Culture

Melbourne is filled with rage and it should grieve us

/ MurrayCampbell

We are living in an age of outrage. No matter where we find ourselves on the political spectrum and no matter where we land on a myriad of moral issues, navigating anger and abuse is becoming normalised. This indictment on our society isn’t a sign of progress but an alarm signalling that we have deep-rooted problems. The issue isn’t just that people disagree on important matters, and do so strongly, but that people feel unable to disagree for fear of retribution. 

Last weekend Melbourne witnessed scenes that shocked us. Neo Nazis standing our the steps of the Victorian Parliament House, saluting their vile gestures and shouting obscenities. As aghast as Melbournians were by this sight, there were a multiplicity of reactions and stances made around the broader events on that Saturday in Melbourne city. The organised women’s protest has since gone to other Australian and New Zealand cities, this time without interfering fascists but with even more vitriol and violence conducted by counter protests

Despite the insistence of some of our political leaders and media personalities, it is possible to believe several things are true all at once. Indeed, I’d argue that it’s sensible and necessary. For example, all of the following are possible:

  1. One may not support the women’s march (for a variety of reasons) and yet support concerns raised by women attending the march.
  2. One opposes neoNazism with every fibre in one’s body.
  3. One disagrees with the Premier and Opposition Leader who wrongfully (and slanderously) labelled the women protesting with Nazism (the Nazis were the group of men who hijacked Spring Street from the women protesting.
  4. One opposes popular gender theories on scientific, moral, and theological grounds
  5. One wants good for Victorians who don’t see themselves comfortable in their biological bodies.

I think very few people want our city of Melbourne marred with violence and ugly protests. We’ve seen them in the past and sadly such events will appear again in our streets; it’s human nature. However, the one sight that filled the news and left us groaning was the group of around 20 men parading outside Parliament House in balaclavas, with Nazi salutes and shouting unrepeatable things at other protesters. Why the Government allowed this group to protest at all, and at the same time and location where two other (opposing) protests were taking place, boggles the mind. 

I understand that the original plan was for a women’s protest on the steps of Parliament House. A rally was organised in support of women’s rights, and this then met with a counter protest in support of trans activism. The already tense scene was then crashed by what was a crude gang of thugs, who were either pretending to be or actually representing Nazism. 

My understanding is that the women’s protest was alerting people to the fact that many women are feeling increasingly marginalised and under threat by a new ideology that is sweeping the Western world. A hundred years of progress for women seems to be taking a sharp decline, leaving many women feeling vulnerable and maligned. 

Can one imagine 10 years ago, women protesting in our cities against the mistreatment of women, only for counter-protests to shame them and for political leaders to condemn them? It is quite staggering. The writing has been on the wall for some years, however. The sexual revolution has been underway for 70 years and it continues to follow its natural course of undermining sex and gender and removing anything that gets in the way of self-actualisation. A movement that achieved some good is bearing much fruit that is harming women. In that sense, the latest chapter of the sexual revolution has feminist roots. And so we have reached the point where it’s near impossible to answer the question, ‘what is a man and what is a woman?’ Indeed, even asking the question is often deemed offensive and will have you hauled before the HR department at work.

Professor Richard Dawkins believes that what is a man and what is a woman are basic and incontrovertible facts. In a recent interview with Piers Morgan the world-renowned microbiologist said, 

“As a biologist, there are two sexes and that’s all there is to it.”

“Sex really is binary”.

Richard Dawkins is able to get away with defending this brand new ‘heresy’, but most women (and men) cannot. As Premier Daniel Andrews has demonstrated on numerous occasions, if you transgress the latest gendered religion, he will call you the meanest and worst names he can think of and get away with in public. And

It’s not only issues of sex and gender, but there is a gamut of important social issues today where finding rigorous discussion and respectful discourse near impossible to find.  We are living in a polarised world and fault lines are appearing everywhere. If you want to be on the ‘right side of history’ (which is code for keeping your job and reputation), without pausing one has to employ the strongest rebuke at social dissenter, and failure to do so may cause us to doubt your moral credentials. 

It’s becoming the norm for all kinds of community and business groups to expect total affirmation and support, and failure to do so means one thing: you are a hate-filled and anti-everything nazi loving awful human being! Of course, that may be the case, but most likely, the labels are untrue. But what is truth? Mud sticks. 

Slinging mud at people you disagree with and don’t like is easy. Anyone can do that. And sadly, sometimes that mud stains, stinks, and stays. 

The Bible has some fairly strong things to say about our words, For example, Proverbs 10:18 says, 

“Whoever conceals hatred with lying lips and  spreads slander is a fool.”

Psalms 15 says,

“Lord, who may dwell in your sacred tent?
    Who may live on your holy mountain?

The one whose walk is blameless,
    who does what is righteous,
    who speaks the truth from their heart;

whose tongue utters no slander,
    who does no wrong to a neighbor,
    and casts no slur on others;

who despises a vile person
    but honors those who fear the Lord”

Using words liberally and losing isn’t something God treats lightly. The Apostle Paul cautions against responding to verbal insult with more of the same kind.

“when we are slandered, we answer kindly. We have become the scum of the earth, the garbage of the world—right up to this moment” (1 Corthinians 4:13). 

Paul was a regular target for insult and assault. He didn’t enjoy the mischaracterisation that he regularly experienced, and he fought hard to not respond in kind. Rather,  it caused him to lean more heavily on God and to respond as the Lord Jesus responded to his critics and crucifiers. 

The right to protest is engrained in western liberalism and it is an important freedom, albeit one that I choose not to exercise (with one exception many years ago). I personally think there are better ways to communicate concerns but I also recognise there can be power and persuasion through the force of numbers. Then again, pro-life marches in Australia often outnumber other protests and yet they rarely make the news. 

Leaving aside the question of whether protests are helpful or not, last weekend’s protests and the response since are yet another example of how our culture has turned into the ouroboros.  We are chasing our own tail and trying to bite it off! We are slowly destroying ourselves as we deny essential realities about the world and about ourselves. And we have lost the ability to communicate hard issues with grace, gentleness, and respect. It’s as though some bright spark read Romans 1:18-32 and thought to himself/herself, what a brilliant pathway to progress! But this isn’t progress, it is a dangerous game of power and bullying and it is hurting real people who are struggling with real issues.

Jesus once asked a group of intellectuals, “Haven’t you read…that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female…”

Can you imagine Jesus standing in Melbourne city and saying these words today? He was willing to say the unpopular thing. Jesus was also known for his great compassion. He didn’t renege on truth or on grace.

Above all, our city of Melbourne needs to relearn how to listen to the One who came from heaven and who was crucified out of love for us. But giving up hubris and putting on humility isn’t an easy path to take, but it is a necessary one if we have any chance of finding redemption. Shouting and demeaning is easy. Listening, speaking well and showing grace is hard. Until such time that we recover these Christian graces I suspect we are going to face more trying times ahead.

And so for my final plea, Christians of Melbourne, don’t buy into the rage. Resist it with all the strength God gives and offer a better pattern. Perhaps no one will listen for now. But eventually, a day may come when the road of rage ends its course and people no longer know where to turn. So be that presence where people can turn. But they probably won’t turn up to our churches or ask those deep questions of us if we’ve already signed up to angry and spiteful mobs that are controlling our public discourse today.  

Are we Triggered by Jesus?

/ MurrayCampbell

I guess I belong to the podcast generation. At the moment I have something like 15 different podcasts on my phone. From history to politics and to theology, and with Aussies, Americans and Brits, I tend to cycle through various shows, ducking in and out of episodes that grab my eye.

The point of listening to podcasts isn’t to reaffirm my existing convictions, although that’s not a bad exercise, it’s to engage with a variety of voices and learn interesting things about the world and how people think and form their beliefs.

One podcast that I’ve been listening to a little is TRIGGERnometry. TRIGGERnometry is a political/social podcast show hosted by two British comedians: Konstantin Kisin and Francis Foster. On the train home just now I was listening to their recent episode which is an interview with actor Lawrence Fox. Fox is well known for the Detective series, ‘Lewis’ and for his roles in films including ‘Elizabeth: The Golden Age’.

The conversation revolves around Fox’s interests and recent political engagements on issues especially surrounding freedom of speech and cultural shifts that are taking hold across Western societies. 

My interest here isn’t the podcast or the talking points raised during the episode. There was a line of thought that arose late in the episode and which stood out to me (around the 58-minute mark). 

Lawrence Fox was speaking about loving those who are different to ourselves when Francis Foster turned the conversation to these words of Jesus. He said, 

“It comes back to Christ on the cross. ‘Forgive them Lord for they know not what they do”.

Lawrence responded,

“Even if you don’t believe in God (don’t have faith), it’s not a bad manual for living…It’s not a bad thing, this idea that someone else has died so that you can be a b***ard to everybody…It’s this modern infection, I meet a lot of people who think, “I’m just a really good person”, and I’m thinking you’re f***en deluded if you think you’re a good person. If I started spouting half the sh** that goes on in my head you know you’re not a good person. That’s why you’ve got to talk all the time and express and connect with other people and find how you can become a better person…being the lovely made in the image of Christ person you are but the fundamental sinfully creature you are”

Unsurprisingly (for those who know me), these comments grabbed my attention and they did so for a couple of reasons.

First of all, it reminds me how our culture still doesn’t travel far from the person of Jesus. We are living 2000 years later and 1000s km from Nazareth, and yet our culture hasn’t been able to let go of Jesus of Nazareth. His words and deeds and even his cross remain deeply embedded in the way we view the world today and even ourselves.

Now, I have no idea what Fox and Foster believe about God in general and Christianity in particular. Their use of language and some of their comments throughout the episode doesn’t give me the impression that they are closely following Jesus, but clearly, though, they are impressed with Christ and they think there is something about him for which it is worth anchoring life. 

Second, in his own way, Lawrence Fox has offered a more accurate biography of human nature than what most people, even Christians, are willing to admit. In theological terms, it’s called ‘total depravity’. This doesn’t mean that we are all as terrible as we can be, but that sin permeates every part of us and we cannot change the status quo. 

As the Apostle Paul explains, 

“for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God” (Romans 3:23)

In another letter, Ephesians, Paul elaborates, 

“As for you, you were dead in your transgressions and sins,in which you used to live when you followed the ways of this world and of the ruler of the kingdom of the air, the spirit who is now at work in those who are disobedient. All of us also lived among them at one time, gratifying the cravings of our flesh and following its desires and thoughts. Like the rest, we were by nature deserving of wrath.” (Ephesians 2:1-3)

Just think how shocking these words sound to our ears. Are we offended? Maybe not, until we realise these words are talking about us as well. And yet Fox kind of agrees with Paul.

When Fox admits the kinds of thoughts that enter his own head, he’s entering the same kind of space Jesus speaks about when he says, “Nothing outside a person can defile them by going into them. Rather, it is what comes out of a person that defiles them.”

It only requires an honest person to see that everything’s not ok inside us. Even as Lawrence Fox gave an expose on his inner attitudes, I began nodding, ‘yeah, that’s me as well’. It’s hard to sustain the argument that people are basically good when confronted with the kinds of things we often think and desire. This is one reason why we rarely share the secret things of our hearts.

The Bible’s analysis of the human condition may be triggering, but so also is the Bible’s solution. It’s one thing to diagnose the human condition but it requires humility to accept the answer given to us by Jesus.

Lawrence Fox indicates what sounds like his answer, it’s a course of dialectical improvement that results from meeting and listening and learning with others. However, I’m unconvinced, and given the guys at TRIGGERnometry involved Jesus in the conversation, let’s turn to the words of Jesus. 

At the moment my mind is living in one of the most famous conversations ever had: Nicodemus and Jesus (found in John ch.3). In podcast terms, this would have to be one of the most influential interviews ever recorded. Millions of people are still reading this interview every year and millions of lives changed demonstrably as a result.

In short, Nicodemus was a respected and influential political and religious leader. He’s a member of the governing council. He’s heard about Jesus. He’s intrigued and so he visits him one night (just in case his friends find out that Jesus is on his playlist). Nicodemus is introduced and shows respect to Jesus, but Jesus doesn’t buy it. You see, behind Nicodemus’ words is attached a certain hubris. He’s the expert and he’s come to learn and assess whether Jesus fits his criteria for what he’s looking for in God. 

Jesus pushes back on Nicodemus. Jesus is fully aware that education and influence and personal improvement aren’t the basis on which we can overcome the basic human problem which is, as Lawrence Fox highlights, called sin. 

Jesus explains to this man of erudition and position, 

“Very truly I tell you, no one can see the kingdom of God unless they are born again.”

It takes Nicodemus a while before he understands what Jesus means, but Jesus graciously sticks with him and helps him grasp this basic truth about humanity: we cannot redeem ourselves. We may hide our nature or we may affirm our nature or celebrate our nature but digging ourselves out of the sin hole is beyond us. If you don’t believe me, then take a look at the history of the world. 

Jesus says that we need a new birth. We need to be born again. When we heard that phase we need to unlearn the parody of the American evangelist wearing a shiny suit and southern drawl. “Born again” is Jesus’ phase and his idea. What he means is that people need a new beginning from the inside out, and only someone outside of ourselves who loves us enough can do that of messy impossible work. It takes someone as big as God and as merciful as God to want to love and redeem us. That’s the point, says Jesus.

“For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.”

As I listen and converse with people today I hear a fair amount of negativity and even anger aimed at Jesus, and yet we still hope that what Jesus stands for and stands on can provide some kind of restitution and way forward for the world today. 

If you’re someone who thinks there is still something interesting and even important about the person of Jesus, I recommend listening to his words and wrestling with his message. He triggers us because he is good and has something to say to us. He stings but then he heals. He confronts but then he reconciles. He disagrees with us but only because he loves us. 

In case we’re unclear about what Jesus thinks, in the same discourse between Jesus and Nicodemus we are given a verdict,

“This is the verdict: Light has come into the world, but people loved darkness instead of light because their deeds were evil. Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that their deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what they have done has been done in the sight of God.”

The Age says no to the Lord’s Prayer. What does this Christian minister say?

/ MurrayCampbell

The near-annual call to remove the Lord’s Prayer from the Victorian halls of power has reemerged in the media.  Boroondara Council has suspended the recitation of the Lord’s prayer, after being directed by a ‘legal letter’ alleging that the practice is unlawful.

In 2021,  Former MP Fiona Patten of the Sex Party (now Reason Party) introduced legislation to have the Lord’s Prayer removed from the Victorian Parliament. The motion failed, but the Attorney General indicated that the Government would reconsider legislation in the new Parliament. 

The Age newspaper has tonight reaffirmed its push to ban the Lord’s Prayer from our political institutions. An Editorial was published, arguing that today’s multi faith society and a decline in Christianity demonstrate that this Christian prayer no longer has a place in our political institutions. 

“In the 2021 census, barely 44 per cent of respondents said they were of Christian affiliation. New migrants, meanwhile, were more likely to practise a different religion (40.7 per cent of those arriving from 2017 to 2021) or no religion at all (28.5 per cent) compared with those affiliated with Christianity (28.4 per cent)…These trends are likely to continue. According to the census, while older generations are still more likely to practise a Christian faith, more than 60 per cent of Millennials either follow a different religion or none at all. This necessarily has implications for those public institutions that still incorporate the Christian faith into their procedures, among them many of Victoria’s local councils.”

As a Christian minister living and serving in Victoria, I have some thoughts about this perennial debate. I have shared them previously and I’ll repeat them here for the sake of public information and discussion.

The Age Editorial makes a point (as did Fiona Patten back in 2021) and it’s not without some merit, but it’s not without a reasonable refutation. 

First, this is an audible reminder to Victorians of the fact that Australia has been profoundly and positively shaped by Christianity. The prayer offers both a historical and cultural connection to the worldview that has provided vital and foundational influence on Australian life. The Lord’s Prayer serves as one of the few remaining signals in Parliament to our nation’s Christian past. This is a past that many wish to have erased although doing so will also remove the very foundations upon which our society depends for stability, tolerance, and viability. 

Second, the Lord’s Prayer is a salient reminder of our humanity and our dependence on God who is Sovereign and good. We ultimately need a God of Biblical proportions to give us wisdom and understanding as we lead, serve and live. 

However, again missing in this conversation is this key question: What is the Lord’s Prayer about? What are we praying?

This prayer which brings great comfort is also dangerous to pray. The words Jesus taught are not vague spiritual notions; nice and innocuous. If anything, the Lord’s Prayer should probably come with a warning sign or some kind of disclosure before reading. Indeed, there are bigger and better reasons for avoiding this prayer (and for praying it). Let me explain.

The prayer begins with Jesus addressing,

“‘Our Father in heaven,”

Jesus invites us to call God, Father. This is an incredibly wonderful idea and it’s one that’s unique to Christianity. To know God as Father suggests that he is not an impersonal being, but he is relational and personal. What a remarkable concept Jesus is teaching!

However, God is not everyone’s Father and it’s imprudent to call him such. It is inappropriate for any child to call me dad, only my children can do that. Similarly, only God’s children can truly address him as Father. It is exclusive and yet it is also wonderfully inclusive, for no one is born Christian but we are adopted by grace, a gift from God. The Bible shows us that the privilege of knowing God as Father comes through faith in his Son. This is one of the great possibilities that’s opened in Christianity, we can come to know God as Father.

It is either a bold or very foolish politician who addresses God as Father if they have not first put their faith in his Son. 

Notice also how the Lord’s Prayer petitions God to end this fallen world and to judge wrongdoing,

“your kingdom come,
your will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven.”

This prayer is asking  God to bring an end to all sin, evil, and death, and to judge the guilty. It is also an appeal for God to unveil his rule publicly and universally so that we might live under and enjoy eternity with him in the new creation. Are we ready to pray for Divine judgment on the Victorian Parliament, and all our attitudes and actions? 

The Lord’s Prayer recognises God who provides our daily provisions and who is able to do the harder work, of forgiving us our sins: “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” Such a petition is humbling, requires honesty, and it provides a stunning possibility; Divine forgiveness. There is hypocrisy and hubris to ask God for forgiveness and to speak words that depend on a crucified and risen Christ without intellectual and heart assent to them. 

If we’re being honest, prayer can act like a placebo, serving to trick my consciousness into believing everything will work out. Prayers, even in many churches, have become about upholding tradition rather than the intended purpose which is about knowing and delighting in God. However, one cannot read this prayer with understanding and come to those conclusions.

I understand why some Christians (and even unbelievers) are keen for the Lord’s Prayer to remain in the Parliamentary (and Council) program and I’ve above outlined two reasons above. At the same time, I am not keen to see our political and council representatives heaping more coals on their heads by speaking words that condemn them before an authority who stands above their own station.

Removing the Lord’s Prayer is another indication of a culture turning its back on the very beliefs upon which the very best of society is built. However, its continuation is not a sign of living faith but of hypocrisy and dead religion. While there is great sadness in seeing my State of Victoria walk away from the God who exists, lives, and saves, the answer is not found in the local Council or in the State Parliament but in the local church. Christians should take care in how we argue, for we are mistaken if we conflate civil society with the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God and the cause of Jesus Christ isn’t extended through such cultural nodding toward Christianity. The Lord’s Prayer belongs to the Church. The Gospel is advanced when Christians believe, pray, and live out what Jesus taught us to pray.

This prayer provides comfort to millions of Christians and is far more weighty and formidable than I suspect many assume. My advice to the Victorian Parliament today is to pause and read it very carefully and to ponder the theological statements Jesus is making.

How to respond to comedian who mocks Jesus on national television

/ MurrayCampbell

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 faces a huge week

/ MurrayCampbell

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. 

Tim Keller recently wrote in The Atlantic,

“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. 

Why Body Image is an Australian issue

/ MurrayCampbell

Australian of the year 2023, Taryn Brumfitt, is a worthy winner who is fighting an issue that is literally aimed at saving the lives of children. Brumfitt came to prominence through her relentless work to fight for children who grow up hating their bodies. 

Brumfitt believes that issues surrounding children’s negative views of their bodies is “a paediatric health emergency.”

“”We really need to help our kids across Australia and the world because the rates of suicide, eating disorders, anxiety, depression, steroid use, all on the increase related to body dissatisfaction.”

She argues that this relationship with our bodies results from ‘learned behaviour’. Key to her message is that “we weren’t born into the world hating our body”. In other words, our society is teaching and influencing our children to have negative thoughts about their bodies, which of course can lead to serious consequences. 

Brumfitt’s mission is to influence and encourage children to embrace their physicality, and not be defined by social influencers and so called culturally perfect images. 

Any parent with a daughter (and sons for that matter) is committed to the well-being of our children. Sadly, this isn’t always the case but it is true 98% of the time.  I imagine millions of parents, and Aussies more generally, resonate with and applaud the message from our new Australian of the year. We may or may not have first hand experience with body image disorders, but it is clear to most of us that Brumfitt is alerting us to a real problem that is capturing our young people. As Brumfitt testifies, it’s not only teenage girls who experience harmful views of their physical selves, but boys as well, and it is also present among young children, 

“It’s getting younger and younger I have to say, I only spoke to a six-year-old recently who was dieting”.

Photo by Nothing Ahead on Pexels.com

There is something right and beautiful about Taryn Brumfitt affirming the goodness of the human body.

Australia has an uncomfortable relationship with the human body. As I heard the news of our new Australian of the year,  it’s hard not to notice a massive disconnect, not in what Brumfitt said in her Australia Day speech but in the broader narrative in our society. You see, there exists a sizeable disjunction between the message Brumfitt is advocating and what is now mainstream thinking about the human body. 

I don’t know Brumfitt’s views about transgenderism and how she makes sense of this new and sudden wave of bodily denial, but one thing is for certain, her calls to embrace our physical body is at odds with the ideology that is now sweeping our society and being forcibly taught and embraced from GP rooms to school classrooms and TikTok ‘programs’.

Our culture has adopted a modern day Gnosticism, where the ‘truest’ self is divorced from the physical. We are taught that the real you isn’t the physical body you inhabit but the immaterial desire and feelings that one experiences in the mind.  Gender has been divorced from sex and personal identity cut away from physicality. We can’t of course reduce our humanness to physicality for we are spiritual and social beings and thinking and feeling beings. We are more than flesh and blood and DNA but we are not less than those things. 

We are witnessing a generation of young people who no longer feel comfortable in their own skin, but are now taught from school to TikTok that their physical bodies betray them, and they may well be living in denial of their true selves.

The result is that 34% of 18-24 now no longer believe they are heterosexual, embodied beings attracted to the opposite sex, but rather they are spread across an imprecise and growing spectrum of self-defining and often bodily denying sexuality and gender. 

Many girls and boys now undertake psychological and medical pathways to transition away from their physical sex. The number of young people beginning hormonal medications, psychological treatments, and eventual surgical mutilation of the body, is skyrocketing. We are talking about an increase in gender dysphoria by 1000% in just the space of a few years. Call me, Wiliam of Ockham but this drastic and sudden increase cannot be explained by natural selection. There is something else in the water. Indeed, the iceberg that looms beneath the surface is rightly scary and we’re ill equipped to do little more than chip away at it. 

While gender related rejection of the body is deeply personal and impacts the individual, the worldview attached is fast becoming compulsory across all spheres of life.  For instance, in the United Kingdom, women are having to fight the government to prevent male rapists from being sent to women’s prisons because the man wishes to identify as female. The World Athletics body has agreed to let transgender women compete against women. The next women’s soccer world cup will be open to men competing (those who say they are women).  And when women speak up, they are ridiculed, ostracised and at times threatened. Take note of how the disgusting treatment toward JK Rowling. 

Do we see the confusion? Here I say confusion because one wants to think the best of people‘s intentions. Parents who see their children in torment will do anything to find relief. And so if a doctor or counsellor says transition, then I understand them trusting the advice of the professionals. But surely there is also an ear of hypocrisy as well. How can we preach on the one hand, be comfortable in your body, and then insist on the other,  reject your body and have it mutilated and permanently damaged in the name of this Gnosticism?

In her book Irreversible Damage: The Transgender Craze Seducing Our Daughters, journalist Abigail Shreier explores the transgender phenomenon. She blames an ideology that has captured the heart of western cultures. It’s what Carl Truman refers to as ‘expressive individualism. Gender expression has become the trend, and because it’s now described in terms of human rights,  no one is allowed to question, doubt or help adjust a child’s sense of identity. 

In today’s Australia even questioning a child’s ‘felt’ gender is paramount to the worse kind of blasphemy. In Victoria, parents, teachers, pastors,  and pretty much anyone can find themselves charged by the police and imprisoned should they not fully affirm and support a person’s preferred gender identity. We are now forcibly required to ignore the physical body and appearance. 

Leaving aside the elephant in the room, it is a good thing when our Australians of the year highlight important social issues that impact the lives of real people. It’s one of the gains in recent years that has been awarded to us through this prestigious accolade.

Those living with discomfort and disconnect with their bodies need our care, not hatred, our kindness not our complicity with a dehumanising project. As much as awareness of these issues helps and as much as positive thinking and imaging may benefit youth as they learn to live in their body, I think Christianity has something to add.  The Bible gives us what I believe is an even better message, one that is more secure. The ultimate resolution doesn’t lay in the self, for the self is existentially unstable. If the best of me can fail and disappoint, what about the rest of me? If this was not the case, we wouldn’t have a generation of Australians journeying down this dangerous and harmful pathway to physical destruction and mental anx. The Bible gives us a better story and greater hope. 

Psalm 139 exclaims, 

“For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you

    when I was made in the secret place,

    when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.

Your eyes saw my unformed body;

    all the days ordained for me were written in your book

    before one of them came to be.”

Grounding our personhood in the knowledge that we are wonderfully made by God, is liberating and securing. The Bible’s story doesn’t end there. The Scriptures also acknowledge ways we often hide from ourselves (and from God). The Bible points out the realities of the darkness in the world and in our own hearts. The story however doesn’t end with darkness and despair, for the Scriptures move us to the culmination of the story, 

“Since the children have flesh and blood, he too shared in their humanity so that by his death he might break the power of him who holds the power of death—that is, the devil—  and free those who all their lives were held in slavery by their fear of death. For surely it is not angels he helps, but Abraham’s descendants. For this reason, he had to be made like them, fully human in every way, in order that he might become a merciful and faithful high priest in service to God, and that he might make atonement for the sins of the people. Because he himself suffered when he was tempted, he is able to help those who are being tempted.” (Hebrews 2:14-18)

There is a constancy in our world of body image flaws and troubles. There is an anchor for all the spiritual and material wants and sins. This Jesus, the eternal Son of God, didn’t abandon the body; he became human for us. He entered the physical and spiritual turmoil that fills the world, taking its sins and shame in order to bring redemption and life. He understands. He makes atonement. He helps. That is a good news message for Australians today. 

Before you watch Harry & Meghan

/ MurrayCampbell

Before clicking play on Netflix to watch Harry & Meghan or purchasing a copy of Spare, consider how doing so will add to the sordid affair.

Unless you’re still sailing to Hobart from Sydney with a broken mast and no satellite dish, you’re hearing the names of Harry, Meghan, William and Kate every few hours. With the launch of the Netflix series, and now with Harry’s memoir released and a series of television interviews ready to play, everyone is talking about Britain’s Royal family and offering their thoughts, opinions, and evaluations. It’s as though we’re all the butler with eyes on the inside of the Winsdors’ hearts. 

Harry and Meghan are everywhere. As much as I’m trying to avoid them, the latest revelations are headline news for newspapers and the late-night news on tv. I’ve taken to wearing noise-cancelling headphones everywhere I walk (metaphorically speaking) as I way to block out the latest stories of who did what to whom. And because repeating them here makes me an accessory to gossip I have no intention to repeat the stories here. Although, I am tempted to make one comment about the scary headline of ‘brother fights brother’. Have there ever been 2 brothers who’ve never punched, kicked, or wrestled each other? Beating up my baby brother was familial routine…until he outgrew me!

Leaving aside my own family history, I’m not writing to offer a commentary about the Royal family or to take sides. Doing so would shred the very point that I wish to make. I want to offer a short word to everyone who is quick to read, watch, and repeat opinions about what really is a sad state of affairs. Let’s not do those things.

There is wisdom in the book of Proverbs,

A gossip betrays a confidence, but a trustworthy person keeps a secret. (11:13)

A perverse person stirs up conflict, and a gossip separates close friends. (16:28)

Without wood a fire goes out; without a gossip a quarrel dies down. (26:2)

Participating in the mob may give us a certain degree of justification and even moral uprightness. It allows us to feel part of the crowd.  We’ll have something to say at work while everyone lines up to grab another cup of stale coffee. The reality is, all we are doing is gossiping.  

Gossip is one of the oldest sins and for some odd reason, it is too often treated as an acceptable one.

 We all know that sharing another person’s secrets is a no go zone. We all know that breaking trust and retelling personal details can rip apart a friendship, and yet most of us a guilty of doing so…even at church as though faux concern legitimises the action! Whether the subject of gossip is the Royal family or my neighbour or best friend, take note of this Proverb,

The words of a gossip are like choice morsels; they go down to the inmost parts. (18:8)

The age of the internet accelerates the pace of rumour spreading from the old school gossip magazines and water coolers. Twitter and Netflix are the latest machines for globalising gossip.  My secret today can be the topic of public scrutiny tomorrow.

The thing is, by watching and reading and gossiping, we’re leaping into a carefully managed trap. We’re suckers for a good juicy story about a family imploding. And what’s bigger than that family being our King and Princes? Far from satisfying our own grubby hearts, we’re falling for the very thing publishers and marketers are dreaming of. They’re gambling on our ability to read and repeat another person’s private life. The reality is, we’re adding just a little more oxygen to build the bonfire no one needs out bush in the middle of summer. 

I’m not .suggesting who is right and who is wrong, or who in the Royal family has said or done what to whom. Not at all. Does the Harry-Meghan saga boil down to money? Is it a case of old fashion greed or revenge or is it about a man defending his wife against torrents of abuse? One thing we do know is this, I don’t know the truth and neither do you. The public outing of private lives is certainly unsanitary and our public gaze is guilty of participating and even egging it on. I won’t bet my crown on it, but I’m pretty sure the Windsors can do without my psychoanalysing. 

I hope that with time and humility and eventual public boredom, these two brothers and their families are able to find whatever repentance and forgiveness are required in their hearts and be reconciled. For our part, perhaps the wisest thing to do is remember that gossiping isn’t a virtue. It really is quite ugly and unhelpful. So let’s keep our eyes, ears and noises out of this story. 

Biblical Critical Theory is launched

/ MurrayCampbell

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.

We ask this in Jesus’ name, Amen

Andrew Thorburn Case: when values is about religion

/ MurrayCampbell

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

The Blue Check Scandal

/ MurrayCampbell

Every move Elon Musk makes on Twitter seems to cause the little birdie to fluff his (or is that her?) feathers. I must say, there have been one or two moments where I’ve noticed myself smiling.

When Elon Musk moved to buy Twitter, he lost his left-bending trophy. When Musk announced a more even handed Twittersphere, voices tweeted that they would abandon the social media platform…they haven’t.

Twitterers are once again squawking out loud and threatening to fly away because of  Musk’s latest announcement that blue check accounts will be accompanied by a monthly fee of $8 (the price of 1 ½ coffee in Melbourne). 

The blue check accounts are meant to signal importance and substance. They are supposedly verified accounts as opposed to the mindless bots that attach themselves to all manner of Twitter threads and accounts.

According to Twitter, “The blue Verified badge on Twitter lets people know that an account of public interest is authentic. To receive the blue badge, your account must be authentic, notable, and active.”

In practice, the blue check has morphed into a status symbol, elevating popular Twitter accounts into the stratosphere of importance and self definable class snobbery. Social media followings, like sneakers, handbags, and the car you drive, are all status symbols, elevating one’s worth above the peasantry. The worth, in this case, may be little more than popularity. And sometimes it’s the pretentious megaphone of opinion making: ‘Look at me, I have another big, bold, or brave 280 characters to spell out to you, so listen up!’

I guess people are willing to pay for status. While a lot of blue checkers are complaining about the $8 Elon charge, as do virtue signallers whine about everything from Van Gogh paintings to the cost of buying a Tesla, I suspect most will eventually pay up. Status is, after all, something many a person is prepared to sell their soul for. To be wanted, to be respected, to be influential, are ambitions coveted by human beings since the dawn of the age. 

Twitter has always been and will continue to be a wild land where all manner of crazy things are said and suggested. And yes, at times quite appalling and wicked things appear. Twitter has never been a magical land of propriety and constructive social engagement. I’m sure there are examples of this and I have benefited from such moments, but the fuel is almost always outrage and oneupmanship.

There is an entire industry today dedicated to influencing and changing the world; sometimes known as Instagram or TikTok, If Instagram exists like a fashion label and TikTok designs lifestyle envy, then Twitter serves to promote ideas and information that shape, challenge, or irritate the mob. 

Social media is of course a fool’s paradise. In his book, ‘How to find yourself’, Brian Rosner explains, ‘Social scientific research indicates that “increasingly, many young people are sourcing their identities from social media and advertising, and in the process losing their self-esteem”.

I have no plans for ditching Twitter and other social media. It still serves a purpose to share events and ideas, and to find out about events taking place in our world. We should, however, should at least lower our expectations and not connect our own value or the benefit of our views by coloured buttons and the number of engagements and followers. We’re not meant to be like a flock of seagulls fighting over some tossed out chips. 

Let the blue chips have their $8 price tag. Most of them are probably spending more on their coffee every day. 

It was Jesus who said, “the meek will inherit the earth”. It was Jesus who said, “Blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven”. The confidence and attitudes and manner flowing from the Beatitudes won’t win you many arguments on Twitter and it probably won’t gain you much for following either. That’s okay. Avoiding the hyperbole of both left and right is the Jesus way. Steering away from cheap shots and nasty caricatures is a better way. Presenting a different kind of conversation is by far more interesting than the taunts and shouts being lobbed between the blue chips. Grace-filled truth; that’s something worth tweeting about. It probably won’t trend and grab the attention of the self appointed Twitter royalty, but it may well reach that one person who needs to hear good news.