Coming soon…a podcast for and about Melbourne, engaging in the big issues through the lens of the Christian faith
A NEW PODCAST FOR MELBOURNE
christianity
Did Melbourne just see a sign?
Melbourne was an exciting place to be over the weekend.
No, I’m not referring to the footy. Carlton, what are you doing to me?!
Hundreds of men attended the Belgrave Heights Men’s Convention and sat under the word with Sam Allberry and Stephen McAlpine. Lots of Churches around the city and suburbs preached Christ and believers were encouraged and non Christians were intrigued. I was at the Baptist BBQ while the Melbourne Anglican Diocese met to decide who would become the next Archbishop.
For decades the tide has been going out as the force of secularism and scepticism has claimed moral victory after intellectual triumph. And yet, left behind on the sandy shores around Port Phillip Bay isn’t the kind of happiness and freedom and contentment that we were promised. Instead, our streets and suburbs are floundering under the pressure of what is perhaps the worst mental crisis in our history, and growing social, economic, and relationship strain. My generation and my parents’ generation persist in closing the windows, locking the doors and telling the kids that there’s nothing outside; there is no God worth looking to let alone trusting for life. Not everyone is buying that script any longer. The emptying tide has left behind millions of people and exposed layers of rubbish on the sand produced by the materialist ideal.
We are not happier. We are not safer. We are not more content.
Is it surprising that we are hearing reports and stories of a gentle tide coming into shore in the UK and parts of the United States? In some parts of Asia and South America, it is a high tide with huge numbers of people, including Gen Z and younger who are becoming Christians and joining Churches and discovering that the God of the Bible is God today.
We are not seeing a fast-moving incoming tide in Melbourne, but something is happening. I know there are recent reports of baptismal floods, but I suspect some at least are spurious. Nonetheless, there is something happening. Government and academic institutions are continuing to double down on sexual ethics and religious freedom issues, progressive Churches continue to play those songs on their playlist, and yet there is a gentle counter voice that can be heard.
Anecdotally, across various Baptist churches and Anglican, in University Christian groups, and among our Orthodox and Roman Catholic friends, young adults are experiencing Christianity for the first time. They are ignoring the warning signs that my generation posted on every street corner. There is a curiosity emerging, an interest in Jesus, and an intrigue to discover the meaning of the world’s most important book: the Bible.
I wonder, if the Anglican Archbishop election is another small sign of a changing tide toward evangelical Christianity. 4 candidates were nominated for Anglican Archbishop of Melbourne; all 4 are evangelical Christians: Wei Han Kuan, Tim Johnson, Megan Curlis-Gibson, and Ric Thorpe. Someone may correct me, but this is rare and possibly the first time in many decades that all candidates are evangelical. This alone is significant and a result for which we should be thankful.
Ric Thorpe was elected on Saturday afternoon and will be installed as the new Archbishop later this year. Bishop Ric Thorpe is an Englishman with a pedigree from Holy Trinity Brompton and training at Wycliffe Hall, Oxford. He is one of the few Church of England Bishops to uphold a Christian understanding of marriage and human sexuality. He is passionate about evangelism and church planting. These are all great indicators.
Melbourne needs more churches. Melbourne needs 100s more Christ-centred, Gospel-believing and preaching, people-loving churches.
I’m not an Anglican so feel free to take my observations with the same volume of water found in a baptismal font (bad joke). My Melbourne Anglican friends are overwhelmingly encouraged and thankful for all candidates and the outcome, even as the Diocese looks over troubled waters. Like all our Christian denominations, much deep work of theological and spiritual reform needs to take place. Theological liberalism and moral progressivism is like sand in the car after a day at the beach; the granules find their way into different spots and crevices and lingers long afterwards with distraction and annoyance. The fact is, most of our churches (across denominations) are in decline, and biblical literacy and cultural understanding are shallow. That can lead to desperate pragmatism or compromise. But mission with fraudulent theology won’t save anybody, just as sound doctrine without love gives people a spiritual migraine. Church planting without the Gospel is the devil’s strategy. Who would want to be in Christian leadership today?
And yet Christ is on the throne. Evangelism and church planting and revitalisation isn’t God’s Plan B. It’s always been Plan A and there is no plan B. The Gospel remains God’s power to save. The Church is the bride and centrepiece of God’s redeeming purposes. Let’s be thankful for Christian leaders who are convinced of this and who in love can navigate our churches in the shallows and deep.
It may be that as the cultural tide withdraws, small rock pools and large ones will be left behind, and they will become safe places for people to splash and swim and come to know the God who saves. Gospel Churches may be easier to spot and more inviting for those who need rest.
I sense a quiet excitement mixed with soberness as we see the landscape before us. Did we see a glimpse of things to come this past weekend? May it drive God’s people to prayer and eagerness.
Almost as important, someone needs to nudge Ric Thorpe toward the right footy club (Carlton) and teach him how to make a decent coffee and double-check that his visa includes a condition on who to support in the Ashes later this year.
Correcting 3 Misnomers About Baptists
There seem to be 3 misnomers circulating regarding Baptist belief and practice, in light of the decision to remove 2 churches from the NSW/ACT Baptist Association:
- Freedom of conscience
- Freedom of association.
- It’s a matter of interpretation
I have written about these topics at length on other occasions, so I won’t repeat everything here. Nonetheless, it is worthwhile pointing out that while these 3 points are being used to criticise the Baptists’ decision, these very points in fact support the decisions that were made.
Of course, freedom of conscience, and its cousin, freedom of association, are important Baptist principles. These are ideals for which I am thankful. They do not exist however without context, form or boundary.
Speaking to the ABC, Belinda Groves (Senior Minister Canberra Baptist), suggested,
‘Baptist churches are not like the Anglicans or the Catholics – it’s not very hierarchical. We have what’s called local, you know, congregational autonomy. And when we gather together as an association, it’s recognising that our real governance happens in our local churches and that that association is really just a recognition of connection between us and a common commitment to do things together that take a bit more than just a small individual church.’
That’s mostly true. Groves doesn’t explain what this Baptist connection is and means (I sense she’s downplaying it), which is fine given it’s a short television interview, but when we begin asking the question, what is the glue that makes us baptists together, the answer given is often that being Baptist is primarily about freedom: freedom of conscience and freedom of association. Again, while these are cherished ideals, they can’t exist without definition and boundaries, otherwise, they become meaningless terms.
When I hear some voices declare that Saturday’s decisions cut against our Baptist distinctive (some of these voices are by non baptists), I want to respond by saying, you’re being historically myopic and theologically incorrect.
Baptists can rightly defend a person’s right to believe and practice their religion freely AND believe that freedom of association requires common agreement among those desiring to associate together. The fact that we have doctrinal bases demonstrates that there are commonly aligned theological convictions: the Trinity, penal substitution, faith in Christ, the bodily resurrection of Jesus and more. When it comes to contemporary issues surrounding sexual practices, these were not disputed in former days, but now through what Carl Trueman describes as ‘expressive individualism’, matters like same-sex marriage have come about and therefore churches are required to form a view.
In 2009, theologian Hefin Jones wrote a paper for NSW Baptists where he offered an important historical survey of different strands of Baptist thought. While he is surveying NSW Baptists, the same groupings are found among Baptists worldwide. Jones demonstrates that when it comes to confessions and statements of association, there are broadly 3 Baptist groups: Anti-Creedalism, Non-Creedal Confessionalism, and Confessionalism.
That’s important for understanding those who are decrying the decision made by 2/3s of Baptist delegates last Saturday. When they argue that NSW is becoming anti-baptist and authoritarian, they are representing one line of historic Baptist thought, not the entirety.
Of NSW, Jones notes,
“Were Anti- or Non-Creedalism intrinsic to Baptist identity then NSW Baptists as a denomination have never been true to it…from the beginning of the NSW Baptist Union in 1868 it has been Confessional, the real question being, how Confessional? Unlike the associational rules of 1858 the 1868 constitution included a doctrinal basis.”
It’s interesting to discover that both freedom of conscience and freedom of association are linked historically to Baptists speaking against Governmental intrusion in religious matters or controlling the local church. More recently these have become an argument for Baptists to promote all kinds of ideas and practices. This, in my view, can lead to misrepresenting Baptist ideals.
It’s also the case that Baptists have always had mechanisms for removing pastors and churches. That our Unions have rarely resorted to these is a good thing but sadly sometimes it is necessary for the sake of Gospel clarity, unity and mission.
As much as some Baptists are crying ‘freedom’, we understand that the conscience isn’t infallible, nor is it the Lord of the Church. And Christian association, for it to be truly Christian, requires common ascent to the Gospel, and indeed to things like the Apostles Creed and Nicaea Creed. Baptists get along and disagree on many tertiary matters, but same-sex marriage isn’t one of them, and when we’re told that it is, I suspect progressives are ignoring their own clarion calls for justice and what they understand the gospel to be about.
This leads to the biggest misnomer of all, namely that same-sex marriage is merely a matter of interpretation and therefore not one that’s serious enough for breaking fellowship.
Bible interpretation is indeed a factor and there’s a whole discussion that can be had about hermeneutics, but is the Bible’s teaching on sexuality vague and contestable? The argument, ‘it’s just about interpretation’ serves more like a poor cover version of today’s sexual milieu. It’s an effective tool for muddying the waters, but little more. I suspect when progressive churches are transparent about their convictions (as I’ve heard some pastors argue behind the scenes), they believe sexuality issues are a love of God issue and a justice issue. Far from speaking about same-sex marriage as a second-tier belief, they often frame their position as crucial to understanding the Gospel and the character of Christ. If they are to be consistent, surely they appreciate and agree that the issue at hand isn’t one where we can all agree to disagree. It’s either a primary justice and love of God matter or it isn’t.
Same-sex marriage is a primary Baptist issue for 2 clear reasons: Jesus says sex outside heterosexual marriage is a sin and the Apostle Paul refers to exclusion from God’s Kingdom and what contradicts sound doctrine and the gospel. How can we embrace that which God says excludes? That’s not God’s hate language, this is God’s loving word who desires people to have life in His name.
The ABC presenter noted the banner that was positioned behind where Belinda Groves was speaking. It says, ‘Everyone’s welcome here’.
Yes, we want our churches to be welcoming and loving and kind. Please God, may they be a community where people from any background can come and be welcomed and hear the gospel. For the most part, our churches are. However, welcoming everyone into our churches, as Baptists do, does not mean embracing every belief and practice that walks in the door. No Christian Church can function that way; indeed no sporting club, school, or political party can function according to that principle. It’s the very fact that God’s love yet profoundly disagrees with us that shook the world and led to the cross and gives hope. I sinned, and yet he loved me. I rebuffed God’s ways, and yet he leads us to repentance and new life by his Son.
If Baptists choose to say no to the orthodox view of marriage, they are free to do so, but in doing so they have made a choice to tear themselves from this Baptist fabric. It’s not what anyone wishes, but God’s gospel of love and forgiveness and reconciliation matters so much that it’s incumbent upon churches to guard the faith once for all delivered.
The process undertaken by the New South Wales/ACT Association took longer than many of the key Church Councils throughout church history. I can’t think of how many meetings and conversations and Assemblies were held over the past 10 years that finally led to Saturday’s decision. People may or may not like the process, but one thing is certain, it was pretty exhaustive and exhausting, and rightly followed Baptist principles of the churches making decisions together for the sake of the gospel and gospel unity, health and mission.
I don’t know of anyone rejoicing over Saturday’s decision to remove the 2 churches. It was a sad day. It’s appropriate to grieve the loss of these churches and be thankful that a clear majority of churches chose to stick with Scripture and the good of future Christian witness. As the media take hold of the issue, it’s pretty obvious how the game will be played and who will be painted as the bad guys. So I reckon the Apostle Peter offers a timely word, ‘don’t be afraid’.
“Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us…Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. (1 Peter 2:12; 3:13-15)
Jeremy Clarkson got scammed?
Jeremy Clarkson is a funny man. At times he’s crude and sometimes refreshingly honest in a nonconformist way. His latest opinion piece for The Times is pitching against French restaurants ripping off tourists, ‘These scams aren’t enough if you ask me. Gullible tourists are being sold cheap wine but why stop there‘. The piece is the work of an imaginative mind and with humorous analogies and a serious point as well. As he pokes the bear on scamming and the human ability to be conned, he throws out images like this one,
‘I could substitute the steak in the pie with chlorinated bear meat from Lithuania and no one would know.’
That’s funny. And depending on where you find yourself on the epistemic spectrum, you’ll either roll with Clarkson’s final jab or take offence. Or perhaps, like myself, you find yourself in a third space, namely, that was a rather naive take, Jeremy Clarkson.
He suggests (no doubt with a drop tongue in cheek),
‘Go big. That’s my message if you are considering becoming a celebrated conman. Take a lesson from the biggest fraudster of them all: Jesus. I can walk on water. My mum was a virgin and my dad’s God. And I’m going to start an industry selling this guff that will last for 2,000 years. Top man.’
There are plenty of classic and famous examples of scamming. The problem with Clarkson’s crescendo piece is that it’s plain simple wrong. A scam is a lie designed to steal from those who are conned. Jesus didn’t take, he gave his life. Also this, the believers in Jesus Christ don’t lose, they gain; not some cheap substitute but something more valuable than any bottle of vintage French wine.
If the whole Jesus episode is a scam, it’s not a very clever one. Think about it; if you’re required to die a gruesome death in order for your scam to succeed, then you won’t get to see your success. And that makes you either really stupid or certifiable. Unless of course, you rose from the dead, in which case the entire scam theory is dismantled.
I came late to Top Gear, but I’ve now watched many episodes, and I follow The Grand Tour and will soon watch Clarkson’s latest season of his farming show; it’s all great television. My knowledge of cars could fit Inside the boot of a matchbox car, but who cares. The shows are hilarious, captivating, and often stunning viewing, and a tiny bit educational. So I’m not coming from the angle of an anti-Clarkson. As the world knows, Jeremy Clarkson loves to throw verbal hand grenades. Some ignite while others like this one are a dud.
The idea that Christians are victims of the world’s greatest con job is a little bit laughable. Christians aren’t ignoramuses. I guess maybe some are and that’s okay because God isn’t only interested in the intelligent. But you have to be an eyeless and earless underground mole to actually believe Christians are not aware of the extraordinary nature of Jesus’ claims and character. That’s the entire point of Christianity. People don’t stop storms with a word and provide 5000 instant meals, but Jesus did. Dead people stay dead, but Jesus didn’t.
There are two forms of scepticism that are prevalent today. There is an old-school type of scepticism, one which Jeremy Clarkson is repeating, and there is a newer and more formidable scepticism taking hold, especially among Gen Zers.
Old fashioned scepticism was cool and trending. The 4 horsemen of the new (now gone) atheism presented a confident and brash unbelief. Scepticism was viewed as a sign of the mature mind. The more I doubt, the smarter and wiser I am!
There is a shift taking place as to how and why scepticism continues to be a prominent theme. The old age of scepticism was about assertiveness and confidence in ourselves and our ability to know what is true. That kind of scepticism is still around (alla Jeremy Clarkson), but a new type of scepticism has emerged and it’s based on fear. We are sceptical because we are unsure who to trust. Which ideas and words are reliable?
We live in an age of misinformation and disinformation and so we often have reason to be a little suspicious (which is a point Clarkson is making). Scepticism has become a protective mechanism because it’s hard to know who to believe. A dose of scepticism can be healthy. Asking questions and investigating is sensible. However, at some point, you need to put your faith somewhere. Scepticism can’t be the default for everything in life, otherwise, we are left believing in nothing It’s like stripping a building of its bricks one brick at a time soon enough there’s no building left.
We can’t disbelieve everything, and neither is it safe or sensible to believe anything and everything. So what are we meant to do with Jesus and his claims?
I suspect that Clarkson’s objection to Jesus isn’t foremost an intellectual one, but something else, a moral or personal objection. For that’s how scepticism often works. As Aristotle famously laid out, our beliefs are formed by a combination of logos (reason), pathos (desire) and ethos (personal resonance).
To use a car illustration, on both Top Gear and The Grand Tour, Clarkson, Hammond and May presented and evaluated 100s if not 1000s of different cars and vehicles. Did they make their choices of favoured cars based on the vehicles’ engineering and performance, and understanding every bolt, shaft and drop of oil? How often were cars judged, enjoyed or derided, based on appearance and personality? And for viewers, how often were we persuaded and believe their critiques based on ethos? Eat the fool, because we rarely commit ourselves to something big simply because of the engineering.
There’s a story at the end of John’s Gospel where one of Jesus’ friends suggests that the resurrection of Jesus is a hoax. The other disciples had seen Jesus in the flesh and spoken with him, but Thomas assumed better.
Thomas explained that unless he could see Jesus in the flesh and touch where the nails were driven into the body, he wouldn’t believe that Jesus was now alive. Shock, and horror, one week later, Jesus appeared in front of Thomas and he could no longer doubt.
The issue for Thomas wasn’t primarily a scientific or intellectual one, but one of envy. Was he jealous because he was present when Jesus showed himself to his mates?
Jesus’ response to Thomas is fascinating,
“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus isn’t saying that facts don’t matter. Jesus isn’t saying, it doesn’t matter whether I’m alive or not. It matters because objective reality matters. It matters because if God can’t defeat death no one can. If God can’t dismantle sin and evil, then what hope have we? Rather, Jesus was outlining how people come to a true, reliable, and personal relationship with God.
Jesus doesn’t have to repeat the resurrection. It’s a one-off and one that has been clearly attested to by multiple witnesses whose lives were so transformed by this Jesus that greed turned to generosity, and hate to love and hopelessness to confident hope. Jesus was telling Thomas, believe what I’ve told you. Accept the reliable testimony of those who have the crucified one now alive. As we know from the historical record, literally 100s of people saw him in the weeks following that first Easter.
A question is, why does Jeremy Clarkson choose not to believe? I don’t know. He’s certainly an intelligent man, but perhaps he hasn’t taken the Bible texts seriously and read them with care. I don’t know.
The Australian historian, Dr John Dickson once set a challenge. He said that he’d eat a page from the Bible if someone could find a reputable ancient historian who seriously doubted the existence of Jesus Christ. To this day, no one has stepped forward.
Indeed, Professor Bart Ehrman, who is no friend of Christianity, has this to say about those who doubt the historic existence of Jesus –
“There is a lot of evidence. There is so much evidence that …this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. There is no one teaching in a college or university in the Western World, teaching ancient studies who holds that Jesus did not exist.”
The point is, it’s not difficult to refute Jeremy Clarkson’s quip about Jesus and scams. The evidence for Jesus’ historicity, including his death and resurrection is substantial and throwing words around like ‘scam’ is intellectually lazy. It delivers a certain punch line akin to someone drunk on too much cheap Parisian wine.
World-renowned British historian Tom Holland, in his volume Dominion, explores from the perspective of an agnostic, the way in which the message of Jesus turned the world.
“To be a Christian is to believe that God became man and suffered a death as terrible as any mortal has ever suffered. This is why the cross, that ancient implement of torture, remains what it has always been: the fitting symbol of the Christian revolution. It is the audacity of it—the audacity of finding in a twisted and defeated corpse the glory of the creator of the universe—that serves to explain, more surely than anything else, the sheer strangeness of Christianity, and of the civilization to which it gave birth. Today, the power of this strangeness remains as alive as it has ever been. It is manifest in the great surge of conversions that has swept Africa and Asia over the past century; in the conviction of millions upon millions that the breath of the Spirit, like a living fire, still blows upon the world; and, in Europe and North America, in the assumptions of many more millions who would never think to describe themselves as Christian. All are heirs to the same revolution: a revolution that has, at its molten heart, the image of a god dead on a cross.”
Something happened in those years around Galilee and Judea, such that we measure history and hope according to the Galilean.
The Bible authors are so confident that the Apostle Paul wrote to an entire church, if you doubt the resurrection, go and talk to the eyewitnesses. And this,
“if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead.”
Is Jesus the biggest scam of all? If so, it is certainly an audacious one and I’ve been sucked in.
The best way to find out is to read the accounts for yourself. If Jesus is the great fraudster, then either he didn’t think through his plan of being crucified very well… or perhaps his foresight is somewhat better than ours. Wherever you land, this one thing is certain, if God exists and his Son died for the sin of the world and then rose from the dead, this suggestion is too big to ignore.
Making too much and too little of the Federal Election: a Christian’s perspective
Today millions of Australians will wake up enthused and celebrating the outcome of yesterday’s Federal election. Many others will be despondent and even angry as the candidates of their preferred party lost. To be honest, I suspect millions more Australians are waking up today with a degree of political indifference as they carry on making breakfast and figuring out how to pay their bills and care for their families and wondering how Carlton’s season ended up this way! A plethora of responses are understandable. For the Christian, who may also empathise with and see themselves at some place along this spectrum, there is one constancy. Psalm 146 famously says,
“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.”
These words 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. 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 I think we can 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 politically 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 3 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, and we will remain desperately ill-prepared for the geo-political challenges that lie ahead. 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. In part, we’re recognising a fragmentation in society and so looking for answers is only natural and desirable (depending of course upon the solutions offered).
So I go back to the verse I began with, Christians should not look to government to be the saviour of society. Don’t put your trust in princes and prime ministers. 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 much of politics today; people believe and expect Government is the answer. Big government has devotees on both the left and the right. Hence it’s no surprise to see legislative agendas enveloping society around a new moral religion. It’s interesting to see how churches have become more visible as politicians vie for attention and votes. ‘Social cohesion’ is one of the buzz words. God is optional in the new religion, and where he is worshipped, he somehow always supports the popular moral zeitgeist!
Among some Christians, there are more strident and public voices. Christians, be careful of voices that speak more about politics than they do the Great Commission and use more words of outrage than they do words of compassion and mercy. By all means, as a 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 country people is by serving your church and being clear on the gospel. Today at church, pray for government and for those in authority, and give thanks for free and safe elections. And be clear on the gospel. If we love the Lord our God with all our heart, mind, and strength we will also love our neighbours, and that will have real and positive outcomes for our society. That kind of humble constant Christ-like hope hope-filled living may have a greater effect for the good of society than even an election.
NSW Baptists to make an important decision next week
Update: May 3rd. 5:30pm:
The NSW/ACT Association today and removed the 2 churches for holding errant views (see below).
It is a day for mourning and we can pray that these churches will turn around.
Also thankful that the Association made the right decision for the sake of the gospel. This matters for Christian unity and gospel witness. May the Lord honour the faithfulness of his churches in NSW.
The NSW and ACT Baptist Association will vote next week to expel 2 churches who don’t subscribe to the Baptist (and Christian) view of marriage.
“Motions to remove Hamilton and Canberra Baptist churches from the NSW/ACT Baptist Association have been reccomended by the Assembly (church parliament) Council. The Baptists’ Assembly will meet to vote on May 2 and 3, voting on the Saturday as Australia also conducts a poll.
“Over the last few years we have moved through a discernment process as an Association surrounding Affiliation, Baptist Values and Marriage,” according to an Assembly Council statement: “This culminated in decisions taken at our 2024 Annual Assembly. That Assembly approved (by an 84% majority) a process for engaging with churches who appear not to support the Association’s position statement on marriage.
“This decision was the outworking of significant thought, prayer and discussion across our movement.”
I believe there are a further small number of churches who may face removal at a later date.
I’m not based in NSW. I lived in Sydney for 4 years many years ago and loved my time serving in and belonging to a baptist church there. I remain friends with many NSW Baptists, and where NSW Baptists go, has interest for Baptists across Australia.
This week as people gear up for the NSW/ACT Assembly, there are a small number of voices murmuring that this motion is unbaptist-like. Former NSW Baptist pastor and now Uniting Church minister, Rod Benson, goes further and suggests,
‘It saddens me to see a whole movement of otherwise healthy churches intentionally forsaking the way of Jesus just so a few bullies can feel good about themselves.’
No, this is not the case. It is reasonable to believe that NSW Baptists are following Jesus in taking this course and remaining very much Baptist in the process.
At the time when NSW Baptists were discussing the topic in 2022,, Erin Martine Sessions wrote a piece for the ABC, accusing baptists of ‘selling their soul over same-sex marriage’ and claiming that the position went against baptist principles. Far from it, a baptist association coming to a common mind on important doctrinal matters is very much baptist; it’s what an association does. Was a thorough process followed? Yes. Indeed, the process for reaching agreement on why and how a biblical view of marriage matters to a fellowship of churches took several years and multiple Assembly meetings. In the end, an overwhelming majority of NSW/ACT Baptists were in agreement.
It is theologically odd and historically shallow to allege baptists never or shouldn’t require agreement on a set of beliefs or expectations. Historically, many Baptists 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 to join together. The saying, ‘no creed but Christ’ may sound appealing, but it’s neither historically true nor wise. Sure, some baptists subscribe to this narrow view, but many more baptists have not and do not. Throughout 400 years of Baptist history, 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).
The next question is, and the one being tested next week, will the churches apply their agreed upon principles?
This is not a difficult question. It is certainly a sad one, for no one wishes to see Churches turning away from God’s words and ways. It is also a weighty decision, for no one should ever consider removing a church lightly. But discerning the right course of action isn’t particularly murky in this situation
There are some baptists who hold that freedom of conscience reigns supreme and that freedom of association is our highest value. As important as these ideals are to baptists, they are not the Lord of the Church.
Baptists believe in the freedom of conscience, but when the conscience contradicts Scripture we are obliged to point that out. The human conscience isn’t infallible and when it strays, it is appropriate in the Christian setting for that individual or church to be called to repentance and submit to Scripture. This is basic to normal and biblical patterns of church discipline.
Baptists also believe in freedom of association. Churches can uphold their sense of autonomy and follow what they believe is right, but when it comes to being in association, the association needs to have a sufficient common basis. Being Christian, this commonality or unity needs to be properly gospel oriented and faithful to the Scriptures.
By definition, an association must have common ground among its constituents, otherwise it’s little more than porous hole in the ground or Dear Liza’s bucket of holes.
Do we need common agreement in the Gospel? What if a teaching or practice contradicts the gospel? What if a church is teaching an idea that causes people to sit outside God’s Kingdom?
The understanding of marriage that Baptists articulate (not only in NSW but also Victoria and across Australia) fits with the Genesis paradigm and with Jesus’ teaching about marriage and sex. Jesus was pretty clear, sexual behaviour outside marriage between a man and woman is considered ‘porneia’ (immoral). In light of Jesus, it’s difficult to square same sex marriage as negotiable or a tertiary matter.
The Apostle Paul didn’t leave the churches in doubt or treating marriage and sexual holiness with murkiness or broad validation. 1 Corinthians 6 talks about ‘wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?’ and 1 Timothy mentions practices that contradict ‘sound doctrine’ and the ‘gospel’. Both lists specify sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage.
When a church encourages practices that keep people outside the Kingdom of God, let the reader understand, we are not quibbling over tertiary matters. If we are taking Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 seriously, it is difficult to conclude that marriage and sexual holiness is one of those areas where Christians can agree to disagree.
To return to the holey bucket analogy, by removing churches that no longer affirm a Christian view of marriage, NSW Baptists are plugging a hole and that can only be beneficial for Gospel unity and witness.
Christian unity is beautiful and precious and holy. We are not going to agree on everything, and that’s ok, but the issues at stake here matter because they go to the heart of why Christ died and of the life God calls his people too.
Not for a moment do I want to underestimate the significance of the motions before NSW Baptists. We know that God doesn’t promise growing popularity and acceptance in the culture should we choose faithfulness, but honest and humble faithfulness is the way to advance the gospel. We are hearing more and more reports of young people being dissatisfied with the empty and failing promises our society is churning out. Young adults are looking for something more substantial and better. The dream of finding your own truth is turning into a nightmare, and Gen Zers are asking for a good news story that has guts and beauty, truth and goodness. They need clarity not cloudiness.
We don’t love our neighbours by capitulating to the sexual zeitgeist. We won’t win them to Jesus if the message we are advocating looks identical to what is already found in Hollywood and along King street Newtown.
The Christian Gospel is freeing and life giving. The Christian view of marriage is an eschatological pointer to Christ and his bride, the church. And that is why this decision on May 2nd matters.
As NSW Baptists meet next week, it is a time for mourning. Pray that these erring churches will turn around. We can also be thankful for these motions and pray that New South Wales Baptists, for sake of the Gospel and love for our neighbours, stick with Jesus.
Does Daniel help Christians respond to the NSW Conversion Laws?
The NSW Parliament last week adopted a set of laws prohibiting the conversion of or suppression of peoples sexuality orientation and gender identity. The laws are not as extreme as those in the State of Victoria, nonetheless, there is clear government overreach.
Yes, these new laws in places are bad. They are bad because they introduce needless restrictions on normal Christian faith and practice. They are bad laws because they are defending against practices that are mostly mythical. The laws are bad because they take a smidgen of truth and a lot of illegitimate and aggressive sexology (to use Stephen Mcalpine’s word). The are bad laws because the give Government greater authority over religion (which is an odd position for anyone positing that we are a secular country).
Associate Professor Neil Foster has written a helpful explanation of what the laws do and do not mean and where is ambiguity. I would encourage people to read Foster’s article in light of some misinformation that is floating around and being circulated as fact.
However, Christians have begun to respond to these new laws. I’ve noticed more than a few turning to the Old Testament prophet, Daniel, and have begun quoting that famous incident that landed him in a lion’s den. I happen to think the story of Daniel is one of many helpful Bible places we can turn to as a guide and encouragement. But if we’re going to use Daniel ch.6 for our stump speech, there are a couple of details we need to first take into account.
Firstly, what kind of presence are we in society?
Notice how Babylon’s officials and powerbrokers describe Daniel,
“At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.” (Daniel 6:4-5)
Daniel is a wonderful example to Christians today. There is something that particularly resonates with us about the life and times of Daniel for he was an exile living away from his home, as are all Christians today. He is living and working in a context with foreign gods and ideas dominate the horizon and we’re worshipping God is part of a small minority. Part of the wisdom that we glean from the book of Daniel, and it is a book of wisdom, is how Daniel adapted to life in Babylon and worked hard and judiciously for the common good, and yes obeyed pagan Kings, yet without compromising faithfulness to the one true God.
There have been an inflation of open letters and public declarations of late, mostly from a particular quarter of the Christian faith. These are often highlighting genuine issues, but their content and tone often fall short of usefulness. As someone who has had moments in the past when I’ve employed too many strong adjectives, I’m more conscious these days about precision and not overblowing a situation. It is advisable to read and research before putting your name to a public statement.
As the enraged mood takes hold of so many quarters of society, a Christian voice should be different, but sometimes it is as angry and hyperbolic and therefore indistuishable from others. For example, if your public record is filled with distain for authorities and governments and making antiauthoritarian claims whenever you disagree with a policy or law, when a legitimate concern finally arises, why would those in positions of authority listen to you? It’s like the percussionist in a Symphony Orchestra who is always smashing the symbols as hard as she can strike and often out of time with the rest of the Orchestra. Soon enough the orchestra is going to send you down to the basement and lock you out!
Who wants to listen to the guy who is always shouting at everyone? Who takes seriously the voices who are decrying every issue as a threat to freedom and democracy and religion?
Defiance seems to be the default modus operandi for too many Christians today. However, this shouldn’t be our baseline approach to life in the world and it’s certainly not the way Daniel approached life in Babylon.
There will be some other Christians who have no issue with the new laws in NSW and who are trying to con us into thinking that anyone criticising the law is pulling a furphy. I suspect they’ll be among those who volunteer to be part of the firing squad.
Second, notice how Daniel responded to the unreasonable law.
“Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. So they went to the king…”
Daniel continues with what was his normal practice. He didn’t make a song and dance out of it. He simply continued to faithfully pray to God three times a day.
Daniel’s praying wasn’t attention seeking, or brash, he wasn’t revving up the social temperature or resorting to hyperbolic claims or allegations. The window was always open and he carried on as he had always done, with humility and faithfulness.
The problem is, and I understand because I know the injustice of the Victorian laws, too many people are wanting to be David swinging a rock at Goliath’s head, rather than a humble Daniel who went about faithfully serving the Lord and serving the common good of the city where he lived.
In case we think, maybe Daniel is just a one off, I’m about to start a new sermon series at Mentone Baptist on 1 Peter. With little imagination required, I’ve given our series the title, ‘Living away from home’. Like Daniel, Christians are exiles and sojourners, and Peter helpfully explains how Christians ought to live as exiles. In one place he says this,
“Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (1 Peter 3:13-17)
There is a sense in which we are to embrace suffering for the Lord’s sake. And the manner in which we do also matters according to Peter. Gentleness and respect…not resorting to malicious speech but with good behaviour. So like Daniel and Peter, choose faithfulness, and like Daniel and Peter (and Jesus), part of faithfulness is speaking and behaving with utmost integrity and with grace and refusing to be that clanging cymbal.
The Lioness, the Witch and the Wardrobe
″‘Child,’ said the Lion, ‘I am telling you your story, not hers. No one is told any story but their own.’” (Aslan)
The culture wars are sometimes rather childish and remind me of little children throwing water balloons at each other and then crying when one hits them in the face. For the most part, these complaints and fights are best ignored. But DON’T MESS with this childhood classic.
I loved Narnia as a kid, and I still love it. I enjoyed the screen adaptation 20 years ago and have waited to see the final three books made into film. Netflix is planning to make six Narnia movies, one for each of the books. Excellent! I can’t wait…except what the?
Aslan has become a woman, or at least that’s the breaking news. Netflix is currently in discussions with Meryl Streep about playing the role of Aslan in The Magician’s Nephew. Streep is a remarkable and versatile actress, but there is a tiny, winy issue here: Aslan is male. Exchanging the baritone for the alto not only sounds odd, but changes the melodic of the entire story.
Part of me suspects that Netflix’s marketing department is using this as a test balloon, to see what they can get away with.
Last year, I watched Ridley Scott’s ‘epic’ Napoleon. It was 3 hours that I’ll never get back. Many a historian went in search of a Napoleonic cannon to aim at the big screen, as Scott massacred history. Movies always take liberties with stories, both fact and fiction. Turning Aslan into a female character isn’t quite the same as butchering the Battle of Waterloo. Yes, Narnia is fiction, so why does it matter at all?
For starters, there is messing with authorial intent. Change the character, and one who also happens to be the main figure and hero of the series, and you change the entire story.
Let’s change Oliver Cromwell to Olivia! Abraham Lincoln shall now be known as Alice Lincoln. Why shouldn’t Florence Nightingale become Fred?
Harry Potter should be Harriet, and Elizabeth Bennet shall be called Eddie and wear a moustache and mullet.
Let’s reverse engineer The Handmaid’s Tale so that it is men and not women who are subjected to tyranny.
Because it doesn’t make sense. You ruin the story.
Also, it’s bad taste and carries all the creative juices of a failing first year arts student who has woken up and realised they’d be better off as an engineer!
It’s interesting to see how cultural values play out in mainstream film and music. There is a clash of ideals that they can’t reconcile. For example, one of today’s axioms is gender fluidity. Gender can change and morph, and shift more often than the tide in Port Phillip Bay. And yet, the worst heresy we can commit today is to misgender somebody. Which is it? Is gender sacrosanct or meaningless? (asking on behalf of women athletes everywhere!)
If Narnia was only fiction, I suspect many would muttter but put up with screwing up a great story. But as we know, C.S. Lewis was doing something more with these books; Narnia is a work of allegory. Narnia is theology through story.
“this signifies that Aslan will be our good lord, whether he means us to live or die. And all’s one, for that. Now, by my counsel, we shall all kneel and kiss his likeness, and then all shake hands one with another, as true friends that may shortly be parted.”
Aslan is famously an allegorical representation of Jesus Christ. The man, the power, the justice and the gentleness, the atoning death and the resurrection are depicted by this character, Aslan.
By turning Aslan into a lioness, he loses more than a mane. You’ve upended C.S. Lewis’ message of Narnia.
The thing is, Jesus was and is a man. He is the Son of God. He is the second Adam. He is a King. All these themes run through Narnia with cause and design.
“For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)
We don’t mess with Jesus and the eternal persons of the Trinity. I mean, people do, but they shouldn’t. Again, to preach the culture, isn’t misgendering someone paramount to public denouncement?
Jesus seems like an easy target. No, I’m not getting all anxy and angry. Jesus had a particularly wonderful way of responding to those who mocked him on the cross: he forgave and loved. The point is more about ‘live and die by the gender gospel’ that pop culture is at the forefront of hypocrisy. Try this gender swapping from religious figures outside Christianity and see how well that goes!
Apart from ruining one of the great children’s books, Netflix is in danger of playing with The Greatest Story. Who is the likely target audience? Those who know and read Narnia as children, and who now read the books to their children. Are they more or less likely to pay money to watch Aslan emasculated?
If indeed Meryl Streep is a Netflix test balloon, this test balloon is made from lead! Let’s see what Greta Gerwig and Netflix decide to do.
BTW, Reepicheep is standing on the side petitioning to be made into a stallion, as the White Witch demands a colour change into something less colonial. And the Hag is refusing the role until she’s made into Barbie!
Correction: I mentioned Disney at one point when it should be Netflix
Would you sell out Jesus for $4.37 billion?
‘What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? ‘
“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”
Nah, ‘surely not’, says the entrepreneur hungry for another dollar. As long as there is commerce, trade, and ingenuity, people have contended Jesus is wrong. You can have riches and God. You can have wealth and religion.
Why choose between the two? Can’t we have both, Jesus and a growing portfolio? Perhaps not $4 billion; let’s drop it down to a more reasonable $4 million, enough to live comfortably but not so much that my face and portfolio are splashed in The Australian.
It’s an Aussie dream story: success, celebrity status, and a partnership with Ferrari. Wouldn’t we follow these steps given the chance?
The Gospel of Luke tells the occasion when a young influencer makes a pitstop in front of Jesus while on the way to the Grand Prix (yes, there’s a touch of creative licence in this storytelling, but the point remains the same). Careful not to step his $1200 sneakers in a puddle beside the road, he approached Jesus. He was impressed by the man of Nazareth. This Jesus had a way with words and what he touched turned into something amazing. Jesus is useful.
This young dude introduced himself and spoke respectfully to Jesus. He may be young, but he was already enjoying his prosperity. He was going places, but there was this nagging question lurking at the back of his head: did he have it all?
So he asked Jesus, ‘“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”
Jesus then went through a list, spelling out the requirements of God’s law: Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, and so on.
This pleased the man because he felt pretty solid on those grounds. But then Jesus went where the man did not want to go: his heart.
“You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”
“When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”
Wealth remains one of the world’s great con jobs. It promises happiness and success and adventure and respect, and yet it is among the worst of addictions. Wealth can be obtained through family and through hard work. Many creative geniuses have made discoveries or invented new technologies that benefit society and have made a fortune through the process. Others have made millions through theft or deceit. And then there is gambling.
Laurence Escalante is Australia’s 32nd wealthiest person, with a personal fortune of $4.37 Billion. There is a feature story in today’s The Australian, with Laurence Escalante sharing his rags-to-riches journey, and from religion to Los Vegas.
Laurence Escalante grew up in a religious family, first attending a Catholic Church and then joining a large Pentecostal Church in Perth. Speaking to John Stensholt, he said,
“At the time I was very much into faith and religion. I was an acolyte”.
Apparently, Escalante has previously served as a church treasurer and started a Christian gaming company. In the vein of typically cringey Christian products, Escalante made video games based on Timothy and Titus, where players venture not to shoot all the bad guys, but to share the good news.
He left this debt-inducing business and subsequently started a new and massively successful business: casino games.
I’m interested in the way John Stensholt writes. Even he, a journalist, can sense the clash of worlds between Escalante’s Christianity and his worldly lifestyle. The article begins,
“If things had gone according to plan, Laurence Escalante would have had a career developing Christian computer games based on the Apostle Paul’s disciples, Timothy and Titus.
It may have been a decent earner, but it’s unlikely to have brought the level of success the 43-year-old has quickly attained in a decidedly less pious way and allowed him to live what is – judging from his social media accounts – quite the hedonistic lifestyle.”
And notice the headline, Saint to sinner? Or just a migrant kid who can now afford a jet. Even the editors can spot the scam.
Instead of bringing the good news of Jesus to the cyber world, Escalante is now making billions from the credit of the greedy and the foolish and the vulnerable. Stensholt can spot the contradiction, as can many a reader, but what about Escalante?
It would be interesting to hear how Laurence Escalante squares this with Jesus.
The podcast episode accompanying the article is tagged, ‘Guided by God to an online gambling fortune’. I’m not sure whether this is Escalante’s personal view or it’s an editorial interpretation. Either way, it’s not true. Can you imagine, ‘Guided by God to commit adultery’ or Guided by God to steal from my neighbour’? Neither can I. But how often do we reconfigure God in order to justify the life decisions we are making, regardless of what God has actually said (take a look at the Bible).
He wants to assure readers,
“While admitting he isn’t as religious as he once was, Escalante insists he is no sinner. He reckons he doesn’t worry about his reputation, and says he is simply revelling in success earned from hard work and learning from previous business failures.
“I’m having fun, enjoying life,” he says in a rare interview. “Being in the moment. I’ve always been that sort of person, [wanting] to enjoy life.
“I was always into cars; I just didn’t have the means to enjoy them. Now I can afford a jet … You have to enjoy life. You never know when it could disappear.”
Nowhere does Jesus say we can’t have fun in life and enjoy ourselves. But chasing the good life without God is like investing in counterfeit money and pouring your life savings into a scam. Are you running on a high? Sure, until reality hits home.
‘Those who trust in their riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.’ (Proverbs 11:28)
‘Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle.’ (Proverbs 23:5)
It is one thing to have wealth and it is another thing to consider how to be good stewards of our wealth. And it is an altogether different moral category when exploring by what means we accumulate our wealth.
But why choose between the two? Can’t we have both, Jesus and a growing portfolio? It’s an Aussie dream story: success, celebrity status, and a partnership with Ferrari. Wouldn’t we follow in his steps given half the chance? Before we throw the first cricket ball at Escalante, we might do well to consider our own hearts.
That’s the thing, Laurence Escalante is a God to riches story, and the appeal is strong. It’s easy to throw stones at this billionaire but what if we share his spiritual DNA? He’s simply succeeded where many more Aussies dream. Human nature hasn’t changed over thousands of years, and Jesus’ words are as sharp and confronting today as they were 2 millennia ago. We all too easily sell the soul for a few years of splashed excess.
Gambling is one of Australia’s favourite evils. We gamble in greater numbers than nearly every other nation on earth. We know it’s harmful. We know it destroys lives and families, and yet from Government to Sport, we’ve created this entanglement where we require gambling to sustain community projects and our appetite for a high standard of living.
To be clear, Escalante’s online casino games are illegal in Australia (from what I gather); he makes his money mostly from customers in the United States and in smaller countries like Malta.
Gambling is about playing on your hope through chance. It’s playing the odds as a means to change your life circumstances. Like every good addiction, gambling promises much and lies like porn. It exploits vulnerable people and strips them of further dignity, security and relationships.
If Escalante believes Jesus is okay with his billions, I urge him to think again.
How different is Jesus’ approach? Jesus isn’t utilitarian. He counted the cost. He chose sacrifice, even atonement for the sins of many. Jesus didn’t exploit the poor, he gave his life as a ransom for many. Instead of mingling with Melbourne’s celebrity culture over caviar and champagne at the Grand Prix, Jesus picked up the pieces left behind and gave life. He welcomed the humble and repentant, whether rich or poor.
That’s part of the problem, isn’t it? We want everything. How often are we told that we deserve everything? We create a list of desires and expect God to contribute, as though he owes us. It may not be a $ amount or material possessions, but likability or recognition or career success. What kind of screwed-up view of God that is. The very premise is mistaken. We neither deserve everything nor can we. If we treat Jesus like the non-essential extra to life, then not only do we miss out on Jesus, but in the end we’ll lose the lot.
What does Jesus tell us,
‘For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul? If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:35-38)
But what would Jesus know?
A Masculine Lie?
“Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Romans 16:12)
Why spend another few minutes writing about this ‘sin of empathy’’? Because like its partner in crime, Christian Nationalism, the sin of empathy mood is making way into different corners of Australian Christianity. Opening the doors and letting it inside is only going to make an unnecessary mess, so I’m hoping we leave it outside for the wind to blow away.
Are many men feeling emasculated and shamed for being men? Sure. Are many women threatened by the genderless thinking that is today impacting safe women’s spaces and sports? Absolutely.
The notion that macho-masculinity is somehow the answer to the Church’s woes and that feminine characteristics are the primary sin of the church is theologically shallow and pastorally dangerous. Indeed, the ‘sin of empathy’ crowd is as theologically and pastorally flawed as those who see church as a gender free zone. The danger with the latter is that it’s easy to spot. The world’s values aren’t the church’s, and good old-fashioned evangelicals realise that we don’t get our tune from the culture at large. The danger with the former, patriarchy, is that to the reactionary evangelical type, this can come across as a solution. But why exchange one set of faulty thinking for another? Jumping from one house on fire to setting another light is no way forward.
Men blaming women doesn’t sound particularly masculine to me. It’s Adam 2.0 rather than the Second Adam.
For example…
In the latest online defence of his book, Joe Rigney made this claim,
“in my book The Sin of Empathy, I call Feminism “Queen of the Woke,” because of the way that feminism takes a female strength and pathologizes it by deploying feminine compassion where it doesn’t belong.”
Dani Treweek responded with this,
“Let me translate for y’all.
“Deploying female compassion where it doesn’t belong” = women making any meaningful contribution to the life and ministry of the church.”
I have now read enough of Rigney’s position to know that Dani Treweek is representing him fairly. In fact, the more he doubles down online, the less his views resemble complementarianism and instead suggest a neo-patriarchy.
Rigney then replied,
Once again Dr. Treweek misrepresents the argument of the book, but in the process reveals how deeply influenced she is by feminism.
And yet Joe Rigney says things like this,
“There is a reason that the empathetic sex that women are barred from the pastoral office, they were barred from the priestly office in the Old Testament for the same reason. Because priests and pastors, priests in the Old Testament, pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill-suited to that role. So it’s no surprise that in a culture that has become dominated by feminism, it’s deep in the American system at this point, that in that same timeframe, you would have an outbreak of empathy that would become the steering wheel by which every institution is hijacked.”
Back on X (Twitter), Rigney then proceeded to outline how he values the contributions of women in the church…which he then outlines as having babies and cooking meals.
I’m not joking.
‘I’m forced to conclude that, for Dr. Treweek, raising children, managing households, and caring for hurting people are not “meaningful” ministry in the life of the church.
Which is the fundamental feminist lie.’
Ours is an age that often downplays the role of mothers and ignores the tireless love exercised in the home. Our society isn’t the most friendly and affirming for women who make the decision to sit out of the workforce to help raise a family. Is this, however, the sum of women’s contribution to the body of Christ?
It seems that poor Phoebe and Priscilla and a host of women in Romans 16 didn’t get Rigney’s memo.
Again, yes, we ought to esteem and value marriage and children. Ephesians 5 is a wonderful godly model that remains so today. If the totality of women contributing to the church is sex, children, and meals, may I contend that you have wandered a long way from the Scriptures. If Rigney appreciates that it is more, why not include it?
More urgent, how pastorally insensitive and even dangerous, is Rigney’s assumption here? What do Rigney’s words say to single women in our churches? What does his sweeping generalisation communicate to women who are unable to have children?
I know The Handmaid’s Tale’ is a lefty dystopian myth, but sometimes one can imagine where they got the idea from.
To the young men who might be tempted to buy into the Moscow method, it’s only a matter of time before you trip over your beard. If you think that the answer to gender slippery slides is to stand at the top cleaning your rifle and asking when dinner is ready, I humbly suggest that someone ought to push you off the slide.
If men want to know how to lead and serve and love, look to Jesus. Follow his example. We don’t encourage faithfulness in our churches by making gender redundant or by making men sound and smell just a little bit like Andrew Tate.
April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review
MurrayCampbell.net 