The headline is fair. It did not need to be this way, but the current Victorian Government has a poor track record when it comes to dialoguing with faith communities.
Journalist Farrah Tomazin has done a reasonable job trying to squeeze into one article many important factors. I thank her for her courtesy and pleasant conversation. Let it be said, Farrah Tomazin achieved more in that single phone call than the Government has probably done in attempting to understand how Christian churches function and what they in fact believe.
Nonetheless, it is important to reiterate these points that I have long maintained and which have been overlooked by The Age or insufficiently emphasised. Hopefully this encourages more conversation, not less.
Christians oppose conversion practices, in terms of those archaic and awful therapies that a few religious groups once adopted. These include aversion therapy and shock therapy. Such practices were never mainstream and never supported by most Christians.
If the Government had chosen to work with churches rather than against them, a successful Bill might have been accomplished.
I noted yesterday that sermons do not fall under the umbrella of this legislation. However this is far from clear from the Bill itself. Clarification was required in a speech given by Attorney General Jill Hennessy.
On preaching, Hennessy has not excluded the possibility of controlling Christian sermons in the future: “such conduct may be considered as part of the Legislative Assembly’s ongoing inquiry into anti-vilification protections.”
The article failed to interview people who find support and care within Christians Churches (or other faith communities), and who find prayer and conversation of enormous value as they wrestle with their identity. This is not unusual for it forms the fabric of Christian Gospelling over 2,000 years.
The article overlooks last week’s landmark ruling in the UK High Court where a 23 year old successfully demonstrate that the new trend in treating teenagers with gender confusion with hormones and other invasive practices is wrong and dangerous. The current Victorian Government enforces that medical professionals proceed down this path of conversion. The Bill threatens families who do not fully endorse this conversion.
The aim of Christian teaching is not to alter an individual’s sexual orientation. Jesus was clear that sexual activity is reserved for the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. Christians accept Jesus’ purposes as good and want to live in accord with them. The proposed Act prohibits both prayer and conversation where this Bible ethic is encouraged.
It is incorrect and somewhat amusing for someone to describe me and churches like my own as “the religious right”. This is far from accurate. Over the years, I have been called left and right, conservative and progressive. Let’s be clear, the position I hold is neither right or left. These views are in step with classical Christianity, believed and practiced by 100s of millions of people around the globe and that has its teaching and centre firmly grounded in Jesus Christ.
I will say this again, for a Government to define ‘prayer’ and ‘conversation’ as harmful is ridiculous, extraordinary, and reaches far beyond their jurisdiction. One can only ask the question, why have they chosen this extreme and unnecessary approach?
New information has come to light since I wrote ‘A Day of Reckoning: Victorian Government pushes to ban Christian practices with threat of 10 years in prison’. Unfortunately, none of it alleviates initial concerns with the Victorian Government’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020.
First, let me reiterate the astounding step this Victorian Government is taking: a Bill before the Parliament will ban praying.
It is not a prohibition on all prayer but prayers with people that include a Christian view of human sexuality.
Also, this extraordinary measure: while it is understandable and agreeable that a Bill might seek to ban non consensual activity, this Bill forbids consensual prayers and conversations in which the Bible’s sexual ethic is explained and encouraged.
The explanatory memorandum states,
“These examples are illustrative only and do not narrow the definition in subclause (1) which is intended to capture a broad range of conduct, including, informal practices, such as conversations with a community leader that encourage change or suppression of sexual orientation or gender identity”.
As I noted last week, there are details in the Bill which are ambiguous. Either this serves to deliberately discourage a breadth of Christian (and religious) engagement with sexual ethics or the Bill has been poorly written. I will let others decide which is the case. For example, does preaching or leading a group Bible study fall foul of this Bill?
Associate Professor Neil Foster has written a second response to this Bill, in which he offers some clarity. He refers to the Attorney General’s speech before the Parliament. Unfortunately, rather than her explanation assuaging concerns, she indicates there may be further prohibitions on religious freedom to come, including on preaching. He explains,
“While I appreciate that activities such as preaching are not explicitly prohibited, I note the Attorney General’s statement, “….” the conduct must be directed at an individual. This ensures that conduct generally directed— such as sermons expressing a general statement of belief—is not captured. However, such conduct may be considered as part of the Legislative Assembly’s ongoing inquiry into anti-vilification protections.”
In other words, while preaching a sermon is not currently included in the parameters of this bill, the Attorney General is foreshadowing a time when sermons will come under scrutiny.
The Bible urges followers of Jesus Christ to refrain from sexual relationships outside marriage between a man and a woman. This is described in positive and good ways. It is not suppression, it is liberating. Depending on how ‘suppression’ is used, these normal conversations that take place in religious communities may well become anathema. Certainly, the Bill may have the effect of creating fear and pressuring Christians leaders into failing their duty to faithfully explain and encourage the Christian faith.
In other words, conversations that include the affirmation of normal and deeply held Christian beliefs and encouragement for Christians to live by these teachings, amount to illegal activity with a possible prison term of 10 years.
For a Bill to name prayer as illegal under an Act of Parliament is astonishing and it is unwarranted. For a Government to make illegal conversations with a faith leader is extraordinary and significant overreach. When the Victorian Attorney General indicates that “sermons expressing a general statement of belief” may in the future be considered in framing new ant-vilification protections we have entered very dangerous territory. This is the kind of authoritarianism that we find in those oppressive countries. This Bill is Victoria’s Sinicization.
The Government’s one way street to conversion fails to do justice to the complexity of issues. It has assumed a narrow posture toward sex and gender, which neither medical experts or religious communities accept as true. Indeed, neither do many LGBT people accept the Government’s hostile stance.
It is important to note that it is not only religious groups who are concerned at the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 . The Government won’t inform the public, but the fact is, there are people identifying as LGBT who are against this Bill.
The LGB Alliance has expressed significant reservations about the Bill.
One transgender woman has spoken with me and expressed concerns about the Government’s politicisation and popularisation of the issue.
Men and women who have detransitioned are speaking up and making the point that this Bill will prevent people from seeking out and finding both professional help and pastoral care that they require.
The problem with this Bill is that it is neither based on the best science nor on essential democratic principles of freedom of conscience, belief, and practice. Rather depends on the narrow and belligerent worldview that is propagated by vociferous ivory tower scholastics with their minions in popular culture and activists groups.
This week saw the landmark High Court ruling in the United Kingdom. 23 year old Ms Bell won her case against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, for its dangerous treatment of children who have gender dysphoria.
Ms Bell was prescribed puberty blockers at age 16. As an adult Ms Bell has sued Tavistock, alleging that young people do not have sufficient awareness to make an informed decision to undergo invasive treatments that will have long term effects on their physical and mental state. Three judges ruled in her favour
“under-18s in gender clinics need “far better mental health services to help them to reconcile themselves to their (sex) — not life-changing physical interventions that might alleviate short-term distress at the price of long-term trauma”.
This same view, should it be found in a doctor’s clinic or in pastoral visitation here in Victoria, could see charges laid followed by a 10 year term of imprisonment. For what? For failing to subscribe to the Government’s narrow and one way street of conversion, rather than offering sensible, caring, patient care to those in our community who are struggling with their identity.
The UK ruling is relevant to this conversation because it demonstrates a growing awareness of and concern for those who are treating gender issues according to dogmatic and myopic views.
Members of Parliament and the Victorian public should note this Bill is a disaster not only for religious groups but also for LGBT Victorians who don’t wish coercion down the ideological path that the current Government is directing. Doctors and psychologists are increasingly concerned about this one-way street and the roadblocks this Government is laying down will prevent real and necessary conversation and care to be offered.
Far from protecting people, this bill will have the unfortunate consequence of threatening many Victorians with legal proceedings if they continue to believe and practice a Christian worldview, it will pressure faith leaders from exercising their pastoral responsibilities, and it will prevent many people in our community who are wrestling with their identity and are looking to faith communities for wisdom and prayer and support.
Where the Government could have made allies with faith communities in Victoria, they have unnecessarily targeted them and pushed them away. They are sadly driving this Bill over other Victorians who deserve love and care, not this coercive piece of legislation. One prays that commonsense will prevail and that the Government will return this Bill to the drawing room and start again.
The day after Victoria was declared COVID free, the DHHS reversed their directive and introduced a ban on singing in churches.
Yesterday my church gathered together for the first time in almost nine months. We did all the rights things in regard to social distancing and mask wearing, registering attendees and cleaning before and after each service. We didn’t share morning tea as we love to do. We even bought prepackaged communion wafers and cups.
I preached a sermon on Psalm 33, which begins with a call to worship,
“Sing joyfully to the Lord, you righteous;
it is fitting for the upright to praise him.
Praise the Lord with the harp;
make music to him on the ten-stringed lyre.
Sing to him a new song;
play skillfully, and shout for joy.”
To obey the Christian call to worship in song has now been forbidden by the DHHS. Earlier in November we spoke to a DHHS officer who guaranteed that we are allowed to sing in church, so long as we wear masks. The Health directives on the Government website, even as late as last night, still stated in one section that singing is permitted for indoor religious ceremonies.
First of all, I have no doubt that those working in the DHHS have much on their plates. There is an enormous breadth of decisions to make, including producing directives for areas of community life where they have little experience or understanding. This is hard at the best of times. I appreciate how the tragic events that Victorians have experienced this year does not make producing health advice or directives any easier.
There is no need to attack the DHHS or impugn motives that we are not aware of. My aim here is understanding and to ascertain a helpful explanation from the DHHS.
I have been informed that over the past week there has been confusion within the DHHS and with the DHHS’s messaging. Official Government’s websites have simultaneously allowed singing and prohibited singing for religious ceremonies. The permission granted to my church for singing has not been overturned in writing. However it is my understanding that the DHHS will today confirm on their website that singing is not permitted for religious ceremonies.
On the surface the DHHS reversal makes no rational sense. The day after Victoria is declared COVID free, the DHHS impose (or at the very least, confirm) a prohibition on singing in churches?
The question is, what is the justification for reversing the decision on singing?
Several months ago, suggestions were made by some medical experts that singing could play a role in spreading the virus. We certainly want to listen carefully to the findings of research. I note that this information was available months ago and it do not prevent the DHHS from giving religious groups in Victoria the green light for singing. Let me stress, with this information widely available, the DHHS decided that singing was permissible.
Since those early indications that singing causes COVID to spread, more recent research has found that singing is not more problematic than speaking.
“Singing does not produce substantially more respiratory particles than speaking at a similar volume, a study suggests.”
“Dr Rupert Beale of the Francis Crick Institute, said: “This important research suggests there is no specific excess risk of transmission due to singing”
It is not for me to discern how COVID-19 spreads and whether singing is a worse offender or not. I believe in listening to the science. To my knowledge, no new evidence linking singing to the spread of COVID-19 has come to light in the last couple of weeks, the same time frame that has introduced this 180 degree change by the DHHS. Perhaps new scientific data has become available in the past week. If so, it is incumbent upon the DHHS to explain.
This policy reversal is even more bizarre given the fact that Victoria has recorded zero new cases of COVID-19 for 31 days. There has been an entire month with zero new cases, despite many 1000s of people being tested every single say. It’s not as though the health situation is growing more perilous. Indeed, on November 28th Victoria was declared COVID-19 free!
The logic is quite strange – while there remained a few cases of COVID-19 in Victoria, Churches could sing. Now that there are no cases and Victoria is declared COVID safe, churches can no longer sing?
It is not asking too much for the DHHS to detail the precise reasons to the1000s of churches and 100,000s of religious Victorians who are finally beginning to meet again after almost nine months of severe restrictions
Government bureaucrats perhaps do not appreciate the importance people of faith place on meeting together for worship, and the key role singing plays in these services. For Christians, to sing is one of the great joys and imperatives. It is an essential aspect of Christian worship.
In 3 week time there will be crowds of 25000 people shouting and singing and chanting at the MCG’s Boxing Day Test. I intend to among that crowd! Groups of noisy patrons are already filling our pubs, sharing spittle as they talk over tables and cheer across the room. While people are amassing in restaurants and pubs 2sq m apart, people in church must sit 4sq m apart.
There is a moral obligation for the DHHS to demonstrate this ban is necessary, because, for 1000,000s of Victorians, singing is a necessary expression of the faith we hold. If the DHHS has genuine cause for introducing the ban, okay. We will respond appropriately, as we have done so throughout 2020.
The day has come in Victoria where Christians and Churches need to decide whether to obey God or the Government. Such a decision should never be forced onto believers but the current Victorian Government insists that it must be so.
There are times when we use hyperbole and exaggerate the significance of words or decisions, but I do not think this is one of those occasions.
The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020has been tabled in the Victorian Parliament. This is the most significant threat to religious freedom in Victoria in living memory. The current Government has been slowly removing religious freedoms for a number of years, but nothing quite like this.
Anyone found engaging in ‘change or suppression practices’ may face 10 years imprisonment.
“Cruel and bigoted practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity will soon be stamped out across Victoria, thanks to new laws introduced to Parliament today.
The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 will put in place new measures to protect Victorians from the serious damage and trauma caused by conversion practices.
The Bill denounces such practices as deceptive and harmful, reinforces that the ideology behind these practices is flawed and wrong.
The laws empower the Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission (VEOHRC) to consider and respond to reports of change or suppression practices from any person, as well as launch investigations where there is evidence of serious or systemic change or suppression practices.”
The Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill may have wide-reaching ramifications for thousands of religious groups in Victoria, for 100,000s of Victorians, and for the entire State as it turns its back on religious freedom in favour for State-controlled religion.
Now that the Bill is available to read, what does it mean for Christians and for churches?
The Bill is long and complex. There are important details that need to be addressed which I or others will do so later on. I want to comment here on some of the larger issues.
I want to begin by stressing that if the Government’s intention is to protect vulnerable people from extreme practices that were once employed by a few and marginal religious groups, there is a warrant for conversation.
“Religious groups have sought to distance themselves from the older practices of electro-shock treatment, aversion therapy or other extreme methods, while arguing that religious counselling encouraging people to change their sexuality or gender identity should not be banned if a person consented to the treatment.”
I must respond and say, not true. We are not distancing ourselves from these older practices because almost no church ever engaged in them. Until a few years ago I didn’t know that such practices once occurred in a few religious groups. Despite the efforts of the Government and various advocacy groups, this is not and was never widespread among Christians in Victoria. In addition, I note the government has carefully avoided telling the public that this the so-called ‘conversion therapy’ originated not with Christian churches but within secular psychology. Decades ago, some well-meaning people unfortunately adopted the ideas and practices from psychology and added a spiritual twist.
If the Government is concerned with banning shock therapy and particular counselling methods, pretty much all Christians would find agreement. For those people who have undergone those kinds of experiences, I pray that they will find healing and come to know the God of all comfort. However, these narrow and debunked practices are not the parameters of this Bill, nor the goal of this Bill. Both the Premier and the Attorney General have made it clear,
Premier Daniel Andrews referred to conversion practice as,
“This bigoted quackery”,
and
“The Bill denounces such practices as deceptive and harmful, reinforces that the ideology behind these practices is flawed and wrong.”
Attorney-General Jill Hennssey said,
“We’re sending a clear message: no one is ‘broken’ because of their sexuality or gender identity,”
“These views won’t be tolerated in Victoria and neither will these abhorrent practices.”
Let us take note, it is not only the alleged activity that Daniel Andrews and Jill Hennessy want to be eradicated from Victoria, it is “these views”. In other words, to think or have ‘these views’ is something that the Victorian Government wants rooted out.
In other words, the Government is not only targeting those rare, few and extreme practices (that frankly don’t happen anymore), the government is aiming its intention at the beliefs and the thoughts of 100,000s of Victorians. Is it the role of government to police our minds and to decide what theology can and cannot be believed? Since when did God give them jurisdiction over the conscience?
Churches are left with little protection
The Bill contains no explicit protection of the rights of religious people to believe and teach their views. At one point it refers to the Charter of Human Rights but it fails to offer any specific protection to religious people and religious organisations. With a note of irony that can’t be missed, the Bill’s explanatory memo references to “freedom of thought, conscience, religion and belief”, in the context of constructing an entire Bill aimed at taking those freedoms away.
The Government’s position is of course hypocritical and disingenuous. For example, while they argue sexual orientation is fixed and that persuading anyone of an alternative is morally wrong, the Bill offers protections for those who are in the business of transitioning people into a gender other than their birth sex. In another law that the Government pushed through a year ago, on one’s birth certificate you are free to legally change the gender on your birth certificate every 12 months. When it comes to children who are wrestling with gender dysphoria, they are now encouraged and urged to no longer identify with their biological sex but to assume a new gender identity. The government have acted in this manner despite an increasing consensus in the medical fraternity that this kind of counselling and medical intervention is fraught with danger and is unlikely to resolve the issues facing these children.
What is considered ‘conversion or suppression practice?
In terms of the particulars of this Bill. it is important to understand how terms are defined, in particular, what constitutes ‘conversion or suppression practice’.
5 Meaning of change or suppression practice
(1) In this Act, a change or suppression practice means a practice or conduct directed towards a person, whether with or without the person’s consent—
(a) on the basis of the person’s sexual orientation or gender identity; and
(b) for the purpose of—
(i) changing or suppressing the sexual orientation or gender identity of the person; or
(ii) inducing the person to change or suppress their sexual orientation or gender identity.
(3) For the purposes of subsection (1), a practice includes, but is not limited to the following—
(a) providing a psychiatry or psychotherapy consultation, treatment or therapy, or any other similar consultation, treatment or therapy;
(b) carrying out a religious practice, including but not limited to, a prayer based practice, a deliverance practice or an exorcism;
(c) giving a person a referral for the purposes of a change or suppression practice being directed towards the person.
Take note of the following details:
The Bill will ban consensual practices. If a person invites a pastor or person to pray for them in relation to their sexual orientation or gender identity, the pastor or person can be charged according to the Act.
Section 5.3 provides examples of what constitutes ‘practices’. Prayer is banned. For example, if a person asks for prayer that they would live a godly life and refrain from sexual activity that they believe is inconsistent with follow Jesus Christ, the person praying can be charge according to this Act.
Section 5.3 specifies that practice is not limited to the examples that are provided.
Where does this leave preaching and teaching the Bible’s sexual ethic? What of the sermon, the Bible study group, and seminars?
To be clear, Christianity does not teach that a persons gender or sexual orientation will change. Christianity does however teach and urge Christians to live sexually godly lives which include only having sexual relations within the marriage covenant between a man and a woman. The Bible contains many exhortations for believers to not engage in sexual activity outside marriage. Will these formal and informal conversations be permitted under this Bill? At the stage, that is far from certain.
For teaching abstinence or offering pastoral counselling in line with the Bible’s vision of sexuality, and praying with fellow believers that they will be godly in their sexuality, does this fall foul of the Bill?
This ambiguity needs to be clarified in the Bill. If teaching and sermons and study groups are not subject to this Bill, then it needs to be made explicit so that religious organisations are afforded due protection.
As it stands, there are details that this Bill does not answer and deliberately (or least it seems a conscious decision) leaves open. What if a church runs a seminar on marriage or raising children and we explore the bibles teaching on sexuality?
Where the Bill is silent, we may turn to the Bill’s explanatory memorandum and to the HCC and HRLC reports which the Government used extensively for shaping their position.
The explanatory note states,
“These examples are illustrative only and do not narrow the definition in subclause (1) which is intended to capture a broad range of conduct, including, informal practices, such as conversations with a community leader that encourage change or suppression of sexual orientation or gender identity, and more formal practices, such as behaviour change programs and residential camps.”
In other words, a conversation is deemed an offence. A chat where a Christian encourages another Christian to follow a Christian ethic could become unlawful.
The Explanatory memo doesn’t hold as much legal weight as the Bill itself. However, I am reliably informed that a Court may refer to the explanatory note.
The Health Complaints Commissioner’s Report for the Government, adds this information,
“Conversion therapy/practices reinforced homosexuality as a form of ‘brokenness’”
And
“Church teachings that homosexuality is sinful;”
Notice the attention given to Church teachings (as opposed to other religions who also identify homosexual practices as sinful). In other words, classical Christian teaching about sexuality is deemed to be harmful. According to the HCC, an exposition of Romans ch.1 or 1 Corinthians ch.6 would fall under the umbrella of harm. If a Church organises a marriage enrichment day where the Bible’s presentation of marriage is affirmed, this event could fall foul of harm. From weddings to Sunday sermons, from Bible study groups to counselling sessions, in contexts where sex outside of heterosexual marriage is spoken of as sinful or broken, the Health Complaints Commissioner identifies all of the above as harmful and therefore the State can justify limiting religious freedom.
The other report which the Government has underscored is from the Human Rights Law Centre.
Under conversion practice they include,
“pastoral care which includes (or claims to include) ‘counselling’, ‘healing’, claims about ‘curing’, ‘changing’ or ‘repairing’ a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity, or claims about improving a person’s mental or physical health, would likely still be classified as a health service, and the above regulations would apply.”
Indeed, the definition is so expansive that it may include sermons, Bible Studies, marriage courses, counselling, and prayer.
The HRLC report also included new forms’ of conversion practice, among them is self-control and abstinence.
“Instead, they are beginning to promote activities designed to help same-sex attracted people live chaste and celibate lives, in accordance with the sexual ethics of their religious traditions.”
The HRLC and HCC reports are not part of the Bill, but they do form background and reveal the sorts of practices that are being views. The Government has a responsibility to clarify where the HRLC and HCC understandings of ‘practices’ can or will influence interpretation of the Act.
Concluding Remarks for now
Once again, we can all agree that there used to be unhelpful and damaging practices done to fellow Victorians. We oppose them and pray that those individuals who have been harm, may find peace and healing. The Government’s Bill, as it stands, goes well beyond those archaic and now debunked practices. This is an attack on normal and deeply held beliefs and practices among Christians all over the world.
I am less shocked by the Government’s narrative as I am saddened. Pumping children with hormones and cutting off breasts and penises is not harmful, but Christianity is harmful. Praying for Christians to be godly about sex is harmful. Teaching the Bible’s vision for human sexuality and relationships could be defined as harmful.
Without important revisions and corrections, this Bill will make vulnerable 100,000s of Victorian Christians who are persuaded by the Bible’s vision for human sexuality. For Christians, this is never about forcing our views on anyone. It is about casting a better vision for the world and human life, and about persuading and loving others as Christ has loved us.
If the Government doesn’t intend to prosecute Christians or Churches for praying or teaching or practicing a Christian view of sexuality, then it is incumbent upon them to clarify their goals and to correct this Bill.
I trust that the Victorian Parliament will see commonsense and introduce significant revisions to this anti-religion Bill.
To Churches, faith groups, and denominations, I encourage you to write to your local members of Parliament and express your concerns winsomely and clearly.
Victoria should we known as the State of Confusion.
A beautiful announcement was made in Victoria yesterday. Victorians who have lost a baby during pregnancy can now apply for a certificate from the Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages.
13 years ago Susan and I were overjoyed to learn that we were having another child. This elation broke on the day he had the ultrasound and learned that our little one’s heart was no longer beating. Even today, there is an echo of grief in our hearts as we remember our child. There is also a joy and anticipation in knowing that the day of resurrection is coming and we will be reunited in heaven.
Susan and I are but one of 100,000s of couples in Victoria who experience a miscarriage. It is believed that perhaps 1 in 5 pregnancies ends in miscarriage.
The concept for the certificate started with a Ms Moran, who works for SANDS, an organisation who supports families through miscarriages, stillbirths, and newborn deaths. This recognition by the State of the life and value of these little children will be welcomed; it is a wonderful idea.
Victoria’s Attorney General Jill Hennessy commented,
“These certificates are a meaningful way to recognise this significant event,” she said.
“It’s important we remember those children who were taken too soon.”
Victoria’s decision comes with an elephant of mammoth proportions. On the one hand, we are affirming the life and value of little ones who die in the womb, while also advocating the killing of children in the womb.
Under Victorian law (since 2008), a mother may abort her child, even up until the point of birth.
In 2015, Dr Rachel-Carling Jenkins MLC introduced a Bill to the Victorian Parliament, calling to ban abortions after 24 weeks. It was defeated. Jill Hennessy, who was the Health Minister at the time, rejected the Bill. She said,
“The really challenging decision that women may have to make about the future of a pregnancy is one that should be kept between the woman and her doctor. This is a matter that has been settled for a long time in Victoria, and we intend to ensure that continues to be the case”
Legislative Council member, Ms Patten responded to the Bill,
“I can’t believe that in 2015 we are even discussing abortion laws any more”.
Five years later, babies who die in the womb, even in the earliest weeks, can now be formally acknowledged by the State. And this, while we continue to legally permit many thousands of abortions every year, even at the point of birth.
There is a ghostly horror lurking behind this irreconcilable contradiction. Either there is a human being in the mother’s womb or there is not. They are a child or they are not. This isn’t rocket science. Indeed, with more technology at our disposal and with greater knowledge, the more we have discovered about life in the womb. We can see the heartbeat of a baby in the earliest weeks. We can delight at a child’s fingers and toes growing at 6 weeks. We now know that babies can hear and respond to music by 16 weeks; the next Mozart is already learning to feel and marvel at the beauty of sound.
If the State now recognises an infant who dies in the womb, how can we also persist with the view that it is right to kill a child of the same age? The disjunction is obvious and grotesque.
Behind claims of equality and human dignity are assumptions that contradict such public speech. Human life in Victoria does not have inherent or equal worth. Rather, life is defined subjectively and only carries the value assigned by other individuals. This is the law for the unborn. A child is not to live and have life because they are intrinsically human and have inherent worth; under Victorian law these are qualitative and conditional features assigned by a mother who chooses to keep her pregnancy.
With knowledge comes responsibility. With information comes accountability. Instead, my own State of Victoria which I love sadly testifies to the fact that wisdom doesn’t also accompany greater knowledge. Righteousness does not necessarily flow from increased learning.
To argue, it is the women’s choice, does not stand to moral or scientific reasoning. If this child is a person, as Victoria’s Registry of Births, Deaths and Marriages now recognise, and as medical science has long established as fact, we can no longer sustain the view that the child’s life depends on a woman’s choice.
Should we be surprised that most media outlets have overlooked the fantastic story of the certificates? Or is likely that the jarring contradiction is too obvious for public consumption?
I am reminded of a young couple whose little boy died one week after he was born. The Dad fell into deep grief. This same man later wrote a Psalm where he not only expends his grief but also his contrition for decisions he made which led to this overwhelming situation. The Psalm is pertinent for Victoria because on the day our consciences are shocked by the reality of decisions we have made, and we are disturbed at the thought of what we have done, we will look for One who can forgive us. Thank God that such a God exists and who forgives more fully than we can ever imagine or deserve.
“Have mercy on me, O God, according to your unfailing love; according to your great compassion blot out my transgressions.
Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin.
For I know my transgressions, and my sin is always before me.
Against you, you only, have I sinned and done what is evil in your sight; so you are right in your verdict and justified when you judge.
Surely I was sinful at birth, sinful from the time my mother conceived me.
Yet you desired faithfulness even in the womb; you taught me wisdom in that secret place.
Cleanse me with hyssop, and I will be clean; wash me, and I will be whiter than snow.
Let me hear joy and gladness; let the bones you have crushed rejoice.
Hide your face from my sins and blot out all my iniquity.
Create in me a pure heart, O God, and renew a steadfast spirit within me.
Do not cast me from your presence or take your Holy Spirit from me
Restore to me the joy of your salvation and grant me a willing spirit, to sustain me” (Psalm 51:1-12)
The strict and prolonged lockdown in Victoria has tested the most resilient among us. As the State slowly opens up we should not be surprised if we find ourselves affirming some decisions and disagreeing with others. Where discrepancies appear and they are irreconcilable, it is incumbent on the Government to explain and to justify their rationale.
The example I want to talk about here concerns churches. On September 28th Eternity newspaper approached me for comment on Victoria’s roadmap to recovery. I said,
“The Premier’s announcement on Sunday was encouraging because it means 130,000 people are returning to work and primary aged children returning to school…While I appreciate this, most of Melbourne’s restrictions remain in place. In my view, the Government’s roadmap is treating churches fairly at the moment, although we are still a couple of months away from being allowed to gather in any sizeable number.”
Unfortunately, this is no longer the case. As of today (October 19), in regional Victoria pubs and restaurants can now have 40 patrons indoors and 70 patrons seated outdoors. Churches, however, can only have 20 people gathered outside and no church of any size is permitted indoors. At the moment all churches in Melbourne are closed and so we are watching with interest the roadmap in regional Victoria. The disparity between churches and pubs is unfortunate. I trust this is nothing more than an oversight which will be quickly resolved, rather than the beginning of a longer term trend.
At yesterday’s press conference the Premier made a comment about why greater numbers of people are allowed in pubs than in homes. The reason given is, restaurants and cafes are a regulated industry. But what of churches? I trust the implication isn’t that churches cannot be trusted to organise and regulate safe COVID-19 practices.
On the Neil Mitchell show this morning on 3AW, Victoria’s new Health Minister, Martin Foley, claimed that the reason for the differences between pubs and churches is that international and local evidence points to church communities being unsafe.
Where is the evidence? What international scientific research is Mr Foley referring to?
In July the New York Times in July made a similar statement and it was quickly proven incorrect.
On July 8 The New York Times published an article claiming that churches were Covid-19 super spreaders. The headline read, “Churches Were Eager to Reopen. Now They Are a Major Source of Coronavirus Cases.”
The article alleged,
“Weeks after President Trump demanded that America’s shuttered houses of worship be allowed to reopen, new outbreaks of the coronavirus are surging through churches across the country where services have resumed.”
The problem with the NYT article is that the maths didn’t add up. Even the evidence mentioned in the piece contradicted the main thesis. The article cites several churches where multiple cases of COVID-19 were found, and it also disclosed the total number of COVID-19 cases linked with churches: 650. At the time, the United States had 3 million confirmed cases. The total number of cases connected with churches across the entire nation represent 0.0002% of all cases in the country. Writing forChristianity Today, Ed Stetzer noted that a tiny number of churches had not done the right thing, but the overwhelming majority were conducting church according to strict Covid-19 plans.
“Churches have been remarkable partners in the fight again the coronavirus, with the vast majority closing their gatherings all around the country. Yes, there have been a few outliers, but their paucity demonstrates the cooperation of churches with officials throughout this pandemic.
Churches have overwhelmingly been partners with health authorities and have carefully taken each small step.”
I know many pastors and churches around the world and interstate. As they reopen they are taking Government policies seriously and acting responsibly and pastorally toward the people under their care. It is part of what we do in loving our neighbours.
Throughout the pandemic Church leaders have spoken regularly and consistently about obeying Government directives, and about ensuring churches have responsible plans in place for a return to public gatherings. We continue to pray for our Prime Minister and our Premier and all who lead in Government and in health agencies. Churches are not asking for special treatment, but it is not too much to request that churches be permitted to open up with parity to restaurants and pubs and other analogous organisations and events.
Governments play an important role in society, but they do not give meaning to people. Governments provide structures and protections for its citizens, but offering the message that nourishes the soul, brings forgiveness to transgressors, and eternal life is beyond their job description. Churches are essential for Victorian communities. In a year where millions of Victorians have struggled and where many have lost everything, we need a message of hope. We need good news of hope that surpasses the material and temporal, and a hope that is more secure and certain than what we had once relied upon. It is possible that churches have never before been so important for this State and the future wellbeing of the people.
The Bible offers a message of living hope, not only to churches but even for those who have considered themselves disinterested in things spiritual. By definition, it is a breathtaking announcement for people who have lost hope,
“Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ! In his great mercy he has given us new birth into a living hope through the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead, and into an inheritance that can never perish, spoil or fade” (1 Peter 1:3-4).
People are not disembodied beings. We are physical creatures who require physical presence and social interaction. We are also more than flesh and blood. We are mental and spiritual beings, who depend on more than food and sleep for life. It was Jesus who famously said in the Sermon on the Mount, “Is not life more than food, and the body more than clothes?”
Churches provide one of the few remaining places where people can meet and share the joys and sorrows of life, and where supportive relationships are created. Zoom and social media are a blessing but they are no substitute for real and personal meeting. Indeed, church by definition is the physical gathering of Christians, meeting to worship God and to encourage one another.
I trust the Victorian Government will correct this unnecessary discrepancy between pubs and churches, and avoid similar and further disparities in coming months.
Tom Holland is the spiderman of historians. His latest conversation with Glen Scrivener is well worth the listen for it includes more than a few intriguing thoughts in the web of ideas.
I really appreciate his thoughtfulness and honesty. It was this reflection by Holland that especially struck a chord with me. He said,
“I felt that over the course of this year the churches have been a let down. I think that the experience of pandemic, it sets you to asking why is this happening…it raises profound issues of theodicy.”
He mentions one moment that stood out to him, when he watched the Pope give an open air mass in the middle of an empty St Peter’s Square. Otherwise the message he’s heard from churches is much like what one would find on a Government help line.
“I felt that the response of churches was a kind of pallid echo of public health announcements. That’s what public health officials are for. I kind of think that churches are there to give answers and to situate our happening.”
When Glen asked what Churches could be doing, Holland suggested,
“I think it can be expressed in open air services…an attempt to root what’s happening in the cultural and the scriptural inheritance of what has gone before. I haven’t almost nothing about why this is happening…what does the Bible have to say about plagues…This seems to me an incredibly important source…”
Could Tom Holland, an agnostic, be urging churches to do church and to preach Bible messages that explain the world today through the lens of Scripture? I think so.
Holland’s remarks are like a bucket of icy water, or least they should be. It could also be likened to a defibrillator. The admonishment reminds me of the Church in Sardis. Jesus addresses this church in Revelation ch.3 and he rebukes her for having a reputation for being alive but in reality, the church is dying and has little breath remaining.
Holland isn’t knocking churches for talking about their buildings, social distancing and COVID-19 plans. He notes that these things are important. The overall presentation of Christianity that he has heard and seen over the last 6 months (and keep in mind Tom Holland is a studious observer of Christianity), the message he’s received is overall bland and uninspiring and offers little hope to a world he says is desperate for salvation.
I know enough churches, not only here in Australia but also in the UK and USA, to realise that Holland’s critique is partial. There are churches trying to reach people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. Sadly, this message is often drowned out by a cacophony of noisier and more appealing narratives and agendas.
It is also the case that many Churches are simply trying to remain alive during the time, keeping care of congregation members and encouraging some semblance of online discipleship. It is nonetheless worth considering the vision we are leaving the world during this time of pandemic.
For months the message from many of our churches has been dominated by hygiene rules and facial masks. In recent weeks I’ve noted that churches are increasingly calling Governments to allow a return to public worship services. Letters are being written and petitions signed, even here in Melbourne. I haven’t signed any such letter, but I understand Christians wanting their freedom back to worship God publicly in their church community. I am supportive of some reasons and may yet sign a letter in the future. It is interesting to note though how some of these arguments proceed. They explain that churches are essential; I agree. However, instead of offering the Biblical reasoning for Church, Christians are instead deferring to more secular rationales to convince Governments to reinstate public church gatherings. For example, church provide sanctuary and help for people struggling with mental health and with loneliness, and church provide so many positive contributions to local communities. This is all true and important, but it’s also falling into the same kinds of milky lukewarm explanations that Tom Holland believes are inadequate. Our community needs something more. Our world needs a bigger message, a greater story, and we have one to give and yet we are so often reluctant to tell it.
This Sunday at Mentone Baptist I’m preaching on Revelation chapters 4 and 5. The Bible doesn’t get any bigger than this passage. The message of Christianity is spelled out here with a grandeur and beauty and wonder that is unsurpassed. In our world that is despairing through a pandemic and with climate change and racism and geopolitical uncertainties, the vision of Revelation is truly stunning and shocking.
Chapter 5 begins with a search for someone who is worthy to take the scroll from God, the scroll with contains the plans of God in the world. No one is found. John (the disciple of Jesus), is witnessing this heavenly scene and he weeps because there seems to be no answer. But then, a lamb appears. Not just any lamb but one who has been slain. This lamb however is called the lion, which means King. This lion/lamb is worthy to take and open the scroll. Who is this person? It is Jesus who was crucified, risen and now reigning.
Melbourne needs a vision beyond lockdown rules and the pandemic and eventual reopening and kickstarting schools and the economy. Churches, by the grace of God, have this vision to share and proclaim and preach to our city. Let’s do it
Revelation 5
“Then I saw in the right hand of him who sat on the throne a scroll with writing on both sides and sealed with seven seals. 2 And I saw a mighty angel proclaiming in a loud voice, “Who is worthy to break the seals and open the scroll?” 3 But no one in heaven or on earth or under the earth could open the scroll or even look inside it. 4 I wept and wept because no one was found who was worthy to open the scroll or look inside. 5 Then one of the elders said to me, “Do not weep! See, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has triumphed. He is able to open the scroll and its seven seals.”
6 Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing at the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. The Lamb had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits[a] of God sent out into all the earth. 7 He went and took the scroll from the right hand of him who sat on the throne. 8 And when he had taken it, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of God’s people. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“You are worthy to take the scroll and to open its seals, because you were slain, and with your blood you purchased for God persons from every tribe and language and people and nation. 10 You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God, and they will reign on the earth.”
11 Then I looked and heard the voice of many angels, numbering thousands upon thousands, and ten thousand times ten thousand. They encircled the throne and the living creatures and the elders. 12 In a loud voice they were saying:
“Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!”
13 Then I heard every creature in heaven and on earth and under the earth and on the sea, and all that is in them, saying:
“To him who sits on the throne and to the Lamb be praise and honor and glory and power, for ever and ever!”
14 The four living creatures said, “Amen,” and the elders fell down and worshiped.”
“the demonization and dehumanization of the other side must stop. When professing Christians do it, it is triply wrong.”
The statement shouldn’t be controversial for Christians, but in today’s America (and to a lesser degree, Australia), it was outrageous for Tim Keller to make this suggestion.
Despite many people appreciating his comment (and others that he has recently made on social media), there has been a lot of backlash and complaints. For example,
“Another comical and tone deaf statement by Keller. It’s triply wrong when Christians do it because we expect non-Christians to be awful people that do crappy things.”
Tim Keller is observing a very real and concerning problem in our societies. Public debate no longer has room for grace, kindness, and patience. Genuine conversations are hard to find and even more difficult to start because of the cacophony of stereotypes, insults, and shouts that now dominate public space. The force of political diatribe is sweeping aside nuance and fairness and patience. There is little toleration for paving a new path in this age in intolerance. Keller is rightly noting how it is all too easy for Christians to slide into the assumed poles that are being defined by left and right, progressive and conservative.
Today’s posture is the opposite of Proverbs 18:13 which says,
“To answer before listening— that is folly and shame.”
The reality is, Christians may agree with a moral principle but we may believe that there are different ways to approach the issue and we might feel more or less passionately about the issue than the next Christian. Among these matters are abortion, racism, refugees, and climate change. We can agree that these are important ethical issues. We grieve over how our culture buys into and even celebrates theories and policies that dehumanise our fellow human beings. It is quite possible, indeed it is inevitable, that while concurring that a certain belief or action is wrong, there is often diverse opinion about how to best approach the issue. It may be unpopular to suggest this, but these disparate positions often have less to do with shared theological convictions and more to do with political philosophy (ie. what is the role of Government?) and personal experience. Instead of recognising the way we form our views, we have wrongly purchased the arrogant absolutism that is now pervading our society.
I have seen this happening even in Australia as the nation deals with the latest manifestations of the sexual revolution, with a bushfire emergency and now with the COVID-19 pandemic. A person may rightly identify an important issue, but if we respond to evil with more sin, how have we contributed in any constructive way? If we only react according to our sense of ‘righteous indignation’, are we not in danger of relying upon rhetorical power to fend off terrible things rather than ‘grace seasoned with salt’?
If I need to resort to slander, gossip, and caricature, in order present my case, I have already lost.
As I casual onlooker of American culture and someone who lives inside Australian culture, it is clear that we have foot-faulted and we’ve convinced ourselves that because others are getting away with it, so can we. One of the consequences is that instead of adorning the Gospel, we attached a pugnacious moralism.
The harder path is the road less trod. A myopic culture may not see much benefit in taking this road but as Christians we are surely looking ahead toward eternity, not just the next social schism or election.
Another response to Keller’s tweet said this,
“Are we implying Christians have NO BATTLE to fight? Demolishing arguments and exposing unbiblical ideologies ≠ attacking individuals. Let’s not forfeit the battle to “the powers of this dark world and the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly realms”
The comment is quite revealing, for it makes the very mistake that Tim Keller is urging Christians to avoid. There is a battle, but we do not fight as the world fights. We don’t resort to the same tactics that are employed by Government and corporations, by Hollywood and by social media platforms. The Bible is clear, we take our stand with truth and faith and righteousness. Our feet are readied with the ‘gospel of peace’. Notice this, Paul describes God’s good news about Jesus Christ as the gospel of peace. The staggering truth is, this is inauguration of peace for those who are not at peace with God. This is a peace for people who are not at rest but who are struggling against God and even ourselves. In this way, the Christian path in our secular age is to proclaim reconciliation and forgiveness through Christ.
When our political and social commitments speak louder than our Gospel convictions we inevitably begin to mirror the culture and not the Church of Jesus Christ. The cross is not a weapon to beat down opponents, it is God’s amazing news of salvation for sinners, of whom I am the worst.
This is the place to begin each day and every conversation,
“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst.” (1 Timothy 1:15)
When we view ourselves in light of the cross, it changes the ways we understand ourselves and the way we view others. We can mourn the days in which we live (and there is much reason for mourning). There are sometimes godly reasons for anger. But the cross will surely recompose our attitudes and ambitions and avenues.
As the Lord Jesus hung on the cross, he said, “Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”
How can a Christian live and speak and act without seeing that it was my sin that held him there?
Melbourne, Oh Melbourne,
How the proud has fallen.
Deserted streets and closed doors,
Schools without children and the MCG in darkness.
The public is masked and commanded to stay indoors.
Work, study, lonely, tired.
Don’t leave the radius,
Charged by the dynasty of Flavius.
The most liveable city in the world,
They gasped at us and saw our triumph,
That was Melbourne in a smiling portrait,
Luna Park has now lost her grin.
Once the capital of sport, culture, and coffee,
fashion, food, and education.
Our domination has turned to obliteration.
This desirable city has been truly flattened.
Trust built on vanity,
Faith pumped with hubris.
We preached a message of greatness,
That’s now exposed for being ever so shallow.
Now the world looks on,
And observes with ponderous note,
What has happened to that once great metropolis,
That promised land of flowing milk and honey?
The Bible always warned,
“Pride goes before destruction,
a haughty spirit before a fall”.
But we knew better, for we are superior,
To all those lesser places of Paris, New York,
and Bendigo.
Disasters come and they’re hard to take,
Lives are altered and even taken.
Hardship forced upon unwilling participants,
And prosperity’s security is proven fake.
The day will dawn and Melbourne reopen,
Sport will play and coffee drunk,
Shops will fill and come the Boxing Day Test too.
But what will Melbourne do with her ostentation?
Sailing on the bay,
And jogging the tan,
Trams running along Swanston Street,
Clogged with Melbourne’s Renaissance man.
To repeat Rome’s folly,
Is the drunken bloke’s slur.
Dressing wounds and crying peace,
Our prophets are prolific.
“Stand at the crossroads and look
ask for the ancient paths,
ask where the good way is, and walk in it,
and you will find rest for your souls.
But you said, ‘We will not walk in it.
Gaslighting is the art of manipulating someone into doubting what is true and even to question their own sanity.
Unfortunately gaslighting has become a popular device in much political discourse and in some quarters of the media. The Communist Government of China are also exponents of gaslighting.
The Ageis reporting today that, “China’s Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying said Australia had been “infected with fear, conjecture and paranoia”.”
What is this paranoia that Australia is suffering? One of our citizens, TV anchor, Cheng Lei, has been arrested in China without charge. She is now imprisoned at an undisclosed location and the Chinese Government is refusing to inform the Australian Government as to the reason. They can detain Cheng Lai for 6 months without charge.
This doesn’t sound an “infection of fear or paranoia”. Indeed, this is far from the first time China has acted in this way toward foreign citizens. While this story is unfolding, China has added to a growing series of sanctions fixed against Australian exporters, yesterday suspending barley trade from Australia’s largest grain exporter.
According to the story in The Age, China has spent the past year actively reorienting its trade partnerships, moving away from Australia and increasing trade with countries like Argentina, Russia, and France.
Why is this a problem? Contrary to Beijing’s gaslighting, there are genuine reasons for Australia to be concerned about the rise of Communist China. 1.4 billion people are subjected to this authoritarian rule. This totalitarian regime has an extended history of persecuting minorities. Churches continue to be closed and pastors imprisoned. Churches that remain open are usually required to adopt a corrupt version of the Bible (all the awkward passages are removed and red book friendly sayings inserted). Around 1 million Uyghurs have been forced into ‘education’ camps. Hong Kong is losing her freedoms, military bases are being established in disputed areas in the South China Sea, and Taiwan’s democratic freedoms remains under threat.
In the meantime, China has been selling sugary treats all over the world to buy supporters and strategic gain, making foreign Governments dependent upon her for economic stability. The One belt, one roadscheme, which my State of Victoria has signed up to, is part of the Peoples’ Republic’s foreign policy and economic strategy.
Australia has experienced significant issues in 2020, from raging bushfires to a global pandemic and what is now the worse economic crisis since the Great Depression. Let’s not be mistaken, the fall out from these issues will not be quickly or easily resolved. On top of this, over the past 3 months the Federal Government has raised awareness over the posing complexity of Australia’s relationship with China. This has resulted in the urgent and immediate injection of $100 millions into military defence upgrades and cyber defence. The Australian Strategic Policy Institute is also speaking more directly to the geopolitical issues arising in our region.
During this time, Europe is barely a shell of its former glory, and United Kingdom has chosen to drink the poison chalice of identity politics and the sexual revolution. The United States is genuinely reeling from its own growing internal troubles, all which require enormous political attention and which have the affect of draining people from having the mental and emotional energy for tackling other (and possibly bigger) issues that are on the horizon. The sun is setting on the West.
The point is simple, Communist China is thirsty for power and prestige. China appears to be growing in confidence and has already taken bold steps to increase her influence this year. Do they perceive that the West has become either too distracted politically or too depleted emotionally to respond with any real semblance of fortitude?
25 years ago I listened D.A Carson expound the book of Ezekiel and heard him make the startling suggestion (which it was at the time) that the United States, like every superpower before her, would one day collapse. Sometimes Empires fall rapidly like a sudden avalanche. More often the demise takes places over many years (if not decades) like a slow moving glacier. The history of the world offers an array of geo-political, economic, and military reasons for the rise and fall of nations, but lurking behind collapse is a usual suspect; hubris. Hatred is another reason, and so is boredom.
Rome didn’t fall in a day. Through centuries of infighting, plagues, famines, and external threats, her power diminished. In 410Ad Rome was sacked by the Visigoths. With a flair harkening back to Nero and mirroring our own culture today, the Christians were to blame. Rome was rebuilt, but only as a much weaker and vulnerable city with an ever shrinking influence.
There is more than one way to oversee the demise of a nation. One can buy influence or choose to bully your opponents. And if those methods fall short, there are always military options. So far, China has proven successful in both buying and bullying, but what will happen when others stand up to her?
History demonstrates that appeasement rarely satisfies a hungry dragon. It may delay action but only for so long.
I’ve been suggesting this for some months, but as we move deeper into this difficult year I am more convinced that the events thus far may pale into smallness in comparison with the growing threat to our north. It is time for us to get our houses into order.
Thankfully God doesn’t succumb to gaslighting. What he does do is tell us the honest truth about the world and about ourselves. Sometimes the truth is hard to swallow and so we prefer to create these imaginary bubbles where life is secure, the world is basically okay, and we deserve nothing but goodness. This may work in the short term, but as 2020 is revealing, eventually reality bursts the bubble.
2020 reminds me of how important prayer is as a Christian response to crises and threats.
I am also reminded of Psalm 146:6 which tells us, “Do not put your trust in princes, in human beings, who cannot save.”
I am reminded of Jesus’ words to ‘Seek first the Kingdom of God and his righteousness”.
I am reminded of the imperative to teach my children the ways they should go and in whom they can put their trust.
I am reminded of Jesus’ words, “You will hear of wars and rumors of wars, but see to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of birth pains.” Into such a time as this, Jesus reminds his disciples of the priority of the Gospel, “ this gospel of the kingdom will be preached in the whole world as a testimony to all nations, and then the end will come.”
I am reminded that a pastor’s role includes preparing and equipping the church for tomorrow.
This year is a once in a generation time to reassess what are our ultimate hopes and deepest desires. This year may also prove to be a trial run for more dangerous times ahead should China insist on her agenda and should the West continue to destroy itself in a myriad of culture wars.
“Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob, whose hope is in the Lord their God.” (Psalm 146:5)
MurrayCampbell.net 