Culture

Chutzpadik: Can America Survive Without Christianity? (and what about Australia)

/ MurrayCampbell

This is the question posed by Bari Weiss. We can certainly ask the question of Australia. It’s not as though what happens in America will necessarily follow here in Australia, but their weather conditions often blow across the Pacific Ocean. 

It comes to mind that there was the prophet from Crete quoted in Titus 1:12 and Epimenides gets a mention by the Apostle in his famed Areopagus speech. And let’s not to forget the Aussie band Crowded House who are getting a mention in this week’s sermon at church. There are moments when an unbeliever says something that is true either about God or about the world or Christianity, and their commentary is worth reflecting upon.

My mate Stephen McAlpine has been talking up Bari Weiss’ podcast, Honestly. Another friend drew my attention to one recent episode which I watched with interest yesterday. 

For those who are unaware, Bari Weiss isn’t a Christian. She is a former New York Times journalist who famously resigned and now writes for other publications. Weiss is agnostic (former atheist?) and Jewish and a woman who’s married to another woman. There are obviously some things here out of sync with the message of Jesus Christ, especially the New York Times! (that’s a joke, sort of). Bari Weiss is among a growing throng of intellectuals who are dissatisfied with the cultural zeitgeist and who despite their unbelief, are warming to Christianity, or at least becoming positively disposed toward some of Christianity’s historical, ethical and sociological strengths. It’s as though they recognise that when a society dismantles Christianity, it’s like removing the steel frame from a building; it loses its sturdiness and begins to succumb to the environment and weather conditions surrounding it. 

I have now listened to several of Weiss’ interviews, including a recent one with Jonathan Rauch. And it’s this interview that I wish to shine a light on. 

Jonathan Rauch is an American journalist and Senior Fellow with the Brookings Institute. He has a pedigree from Yale University and writing for The Economist and The Atlantic. Like Weiss, Jonathan Rauch is not a Christian. He makes that clear in this podcast episode. Indeed, Weiss introduces him as an atheist Jewish gay man.  As Rauch admits during the interview, he was no friend of Christianity and Christians and yet something is changing. He says,

“20 years ago I was in the camp that said America was secularising and isn’t that great. Religion is divisive and dogmatic and we’re going to have less of it and we’re going to be like Sweden or Denmark and Scandinavia, and we’ll be happier.

I was completely wrong about that. It has been the biggest mistake of my intellectual career.”

It is worth watching the full one-hour interview, both to hear Raunch’s interesting insights, and also just to hear how two thoughtful unbelievers are now engaging with Christianity.

During the conversation with Bari Weiss, Rauch wants to argue for Christianity in the sense that it provides the necessary pillars for liberal democracy. Rauch identifies 3 key pillars of Christianity and therefore of liberal democracy:

  1. Don’t be afraid 
  2. Be like Jesus
  3. Forgive each other. 

He explains how these ideas were and remain radical and derive from the Christian faith. I would quibble about what are the pillars of Christianity and we can talk about this another time. But these 3 ideas are nonetheless revolutionary and were introduced into the world by Christianity. They have been so successful that we often take them for granted today without realising that dismantling Christianity will create significant problems for social and civil flourishing.

My interest in this interview centres on Rauch’s explanation of thin Christianity and sharp Christianity. It’s how Rauch attempts to call out and even plead with Christians to be more Christian, not less.

‘Thin Christianity’, as the adjective suggests, thins out Christian distinctive such that society finds the ideas palatable. It’s classic theological liberalism. Let’s thin out all those tricky Bible ideas that progressive society finds offensive. That kind of Christianity is still around in the United States and Australia, but it’s generally easy to spot as it’s lauded by social pundits and found in emptying churches.

Rauch also observes the rise of ‘sharp Christianity’.  He looks back to the 1980s and the rise of the political evangelical but notes how this has escalated in the last 8-9 years. It is his view that among American Evangelicals there is a drift from the character of Jesus. To be clear, he’s not clumping all evangelicals under this ‘sharp’ umbrella and of course, as an unbeliever, Rauch isn’t defining these issues in a gospel and theological way. Nonetheless, his point has merit.

Rauch talks about sharp Christianity being ‘political and polarised’. He goes into some detail about how President Trump played for the conservative Christian vote and offered a seat at the White House. As Rauch notes, the promise of power is an ancient one. I’ve read enough over the years to see some evangelicals sacrificing gospel humility and clarity for an invitation to a White House prayer meeting or inside conversations with policymakers. 

Interestingly Rauch differentiates between the older politicised evangelical, which was a top-down movement, and the more recent interaction which is bottom-up. I have certainly heard stories where people began attending and joining churches based on the church’s political stance.

Rauch goes on to make this rather chilling comment regarding young adults in America,

“They no longer believed that the church believed what it’s meant to believe.”

Where this is true, there’s a major problem. 

The rhetoric Rauch is hearing among the ‘sharp Christians’ is,

’We don’t want to hear about turning the other cheek, we want to talk about taking back our country’.

Similar rhetoric is becoming more commonplace among some Australian Christian voices. It may not be the dominant voice, but it is certainly a noisy one and one vying for influence. Just yesterday one Christian pastor suggested I was the Devil for saying Christians should be more like Jesus instead of adding to the anger and fragmentation that’s perforating all around us.

This politicisation of Christianity has the habit of confusing the gospel, conflating Church and State, and misplacing eschatological hope by trying to drag the new creation into the present. I’ve been writing about this unseemly conjugality for several years now. It is not that Christians have nothing to say or contribute to civil society. A liberal democracy enables and needs people of faith to bring their ideas and convictions to the table. And as Jonathan Rauch recognises, a healthy liberal democracy is a fruitful branch born from Christian theism. And yet, as Jesus and the Apostles made clear distinctions between common grace and particular grace, and between the two ages in which we live, so must Christians today. 

1 Peter is very much on my mind as we preach through the Petrine Epistle at church. Peter is pretty clear about where Christian hope lies, what Christian identity is, and therefore how we relate to different parts of society.

He says, 

“ Dear friends, I urge you, as foreigners and exiles, to abstain from sinful desires, which wage war against your soul. 12 Live such good lives among the pagans that, though they accuse you of doing wrong, they may see your good deeds and glorify God on the day he visits us.

13 Submit yourselves for the Lord’s sake to every human authority: whether to the emperor, as the supreme authority, 14 or to governors, who are sent by him to punish those who do wrong and to commend those who do right. 15 For it is God’s will that by doing good you should silence the ignorant talk of foolish people. 16 Live as free people, but do not use your freedom as a cover-up for evil; live as God’s slaves. 17 Show proper respect to everyone, love the family of believers, fear God, honor the emperor.” (1 Peter 2:11-17)

If our language and speech toward others is frequently out of sync with the apostle’s instructions, there is a problem.

Both thin and sharp Christianity share a common goal even if their modus operandi differs. They both aim to win influence and people and to take the culture or country; the former does so by diluting Christian doctrine and life, and the other by using Christian ideas as a sledgehammer. Both may win approval in various quarters and even notch a few political wins, and we likely lose people’s souls and dishonour the Christ whom we claim to worship and follow.

I hope we can say that we want to avoid both thin Christianity and sharp Christianity. Instead, we need a Christianity that is both thick and grace-filled, deep and clear. And the only way to do that is to become more Gospel-centred, not less, more Bible not less, and more Spirit-filled not less. Christians can engage in the public square but don’t take your script from the culture. Public speech is to be conducted out of love for our neighbours, not about punching your opponents to the ground. Engagement in the culture should be about promoting the Gospel of Jesus Christ, not ensuring your favoured political party wins the next election. I’m not suggesting that public issues are unimportant to the Christian; but surely we have a bigger mandate and vision in mind.

Bari Weiss and Jonathan Rauch are not confessing the Lordship of Christ or believing in the atonement. But their tune has changed. Let’s pray that their appreciation of Christ becomes a genuine trust in Him. If Nicodemus the scholar could approach Jesus at night to ask questions and realise there is something true and good about Jesus,  then those asking serious questions in the light of day may also find what Jesus alone can give.

Christianity isn’t a commodity, it’s about a person. Christianity is more than a political theory or ethical system, but is knowing the God of the cosmos, and being reconciled to Him because of the brutality God’s Son embraced for us.  As Peter explained to the early churches, 

“For Christ also suffered once for sins, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God”.

There is my Gospel call for today. Let’s return to Christians. The temptation to be a thin or sharp Christian isn’t new. How many times have I now heard someone wanting to be John Knox!

There is warrant to Rauch’s complaint, even if he falls short of where we need to be in following Jesus. Don’t be a thin Christian or a sharp Christian. Instead, be a Jesus Christian (as if there’s another kind!). For one final time, press closely to what Peter the Apostle instructs. Take a couple of minutes to read what Peter says and reflect upon our public voice in light of these verses. Sure, it’s unlikely to win an election or change society overnight, but it is better and it is desperately what the world needs of Christians today, 

“Finally, all of you, be like-minded, be sympathetic, love one another, be compassionate and humble. 9 Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing. 10 For,

“Whoever would love life
    and see good days
must keep their tongue from evil
    and their lips from deceitful speech.

They must turn from evil and do good;
    they must seek peace and pursue it.

For the eyes of the Lord are on the righteous
    and his ears are attentive to their prayer,
but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.”

 Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good?  But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.”  But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect,  keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.’ (1 Peter 3:8-16)

If Peter’s exhortation grates on us, then take that as God’s alarm going off and seek his grace to work out how your heart might more align with His.

NSW Baptists to make an important decision next week

/ MurrayCampbell

Update: May 3rd. 5:30pm:

The NSW/ACT Association today and removed the 2 churches for holding errant views (see below).

It is a day for mourning and we can pray that these churches will turn around.

Also thankful that the Association made the right decision for the sake of the gospel. This matters for Christian unity and gospel witness. May the Lord honour the faithfulness of his churches in NSW.

The NSW and ACT Baptist Association will vote next week to expel 2 churches who don’t subscribe to the Baptist (and Christian) view of marriage.

John Sandeman reports, 

“Motions to remove Hamilton and Canberra Baptist churches from the NSW/ACT Baptist Association have been reccomended by the Assembly (church parliament) Council. The Baptists’ Assembly will meet to vote on May 2 and 3, voting on the Saturday as Australia also conducts a poll.

“Over the last few years we have moved through a discernment process as an Association surrounding Affiliation, Baptist Values and Marriage,” according to an Assembly Council statement: “This culminated in decisions taken at our 2024 Annual Assembly. That Assembly approved (by an 84% majority) a process for engaging with churches who appear not to support the Association’s position statement on marriage.

“This decision was the outworking of significant thought, prayer and discussion across our movement.”

I believe there are a further small number of churches who may face removal at a later date. 

I’m not based in NSW. I lived in Sydney for 4 years many years ago and loved my time serving in and belonging to a baptist church there. I remain friends with many NSW Baptists, and where NSW Baptists go, has interest for Baptists across Australia. 

This week as people gear up for the NSW/ACT Assembly, there are a small number of voices murmuring that this motion is unbaptist-like. Former NSW Baptist pastor and now Uniting Church minister, Rod Benson, goes further and suggests,

 ‘It saddens me to see a whole movement of otherwise healthy churches intentionally forsaking the way of Jesus just so a few bullies can feel good about themselves.’

No, this is not the case. It is reasonable to believe that NSW Baptists are following Jesus in taking this course and remaining very much Baptist in the process. 

At the time when NSW Baptists were discussing the topic in 2022,, Erin Martine Sessions wrote a piece for the ABC, accusing baptists of ‘selling their soul over same-sex marriage’ and claiming that the position went against baptist principles. Far from it,  a baptist association coming to a common mind on important doctrinal matters is very much baptist; it’s what an association does. Was a thorough process followed? Yes. Indeed, the process for reaching agreement on why and how a biblical view of marriage matters to a fellowship of churches took several years and multiple Assembly meetings. In the end, an overwhelming majority of NSW/ACT Baptists were in agreement. 

It is theologically odd and historically shallow to allege baptists never or shouldn’t require agreement on a set of beliefs or expectations. Historically, many Baptists have written and affirmed doctrinal statements and positions when the need arose. There is a popular view today among Baptists that we are anti-creedal and that we don’t want or need statements of faith to join together. The saying, ‘no creed but Christ’ may sound appealing, but it’s neither historically true nor wise. Sure, some baptists subscribe to this narrow view, but many more baptists have not and do not. Throughout 400 years of Baptist history, Baptist fellowships have written confessions and statements of doctrine and required assent to them. One of the little-known facts about baptists is that we have more doctrinal statements than probably every other protestant denomination! The desire among NSW baptist churches to stand on the Christian view of marriage (and more) isn’t less than baptist, it is in keeping with many baptists historically (including those in Australia).

The next question is, and the one being tested next week, will the churches apply their agreed upon principles? 

This is not a difficult question. It is certainly a sad one, for no one wishes to see Churches turning away from God’s words and ways. It is also a weighty decision, for no one should ever consider removing a church lightly. But discerning the right course of action isn’t particularly murky in this situation

There are some baptists who hold that freedom of conscience reigns supreme and that freedom of association is our highest value. As important as these ideals are to baptists, they are not the Lord of the Church. 

Baptists believe in the freedom of conscience, but when the conscience contradicts Scripture we are obliged to point that out. The human conscience isn’t infallible and when it strays, it is appropriate in the Christian setting for that individual or church to be called to repentance and submit to Scripture. This is basic to normal and biblical patterns of church discipline. 

Baptists also believe in freedom of association. Churches can uphold their sense of autonomy and follow what they believe is right, but when it comes to being in association, the association needs to have a sufficient common basis. Being Christian, this commonality or unity needs to be properly gospel oriented and faithful to the Scriptures.  

By definition, an association must have common ground among its constituents, otherwise it’s little more than porous hole in the ground or Dear Liza’s bucket of holes.

Do we need common agreement in the Gospel? What if a teaching or practice contradicts the gospel? What if a church is teaching an idea that causes people to sit outside God’s Kingdom? 

The understanding of marriage that Baptists articulate (not only in NSW but also Victoria and across Australia) fits with the Genesis paradigm and with Jesus’ teaching about marriage and sex. Jesus was pretty clear, sexual behaviour outside marriage between a man and woman is considered ‘porneia’ (immoral). In light of Jesus, it’s difficult to square same sex marriage as negotiable or a tertiary matter.

The Apostle Paul didn’t leave the churches in doubt or treating marriage and sexual holiness with murkiness or broad validation. 1 Corinthians 6 talks about ‘wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God?’ and 1 Timothy mentions practices that contradict ‘sound doctrine’ and the ‘gospel’. Both lists specify sexual relations outside heterosexual marriage.

When a church encourages practices that keep people outside the Kingdom of God, let the reader understand, we are not quibbling over tertiary matters. If we are taking Matthew 19, 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 seriously, it is difficult to conclude that marriage and sexual holiness is one of those areas where Christians can agree to disagree. 

To return to the holey bucket analogy, by removing churches that no longer affirm a Christian view of marriage, NSW Baptists are plugging a hole and that can only be beneficial for Gospel unity and witness.

Christian unity is beautiful and precious and holy. We are not going to agree on everything, and that’s ok, but the issues at stake here matter because they go to the heart of why Christ died and of the life God calls his people too.

Not for a moment do I want to underestimate the significance of the motions before NSW Baptists. We know that God doesn’t promise growing popularity and acceptance in the culture should we choose faithfulness, but honest and humble faithfulness is the way to advance the gospel. We are hearing more and more reports of young people being dissatisfied with the empty and failing promises our society is churning out. Young adults are looking for something more substantial and better. The dream of finding your own truth is turning into a nightmare, and Gen Zers are asking for a good news story that has guts and beauty, truth and goodness. They need clarity not cloudiness.

We don’t love our neighbours by capitulating to the sexual zeitgeist. We won’t win them to Jesus if the message we are advocating looks identical to what is already found in Hollywood and along King street Newtown.

The Christian Gospel is freeing and life giving. The Christian view of marriage is an eschatological pointer to Christ and his bride, the church. And that is why this decision on May 2nd matters.

As NSW Baptists meet next week, it is a time for mourning. Pray that these erring churches will turn around. We can also be thankful for these motions and pray that New South Wales Baptists, for sake of the Gospel and love for our neighbours, stick with Jesus.

Does Daniel help Christians respond to the NSW Conversion Laws?

/ MurrayCampbell

The NSW Parliament last week adopted a set of laws prohibiting the conversion of or suppression of peoples sexuality orientation and gender identity. The laws are not as extreme as those in the State of Victoria, nonetheless, there is clear government overreach. 

Yes, these new laws in places are bad.  They are bad because they introduce needless restrictions on normal Christian faith and practice. They are bad laws because they are defending against practices that are mostly mythical. The laws are bad because they take a smidgen of truth and a lot of illegitimate and aggressive sexology (to use Stephen Mcalpine’s word). The are bad laws because the give Government greater authority over religion (which is an odd position for anyone positing that we are a secular country).

Associate Professor Neil Foster has written a helpful explanation of what the laws do and do not mean and where is ambiguity. I would encourage people to read Foster’s article in light of some misinformation that is floating around and being circulated as fact.

However, Christians have begun to respond to these new laws. I’ve noticed more than a few turning to the Old Testament prophet, Daniel, and have begun quoting that famous incident that landed him in a lion’s den.  I happen to think the story of Daniel is one of many helpful Bible places we can turn to as a guide and encouragement. But if we’re going to use Daniel ch.6 for our stump speech, there are a couple of details we need to first take into account. 

Firstly, what kind of presence are we in society? 

Notice how Babylon’s officials and powerbrokers describe Daniel,

 “At this, the administrators and the satraps tried to find grounds for charges against Daniel in his conduct of government affairs, but they were unable to do so. They could find no corruption in him, because he was trustworthy and neither corrupt nor negligent. Finally these men said, “We will never find any basis for charges against this man Daniel unless it has something to do with the law of his God.” (Daniel 6:4-5)

Daniel is a wonderful example to Christians today. There is something that particularly resonates with us about the life and times of Daniel for he was an exile living away from his home, as are all Christians today.  He is living and working in a context with foreign gods and ideas dominate the horizon and we’re worshipping God is part of a small minority. Part of the wisdom that we glean from the book of Daniel, and it is a book of wisdom, is how Daniel adapted to life in Babylon and worked hard and judiciously for the common good, and yes obeyed pagan Kings, yet without compromising faithfulness to the one true God.

There have been an inflation of open letters and public declarations of late, mostly from a particular quarter of the Christian faith. These are often highlighting genuine issues, but their content and tone often fall short of usefulness.  As someone who has had moments in the past when I’ve employed too many strong adjectives, I’m more conscious these days about precision and not overblowing a situation. It is advisable to read and research before putting your name to a public statement.

As the enraged mood takes hold of so many quarters of society, a Christian voice should be different, but sometimes it is as angry and hyperbolic and therefore indistuishable from others. For example, if your public record is filled with distain for authorities and governments and making antiauthoritarian claims whenever you disagree with a policy or law, when a legitimate concern finally arises, why would those in positions of authority listen to you? It’s like the percussionist in a Symphony Orchestra who is always smashing the symbols as hard as she can strike and often out of time with the rest of the Orchestra. Soon enough the orchestra is going to send you down to the basement and lock you out!

Who wants to listen to the guy who is always shouting at everyone? Who takes seriously the voices who are decrying every issue as a threat to freedom and democracy and religion?

Defiance seems to be the default modus operandi for too many Christians today.  However, this shouldn’t be our baseline approach to life in the world and it’s certainly not the way Daniel approached life in Babylon. 

There will be some other Christians who have no issue with the new laws in NSW and who are trying to con us into thinking that anyone criticising the law is pulling a furphy. I suspect they’ll be among those who volunteer to be part of the firing squad. 

Second, notice how Daniel responded to the unreasonable law.

“Now when Daniel learned that the decree had been published, he went home to his upstairs room where the windows opened toward Jerusalem. Three times a day he got down on his knees and prayed, giving thanks to his God, just as he had done before. Then these men went as a group and found Daniel praying and asking God for help. So they went to the king…”

Daniel continues with what was his normal practice.  He didn’t make a song and dance out of it. He simply continued to faithfully pray to God three times a day.

Daniel’s praying wasn’t attention seeking, or brash, he wasn’t revving up the social temperature or resorting to hyperbolic claims or allegations. The window was always open and he carried on as he had always done, with humility and faithfulness. 

The problem is, and I understand because I know the injustice of the Victorian laws,  too many people are wanting to be David swinging a rock at Goliath’s head,  rather than a humble Daniel who went about faithfully serving the Lord and serving the common good of the city where he lived. 

In case we think, maybe Daniel is just a one off, I’m about to start a new sermon series at Mentone Baptist on 1 Peter. With little imagination required, I’ve given our series the title, ‘Living away from home’. Like Daniel, Christians are exiles and sojourners, and Peter helpfully explains how Christians ought to live as exiles. In one place he says this, 

“Who is going to harm you if you are eager to do good? But even if you should suffer for what is right, you are blessed. “Do not fear their threats; do not be frightened.” But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect, keeping a clear conscience, so that those who speak maliciously against your good behavior in Christ may be ashamed of their slander.For it is better, if it is God’s will, to suffer for doing good than for doing evil. (1 Peter 3:13-17)

There is a sense in which we are to embrace suffering for the Lord’s sake. And the manner in which we do also matters according to Peter.  Gentleness and respect…not resorting to malicious speech but with good behaviour. So like Daniel and Peter, choose faithfulness, and like Daniel and Peter (and Jesus), part of faithfulness is speaking and behaving with utmost integrity and with grace and refusing to be that clanging cymbal.

The Lioness, the Witch and the Wardrobe

/ MurrayCampbell

″‘Child,’ said the Lion, ‘I am telling you your story, not hers. No one is told any story but their own.’” (Aslan)

The culture wars are sometimes rather childish and remind me of little children throwing water balloons at each other and then crying when one hits them in the face. For the most part, these complaints and fights are best ignored. But DON’T MESS with this childhood classic.

I loved Narnia as a kid, and I still love it. I enjoyed the screen adaptation 20 years ago and have waited to see the final three books made into film. Netflix is planning to make six Narnia movies, one for each of the books. Excellent! I can’t wait…except what the?

Aslan has become a woman, or at least that’s the breaking news. Netflix is currently in discussions with Meryl Streep about playing the role of Aslan in The Magician’s Nephew. Streep is a remarkable and versatile actress, but there is a tiny, winy issue here: Aslan is male. Exchanging the baritone for the alto not only sounds odd, but changes the melodic of the entire story.

Part of me suspects that Netflix’s marketing department is using this as a test balloon, to see what they can get away with.

Last year, I watched Ridley Scott’s ‘epic’ Napoleon. It was 3 hours that I’ll never get back. Many a historian went in search of a Napoleonic cannon to aim at the big screen, as Scott massacred history. Movies always take liberties with stories, both fact and fiction. Turning Aslan into a female character isn’t quite the same as butchering the Battle of Waterloo. Yes, Narnia is fiction, so why does it matter at all? 

For starters, there is messing with authorial intent. Change the character, and one who also happens to be the main figure and hero of the series, and you change the entire story. 

Let’s change Oliver Cromwell to Olivia! Abraham Lincoln shall now be known as Alice Lincoln.  Why shouldn’t Florence Nightingale become Fred? 

Harry Potter should be Harriet, and Elizabeth Bennet shall be called Eddie and wear a moustache and mullet. 

Let’s reverse engineer The Handmaid’s Tale so that it is men and not women who are subjected to tyranny. 

Because it doesn’t make sense.  You ruin the story.

Also, it’s bad taste and carries all the creative juices of a failing first year arts student who has woken up and realised they’d be better off as an engineer!

It’s interesting to see how cultural values play out in mainstream film and music. There is a clash of ideals that they can’t reconcile. For example, one of today’s axioms is gender fluidity. Gender can change and morph, and shift more often than the tide in Port Phillip Bay. And yet, the worst heresy we can commit today is to misgender somebody. Which is it? Is gender sacrosanct or meaningless? (asking on behalf of women athletes everywhere!)

If Narnia was only fiction, I suspect many would muttter but put up with screwing up a great story. But as we know, C.S. Lewis was doing something more with these books; Narnia is a work of allegory. Narnia is theology through story. 

“this signifies that Aslan will be our good lord, whether he means us to live or die. And all’s one, for that. Now, by my counsel, we shall all kneel and kiss his likeness, and then all shake hands one with another, as true friends that may shortly be parted.”

Aslan is famously an allegorical representation of Jesus Christ. The man, the power, the justice and the gentleness, the atoning death and the resurrection are depicted by this character, Aslan. 

By turning Aslan into a lioness, he loses more than a mane. You’ve upended C.S. Lewis’ message of Narnia.

The thing is, Jesus was and is a man. He is the Son of God. He is the second Adam. He is a King. All these themes run through Narnia with cause and design. 

“For there is one God and one mediator between God and mankind, the man Christ Jesus” (1 Timothy 2:5)

We don’t mess with Jesus and the eternal persons of the Trinity. I mean, people do, but they shouldn’t. Again, to preach the culture, isn’t misgendering someone paramount to public denouncement?

Jesus seems like an easy target. No, I’m not getting all anxy and angry. Jesus had a particularly wonderful way of responding to those who mocked him on the cross: he forgave and loved. The point is more about ‘live and die by the gender gospel’ that pop culture is at the forefront of hypocrisy. Try this gender swapping from religious figures outside Christianity and see how well that goes!

Apart from ruining one of the great children’s books, Netflix is in danger of playing with The Greatest Story. Who is the likely target audience? Those who know and read Narnia as children, and who now read the books to their children. Are they more or less likely to pay money to watch Aslan emasculated? 

If indeed Meryl Streep is a Netflix test balloon, this test balloon is made from lead! Let’s see what Greta Gerwig and Netflix decide to do. 

BTW,  Reepicheep is standing on the side petitioning to be made into a stallion, as the White Witch demands a colour change into something less colonial. And the Hag is refusing the role until she’s made into Barbie!

Correction: I mentioned Disney at one point when it should be Netflix

Would you sell out Jesus for $4.37 billion?

/ MurrayCampbell

‘What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? ‘

“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money.”

Nah, ‘surely not’, says the entrepreneur hungry for another dollar. As long as there is commerce, trade, and ingenuity, people have contended Jesus is wrong. You can have riches and God. You can have wealth and religion.

Why choose between the two? Can’t we have both, Jesus and a growing portfolio? Perhaps not $4 billion; let’s drop it down to a more reasonable $4 million, enough to live comfortably but not so much that my face and portfolio are splashed in The Australian.

It’s an Aussie dream story: success, celebrity status, and a partnership with Ferrari.  Wouldn’t we follow these steps given the chance? 

The Gospel of Luke tells the occasion when a young influencer makes a pitstop in front of Jesus while on the way to the Grand Prix (yes, there’s a touch of creative licence in this storytelling, but the point remains the same). Careful not to step his $1200 sneakers in a puddle beside the road, he approached Jesus. He was impressed by the man of Nazareth. This Jesus had a way with words and what he touched turned into something amazing. Jesus is useful. 

This young dude introduced himself and spoke respectfully to Jesus. He may be young, but he was already enjoying his prosperity. He was going places, but there was this nagging question lurking at the back of his head: did he have it all?

So he asked Jesus, ‘“Good teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?”

Jesus then went through a list, spelling out the requirements of God’s law: Don’t murder, don’t commit adultery, and so on.

This pleased the man because he felt pretty solid on those grounds. But then Jesus went where the man did not want to go: his heart. 

“You still lack one thing. Sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.”

“When he heard this, he became very sad, because he was very wealthy. Jesus looked at him and said, “How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God! Indeed, it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

Wealth remains one of the world’s great con jobs. It promises happiness and success and adventure and respect, and yet it is among the worst of addictions. Wealth can be obtained through family and through hard work. Many creative geniuses have made discoveries or invented new technologies that benefit society and have made a fortune through the process. Others have made millions through theft or deceit. And then there is gambling. 

Laurence Escalante is Australia’s 32nd wealthiest person, with a personal fortune of $4.37 Billion.  There is a feature story in today’s The Australian, with Laurence Escalante sharing his rags-to-riches journey, and from religion to Los Vegas. 

Laurence Escalante grew up in a religious family, first attending a Catholic Church and then joining a large Pentecostal Church in Perth. Speaking to John Stensholt, he said,

“At the time I was very much into faith and religion. I was an acolyte”.

Apparently, Escalante has previously served as a church treasurer and started a Christian gaming company. In the vein of typically cringey Christian products, Escalante made video games based on Timothy and Titus, where players venture not to shoot all the bad guys, but to share the good news. 

He left this debt-inducing business and subsequently started a new and massively successful business: casino games.

I’m interested in the way John Stensholt writes. Even he, a journalist, can sense the clash of worlds between Escalante’s Christianity and his worldly lifestyle. The article begins, 

“If things had gone according to plan, Laurence Escalante would have had a career developing Christian computer games based on the Apostle Paul’s disciples, Timothy and Titus.

It may have been a decent earner, but it’s unlikely to have brought the level of success the 43-year-old has quickly attained in a decidedly less pious way and allowed him to live what is – judging from his social media accounts – quite the hedonistic lifestyle.”

And notice the headline, Saint to sinner? Or just a migrant kid who can now afford a jet. Even the editors can spot the scam.

Instead of bringing the good news of Jesus to the cyber world, Escalante is now making billions from the credit of the greedy and the foolish and the vulnerable. Stensholt can spot the contradiction, as can many a reader, but what about Escalante? 

It would be interesting to hear how Laurence Escalante squares this with Jesus.

The podcast episode accompanying the article is tagged, ‘Guided by God to an online gambling fortune’. I’m not sure whether this is Escalante’s personal view or it’s an editorial interpretation. Either way, it’s not true.  Can you imagine, ‘Guided by God to commit adultery’ or Guided by God to steal from my neighbour’? Neither can I.   But how often do we reconfigure God in order to justify the life decisions we are making, regardless of what God has actually said (take a look at the Bible).

He wants to assure readers,

“While admitting he isn’t as religious as he once was, Escalante insists he is no sinner. He reckons he doesn’t worry about his reputation, and says he is simply revelling in success earned from hard work and learning from previous business failures.

“I’m having fun, enjoying life,” he says in a rare interview. “Being in the moment. I’ve always been that sort of person, [wanting] to enjoy life.

“I was always into cars; I just didn’t have the means to enjoy them. Now I can afford a jet … You have to enjoy life. You never know when it could disappear.”

Nowhere does Jesus say we can’t have fun in life and enjoy ourselves. But chasing the good life without God is like investing in counterfeit money and pouring your life savings into a scam. Are you running on a high? Sure, until reality hits home. 

‘Those who trust in their riches will fall, but the righteous will thrive like a green leaf.’ (Proverbs 11:28)

‘Cast but a glance at riches, and they are gone, for they will surely sprout wings and fly off to the sky like an eagle.’ (Proverbs 23:5)

It is one thing to have wealth and it is another thing to consider how to be good stewards of our wealth. And it is an altogether different moral category when exploring by what means we accumulate our wealth. 

But why choose between the two? Can’t we have both, Jesus and a growing portfolio? It’s an Aussie dream story: success, celebrity status, and a partnership with Ferrari.  Wouldn’t we follow in his steps given half the chance? Before we throw the first cricket ball at Escalante, we might do well to consider our own hearts.

That’s the thing, Laurence Escalante is a God to riches story, and the appeal is strong. It’s easy to throw stones at this billionaire but what if we share his spiritual DNA? He’s simply succeeded where many more Aussies dream. Human nature hasn’t changed over thousands of years, and Jesus’ words are as sharp and confronting today as they were 2 millennia ago. We all too easily sell the soul for a few years of splashed excess.

Gambling is one of Australia’s favourite evils. We gamble in greater numbers than nearly every other nation on earth. We know it’s harmful. We know it destroys lives and families, and yet from Government to Sport, we’ve created this entanglement where we require gambling to sustain community projects and our appetite for a high standard of living.

To be clear, Escalante’s online casino games are illegal in Australia (from what I gather); he makes his money mostly from customers in the United States and in smaller countries like Malta. 

Gambling is about playing on your hope through chance. It’s playing the odds as a means to change your life circumstances. Like every good addiction, gambling promises much and lies like porn. It exploits vulnerable people and strips them of further dignity, security and relationships. 

If Escalante believes Jesus is okay with his billions, I urge him to think again. 

How different is Jesus’ approach? Jesus isn’t utilitarian. He counted the cost. He chose sacrifice, even atonement for the sins of many. Jesus didn’t exploit the poor, he gave his life as a ransom for many. Instead of mingling with Melbourne’s celebrity culture over caviar and champagne at the Grand Prix, Jesus picked up the pieces left behind and gave life. He welcomed the humble and repentant, whether rich or poor. 

That’s part of the problem, isn’t it? We want everything. How often are we told that we deserve everything? We create a list of desires and expect God to contribute, as though he owes us. It may not be a $ amount or material possessions, but likability or recognition or career success. What kind of screwed-up view of God that is. The very premise is mistaken. We neither deserve everything nor can we. If we treat Jesus like the non-essential extra to life, then not only do we miss out on Jesus, but in the end we’ll lose the lot. 

What does Jesus tell us, 

‘For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it.  What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul?  Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?  If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of them when he comes in his Father’s glory with the holy angels.” (Mark 8:35-38)

But what would Jesus know?

A Masculine Lie?

/ MurrayCampbell

“Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Romans 16:12)

Why spend another few minutes writing about this ‘sin of empathy’’? Because like its partner in crime, Christian Nationalism, the sin of empathy mood is making way into different corners of Australian Christianity. Opening the doors and letting it inside is only going to make an unnecessary mess, so I’m hoping we leave it outside for the wind to blow away.

Are many men feeling emasculated and shamed for being men? Sure. Are many women threatened by the genderless thinking that is today impacting safe women’s spaces and sports? Absolutely. 

The notion that macho-masculinity is somehow the answer to the Church’s woes and that feminine characteristics are the primary sin of the church is theologically shallow and pastorally dangerous. Indeed, the ‘sin of empathy’ crowd is as theologically and pastorally flawed as those who see church as a gender free zone.  The danger with the latter is that it’s easy to spot. The world’s values aren’t the church’s, and good old-fashioned evangelicals realise that we don’t get our tune from the culture at large. The danger with the former, patriarchy, is that to the reactionary evangelical type, this can come across as a solution. But why exchange one set of faulty thinking for another? Jumping from one house on fire to setting another light is no way forward.

Men blaming women doesn’t sound particularly masculine to me. It’s Adam 2.0 rather than the Second Adam. 

For example…

In the latest online defence of his book, Joe Rigney made this claim,

“in my book The Sin of Empathy, I call Feminism “Queen of the Woke,” because of the way that feminism takes a female strength and pathologizes it by deploying feminine compassion where it doesn’t belong.”

Dani Treweek responded with this,

“Let me translate for y’all.

“Deploying female compassion where it doesn’t belong” = women making any meaningful contribution to the life and ministry of the church.”

I have now read enough of Rigney’s position to know that Dani Treweek is representing him fairly. In fact,  the more he doubles down online,  the less his views resemble complementarianism and instead suggest a neo-patriarchy. 

Rigney then replied,

Once again Dr. Treweek misrepresents the argument of the book, but in the process reveals how deeply influenced she is by feminism.

And yet Joe Rigney says things like this, 

“There is a reason that the empathetic sex that women are barred from the pastoral office, they were barred from the priestly office in the Old Testament for the same reason. Because priests and pastors, priests in the Old Testament, pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill-suited to that role. So it’s no surprise that in a culture that has become dominated by feminism, it’s deep in the American system at this point, that in that same timeframe, you would have an outbreak of empathy that would become the steering wheel by which every institution is hijacked.”

Back on X (Twitter), Rigney then proceeded to outline how he values the contributions of women in the church…which he then outlines as having babies and cooking meals. 

I’m not joking.

‘I’m forced to conclude that, for Dr. Treweek, raising children, managing households, and caring for hurting people are not “meaningful” ministry in the life of the church. 

Which is the fundamental feminist lie.’

Ours is an age that often downplays the role of mothers and ignores the tireless love exercised in the home. Our society isn’t the most friendly and affirming for women who make the decision to sit out of the workforce to help raise a family. Is this, however, the sum of women’s contribution to the body of Christ?

It seems that poor Phoebe and Priscilla and a host of women in Romans 16 didn’t get Rigney’s memo. 

Again, yes, we ought to esteem and value marriage and children. Ephesians 5 is a wonderful godly model that remains so today.  If the totality of women contributing to the church is sex, children, and meals, may I contend that you have wandered a long way from the Scriptures. If Rigney appreciates that it is more, why not include it?

More urgent, how pastorally insensitive and even dangerous, is Rigney’s assumption here? What do Rigney’s words say to single women in our churches? What does his sweeping generalisation communicate to women who are unable to have children? 

I  know The Handmaid’s Tale’ is a lefty dystopian myth, but sometimes one can imagine where they got the idea from.

To the young men who might be tempted to buy into the Moscow method, it’s only a matter of time before you trip over your beard. If you think that the answer to gender slippery slides is to stand at the top cleaning your rifle and asking when dinner is ready, I humbly suggest that someone ought to push you off the slide.

If men want to know how to lead and serve and love, look to Jesus. Follow his example.  We don’t encourage faithfulness in our churches by making gender redundant or by making men sound and smell just a little bit like Andrew Tate. 

April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review

I’ve witnessed the  ‘Sin of Empathy’ in action

/ MurrayCampbell

I’ve witnessed the  ‘Sin of Empathy’ in action.

To begin with, our Western societies are obviously deeply confused about gender. Are there 2 or 74 genders? Is there any difference between men and women?  Masculinity is largely defined in negative terms and one can barely say the word without someone assuming toxicity. And what is a woman? One can lose their job if they dare suggest a definition. 

The thing is, we don’t resolve one set of problems by introducing another set of problematic ideas. Reactionary theology becomes, or least can become, as destructive as the concerns originally identified. And so we end up with a vicious game of ping-pong, except the ping-pong ball is a live grenade.

The Bible’s vision for both men and women is beautiful and attractive and good. The complementary nature of Genesis chs 1 and 2 is affirmed by the Lord Jesus,  and He and the Apostles present in Scripture the full eschatological picture of the glory of being men and women. Every generation finds ways to undermine or twist Christ’s vision and replace it with an alternative. This has been going on since the earliest of days.

Instead of adorning male and female with the Gospel and the fruit of the Spirit, there are men (and a few women) who somewhere think that demeaning women is righteous and noble. 

Photo by Sora Shimazaki on Pexels.com

Anger and verbal abuse is their modus operandi. There is zero positive Gospel vision, simply one denouncement after another, as though they’re playing the role of Athanasius or Spurgeon and everyone else is either Arius or a British Baptist! But like the little boy who called wolf, no one is paying attention should they ever get it right for once. 

The background to this latest stream of vitriol is Joe Rigney’s appearance on Al Mohler’s show last week to talk about his book, ‘The Sin of Empathy’. I discussed the interview in my previous blog post. Just in case, Rigney’s basic thesis is that empathy is a feminine trait and is largely responsible for the theological drift we are witnessing in our churches. Empathy is this feminist Trojan horse corrupting Christian life and witness. Yes, I know, Jesus is a man and he’s our empathetic High Priest, so go figure!

As I wrote my own reflections on the interview, I suggested, 

‘I am sure the ‘theo-bros’ on X will dismiss me as another weak ‘effeminate’ ‘woke’ pastor’. 

No one needs to be a prophet to realise how inevitable that was! However, I  have a different reason for writing this follow-up piece, and it is to highlight the kind of fruit patriarchy is growing.

A friend of mine and respected Australian theologian, Dani Treweek, is reading Rigney’s book and has begun posting her reflections on X (Twitter). She soon became subject to a targeted troll attack by the ‘theo-bros’. Dani is a complementarian and used to receiving pushback from one direction, but being complementarian isn’t enough forsome conservative circles.

This is how the theobros treat women. It is vile and anti-Christian in every way.

And no, the trolling wasn’t only by anonymous accounts. Megan Basham jumped on and William Wolfe got into the action with a couple of revealing cheap shots. In fact, a week earlier, Wolfe nailed his colours with this preemptive strike,

‘Watching all these church ladies of both sexes getting worked up about @joe_rigney’s book “The Sin of Empathy” only makes me more excited to read it!’

It reminds me of the shelo asani isha, the old Jewish prayer that thanks God for not making me a woman.

I’m unsure where the man himself was, Joe Rigney.  He was certainly present online, and he happily responded to Dani Treweek and as well as some others, but not once (to my knowledge) did he rebuke and call out any of misogyny and disgusting pile on. Why? I do not know.

We could simply ignore this latest online abuse, and for the most part, we ought to ignore the ‘theo-bros’.  They are widely regarded as being unreachable, and they love nothing more than an argument. And after all, it’s social media, and much of it is an American echo chamber. Except public words, even those online, either represent or misrepresent the God whom we claim to worship. That’s a problem for public Christianity. Also, the echo chamber has bored a hole under the ocean and is appearing in different segments of Aussie churches. 

Take one Presy minister from Australia today who excused the bile by suggesting Dani was asking for it because she made a comment about having a PhD. How often has a man used that defence, ‘she was asking for it’.  In fact, it’s his comments that have caused me to stop for a few minutes this morning and write this blog.

This is part of the problem. Slander, insult and assault are often excused or explained away, or we remain silent. Where these men are identified and if they are members of a church somewhere, the Elders ought to be dragging them into a meeting and calling them to repentance or removing them from the church. 

What did Paul tell Titus, 

“Similarly, encourage the young men to be self-controlled. In everything set them an example by doing what is good. In your teaching show integrity, seriousness and soundness of speech that cannot be condemned, so that those who oppose you may be ashamed because they have nothing bad to say about us.”

And Paul had a word of warning for Timothy about men who demean women,

“People will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, without love, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God— having a form of godliness but denying its power. Have nothing to do with such people.”

I’m not writing any of this to give the ‘theobros’ oxygen, but rather encourage brothers and sisters: don’t let your church be a place that accepts or excuses the kind of garbage my friend has experienced far too often, and indeed, what many women have experienced (and yes, men too). Churches, teach the Bible well, display the goodness of God’s creative and redemptive purposes, and guard against the patriarchy. 

April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review

We need more empathy not less

/ MurrayCampbell

‘Before you criticize a man, walk a mile in his shoes. That way, when you do criticize him, you’ll be a mile away and have his shoes.’ (Steve Martin)

An easterly wind is blowing across the Pacific and blowing dust into some Aussie churches. From Moscow to Queensland, there is a mood swirling about that believes what we need today is a strong Christianity that will defeat the hoards of hell. Weakness is to be blamed for the status quo and to save the day we need a particular masculine-styled Christianity. Out with gentle Jesus, bring in Excalibur Jesus!

Of course, we don’t want to be reductionist and suggest that the Christ who is gentle and kind is not also awesome in power and the judge of the world. He is both the God of mercy and the God of justice. 

There is an emerging vigilante approach to Gospel ministry and mission which is, I contend, as big a problem as the spiritual and moral hopelessness it claims to be redeeming. 

And before the bros throw around their customary innuendos, I learnt to shoot when I was 10, I know from experience how to chase down a thief and stand up to a violent man, I have a son who made grown men cower when he bowled,  and I am proud of my eldest who is serving in the military; so you can stick your manly verbiage in your salad!

Some of the masculine talking and taunting that’s coming out of the United States and sprouting in certain ecclesial Aussie backyards, isn’t  complementarianism and therefore not biblical. It’s two versions of a gender culture war playing ping pong against each other, and unfortunately using the church as the table.

If you don’t believe me, Neil Shenvi yesterday sent a test balloon on X, 

 “If a man were described as kind, gentle, patient, loving, peaceful, joyful, good, and faithful, large segments of Twitter would call him effeminate.”

With the surprise of learning that sea water contains salt, Shenvi is right.

This supposed muscular Christianity found recent expression on the Al Mohler show when Al Mohler interviewed Joe Rigney for his book, ‘the Sin of Empathy’.

Over the years, I have appreciated some of what Al Mohler has said and stood for. This, not so much.

No, I haven’t read Rigney’s book, and I have little desire to do so. Rigney has however, expressed his ideas in this interview, and so presumably he agrees with his own words to Al Mohler. In short, Rigney’s thesis is that empathy is sinful and responsible for churches losing their way today.

Rigney’s complaint is that churches are guilty of the sin of empathy,

“There is a reason that the empathetic sex that women are barred from the pastoral office, they were barred from the priestly office in the Old Testament for the same reason. Because priests and pastors, priests in the Old Testament, pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill-suited to that role. So it’s no surprise that in a culture that has become dominated by feminism, it’s deep in the American system at this point, that in that same timeframe, you would have an outbreak of empathy that would become the steering wheel by which every institution is hijacked.”

In other words,  empathy is a problem because it’s a trait found in women, and permitting that leads to the slippery slope of feminism and last stop, hell. 

No doubt, many readers will find this as problematic as do I, not least because it smacks of misogyny.

Rigney is convinced that the slippery slope of liberalism clambers back to a weak Christianity that is too sympathetic (by which he means, to feminine)

“Every church faces some version of this kind of pressure to have women in the room where it happens to let them make, let’s have them in the room, let’s have them making decisions. We won’t call them pastors, at least initially, but once you started down that road, you’ve effectively seeded the ground that men and women are interchangeable. We don’t know why the Bible says that only men can be pastors. And until we can twist that verse, we’ll hold the line on that one little thing, but it’s a complimentarian thread that’s trying to hold up an egalitarian boulder, and it will not hold in the long run.”

Mohler has also bought into this line of thinking, 

“No, and the argument about hermeneutics is I think amply, tragically demonstrable. I don’t know of a single body that has genuinely affirmed women in the pulpit that has not eventually affirmed the LGBTQ revolution. Because if you can take the plain teachings of Scripture, and by the way, reflected all the way through creation order, and you can deny that when it comes to a woman as a pastor of a church, and it’s not that women don’t have many of the gifts, it’s that women, it’s ontologically forbidden by scripture.”

The problem with those statements is that it’s not necessarily true. The slippery slope argument is sometimes real and other times not. Now, before you suggest that I’m some wet slippery progressive who’s drinking the cool-aid, I’m writing as a convinced complementarian and someone who has expressed concerns about current gender ideologies, such that it’s made front page news on major newspapers. The reality is, there are different hermeneutical grids among egalitarians. Not all egalitarians are identical. There are some who hold to a theological framework that does slide into gender fluidity and adopting the latest cultural norms of sex and gender, and there are others whose theological convictions do not permit the slide. 

Take Mike Bird for example. Rigney said of Bird this week,

“This comment is particularly funny coming out of a decade or more in which feminism, wokeness, and soft-pedaling sodomy infiltrated the SBC, the PCA, and other conservative evangelical contexts. That’s who I wrote it for.”

yeah, nah. Mike Bird is egalitarian. He’s wrong on this one (and I still love him) but I also know he has a robust anthropology that will not let him fall down into gender relativity or matters like same sex marriage. 

The thing is, we don’t advocate for what is and has been the norm among Christian churches throughout its history by adorning men with a 6 pack and rifle slung over the shoulder and making them sound more gruff. Be more Christlike. Be more Biblical, not less.

How does this sin of empathy square with Christ who is our empathetic High Priest? At the very least, Rigney’s interview causes us to cast doubts over or to explain away Bible statements like Hebrews 4:15,

 “For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin.” (Hebrews 4:15)

In his commentary on Hebrews, Paul Ellingworth paraphrases, “Our high priest can feel with us in our weaknesses, because he has been tempted in all respects as we are…”

The verb συμπαθῆσαι and its cognates, as Ellingworth notes, “are used most often of family affection”.  Peter O’Brien explains, “the verb rendered empathize was used of a bond similar to a mother’s feeling for her children or one brother’s feeling for another.”

Peter O’ Brien notes, “Believers have in heaven a high priest with an unequalled capacity for empathising with them in all their weaknesses, especially the weakness that result in sin”. 

If that’s too much empathy for you, let’s bring in a Puritan, Thomas Goodwin,

“The word is a deep one. He suffers with you, he is as tender in his bowels to you as ever he was; that he might be moved to pity you. 

He is willing to suffer, as it were, that one place to be left naked, and to be flesh still, on which he may be wounded with your miseries, that so he might be your merciful high priest.”

Al Mohler suggested in the interview that empathy is a 20th Century concept. Goodwin and Hebrews suggests that’s not the case. What’s more likely is that the division between sympathy and empathy is a 20th Century construct.

Can empathy be problematic? Sure, of course it can. When we sever any human emotion or disposition from the work of the Spirit, we are in danger of misuse and misapplication. That doesn’t mean empathy is the sin of our age; the church doesn’t need less empathy, but more.

Some Christian men have the impression that being ferocious like is Jesus is good, whereas showing the gentleness of Jesus somehow inhibits our masculinity and church steadfastness. Everyone wants to be Jesus overthrowing tables and using a whip in the Temple. They love to argue online and are quick to jump on others. Strength and power and angry tone is just as dangerous a foe to Christian vitality as those more gentle of virtues when separated from the Spirit.. Besides, real masculinity does not deny strength or power, but uses it in the service of others. It is therefore humble, sacrificial, gentle and kind. It doesn’t demean women, it honours them. If your version of strong Christianity produces mysogony, think again.

Let’s remember the Apostle Paul who rebuked the Corinthians for their liking of strength and power,

‘Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom, but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,  but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.’

This is part of the problem with this neo-masculine movement. It doesn’t want weakness and it derides anything that appears ‘effeminate’. If you think empathy is a sign of weakness, I suggest you take that up with our High Priest. 

April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review

How we treat the human body speaks volumes

/ MurrayCampbell

Hamas has paraded four coffins through the streets of Gaza as though they were trophies. Men brandishing their rifles, flagging Hamas regalia while masking their faces, cheered and accompanied four black coffins carrying four Israelis who had been taken hostage on October 7 and murdered subsequently. The 4 coffins included an elderly man, Oded Lifshitz, 83, the two little Bibas children, and their mother, Shiri.

The remains of these 4 human beings were then presented on a stage wrapped in anti-Israel messages and weapons to threaten.

Once the bodies were handed over to the Red Cross and eventually returned to Israel, propaganda was found stuffed inside the coffins. If such insult and injury were not more than the grieving could cope with, it turns out Shiri Bibas was not among the dead. Hamas had placed the body of another woman inside the coffin.

We ought to feel sickened inside at the pictures being shown around the world; I am. I will not show the footage here. Instead, here are Israelis lining the streets as the coffins are driven by.

To humiliate the body of the deceased is to move into a new level of hatred. It is to join the ranks of cultures who abused flesh and bone to humiliate and cripple them in the life to come. This is the action of a deranged and evil group. Sadly, we can already imagine the excuses and justifications being uttered in Hamas’ defence, such are the times we are now living in. 

Criminals are afforded a proper burial. Even in war, the dead are respected by the enemy. Mustafa Kamal famously said of the Anzacs buried at Gallipoli,

You, the mothers who sent their sons from faraway countries, wipe away your tears; your sons are now lying in our bosom and are in peace. After having lost their lives on this land they have become our sons as well.

The human body matters, both in life and in death. Our physical being is part of who we are. God has made us with body, mind, heart, and spirit. Harming the body is an affront to human dignity and life. Mistreating the remains of the dead signals a level of disdain both for the dead and for those who are left behind that is inhuman.

A human body is treated with such respect because the life of the human being is of incalculable worth. To return the wrong body and to return bodies with ignominious glee and to stuff coffins with propaganda is unspeakably shocking.

God values the human body so much that his only Son took on human flesh. He became incarnate, a man. When Jesus was crucified he was buried. When God raised the same Jesus to life, he was resurrected, that is with a real physical living heart beating body. 

There is so much evil in our world. It has been this way since the fall. The hubris of the optimist believed that with advancing science and technology, and with prosperity winning globally, the world will enter a new age of progress and even ‘the end of history’. This is not utopia. Recent years have taught us that humankind is bent on repeating history. 

It is an evil world. Ours is a beautiful world with much to love and enjoy, and yet from the human heart spawns tremendous wickedness. It is astonishing that God should show such patience and grace.

Here is what my Bible reading was this morning, and frankly it is not what we deserve and it cuts against even how my own society often thinks of the human body, and yet it is profoundly good and light and life. In death and life, while enjoying the warmth of the sun or sitting in the darkest place, here is God’s promise, 

“Listen, I am telling you a mystery: We will not all fall asleep, but we will all be changed, in a moment, in the twinkling of an eye, at the last trumpet. For the trumpet will sound, and the dead will be raised incorruptible, and we will be changed.  For this corruptible body must be clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal body must be clothed with immortality. When this corruptible body is clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal body is clothed with immortality, then the saying that is written will take place:

Death has been swallowed up in victory.

Where, death, is your victory?
Where, death, is your sting?

The sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. 57 But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ!” (1 Corinthians 15:51-57)

A letter to the Prime Minister about child gender therapy and a view to real mercy

/ MurrayCampbell

“The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him;” (Daniel 9:9)

100 notable Australians have written a letter to Prime Minister Anthony Albanese, calling for a federal inquiry into kids gender therapy. The list of signatories includes senior medical professionals, academics, and politicians including former Prime Minister Tony Abbott and former Deputy Prime Minister, John Anderson. Lest we think this is a partisan statement, the names attached to the letter belong across the political spectrum. 

I commend the letter to the Prime Minister, and indeed, to Victoria’s Premier Jacinta Allan. 

This letter has been written off the back of growing evidence that vulnerable children are being led to permanent life-altering procedures without sufficient medical or ethical reasoning. Earlier this week, the Queensland Government was forced to act and pause transitioning procedures on minors when a hospital was allegedly caught performing dangerous procedures on children as young as 12, without the consent of parents.  Also this week in the United States, President Trump signed an executive order, stopping Federal support for the gender transitioning of young people. 

These actions are but the latest of a growing number of Governments around the world who have pulled the plug on radical gender interventions. Denmark, Finland, Norway, Sweden, France and New Zealand are among the countries who are taking action to ban, or at least pause, medical intervention on children suffering from gender dysphoria.

It took the bravery of young people in Great Britain to sound the alarm, young adults who at the time were children and subjected to the transitioning movement in the UK health system. The result was the CASS review (2024). The doors were blown open and the UK Government was forced to shut down the Tavistock Clinic and hit the emergency button to stop pumping children with hormones, chemicals and even surgical procedures. Despite the preaching by gender progressives, evidence is scant (if not fabricated) that children are better off having body parts amputated or chemicals injected into their bodies. 

The days of using children in the service of gender theories are numbered. I believe this is one of the great evils of our time, for it cuts against the very nature of being human, and being male and female.  It is to our shame that our society ever encouraged such ideas. Governments may wait until they are swamped with legal action or they can take the moral ground and take action now. 

Obviously, there are all kinds of important issues here. The note that I wish to sound in this particular article is one of mercy. Mercy is a word that has been used a lot over the past week in relation to gender and children. It is a word that can be used and misused, applied and misapplied, and so in light of the letter to Australia’s Prime Minister, I would like to add a word of mercy. 

The question of gender fluidity and children changing genders is often framed around acceptance and intolerance, affirmation or bigotry. Unfortunately, this kind of binary approach is unhelpful and is often untrue. It isn’t hatred to affirm biology and to believe that biology determines gender. Neither is it intolerance to appreciate that there are children (and some adults) who struggle to accept their physical bodies and the gender that comes with that. Words matter.

We need to differentiate between these children who deserve our love and care, and those who promote the ideology of gender fluidity and who are responsible for inflicting lifelong damage onto these children. 

For example, when Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde recently called for mercy and compassion, she wasn’t asking Americans to save children from gender therapy. She was calling on President Trump to affirm their gender confusion and enable the very social and medical processes that we know to be unethical and harmful. The Bishop may have used some of Jesus’ language but her meaning is a world apart from the kind of mercy Jesus offers and that we all need.  We may or may not approve of President Trump and much of his character and rhetoric, but his latest executive order is sensible. As the letter to the Prime Minister demonstrates, the concerns are not left or right, but moral and medical. 

I realise that there are some who have caste doubts over this interpretation of Budde’s views. But I am simply accepting her teaching. Words have meaning. The Bishop of Washington DC has expressed her views on sexuality and gender on other occasions, and lest she has experienced a Damascus road repentance in the last few weeks, her meaning in the sermon corresponds to her regular teachings. 

The notion of Divine mercy is too good and holy for us to revise or use in the service of political progressivism (and political conservatism). 

Mercy is showing kindness. Mercy is not telling children lies or encouraging them to believe in mistaken identities and shuffling them off to a hospital for puberty blockers and even castration. As the letter to the Prime Minister intimates, there are better ways. 

Mercy involves patience and love, and hope. Mercy doesn’t deny reality or brush aside physical or psychological anxieties but learns to sit and journey with someone until the light of day. 

As a Christian, mercy takes a Christ-like shape. I think of the episode when Jesus met a Samaritan woman (John ch.4). As far as society was concerned, this particular woman had 3 strikes against her name and so ostracising her was considered the right thing to do: She was a a woman, she was a Samaritan, and she had sexually broken past. Jesus didn’t follow those rules of engagement. Jesus didn’t reject her, he showed compassion. He engaged in conversation with her. He didn’t ignore or pretend that her sexual history was unimportant, but rather, Jesus went further and showed mercy. Mercy didn’t involve encouraging her to pursue sexual sin or impropriety. He revealed to her the hope of Israel and through this offered her living water that would quench her thirst forever. 

Churches who choose to mimic the message by Bishop Mariann Edgar Budde are more damnable than any other group in society, for they claim to speak in the name of God and offer faux mercy.

Churches, if your community is not already a safe place of truth and kindness, goodness and mercy, you are not ready to receive the growing number of young Australians who need to know of the hope of the gospel. If your view of mercy means accepting the culture’s latest gender theory, then your church is not ready to care for those who experience trauma and who are struggling with their body, mind and soul. 

What did the Apostle Paul say, 

“Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, in view of God’s mercy, to offer your bodies as a living sacrifice, holy and pleasing to God—this is your true and proper worship.”

Prime Minister please listen to the concerns outlined in the letter. And Churches,  learn mercy from Christ and not from our culture’s talking points. 

As Jesus said, ‘go and learn what this means: ‘I desire mercy, not sacrifice.’ For I have not come to call the righteous, but sinners.’

Update: January 31st, 1:45pm, Federal Health Minister Mark Butler has ordered a “comprehensive review” into gender therapy practices for children in Australia. This is a good step. Let’s pray that it is indeed a ‘comprehensive review’. I will add, that until such review is complete, all such ‘therapies’ and practices should be paused, to avoid causing further harm to countless children