I love the footy. AFL is part of Melbourne’s DNA, and it’s one of our most successful exports to the rest of the country. But I don’t love AFL that much that I want to sell my soul. Our streets are awash with domestic abuse, where women (and children) live in fear and where indescribable things take place. As a society, we are meant to be learning and improving, even with the likes of Andrew Tate and Doug Wilson espousing their grotesque language and imagery. And then the AFL announces with pride,
‘I know what we need: let’s display our sport to the world and entertain the masses with a man who raps about demeaning women.’
Last month, the Carlton Football Club wore orange on their match-day jumper to promote gender equality and the prevention of violence against women. Well done, Navy Blues, our season may be a failure but this one was a win. Two weeks later, AFL CEO Andrew Dillon announced that Snoop Dogg would headline the AFL Grand Final entertainment.
How does the AFL square their stance on violence against women while inviting Snoop ‘let me find another vile word to say about women’ Dogg, to be the headline act on Grand Final day?
Bewildering is one word. If the rapper has genuinely repented and changed his life around, that’s one thing. We should and do believe in forgiveness. However, Snoop Dogg is on the record saying that while his attitudes towards women have changed, he doesn’t regret the songs he once wrote (and which continue to be played millions of times every month).
Calvin Cordozar Broadus Jr. is one of the biggest names in the music industry, and the sporting world seems to love him, from the Super Bowl to the Olympics, and to the world of Menulog!
He certainly has charisma and a thing for wearing sunglasses, but I doubt these are the reasons why the AFL is paying Snoop Dogg a truckload of cash to perform at this year’s Grand Final.
The dude is a singing misogynist, with lyrics so explicit in their sexism and degradation of women, if the AFL paid me what their paying the Dogg, I still wouldn’t share the words here. Those who know his songs know exactly what I mean, and those who don’t are better off. The issues don’t end with his songs, but with a litany of allegations and cases that have been brought against Snoop Dogg since the mid-1990s.
What kind of artist could we promote for families on Grand Final Day? What kind of music will help younger men think well of women? What kinds of songs tell us better stories? Is there no one available in our big big world who can sing, dance and perform? Even silent Snoopy the Dog would be a better choice.
Andrew Dillon, we’re not pooping on the party; we just don’t need Snoop Dogg, or a 100 other hip hop gold wearing, pyjama wearing artists who make Pablo Picasso look like a PG rated artist.
This is yet another example of our sex confused culture. It’s kiss cam all over again, with Coldplay singing, ‘I used to rule the world’. Condemn the CEO…but love is love…The poor wife…but he’s embracing his inner self…such betrayal….but this is a consensual relationship…
We don’t want to give up on the sex hype and yet it is leaving behind a very long trial of harm.
By the way, if you’re wondering how men should relate to women, it wouldn’t hurt to pay more attention to the old book. The old book isn’t so old. Its relevance is just what we need in our age of utter confusion about gender, sex and relationships. Take ,for instance, this advice that the Apostle Paul gave to a young bloke named Timothy, “Treat younger men as brothers, older women as mothers, and younger women as sisters, with absolute purity.”
Or these age words written to a man named Titus,
“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.”
I guess it’s not sexy enough, not enough risk and hormones letting fly.
Or take the story from the book of Judges, when Israel responded to the horrific incident of a woman being raped and murdered: they went to war against the offending tribe.
Will wise heads prevail? Will the allure of profit win the day? Or will we pay and praise a misognist in front of our daughters, mums and wives?
The reporter’s focus is on US Defence Secretary Peter Hegseth and his association with CREC (a new church association in the United States headed up by Doug Wilson). If it were not for Mr Hegseth reposting a video on X about Doug Wilson, Wilson and his Moscow movement might have remained in the cold, as far as Australian media is concerned.
The word is now out, and no doubt a large number of Australians are scratching their heads and wondering, what on earth is going on here? Is Doug Wilson a legit Christian voice? Do his views reflect what Australian Churches are teaching and practising?
Let me bring assurance and a note of caution. First up, no, Melbourne isn’t Moscow, but like a cold Russian winter, the chill can cross borders.
Doug Wilson and Christian Nationalism are not anonymous in the Aussie Christian scene. Thankfully, they are only a tiny voice, and yet it is more prominent than it was 5 years ago. There are now conferences and websites and some churches that regularly appeal to Wilson and Moscow, and invite speakers from their broad tribe to Australia.
As a quick aside, the Doug Wilson who was preaching and teaching some useful and valuable ideas a decade ago is quite different from the problematic man and his movement today. Whether he always held the positions he is now propagating and kept them quiet, or whether he’s shifted over the decade, I don’t know which is the case. Either way, the Moscow vibe, as I call it (Wilson lives in Moscow, Idaho) brings a chill that we do not need in our churches or country.
The presenting story that led to the AP piece is a view promoted by Wilson’s church, whereby women should lose the right to vote. I wasn’t shocked to read this, as it fits into their view of men and family life. In the last week, I have also heard the scenario where some (a tiny, tiny number) of Christians now advocate that women should not have voting privileges in a church! The idea is preposterous as it conflicts with one of the Bible’s wonderful teachings: the priesthood of all believers, and therefore the value of all members of the church and their contributions. And what of single women? In the world of Moscow, single women are frowned upon and offered and often derided. More of this in a moment.
It doesn’t need saying (although perhaps it does) that Christianity never fits neatly into any culture; for the Christian message is transcultural. This is one of the stunning truths of Christianity, that whether Korean or Ugandan or Bolivian, the Bible and the Christ of Scripture cross time and place and ethnicity. Part of that means, though, that there will always be some element of pushback, disagreement, and confusion as to how people understand and respond to Christianity. After all, if Christianity was nothing more than a mirror to Australia 2025, there would be little incentive and reason for anyone to become a follower of Jesus Christ and join a local church. And yet, not every idea preached by every religious leader is an accurate reflection of the Christian Gospel, and hence, when the unbelieving public are perplexed by and even finds a view repellent, they are right to do so.
There are evangelical leaders in the United States expressing concern over the normalisation of ‘Christian nationalism’ in some circles. Similarly, in Australia, there are voices raising concerns about Doug Wilson and his Moscow crowd.
Stephen McAlpine and myself are among a number of Australian pastors who have been sending up flares to warn Aussie Christians about the rise of Christian Nationalism. Again, while their influence is small, the Moscow flu is catching on in some more conservative churches in Australia, and it’s an ailment that inevitably makes people sick. Symptoms include public rage, thinking ‘normal’ evangelical churches and leaders have lost the gospel, one-sided politically, anti-authority, and demeaning toward various minority groups.
Let me observe 2 examples here, one in relation to how women are viewed and one that articulates concerns about Christian Nationalism.
Christian Nationalists love to talk tough love. Their men are vocal and grow long beards and know how to skin a beaver with their bare hands. These blokey males also have a way of using their strength to demean women.
A few years ago, Sydney theologian, Dani Treweek challenged Doug Wilson and another American pastor, Michael Foster, for how they speak about single women in churches.
Treweek said,
“Wilson and Foster embark on a shared lament about the impending crisis facing churches whose pews are soon to be filled with lonely, unlikeable, tubby spinsters who have nothing in their lives and so spend their days endlessly seeking the benevolent attention of their ever-patient but extremely busy and very important senior pastor.”
She sums up Foster and Wilson’s views on single women as:
the reason women are single is because “Baby […] You can do better than this. You’re not likeable” or because they are too “tubby” to be considered of marital value to the men around them (at least the ones they haven’t driven into the arms of Islam);
single women are derogatorily dismissed as a “bunch of old spinsters”
anyone not married by the time they are 40 are issued the dire warning that they ‘will be lonely’
elderly widowed women are depicted as a tiresome burden upon the senior pastor’s time and energy
the only valuable and valid expression of love in action is if it is directed towards someone’s own offspring and then their offspring
single women are the harbingers of “chaos”
unmarried women don’t “have anything” in their lives”
With the surprise of an AFL team beating the local u12 boys team, they responded with a tirade of personal attacks on Dani Treweek’s singleness and theological credentials!.
Then there is this issue with ‘Christian Nationalism’, which readers of The Age may be wondering about. At this point, allow me to repeat a few paragraphs from an article I wrote on the subject in 2023, following up a series of pieces written by Stephen McAlpine as he reviewed Stephen Wolfe’s ‘The Case For Christian Nationalism’. McAlpine eventually gave up reading Wolfe after several bouts of diarrhoea!
“The tectonic plates of belief and hope are moving and causing major disruptions to every sphere of life. One of the answers being proposed by Christians (in some circles) is one gaining some traction in some areas of American and European Christianity, and it’s finding its way onto Australian shores as well: Christian Nationalism.
It’s not as though Christian Nationalism is brand new; iterations have existed at different points in history, often with long-term disappointment, bloodshed, and Gospel compromise.
I understand why Christians across the United States are concerned and even angry at some of the values and views that have captured hearts. I appreciate why Aussie believers are troubled by various moral agendas that have been normalised in our political and educational institutions. However, frustration and concern with politicians and the political process is not a reason for reactionary theology and poor exegesis.
We don’t fix one problem by adding another one; that way, we end up with a bigger mess!
Christian Nationalism ends up making the State into the church and the church into a political party and turning the Gospel of grace into a weapon to beat down political opponents. Instead of being God’s message of reconciliation, it distorts the gospel into a message of social conservatism and one that sees political progressivism as the great Satan. Social and moral conservatism can be as dangerous to spiritual health in its intentions to create new forms of legalism and allegiances.
I’m not saying that Christians in Australia walk away from the public square and sit tight on uncomfortable pews behind stained glass windows. It’s not that Christians shouldn’t participate in the political process. It’s not that we should ignore social issues and cultural debates. Such things are part of common grace and ways we can love our neighbours. Christianity influencing the public square isn’t Christian Nationalism, it is a wonderful byproduct of the goodness and sensibility of Christianity.”
Australia is one of numerous countries where governments are getting bigger, and the people are looking increasingly to government to be the saviour of all their issues and hopes and fears. This has the unfortunate effect of giving more authority and responsibility to the State and, negatively, it diminishes the role of the community to take responsibility. That critique aside, in the eyes of Scripture, the State is not the main game, but it is the church. In this sense, Christian Nationalism makes a similar error to other heresies, like the prosperity gospel and social justice gospel. They all aim at changing society (and controlling society) through policy and behaviour.
The problem with that mindset is that it contradicts the nature of the Gospel and the purpose of the church (aka Ephesians ch.2). The halls of Parliament and legislative offices are not the places where God is working out his redemptive plans. It is in the church and by the Gospel of Christ that God is achieving his purposes.
Christian Nationalists may well identify some sins of America (or Australia), and yet the answer according to Scripture isn’t to make America great again or Australia, but to present the Gospel of Christ and make disciples of all nations. Christianity is international and multi ethnic, and any attempt to contract the gospel to a particular nation-state is enormously problematic.
Make Christianity weird again, not make Christianity skewed again! The message of Jesus Christ has this remarkable ability to weave and connect through every fabric of society. Christianity eventually revolutionised how the Roman Empire viewed women, babies, slaves, and more. Our modern equality sensibilities didn’t arrive by chance, but through Christianity. And yet it wasn’t through some militant takeover bid fueled with rage and demeaning the downtrodden, but with sacrifice and through persuasion, and the God of grace bringing forgiveness and newness of life.
If there is a ‘sin of empathy’ (yes, Moscow is also responsible for the ‘sin of empathy’ vibe), it is to show empathy with this movement blowing its cold weather in a westerly direction over the Pacific Ocean. My advice, avoid it like the plague. Instead, be captured by the Apostle Paul’s vision for the Christian Church in Ephesus. In that ancient metropolis of commercial and religious influence, Paul reminds the local church of God’s message of peace and being God’s people of peace. I’m convinced, we (churches) will do well to keep working hard at this:
He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.
19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit. (Ephesians 2:17-22)
Mike Bird has written a series of helpful articles about Christian Nationalism, including reviewing Wiliam Wolfe’s book, ‘The Case for Christian Nationalism
Melbourne and footy are synonymous, so it’s only fitting to dedicate a whole episode to footy and faith! Geelong AFL player, Ollie Dempsey, has recently shared his story about faith and footy. He is one of many professional athletes in Australia who believe in and follow Jesus. Maybe it sounds strange, but why are more young people investigating Jesus? His story might serve as a quiet encouragement to many young people
I really enjoyed reading two recent interviews with Ollie Dempsey. His openness about the challenges of believing in Jesus is normal to the Christian experience and an encouragement.
You can watch my latest episode in ‘Tomorrow’s Melbourne’ below on youtube or on your preferred podcast platform.
As Zoomers try out church, many are looking toward older and more traditional churches. What is behind the growing interest in liturgical and classical churches? What are some helpful tips for choosing an authentic and legitimate church? In this episode, I explore 2 ways to assess the ‘real thing’: learning history and going back to first principles, namely the Bible.
The ABC recently held a poll to discover the top 100 piano works. Thousands of music lovers, listeners, the bourgeois of Launceston, voted to see their most loved piano tunes strikes a chord near the top of the repertoire. I didn’t participate in voting but as someone who spent much of life with my fingers exercising on the keys, I took a tiny interest.
The ABC’s ‘Countdown’ list included many wonderful works for the piano, as well as the rather dull and uninspired, and then there’s piano music written for the movies! Like all pianists, I’m confident that my preferences are the genuine article and other opinions can swim around in the murky pond of lesser opinions! (this is also known as musician’s hubris!). So to redeem the piano from the Hungry Jacks of music, I’ve decided to put together the definitive list of the 10 greatest compositions for solo piano and the 10 finest piano concerti. Chamber works written for piano are a third category and one is left for another time.
Where there’s an *, it indicates that I’ve played or performed the work (or at least part of what belongs to a book or suite).
10 Greatest Works for Solo Piano
Well Tempered Clavier – J.S Bach*
Without Das wohltemperierte Klavier there would be no piano music, no Mozart or Chopin. Both books are the ultimate keyboard music, from which all the great composers look bad for education and inspiration.
2. Ballades – Chopin*
The high point of 19th Century Romanticism. Listen to Philippe Entremont’s recording; possibly my favourite music recording.
3. Piano Sonata No.29, ‘Hammerklavier’ – Beethoven.
The ultimate sonata. Turmoil on the keys!
4. Piano Sonata No. 8 in A minor, K. 310 – Mozart.
The sound of Mozart is pure and perfect.
5. Preludes – Debussy*
The soundtrack of nature with all its aromas and visuals played out on the piano
6. Goldberg Variations – J.S Bach
Simplicity and complexity weaved into perfect harmony
7. Etudes – Chopin*
Ferocious, brilliant, and sonorous
8. Sonata no.14 in C# Minor (“Moonlight”) – Beethoven *
A predictable choice but there is something about the opening movement
9. Années de pèlerinage II (Italie) S. 161: V Sonnette 104 del Petrarch – Liszt
Sparkling virtuosity
10 Preludes – Rachmaninoff *
The anti-revolutionary Russian longing for home (excluding Op23. No 5 which my teacher at the Con rightly thinks is pompous)
10 Greatest Piano Concertos
Piano Concerto no.3 in D minor, Op. 30 – Rachmaninoff
This is the ultimate pianist’s challenge.
2. Piano Concerto no.2 in C Minor, Opus 18 – Rachmaninoff
3. Piano Concerto no.20 in D Minor, KV 466 – Mozart
4. Piano Concerto No. 2 in F major, Op. 102 – Shostakovich
5. Piano Concerto no.5 Op.73 – Beethoven
it may not be the King of Concertos but it is the Emperor!
6. Piano Concerto no.3 in C major, Op. 26 – Prokofiev
A Kaleidoscope
7. Rhapsody on a Theme of Paganini, Op.43 – Rachmaninoff
Technically not a concerto, but who cares!
8. The Piano Concerto No. 1 in B♭ minor, Op. 23 – Tchaikovsky
Glorious opening minutes which become somewhat convoluted and meandering, but you never forget the power of those first pages. I remember being 4 or 5 and stopping a game of backyard cricket because the Tchaikovsky came on the radio.
9. Piano Concerto no.1 in Eb Major – Liszt
10. Piano Concerto no.1 in E Minor – Chopin
The lyricism outweighs Chopin’s inability to write orchestral parts!
There is an astonishing offering of piano music on these two lists. But perhaps I should confess, the definitive list doesn’t exist, not even for me. How does one choose between Bach, Mozart and Debussy? How is compiling a list even possible? They each bring genius of sound and thought to the mightiest of instruments. Nonetheless, on this wintery Melbourne day, this is my offering, and I suspect there would little change on a different day. The Mozart Sonata might change to another, and another 20th Century Concerto might squeeze out Liszt’s, but that’s about it.
If you’re keen to get a taste of the piano, these are my recommendations. Enjoy!
A Melbourne influencer has created a public controversy this week following her announcement on Instagram that she spent $45,000 on gender selection treatment in the United States.
Nine News reported,
“A Melbourne influencer has publicly defended her decision to go public with her choice to fly to the US to select her baby’s sex.
Caitlyn Bailey, who has two boys and a girl, flew to the US and paid $45,000 to ensure her next pregnancy, conceived through IVF, would be another girl.
The single mum has a following of more than 60,000 users on Instagram and uses her platform to promote her lifestyle and parenting journey.
‘”I chose to share my story and my journey purely because I thought if there’s people out there that it could potentially help and not feel so alone, that’s why I shared it.’
“I didn’t share it to start online arguments or have you know troll conversations, it’s just, it makes me feel sick to my stomach to think about the negative side of things, I’m all about positivity.”’
What are we to make of this woman’s choice? If there is no moral dilemma, then why has her personal decision created such public consternation?
To say that our society is confused about the unborn is an understatement. A child in the womb at 8 weeks brings excitement and joy to one mother and despondency or disappointment to another, and a child’s life is measured by the woman’s inclination and decision. Gender selection is illegal in Australia, and yet if the mother waits a matter of weeks, the child can be aborted; delayed gender selection.
We know more about pregnancy today than ever. Through science and technology, our knowledge of little ones and from the earliest moments of life is staggering. Whether it is seeing the first heartbeat at 6 weeks or the baby moving to music at 16 weeks; the old trope that he or she is nothing more than a ‘clump of cells’ can no longer be sustained. And yet, the fight for abortion rights is as loud as it has ever been.
While our society is confused about the value of the unborn, this Melbourne influencer is at least trying to be consistent. If carrying through with a pregnancy is the woman’s choice, why is it unethical for her to have that choice taken from her so early in the process and not later on? Is there something about the gender of a child that is outside the woman’s authority? I happen to think this mother’s actions are appalling, but is she not simply following through with the logic routinely applied to how we view the unborn? Yes she is, and yet her choice sits uncomfortably; we know intuitively that choosing the gender of your child is unethical and unloving and more.
Sometimes this is known as ‘designer babies’. Let’s use the older word, eugenics. And that word should cause us to shudder. And maybe that’s one reason why the consciences of many Melbournians has been pricked by this particular news story.
One reason why gender selection is outlawed in many countries is because it would lead to the mass killing of girls. Prejudice against females is as modern an issue as it was an ancient one. Modern technology gives license to patriarchal societies to eliminate unwanted girls and to preference boys as the eldest or only child. The method may have changed, but there is little moral distinction between these practices and what the Ancient Romans did when unwanted girls were born.
One of the facts that the influencer doesn’t speak to is what happens to all the embryos that don’t fit her preferred child. The typical IVF process creates multiple embryos (it doesn’t have to be done this way), and those that are male are either discarded straight away or are frozen and probably discarded later on. It’s not just a matter of choosing the gender of your child, but letting die those with the wrong gender.
The incongruity of our view of the unborn is further displayed in that this IVF procedure is known as ‘gender selection’. But aren’t we told with absolute authority that gender is not determined by biology but is about personal preference and social conditioning? It’s interesting to see how language shifts when it suits. Of course, divorcing gender from sex is a furphy and just occasionally, like today, we are reminded that this is the case.
The larger point that this case has exposed is that the argument, ‘it’s the ‘mother’s choice’ doesn’t wash when it comes to gender selection. This point is important because we are admitting that even as an embryo this life has a dignity and value already separate to that of the mother.
There are a range of emotions and expectations surrounding pregnancy: joy and fear, love and nerves. The child however is not the sum of these emotions and expectations. Every baby is a gift, whether they are a boy or a girl. Should it so matter to parents that they can assume a right to choose or dispose of a child because of their gender? Gender selection is immoral and I’m grateful it’s illegal in Australia. This law is one of those little reminders that pierce through our incongruous age.
Every child is a little miracle and deserves every chance at life and to be loved. A parent may forget, although I suspect many do not when their conscience kicks into gear, but these little ones are not forgotten by God. They are loved and welcomed by God.
We have become rather effective at playing God with children. How different does the ancient Psalm depict the worth of the child, those who are wanted and those unwanted,
“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.” (Psalm 139:13-16)
I’m aware that any time I write about an issue such as this, there will be readers who have in the past made decisions regarding their unborn child that they know were wrong and to this day the decision haunts them. The God of the Bible shows us that he can outdo with good our worst decisions. Our wrong choices, don’t curb God’s commitment to see life win. And as the Gospel of Jesus shows us, His grace and mercy is able to forgive and heal the deepest shame and guilt. That’s the thing with our society’s doublespeak, we need to be told that we’ve done nothing wrong and yet there’s a part of us that knows otherwise.
One final word, the woman has expressed her fears of trolls. Trolling is not acceptable. Trolling masquerades as righteousness but it’s a little more a cowards way of venting and causing others to fear. It’s not the way to respond to this story or to any. Don’t be a tool. Offer a comment or critique and sign your real name to it.
Jeremy Clarkson is a funny man. At times he’s crude and sometimes refreshingly honest in a nonconformist way. His latest opinion piece forThe Timesis pitching against French restaurants ripping off tourists, ‘These scams aren’t enough if you ask me. Gullible tourists are being sold cheap wine but why stop there‘. The piece is the work of an imaginative mind and with humorous analogies and a serious point as well. As he pokes the bear on scamming and the human ability to be conned, he throws out images like this one,
‘I could substitute the steak in the pie with chlorinated bear meat from Lithuania and no one would know.’
That’s funny. And depending on where you find yourself on the epistemic spectrum, you’ll either roll with Clarkson’s final jab or take offence. Or perhaps, like myself, you find yourself in a third space, namely, that was a rather naive take, Jeremy Clarkson.
He suggests (no doubt with a drop tongue in cheek),
‘Go big. That’s my message if you are considering becoming a celebrated conman. Take a lesson from the biggest fraudster of them all: Jesus. I can walk on water. My mum was a virgin and my dad’s God. And I’m going to start an industry selling this guff that will last for 2,000 years. Top man.’
There are plenty of classic and famous examples of scamming. The problem with Clarkson’s crescendo piece is that it’s plain simple wrong. A scam is a lie designed to steal from those who are conned. Jesus didn’t take, he gave his life. Also this, the believers in Jesus Christ don’t lose, they gain; not some cheap substitute but something more valuable than any bottle of vintage French wine.
If the whole Jesus episode is a scam, it’s not a very clever one. Think about it; if you’re required to die a gruesome death in order for your scam to succeed, then you won’t get to see your success. And that makes you either really stupid or certifiable. Unless of course, you rose from the dead, in which case the entire scam theory is dismantled.
I came late to Top Gear, but I’ve now watched many episodes, and I follow The Grand Tour and will soon watch Clarkson’s latest season of his farming show; it’s all great television. My knowledge of cars could fit Inside the boot of a matchbox car, but who cares. The shows are hilarious, captivating, and often stunning viewing, and a tiny bit educational. So I’m not coming from the angle of an anti-Clarkson. As the world knows, Jeremy Clarkson loves to throw verbal hand grenades. Some ignite while others like this one are a dud.
The idea that Christians are victims of the world’s greatest con job is a little bit laughable. Christians aren’t ignoramuses. I guess maybe some are and that’s okay because God isn’t only interested in the intelligent. But you have to be an eyeless and earless underground mole to actually believe Christians are not aware of the extraordinary nature of Jesus’ claims and character. That’s the entire point of Christianity. People don’t stop storms with a word and provide 5000 instant meals, but Jesus did. Dead people stay dead, but Jesus didn’t.
There are two forms of scepticism that are prevalent today. There is an old-school type of scepticism, one which Jeremy Clarkson is repeating, and there is a newer and more formidable scepticism taking hold, especially among Gen Zers.
Old fashioned scepticism was cool and trending. The 4 horsemen of the new (now gone) atheism presented a confident and brash unbelief. Scepticism was viewed as a sign of the mature mind. The more I doubt, the smarter and wiser I am!
There is a shift taking place as to how and why scepticism continues to be a prominent theme. The old age of scepticism was about assertiveness and confidence in ourselves and our ability to know what is true. That kind of scepticism is still around (alla Jeremy Clarkson), but a new type of scepticism has emerged and it’s based on fear. We are sceptical because we are unsure who to trust. Which ideas and words are reliable?
We live in an age of misinformation and disinformation and so we often have reason to be a little suspicious (which is a point Clarkson is making). Scepticism has become a protective mechanism because it’s hard to know who to believe. A dose of scepticism can be healthy. Asking questions and investigating is sensible. However, at some point, you need to put your faith somewhere. Scepticism can’t be the default for everything in life, otherwise, we are left believing in nothing It’s like stripping a building of its bricks one brick at a time soon enough there’s no building left.
We can’t disbelieve everything, and neither is it safe or sensible to believe anything and everything. So what are we meant to do with Jesus and his claims?
I suspect that Clarkson’s objection to Jesus isn’t foremost an intellectual one, but something else, a moral or personal objection. For that’s how scepticism often works. As Aristotle famously laid out, our beliefs are formed by a combination of logos (reason), pathos (desire) and ethos (personal resonance).
To use a car illustration, on both Top Gear and The Grand Tour, Clarkson, Hammond and May presented and evaluated 100s if not 1000s of different cars and vehicles. Did they make their choices of favoured cars based on the vehicles’ engineering and performance, and understanding every bolt, shaft and drop of oil? How often were cars judged, enjoyed or derided, based on appearance and personality? And for viewers, how often were we persuaded and believe their critiques based on ethos? Eat the fool, because we rarely commit ourselves to something big simply because of the engineering.
There’s a story at the end of John’s Gospel where one of Jesus’ friends suggests that the resurrection of Jesus is a hoax. The other disciples had seen Jesus in the flesh and spoken with him, but Thomas assumed better.
Thomas explained that unless he could see Jesus in the flesh and touch where the nails were driven into the body, he wouldn’t believe that Jesus was now alive. Shock, and horror, one week later, Jesus appeared in front of Thomas and he could no longer doubt.
The issue for Thomas wasn’t primarily a scientific or intellectual one, but one of envy. Was he jealous because he was present when Jesus showed himself to his mates?
Jesus’ response to Thomas is fascinating,
“Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”
Jesus isn’t saying that facts don’t matter. Jesus isn’t saying, it doesn’t matter whether I’m alive or not. It matters because objective reality matters. It matters because if God can’t defeat death no one can. If God can’t dismantle sin and evil, then what hope have we? Rather, Jesus was outlining how people come to a true, reliable, and personal relationship with God.
Jesus doesn’t have to repeat the resurrection. It’s a one-off and one that has been clearly attested to by multiple witnesses whose lives were so transformed by this Jesus that greed turned to generosity, and hate to love and hopelessness to confident hope. Jesus was telling Thomas, believe what I’ve told you. Accept the reliable testimony of those who have the crucified one now alive. As we know from the historical record, literally 100s of people saw him in the weeks following that first Easter.
A question is, why does Jeremy Clarkson choose not to believe? I don’t know. He’s certainly an intelligent man, but perhaps he hasn’t taken the Bible texts seriously and read them with care. I don’t know.
The Australian historian, Dr John Dickson once set a challenge. He said that he’d eat a page from the Bible if someone could find a reputable ancient historian who seriously doubted the existence of Jesus Christ. To this day, no one has stepped forward.
Indeed, Professor Bart Ehrman, who is no friend of Christianity, has this to say about those who doubt the historic existence of Jesus –
“There is a lot of evidence. There is so much evidence that …this is not even an issue for scholars of antiquity. There is no one teaching in a college or university in the Western World, teaching ancient studies who holds that Jesus did not exist.”
The point is, it’s not difficult to refute Jeremy Clarkson’s quip about Jesus and scams. The evidence for Jesus’ historicity, including his death and resurrection is substantial and throwing words around like ‘scam’ is intellectually lazy. It delivers a certain punch line akin to someone drunk on too much cheap Parisian wine.
World-renowned British historian Tom Holland, in his volume Dominion, explores from the perspective of an agnostic, the way in which the message of Jesus turned the world.
“To be a Christian is to believe that God became man and suffered a death as terrible as any mortal has ever suffered. This is why the cross, that ancient implement of torture, remains what it has always been: the fitting symbol of the Christian revolution. It is the audacity of it—the audacity of finding in a twisted and defeated corpse the glory of the creator of the universe—that serves to explain, more surely than anything else, the sheer strangeness of Christianity, and of the civilization to which it gave birth. Today, the power of this strangeness remains as alive as it has ever been. It is manifest in the great surge of conversions that has swept Africa and Asia over the past century; in the conviction of millions upon millions that the breath of the Spirit, like a living fire, still blows upon the world; and, in Europe and North America, in the assumptions of many more millions who would never think to describe themselves as Christian. All are heirs to the same revolution: a revolution that has, at its molten heart, the image of a god dead on a cross.”
Something happened in those years around Galilee and Judea, such that we measure history and hope according to the Galilean.
The Bible authors are so confident that the Apostle Paul wrote to an entire church, if you doubt the resurrection, go and talk to the eyewitnesses. And this,
“if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men. But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead.”
Is Jesus the biggest scam of all? If so, it is certainly an audacious one and I’ve been sucked in.
The best way to find out is to read the accounts for yourself. If Jesus is the great fraudster, then either he didn’t think through his plan of being crucified very well… or perhaps his foresight is somewhat better than ours. Wherever you land, this one thing is certain, if God exists and his Son died for the sin of the world and then rose from the dead, this suggestion is too big to ignore.
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:
Don’t be afraid
Be like Jesus
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.
MurrayCampbell.net 