also find how Jesus could show extraordinary love, grace, and kindness toward those very same people. Biggest of all, in love, Jesus sacrificed his life for people who disapproved of him in the strongest terms. The social and political leaders were so incensed by Jesus’ views that they nailed to a cross, and on the cross, he cried out, “father forgive them”. There really is something astonishing about this Jesus.
CS Lewis once said,
“I remember Christian teachers telling me long ago that I must hate a bad man’s actions but not hate the bad man: or, as they would say, hate the sin but not the sinner. …I used to think this a silly, straw-splitting distinction: how could you hate what a man did and not hate the man? But years later it occurred to me that there was one man to whom I had been doing this all my life — namely myself. However much I might dislike my own cowardice or conceit or greed, I went on loving myself. There had never been the slightest difficulty about it. In fact the very reason why I hated the things was that I loved the man. Just because I loved myself, I was sorry to find that I was the sort of man who did those things.”
Even to our Premier and the Essendon, come along one Sunday and visit a Christian church. You may be surprised by what you see and hear, and perhaps even persuaded.
