Culture

Never Again

/ MurrayCampbell

The world said, ‘Never again’. Following the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were slaughtered, guilt, conviction and repentance led much of the world to exclaim, ‘Never again’. Most people believed the words, and yet today, in the year 2023, that promise is losing confidence and support.

Two weeks have passed since the terror attack on Israel killed 1400 people and left thousands injured, and more than 200 as hostages. It is not the condemnation of Hamas that surprises, but the support for Hamas that is rallying voices in cities worldwide, including Australian cities.

A friend of mine, as she tries to make sense of what is happening, made this remark, 

“Over the last week or so it’s dawned on me how much I’ve domesticated Satan in my own thinking. Yes he is the subtle tempter. But he is also the blatant protagonist of violence, clamour, hatred, cruelty & death. And he’s currently having an absolute field day. God have mercy.”

Indeed, Lord have mercy. 

What we are witnessing around the globe, from Melbourne to New York, Sydney to London, are scenes that harken back to the darkest moments in 1930s Germany. Of course, the geopolitical situation is not analogous, and yet a deep and vile hatred toward the Jews is manifesting. These are not quiet murmurs but public and vocal, and at times the anti-semistim is lauded by crowds and even by political and so called ‘erudite’ groups.

We can try and explain away some anti-semitism by suggesting it’s just the fringe. When the forecourts of the Sydney Opera House witnessed a mob shouting, ‘Gas the Jews’, and when young Jewish men were threatened on the streets of Melbourne with ‘I’ll kill you’, our minds calculated that these are the words of the tiny few.

The world has seen footage of children in American schools chanting, ‘“From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”, a saying that means eradicating Jewish people from the land of Israel. 

Bari Weiss’ office was defaced over the weekend with ‘F#ck the Jews’. 

There is story after story.

Lest we think that the awful language is limited to a few thugs, there are politicians and academic institutions supporting Hamas against Israel. Many Universities and Colleges in the United States have produced statements in support of the Gaza ‘uprising’ and condemning Israel. 

Harvard University, for instance,  is considered one of the world’s leading institutions of education. Yesterday, the halls of Harvard were filled with students supporting Palestine against Israel. This followed a letter that was signed by 30 student groups at Harvard blaming Israel for the atrocities on October 7. They didn’t even wait for the dead to be counted before asserting,

We “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence”.

So, Hamas terrorists are not responsible for raping, kidnapping, and murdering innocent civilians but somehow they are justified or simply victims being swept up in a moral fight against their oppressors? Apparently, a few of these student groups have since rescinded their support of their letter, saying that they hadn’t read the letter carefully. 

Sydney’s Town Hall plays to all manner of social causes and lights up to display solidarity, and yet the Mayor of Sydney has blocked the attempt to show the blue and white of Israel. These are not examples of antisemitism, but this is not a time to play the argument of moral equivalence and to sidestep what took place in Israel. But to make clear, ‘never again’.

It isn’t helpful to exaggerate how wide or deep the anti-Jewish sentiment runs through our cities, for large portions of our populations see how vile such dehumanising is. It is becoming clear, however, that antisemitism exists and it is perhaps more commonplace than we realised, and it is event present in our elitist institutions with noise and clanging. We didn’t believe it. Perhaps we still refused to accept it. But for all our sophistry and hubristic self-belief, we are not immune from profound ugliness and distaste.

Contrary to the wistless historical positivism about history’s arc turning toward justice, the 20th century blew that idea out of the water.* The early decades of the 21st century have further reinforced that the saying is vapour. History is more like a Wagnerian cycle; prolonged agony with an audience gasping for resolution amidst near-eternal dissonance. Yes, we see progress and good in many spheres and yet none removes that basic instinct to sin.

My friend is right to attribute the evil of recent weeks to Satan. Satan is a cunning foe, and he is also a powerful ally in the ambition of hatred and death. It is not as though people are helpless victims in his hands, but rather he exploits our pre-existing heart condition. Lurking in all our hearts is far more sin than we are prepared to admit. It was Jesus who made the diagnosis, 

“For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

That is what we are seeing spillover around the world. Deep-seated views and convictions are sensing opportunity to come out and be expressed. Anti-semitism is but one example of many blots on the human heart, but it is a fearful one.

I still cannot fathom how a Melbourne Anglican Minister went on Twitter (X) in support of Hamas’ violent and bloody attack on Israelis. It is beyond belief. 

Never again.

It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of the unfolding situation in Israel and Gaza. It is impossible to fathom the anxiety and fear overwhelming people in Israel and Gaza. National leaders and diplomats are pressing to control the situation and to find ways to release the pressure valve while at the same time acknowledging Israel’s right to destroy Hamas. For 3,000 years, Jerusalem has magnetised world history, and it remains so today. What happens in Israel doesn’t remain in Israel. We live in a global community, and when a stone is thrown in one part of the world, the ripples spread wide.

Surely we are gripped with sadness, grief and diminishing trust in man’s ability to overcome.

Never again. 

Among the stories that gripped attention for more than a week is the speed to doubt and disbelieve. As reports were given to journalists and to the public of atrocities in Israeli homes, towns, and fields, many said, no. This isn’t true. We don’t believe you. Show us the bodies. Yesterday Israeli Defence Force representatives invited journalists into a room and played video footage of the dead. Films taken by Hamas show their members torturing, killing, burning and yes even beheading Israelis. The media are now reporting what ears refused to believe but eyes have now seen and witnessed now through flood of tears. 

Andrew Neil retells, 

“Journalists in tears as IDF shows them body cam footage of massacres by Hamas terrorists on Oct 7 with civilians and soldiers being shot, stabbed, tortured and burned merely because they were Jewish.

Their corpses were bound, gagged and riddled with bullet holes and knife wounds. 

In one clip, a Hamas terrorist throws a grenade at a father and his son. The blast kills the father, while the young boy is covered in his blood. The child is dragged inside and forced to sit next to his brother, whose eye is a bloody mess after being subjected to horrific torture. One of the boys sobs: ‘Why am I alive?’

Other footage shows IDF soldiers beheaded with their headless corpses left splayed in the streets, while a contingent of female soldiers were injured by a grenade then shot at point blank range. 

A Hamas gunman brags on the the phone to his parents about ‘killing 10 Jews’. He is using phone of a Jewish woman who has just been murdered and boasts that he ‘is a hero’ after killing Israelis with his ‘own hands’.”

Never again? 

Unlike the waves of self-appointed Middle Eastern experts offering their opinions, I am not an expert. It does not, however, require a PhD in political science to understand that Hamas’ attack on Israel was evil and that Israel has the right to defend herself and her people and to agree that Hamas must never again have the ability to repeat these atrocities.

We can also and ought to affirm the protection of civilians across borders and people groups, regardless of their religion and ethnicity. How damnable are Hamas for preventing their own people from fleeing south. That Israel’s Defence Force gives prior warning and urge people to move away from targets, is demonstrably more than what a nation at war would normally do.

We pray and call for the protection of innocent Palestinians and Israelis. Speak up and stand against anti-semitism. We pray for justice. We pray for peace. Surely, we can give up our godless pretensions and take God at his word, 

The Lord is angry with all nations;

    his wrath is on all their armies.

He will totally destroy  them,

    he will give them over to slaughter.

Their slain will be thrown out,

    their dead bodies will stink;

    the mountains will be soaked with their blood.

All the stars in the sky will be dissolved

    and the heavens rolled up like a scroll;

all the starry host will fall

    like withered leaves from the vine,

    like shriveled figs from the fig tree. (Isaiah 34)

Never again.

As it happens, I don’t believe that the modern state of Israel is the fulfilment of Biblical promise. I think that view misses the point about how the person of Jesus Christ fulfils all of God’s ancient promises. And yet one cannot ignore the Apostles’ teaching in the New Testament about how God loves Israel (the people); therefore we must also.  This is a part of the Bible that Christians have sometimes ignored or abused. Sadly, the history of Christianity in Europe is marked by chapters of persecuting Jews. There are also positive moments, whether Oliver Cromwell welcoming Jews to return to England or the posture of preachers like Charles Spurgeon who insisted, ‘a Christian must be the last person who ought ever to speak disrespectfully or unkindly to the Jews’.

Never again.

Political and military courses have a place and imperative. However, the ultimate answer to justice and mercy, peace and reconciliation is the Christ whom we in the West are trying to remove from the story. Indeed, the world has tried that approach before. The world once famously rejected the Messiah. They arrested him under false pretences. They accused him of all manner of wrongdoing. The soldiers then had him tortured and forced him to carry the implement of his own execution. They crucified him, hands and feet until dead. And yet as Peter explained to the crowd in Jerusalem at Pentecost,  it is through that very cross God was winning redemption for us. To confirm this ultimate victory, God raised Jesus from the dead. 

Many of us remain sceptical today and others quietly go about thinking, maybe. In Gaza today and scattered around Israel too, are small groups of Christians, believing the world’s only hope is this Jesus.

In my previous and initial reflections on what happened on October 7th, I quoted an Old Testament Bible passage, and I do so again, because of how fitting it is. These words were written by a Jewish man who rested his hope on the promise of God. As he spoke of looming disaster and chaos and suffering, because of sin, Isaiah also gave words of comfort and hope. How the world today needs this kind of concrete hope.

“Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—

2

The people walking in darkness
    have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
    a light has dawned.

3 

You have enlarged the nation
    and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
    as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
    when dividing the plunder.

4 

For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
    you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
    the bar across their shoulders,
    the rod of their oppressor.

5

Every warrior’s boot used in battle
    and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
    will be fuel for the fire.

6 

For to us a child is born,
    to us a son is given,
    and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

7 

Of the greatness of his government and peace
    there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
    and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
    with justice and righteousness
    from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
    will accomplish this.

A friend pointed out the origins of the ‘arc of history’ quote, which is from Martin Luther King and posits a faith in God who will make all things news. This differs from how the phrase is commonly used today, unfortunately

World Cup players explain how gender difference is harming players

/ MurrayCampbell

Melbourne came alive 2 nights ago as the Matilda’s turned around their World Cup by defeating Canada 4-0 in their final group stage match). As exciting as it is to see Australia progressing and finding form, there was another different story making news this afternoon from the Soccer World Cup. 

The Herald Sun is reporting that a significant number of professional women’s soccer players have missed the World Cup due to knee injuries or have sustained injuries during the early parts of the competition. It is not just the numbers that are concerning but the fact that the numbers reflect a failure to recognise the difference between men and women athletes.

The paper quotes this interesting observation from England’s Captain Leah Williamson. She says, 

“There’s so many things (different between men and women). Our hips are aligned slightly differently, hormones and stress all contribute.”

In one sense, Williamson hasn’t said anything outrageous or controversial, but in another way, she has just kicked a goal against a big social heresy: she’s admitted that men and women are not identical. Contrary, to the mass verbiage that seeks to downplay and even deny difference, sometimes reality spills out and scores on the counterattack. 

We are conditioned to believe there are no differences between men and women. Men and women are identical and even interchangeable. Try suggesting at work that that’s not the case and see how long it is before the HR Department invites you in for a special meeting. If there is ever any difference that can be admitted, it’s that Ken is bad and Barbie is good.

Built into many of these conversations is a flawed premise. These days ‘difference’ has become a trigger word, a slur implying inferiority or lesser status.  Of course, that’s not the case. Genesis, for example, declares an inherent goodness in the distinction between male and female, and together they share the imago dei. Different bodies and different hormones and psychological differences in no way indicate degrees of worth, but rather, a beautiful complementarity (yes, I did use that word!). 

A sense of equality between men and women doesn’t derive from chasing the evolutionary wheel of the strongest and fittest, or from the imaginings of Greek myths, but in those ancient words which Jesus upheld and which remain powerful today,  informing and providing Divine meaning for men and women alike,

“So God created mankind in his own image,

    in the image of God he created them;

    male and female he created them.”

The Herald Sun story goes on to point out,

“The little research there is suggests that female players are at least three times more likely to do an ACL than men.

Williamson wants to see an immediate improvement for how young female talent is prepared before professional to ensure their bodies are not shocked by dramatic changes in training regimens.

“The women’s game, my generation; one day we’re a kid playing football and the next we’re a professional,” she said.

“We got form training a few times a week to training every day, playing Champions League, World Cups, European Cups etc.

“Until it changes to be more like the boys where they’re literally bred for it from day one of being signed at six years old, this will happen more.

“We’re not ready for that. There’s so much now that we need to make more focused to women or this will happen over and over again. Our bodies are completely different, the studies around professional sports women are few and far between.”

None of this comes as a surprise to me, having 3 children who have played a lot of sports over the years, including a daughter. I hope Football Associations and medicos take note of these players pleas. But I suspect like a harmonic clash, we’ll keep preaching one message and practicing another.

It is possible that we overplay differences between men and women (let’s be honest, this can sometimes leads to harmful outcomes), but as these professional footballers are informing us, rejecting difference also produces injurious outcomes.

There is something good and vital about valuing the substantive overlap between men and women, and there is something good about respecting and honouring where difference exists. Instead of playing foosball with sex and gender, in the real world biology does matter and does shape our physical and psychological activities. 

As women and men take note of important differences, there will be frustration. Sometimes it’s because there is lurking misogyny. Sometimes it’s moral or intellectual laziness. The cause is just as likely to be something else: We live in a highly defensive culture. Our sexular age doesn’t score many goals but its fervour for defending dangerous tackles and throwing out creational rules is second to none. You can receive a yellow card for admitting any gender difference, and be disqualified from the tournament altogether. The problem is, who suffers? Women do.

It may not be today, and probably not tomorrow, but a time will come when we can say without hesitation, embarrassment or  fear of repercussion, 

“There’s so many things (different between men and women”…so praise God for we are wonderfully made.

Listen to Jesus and not the Archbishop of York

/ MurrayCampbell

While England’s cricket team is battling it out against the Aussies in Yorkshire, the Archbishop of York has picked a fight with God. Stephen Cottrell yesterday addressed the General Synod of the Church of England, arguing that praying to God as ‘our Father’ is problematic. 

Understand, unlike the Aussies who play cricket within the rules of the game, Cottrell thought it smart to break the rules of both the Bible and society. As Cottrell would surely know, refusing to use someone’s preferred gender pronouns is paramount to heresy in today’s Western culture. More than that, God gets to choose how he is addressed, and yet the Archbishop of a church has announced that he is stepping outside the crease and he is proud of it. 

“For if this God to whom we pray is ‘Father’ – and, yes, I know the word ‘father’ is problematic for those whose experience of earthly fathers has been destructive and abusive, and for all of us have laboured rather too much from an oppressively, patriarchal grip on life – then those of us who say this prayer together, whether we like it or not, whether we acknowledge it or not, even if we determinedly face away from each other, only turning round in order to put a knife in the back of the person standing behind us, are sisters and brothers, family members, the household of God.”

image from Archbishop of York’s website

Yes, Stephen Cottrell hasn’t downright rejected Jesus’ call for us to address God as Father; doing so is a step too far for a Church of England Archbishop…for now. Nonetheless, the Archbishop has denigrated the idea of praying ‘our father’ and maligned Jesus in the process.

The Archbishop of York offers 2 reasons why we may (or should) be reluctant to ascribe God as Father. First,  he says that some people have terrible fathers. This is sadly true. It is also the experience of many that they have had cruel, abusive, or difficult mothers. As we minister to people we certainly don’t wish to ignore the fact that in our congregation and in the wider community, many people have been mistreated by their Dad. God as Father is unlike them. He is perfect in love and trustworthiness and care and goodness and strength. Praying to ‘our father’ isn’t problematic, it is the ultimate resolution to every need and hint of longing for a good father. 

Cottrell’s second objection is more concerning. He asserts that father language smacks of patriarchy. Is the Archbishop implying that Jesus lacks pastoral awareness and that Jesus was complicit in advocating a system of injustice? Patriarchy has become shorthand for sexism, misogyny, inequality, and abuse. In drawing such a close connection between Jesus’ words and patriarchy, the Archbishop comes perilously close to calling Jesus a blasphemer. On this, he doesn’t quite step outside his crease, but he is tempting both keeper and umpire. How far can he go and what can he get away with?

Of course, it was not uncommon for the religious leaders of the day to call Jesus a blasphemer, especially as Jesus identified God as Father and he as God’s Son. On one occasion, Jesus called out his opponents, 

“what about the one whom the Father set apart as his very own and sent into the world? Why then do you accuse me of blasphemy because I said, ‘I am God’s Son’?  Do not believe me unless I do the works of my Father.” (John 10:36-37)

Jesus wouldn’t be defined by the theological position of Jerusalem’s religious mafia, including their progressive teaching on sexuality. Let’s remember, the Pharisees justified their own sexual inclinations by trying to rewrite the Scriptures whereas Jesus reaffirmed the goodness of God’s design and pattern that is laid out in Genesis chapters 1 and 2.

That’s the thing, when you play with the Bible’s teaching on sexuality and gender, you end up fiddling with the doctrine of God.  Stephen Cottrell is among the majority of English bishops who supports the introduction of prayers of blessing for same-sex couples. 

A distortion in our anthropology naturally leads to ripping apart the doctrine of God. In recent times Australian politicians have employed a vague and boundary-less concept of a loving God to justify all manner of gender and sexual proclivities. It is one thing for political representatives to fudge God, but it is quite another for a church leader to mislead the people of God. 

The pressures to give in to current waves of sexual and gender attitudes is tremendous and standing on Scripture can cost you friends, family and work. The Church should be the one sanctuary where believing God and trusting Jesus isn’t debated and where you’re not called names for sticking with the Bible. Sadly, not so in many cathedral walls and brick parishes. 

It shouldn’t surprise us to see ministers who reject Jesus’ teaching on marriage, also cast doubt on what Jesus teaches us about God.

If we think that our understanding of humanity doesn’t interfere with our understanding of God then either, we haven’t been paying attention to ecclesial debates or we’ve convinced ourselves that these matters are not so important.

In order to sustain the view that God is pleased with same-sex marriage and that any gender distinction is arbitrary and even immoral, pastors, and theologians, eventually know that they have to deal with the question of God’s self-revelation. Of course, there is nothing new in Cottrell’s comments. These have been circulating around liberal theological circles for decades, like the boos from a drunken crowd at the Ashes. There is nothing original in his remarks, but they reinforce the perilous state of the Church of England. 

The Triune God is revealed to us in the words of Scripture as Father and Son and Holy Spirit. While there are a few examples in the Bible where a feminine simile is used to describe God and by God,  there are no feminine metaphors or names used, whereas masculine ones are found frequently.

The Holy Spirit is spoken as he, ““When the Advocate comes, whom I will send to you from the Father—the Spirit of truth who goes out from the Father—he will testify about me.” (John 15:26)

The Son of God is the son and not the daughter, and the Son incarnate became a man, not a woman.

God the Father is the Father.

On the question of similes and metaphors, it’s important to observe a linguistic distinction. For example, someone says to me, ‘Murray you’re as slow as a snail.’ Such a statement is not intending to convey something ontologically true about me, as though I am a snail, but that my walking habits remind them of this slumberous creature. However, God’s self-disclosure as the Father and as the Son is making a statement of ontological reality. That is not to say that God is male or female. God is neither man nor woman (although the Son became a man and is to this very day, fully man and fully God), for sex and gender are tied to biology. God is Spirit and does not have a body. And yet, God reveals himself in his word with gendered language and attributes. 

None of this denigrates femaleness in any sense. Both male and female share the imago dei, indeed, Genesis seems to say that it is in the male and female distinction that we together are made in the image of God. As the Bible’s storyline develops, familial language is used by God to describe himself and his love for his people.  For just as a son and daughter are equally loved by their earthly father and have equal dignity and worth, so boys and girls and men and women are loved by our heavenly father. 

The Archbishop went on to talk about unity and mission, as does every denominational leader who is trying to keep the sinking ship afloat with one hand while drilling a hole with the other. Gospel unity and Gospel mission are sublime, vital, life-giving and God-glorifying realities. But redefine sin and you’ve redefined the atonement and you’ve removed the message of God’s mission. Redefine God and you’ve created a new religion and walked away from the Spirit-given unity as the body of Christ. 

Don’t take the Archbishop of York at his word. Listen instead to Jesus. God defines God. Jesus reveals God. Jesus invites us to know God as ‘our Father’. There is beauty and joy and confidence in such prayer, not a problem. 

Praying, ‘our father’ isn’t problematic, it is the greatest joy. To ascribe God as ‘our father’ is to hallow his name. It is to be secure in his love and care.

Adoption is the greatest of all Christian gifts given to us through the Lord Jesus. The privileges of being sons and daughters and knowing God as our ‘Father’ is the height of the Christian experience. 

“For those who are led by the Spirit of God are the children of God. The Spirit you received does not make you slaves, so that you live in fear again; rather, the Spirit you received brought about your adoption to sonship. And by him we cry, “Abba, Father.” (Romans 8:14-15)

The Bible is dangerous and more

/ MurrayCampbell

A school district in Utah has banned the Bible. This isn’t exactly a big news story for Australia, nor the United States for the matter, and yet the New York Times is reporting it. Even The Age has published a piece via AP. Perhaps a Fairfax Editor thought the story warrants sharing here in Australia. Or maybe, if the suspicious part of me speaks for a moment, the aim is to work up a little outrage in Australia and motivate a Bible ban in our schools. 

When I initially came across the story I didn’t think much, but now that it’s considered newsworthy for an Australian audience, let me explain why I think the ban is ridiculous and yet, let’s admit that the Bible is a dangerous book.

Yes, the Bible is dangerous. The words of the Bible are not designed to merely inform or tell a story, they are written to transform those who read, and yes, even to change the world. 

The Bible is honest about its aims. It doesn’t seek to hide or manipulate the author’s intention. For instance, the book of Hebrews explains, 

“For the word of God is alive and active. Sharper than any double-edged sword, it penetrates even to dividing soul and spirit, joints and marrow; it judges the thoughts and attitudes of the heart. Nothing in all creation is hidden from God’s sight. Everything is uncovered and laid bare before the eyes of him to whom we must give account.” (Hebrews 4:12-13)

The Bible is many things. The Bible is history, law, and poetry, it is prophecy and preaching. The Bible is also a story; from Genesis to Revelation the Bible tells the greatest story the world has ever known. The Bible is a human document and it is a Divine word. The Bible can be studied and analysed, and it can be admired and sung, it can confuse and anger, it can nourish and give life and joy.

Photo by Brett Jordan on Pexels.com

The Bible is confronting. Let’s not pretend that the words and message aren’t provocative and uncomfortable. These Scriptures challenge the status quo and confront assumptions and life commitments. The Bible exposes our deepest inclinations and desires. The pages have the ability to stimulate thought, stretch the intellect and breathe life into the soul.

The Bible is without doubt the most influential writing in all history, and the most vital. Civilisations have risen and fallen on account of these words: the notions of equality between men and women find their origins in the Bible. The concept of ultimate justice and that this justice is good and fair, believing in a distinction between church and state, the idea of emancipation, and even ‘secular’ all find their roots in the Bible.

The Bible doesn’t mimic any given culture but has the remarkable ability to speak into every time and place. Just as the ministry of Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah, and Daniel each confronted the cultural and spiritual norms of their society, it is also the case with the ministry of Jesus and the Apostles, and this remains so today.

The Bible is confronting because it is real to life. The Bible doesn’t provide us with religious escapism. We are confronted with the reality of evil, and the truth of human sinfulness, and the nature of a God who judges. There is of course an irony at work here: School libraries are filled with stories about sex and violence and racism and bigotry. I’m still shocked by some of the books my children have studied in English classes. The messaging and moods of some English texts is confronting and sometimes disconcerting. It’s not just the English novel, but I remember the non fiction books that I would pick up in the school library with images of warfare or social unrest. Think of the horrifying images of the holocaust or the Vietnam war. And let’s not forget the internet and how (at least in the State of Victoria) school kids are given access to ‘educational’ websites that contain pornography and all manner of harmful ideas.

The Bible doesn’t sugarcoat the human condition, as we might find in many a classroom psychology book (and even some churches!) The Bible is real and raw, and that is a good thing. The Bible healthily counters the ‘she’ll be right’ mentality and the ‘you be you’ sloganeering that dominates today. We need a story that is honest enough to explain that there is a major problem in this world and we can’t fix it, and suggesting so does little more than play into the hands of the very narrative that is diminishing lives and relationships and even the environment.

While the current story is coming out of Utah, this board decision isn’t completely unheard of in Australia. For example, the Victorian Government squeezed out Bible lessons from school classrooms several years ago. More recently, if specific Bible teachings are presented to individual persons (about sexuality and gender), you can fall foul of the law and face criminal charges with 10 years imprisonment. 

The Bible does more than confront and challenge. The Scriptures have a remarkable ability to comfort and bring peace and healing. The Bible is God’s word of love to a messed up and sinful world. The words are written so that our conscience might be aroused and restored, and convinced that God is both right and good, holy and merciful. We won’t understand the great bits of the Bible without reading the hard bits. At the heart of the Bible is a message of reconciliation. God is, as Jesus wonderfully explains in the parable of the prodigal son, the Father who longs for the wayward to come back to him. The Bible is a word of reconciliation. 

“All this is from God, who reconciled us to himself through Christ and gave us the ministry of reconciliation: 19 that God was reconciling the world to himself in Christ, not counting people’s sins against them. And he has committed to us the message of reconciliation. 20 We are therefore Christ’s ambassadors, as though God were making his appeal through us. We implore you on Christ’s behalf: Be reconciled to God.” (2 Corinthians 5:18-20).

By removing the Bible we may live off its memory for a little while. The fact is, the air we breathe is filled with Bible truths:

‘love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you’.

“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”

“Give back to Caesar what is Caesar’s and to God what is God’s”

“Blessed are the meek,

    for they will inherit the earth”

Banning the Bible will hardly protect the younger generation. All this does is breeds a temporary dishonesty about where our greatest ideas and values come from. The longer we cut off the oxygen supply, the faster we will lose the very key ingredients required for living and civil society. 

The banning of books is as old as literature. Hate is a strong motivator, as is fear. To be honest, there are plenty of books that I believe are dangerous, and I’m happy to warn people about their messages. There is a vast difference though between informing people about a book’s content and removing those same volumes from libraries and blowing their ashes into the wind. 

In 2018, the Chinese Government began work on a new version of the Bible, to ensure that the Bible affirms ‘socialism’ and doesn’t contain ideas that might subvert the Government. One can imagine how distorted the Holy Scriptures will become once this atheistic, militant, and totalitarian, regime has finished their rewriting project. In many regions of China, it is already difficult to own and read a Bible, let alone teach this book in a semi-public setting. Preaching ‘Jesus is Lord’ is likely to end in arrest and possible imprisonment.  

As one Chinese Pastor shared,

“without the permission of the authorities, you can’t organize a Bible study. And if you do get permission, you’d better hold it in a Party-approved religious venue, at a Party-approved time, with a Party-approved leader and using the new Party-approved Bible, which contains quotations from Confucius and, of course, Xi Jinping.”

Not even Christians are permitted to change the words of Scripture, let alone a Government or school board that wishes to change and control its message.

“For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished.” (Matthew 5:18)

“All people are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field; the grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of the Lord endures forever.”  (1 Peter 1:24-25)

Banning the Bible, or any part of it, is absurd. Its literary contribution is without parallel, and its historical import is paramount. The Bible isn’t just a book from yesterday, it is for today: the Bible’s power to persuade and present a reality greater than ourselves and yet including the self, is stunning and one worth our younger generation reading for themselves.

No doubt there will be a spectrum of reactions to the Utah school story. There will be people who strongly support the prohibition and hope that the ban will spread further. There will be some Christians and some libertarians who will go into full-on meltdown. I suspect many more, both Christians and non Christians alike, will view the school’s decision as overreach and a pretty juvenile response to the uncomfortable words of Scripture. 

Yes, the Bible is dangerous,  confronting and challenging. That’s pretty amazing, for who wants to believe in a God who does no more than parrot back our own thoughts back to us?  If we want our children to better understand the world and to find answers to the greatest questions, surely it makes sense to let them read the text that has achieved such great good. As Jesus says, 

“Very truly I tell you, whoever hears my word and believes him who sent me has eternal life and will not be judged but has crossed over from death to life.”

For the sake of the children, we must offer a better way

/ MurrayCampbell

The forecast for Victoria is a wintry cold and damp. There will be moments of sunshine and blue skies, but thunder is already rumbling in the distance, preempting a storm of gigantic proportions. 

Living in Melbourne, predicting the weather each day is near impossible, let alone knowing what it’ll be like from one hour to the next. But the spiritual climate of the once ‘Garden State’  is in perilous shape. There is a storm approaching and I’m unsure if Victoria is prepared. 

Australian media are beginning to wake up to the fact that not all is well on the gender front. Something dangerous is taking place inside medical clinics and school classrooms, such that insurers and courts are now being warned to take stock and reconsider their policies and approaches. 

While the issue of gender dysphoria is nationwide, in 2021 Victoria introduced the world’s strictest and harshest laws against persons who fail to support gender transitioning. For example, parents must affirm their children who are questioning their gender and proceed with a gender transitioning plan. Failing to do so can see the parents charged with abuse. Also, if an individual struggling with their sexual orientation or gender identity asks for prayer, the person praying will have broken the law and can face a term in prison. If a Christian shares the Christian view on human sexuality with an individual, they can face criminal charges. On top of all this, the Andrews Government has recently reaffirmed its commitment to expand anti-discrimination laws in order to stamp out speech that doesn’t fit ‘accepted’ views on sexuality and gender. As one member of Victoria’s Legislative Council recently pondered, will it become illegal to state there are only two genders?

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

Activists, HR Departments, and politicians have successfully stifled debate on this vital area of concern. Anyone who dares raise their hand to ask a question, let alone, offer a differing perspective, is quickly shouted down with an endless line of derogatory name calling. Let’s be honest though, there is some hateful speech. There are some truly awful words said by persons across the political spectrum and we don’t want to encourage or support those. But signalling concern over current gender thinking isn’t inherently hateful, and suggesting so is intellectually dishonest and morally lazy.  

Professor Patrick Parkinson is among the growing number of voices who are trying to bring common sense to the discussion. One need not agree with everything he says, but he is rightly pointing out that we need a better way to discuss what is happening to our young people. He writes, 

“The transgender movement has been based on one truth and a thousand lies.” 

“the notion that there are not just two sexes, or that it is actually possible to change sex or be “non-binary”, or the idea that every child has an innate gender identity that awaits discovery. Most people know these things to be nonsense, but in polite society we have been asked to pretend otherwise….activists aren’t able to agree on whether gender identity is fixed and innate, fluid or socially constructed. Fashionable ideas about sex and gender do not matter too much if no harm is done, but the medicalisation of vulnerable children and adolescents, with lifelong adverse consequences, deserves the most careful scrutiny”

Children who are wrestling with their identity and struggling to reconcile feelings with their physical bodies deserve our compassion and care. The speed at which young children are now encouraged to question and reject their gender is scary. In some circles, this is believed to be morally good. I think of one young woman who is socially ostracised because she isn’t experimenting with gender fluidity. To be heterosexual is thought of as repressive and uninteresting. More than that, once a child suggests discomfort, the social and legal funnel leads children down a path to hormonal treatments and eventual surgical removal of breasts and penises; this needs to be challenged.

The issue doesn’t end with gender; I am hearing stories of transpecism among children, where children no longer identify as human, but as cats and dogs and even trees. Most of these children may not be taking it overly seriously but in the pursuit of self actualisation, more glass ceilings need smashing. The current framework surrounding gender will struggle to attend to these children because if our truest self is what we feel inside, how can we deny their chosen reality? 

This year’s Australian of the Year is Taryn Brumfitt, a woman who is fighting to help children accept their bodies.  Brumfiit is highlighting a massive societal issue where children’s mental state is conflicting with their physical bodies.

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

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

Australia has an uncomfortable relationship with the human body. There exists a sizeable disjunction between the message Brumfitt is advocating and what is now mainstream thinking about the human body. 

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

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

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

The result is that a significant percentage of 18-24s (some studies suggest it’s as high as 30%) no longer believe they are heterosexual (embodied beings attracted to the opposite sex), but rather they are spread across an imprecise and growing spectrum of self-defining and often bodily denying sexuality and gender. 

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

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

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

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

Psalm 139 exclaims, 

“For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you

    when I was made in the secret place,

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

Your eyes saw my unformed body;

    all the days ordained for me were written in your book

    before one of them came to be.”

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

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

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

My encouragement to those in the halls of power in Victoria, is this, for the sake of the children, pause the aggressive divorce that is being forced between mental health and physical appearance. Even now,  some of these kids and their parents are realising that while they were promised much they have been betrayed in the most egregious way. It is no wonder that insurance companies and legal minds are ducking for cover as the storm clouds approach. But is there the political humility and moral will to admit wrongdoing and change course? 

Part of this article is originally published earlier this year, ‘why Australia has a body image issue”

The true significance of King Charles’ Coronation

/ MurrayCampbell

Westminster Abbey is England’s storyteller, and indeed, perhaps that of 1000 years of Western Civilisation. The stone floors and walls, her columns and stained glass windows are filled with the memory of the world’s timeline since that of Edward the Confessor. Every corner of the naive from floor to wall, is covered in the markers, statues and tombs of Britain’s greatest. There are Kings and Queens, soldiers and poets, scientists and Prime Ministers honoured and remembered.

The Abbey is an extraordinary place to visit, especially when the crowds are absent. I recall one evening I was there to attend a concert. Afterwards, people left hurriedly while I gave myself a few moments to look up and gaze upon this giant memorial to the past. I found myself able to then walk down the Abbey without people brushing passed and interrupting the silence with nagging little chatter. There is something weird and wonderful about walking on stone and marble where Edwards and Elizabeths, Richards and Henrys once trode.

The coronation of a British monarch isn’t an everyday event. It has been 70 years since the last British monarch received the sceptre and crown at Westminster Abbey. The coronation of a King may no longer carry the political and cultural weight of centuries past, but the event remains to impress, inspire and unify.  

There is a tinge of sadness tied to today’s coronation, for the new King reminds us of the death of the great woman, Queen Elizabeth II. Her death may well turn out to mark the end of an era; not only the divorce with the 20th Century and the end of the Empire (with all the ills and goods associated), but also the age of Western Christianity. 

There is something awe-inspiring about pomp and circumstance. No doubt, there are republicans and complainers across Australia, and even inside the United Kingdom criticising the pageantry and tradition that will fill the coronation service of King Charles III. 

While changes have been made to reflect multi-faith realities of 21st-century Britain, the service remains deeply Christian. For example, the coronation service takes place in a Christian Abbey, the very same place where English Kings and Queens have been crowned for nearly 1000 years. The Scripture readings and the prayers and the oaths are Christian in words and meaning. While there are some theological question marks over connections made between an English monarch and that of Kings David and Solomon, there is a right link established between God, the Lord Jesus Christ, and the rule of the new monarch. The King serves under God and serves the people under his watch.

There is something weirdly wonderful about this ceremony: from the music and liturgy to the symbols of State and the oaths, and the seriousness and awe that will envelop each moment. This service pushes our hearts and spirit beyond the ceiling and sky and makes us ponder heavenly realities. 

In a rush to eradicate the centuries of police and traditions, we can lose something that is important for the present and our future selves. The paucity of the materialist frame is exposed and filled with the light of prayers and defining words of God and accountability to the One who rules from heaven.

“Therefore, you kings, be wise;

    be warned, you rulers of the earth.

11 

Serve the Lord with fear

    and celebrate his rule with trembling.

12 

Kiss his son, or he will be angry

    and your way will lead to your destruction,

for his wrath can flare up in a moment.

    Blessed are all who take refuge in him.” (Psalm 2:10-12)

I remember Stephen Mcalpine writing a piece some years ago, explaining why millennials are turning to more traditional forms of Christian worship. In the race to be contemporary and relevant, we too readily disconnect ourselves from the past and become the boat that’s lost its mooring. We need to place our souls and something in a schema that is bigger than just me.

Nick Cave is one of a few select Australians invited to attend the coronation. When news broke that Cave had accepted the invitation, some of his fans were bewildered and annoyed. They couldn’t understand why this super cool non-conforming rock star would attend what is about as traditional and conservative an event that will probably take place this year. 

Nick Cave responded in an open letter, 

This “will more than likely be the most important historical event in the UK of our age. Not just the most important, but the strangest, the weirdest”

I hold an inexplicable emotional attachment to the Royals – the strangeness of them, the deeply eccentric nature of the whole affair that so perfectly reflects the unique weirdness of Britain itself. I’m just drawn to that kind of thing – the bizarre, the uncanny, the stupefyingly spectacular, the awe-inspiring.

And as for what the young Nick Cave would have thought – well, the young Nick Cave was, in all due respect to the young Nick Cave, young, and like many young people, mostly demented, so I’m a little cautious around using him as a benchmark for what I should or should not do. He was cute though, I’ll give him that. Deranged, but cute.

So, with all that in mind, I am looking forward to going the Coronation. I think I’ll wear a suit.

Love, Nick

The true weirdness isn’t in the crowning of a man named Charles, but in the words of the Bible about The representative man to whom all Kings and Queens and people owe their allegiance. Strangeness meets realness in the man who was crucified and raised from the dead.

The true significance of King Charles’ coronation may well be found elsewhere, in Africa. In what is even more strange (in an amazing way) are the events that took place in Kigali Rwanda, only 3 weeks ago. The meeting place may have lacked the splendour of Westminster Abbey, and there were few monarchs, presidents and celebrities in attendance. However, that meeting will do more to reach the heavens and the earth, than the enthronement of King Charles III. While world media ignored this meeting of global Anglicans, with time I suspect it will have greater influence in the shaping of things to come. 1400 Anglican leaders, representing around 85% of worldwide Anglicans, declared that the Archbishop of Canterbury had lost his spiritual authority over the church. Indeed, all 4 instruments of communion were declared broken.

It is difficult to think of another event in the past 500 years that carries such importance in the Anglican Communion as the recent GAFCON meeting.

William Taylor of St Helen’s Bishopsgate (London) said, 

“Canterbury has walked away”

Rico Tice from All Souls Langham Place stated, 

“We really are serious…we are serious because this is a first-order salvation issue”.

During the ceremony, the King will be asked this question by the Archbishop of Canterbury, 

“the Church established by law, whose settlement you will swear to

maintain, is committed to the true profession of the Gospel, and, in so

doing, will seek to foster an environment in which people of all faiths and

beliefs may live freely. The Coronation Oath has stood for centuries and is

enshrined in law.

Are you willing to take the Oath?”

The King:

“I am willing.” 

His Majesty will take an oath to a church, that while is established in law, has divorced herself from the true profession of the Gospel on account of her bishops and their wayward teaching. Sadly, the Church of England has abandoned the faith once for all delivered, and the vast majority of global Anglicans no longer see themselves in communion with Canterbury.

But why mention such a contentious issue on a day like this? First of all, this is truly historic. Second, we are witnessing a shift of in the world but we mustn’t conflate the failure of Westminster with the demise of Christianity.  I suggested last year that with the death of Queen Elizabeth, we are perhaps marking the end of an era in the beginning of something new. With her passing, we are probably witnessing the closure of the 20th century and British imperialism (with all the bad and good that came). More so, Her Majesty’s death may serve as a bookmark, signalling the shift from West to the 2/3s World, and with this, a work of the Holy Spirit that sees Christ’s Church ground firmly in the soils of Africa and grassland and jungles of East Asia. 

The coronation of King Charles III will pound with echoes of eternal truths, but living faith in the living Christ is more likely found in unlikely places: in Kigali and Lagos, in house churches across China and Iran, and in the favelas of Brazil. And yes, even in the ordinary suburbs of Melbourne, Australia. To break the materialist glass ceiling and grasp. To find mystery and awe that meets real life, visit a local church and hear the greatest story.

Peter Hollingworth keeps his ‘holy orders’ and victims are understandably angered

/ MurrayCampbell

I have to confess, I was shocked to read that Peter Hollingworth has kept his holy orders. I was also surprised to learn that he hadn’t been removed from ministry years ago. 

Peter Hollingworth served as the Anglican Archbishop of Brisbane from 1989-2001 when he was appointed the Governor General of Australia. He was also made the Australia of the Year in 1995. Two years into his role as the Queen’s representative in Australia, Hollingworth resigned due to serious allegations made against him for covering up pedophile priests. Calls for Peter Hollingworth to be stripped of his ‘holy orders’ led to an inquiry which has this week determined that he is fit for ministry. While the Professional Standards Board of the Anglican Church recognised Peter Hollingworth’s failures and has limited the type of ministry he can now engage in, he will remain a priest of the Anglican Church and able to conduct weddings, funerals and baptisms. 

Our society often gets it wrong when it comes to evaluating churches and church leaders, but sometimes they are right. And it’s frustrating when churches cannot even meet that low standard. The standard for churches is not the same as society at large. It is far higher, or at least it ought to be. 

I want to be clear and make the important distinction between the bar for someone becoming a Christian and the bar for those wanting to serve as Christian pastors. The bar for becoming a Christian is in one sense, very low: the Son of God died for sinners. Repentance is necessary and trust in Christ, but God justifies and forgives on account of the perfect sacrifice of Jesus, not by any resume or sense of holiness that we might attribute to ourselves. That’s good news because I’m not redeemed by religiosity or spiritual intensity, but simply by saying yes to the one crucified and raised from the dead. By definition Churches are not made up of the self-righteous but those who realise we are not. But of course, that kind of life-saving work turns life around and begins to change affections, attitudes, and actions.

However, for those who desire to serve as ministers, the bar is set high. Take a look at this one example passage from the New Testament, 

“Here is a trustworthy saying: Whoever aspires to be an overseer desires a noble task. 2 Now the overseer is to be above reproach, faithful to his wife, temperate, self-controlled, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not given to drunkenness, not violent but gentle, not quarrelsome, not a lover of money. 4 He must manage his own family well and see that his children obey him, and he must do so in a manner worthy of full respect. 5 (If anyone does not know how to manage his own family, how can he take care of God’s church?) 6 He must not be a recent convert, or he may become conceited and fall under the same judgment as the devil. 7 He must also have a good reputation with outsiders, so that he will not fall into disgrace and into the devil’s trap.”

The role and responsibilities attached to being a shepherd of Christ’s church are so important that the qualifications are set high. Hence, I appreciate why many people are not only scratching their heads this morning, but are feeling sick at hearing the news that the Anglican Church believes Peter Hollingworth is fit for duty.

The Professional Standards Board of the Anglican Church is perhaps privy to information that the public is not. Although, Peter Hollingworth has admitted fault. I acknowledge that I am not across this story as fully as others, but the optics look bad. More than public perception, there is a serious question here about doing what is right in the eyes of God and for the sake of victims of horrendous evil. 

It shouldn’t surprise us to see that where denominations or dioceses play loose with the Bible’s teaching on sexuality and where orthodoxy is treated as optional, morality and godliness is also found wanting. Where doctrine falls it only takes a few steps for godliness to fail. Indeed, it often works the other way around; we change our doctrine to fit our desired morality.  Of course, there are other reasons for excusing or covering up child sexual abuse: complicity, fear,  power, and an array of unbecoming qualities for any who has the responsibility to care for Christ’s Church.

I think it is also the case that even 20 years ago,  we were unaware of the extent to which such evil was taking place in some ecclesial quarters. Churches and Christian denominations have certainly upped their game in recent years.  There are healthy and rigorous processes in place, not only for those seeking ordained ministry but in order to keep their qualifications. That is a good thing. But that’s what makes this decision so baffling and understandably survivors of sexual abuse are angered, confused and losing even the tenuous hopes they had in churches doing the right now. 

If you are baffled by the decision made by the Professional Standards Board of the Anglican Church, so am I. At the very least, greater clarity needs to be provided as to why Peter Hollingworth is fit to keep his ‘holy orders. In the meantime, I grieve the repeated failures of our churches. I know most are unlike the villains portrayed in the media, but can we blame our secular friends for finding it difficult to see the difference?

These words from the book of Ezekiel are formidable. The religious leaders in Ezekiel’s day weren’t taking the responsibilities seriously, both in terms of what they taught and how they lived. God gave a damming assessment, and it’s one that perhaps ecclesiastical leaders need to once again read and tremble before, 

“Son of man, prophesy against the shepherds of Israel; prophesy and say to them: ‘This is what the Sovereign Lord says: Woe to you shepherds of Israel who only take care of yourselves! Should not shepherds take care of the flock? 3 You eat the curds, clothe yourselves with the wool and slaughter the choice animals, but you do not take care of the flock. 4 You have not strengthened the weak or healed the sick or bound up the injured. You have not brought back the strays or searched for the lost. You have ruled them harshly and brutally. 5 So they were scattered because there was no shepherd, and when they were scattered they became food for all the wild animals. 6 My sheep wandered over all the mountains and on every high hill. They were scattered over the whole earth, and no one searched or looked for them.”

Thank God He provides a Shepherd who never fails or falls short, the Good Shepherd, 

“This is what the Sovereign Lord says: I am against the shepherds and will hold them accountable for my flock. I will remove them from tending the flock so that the shepherds can no longer feed themselves. I will rescue my flock from their mouths, and it will no longer be food for them.

11 “‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness.” 

QandA Episode raises questions about religion in Australia

/ MurrayCampbell

Last night’s episode of QandA on the ABC featured a discussion about God in Australian life, culture and politics. Questions and conversations were wide ranging, and like in the real world, God’s talk wasn’t far away, although I suspect Easter had something to do with it. 

The program conducted an online poll, asking, ‘Should politicians still say the Lord’s Prayer at the start of each sitting day?’

Of course, conducting a poll on ABC today is like surveying AFL supporters and asking whether they prefer to watch AFL or lawn bowls?

The surprise wasn’t the 83.5% who said no to the Lord’s Prayer but the 13.6% who said yes. By the way,   if you’re interested to read what is a typical Christian view on this topic, take a look at this article. You may find the answer surprising.

Conversations among the guests were cordial and void of the spite that is sometimes present.  It’s not as though they were unified in political or religious agreement, but the Anglican Archbishop, Muslim Labor Senator, the Indigenous Academic, the young liberal, and the British journalist, went about it with a tone of respect and humility.

The online world is of course a different place. It’s like navigating the Australian bush,  with sharp teeth and claws ready to devour any dislikable opinion. Throughout the show, tweets were displayed on our television screens, selected by the producers. These pithy opinions played out a regular pattern: religion should stay out of politics, Churches should stay silent on the Voice to Parliament, and others citing with certainty what Jesus would do today! In contrast, panellist Anne Pattel-Gray and an Indigenous woman from the audience both called on Churches to be more proactive in speaking about the proposed Constitutional changes.

I want to address one question in particular which became the focus of the final minutes of the program.

The question came from audience member, Oliver Damian. He asked,

“According to the 2021 Australian census, those declaring that they have “no religion”, the nones, increased to almost 40 per cent second only to Christianity. David Foster Wallace said “There is no such thing as not worshipping. Everybody worships. The only choice we get is what to worship.” Do you think these “nones” really ditched religion or have they just shifted to worshipping things that are much worse? And what does this mean for the soul of our nation?”

Andrew Neil answered, “Of course. Reality television, worshipping themselves, validating things they believe in…”

People took offence at Neil’s suggestion and defended their non-religiosity. 

I threw my hat in the ring and tweeted this,

“There are no religious free people. We are worshippers at our core”.

People were similarly offended. But should the nones take offence? It’s worthwhile exploring this phenomenon and further explaining the thesis that everyone worships.

First, we can’t escape religion.

Andrew O Neil observed on QandA how Christianity is declining in Western nations, including France and his own United Kingdom. Australia can be added to that list. While we can’t deny the trend, there are also counter trends. For example, the number of practising Christians living in London is increasing, and the number of evangelical Christians in France is also growing, with around 745,000 adherent today in contrast to around 50,000 in 1950. Then, of course, Christianity is growing at phenomenal rates in many other parts of the world today. What we view as dangerous, millions of people in Africa, Asia, and South America are discovering is good news. 

Australia’s nones may claim neutrality as though there exists a pure secularist mindset freed from any religious entanglements. Such a posture is framed by self-righteousness and it’s one that is already beginning to fray and lose its shape. 

We can’t escape religion. Built from a narrow bend in the Enlightenment road, we Westerners love to mock belief in God. Our hubris convinces us that the world no longer needs notions of heavenly realities and life to come. This world is all there is and there is no overarching design or purpose beyond that which we determine for ourselves.

The British historian, Tom Holland has demonstrated in his book Dominion that our culture is not the only indebted to Christianity, but Christian ideas remain t deeply embedded in our subconsciousness, such that they continue to direct and influence our moral categories and judgements today.

“If secular humanism derives not from reason or from science, but from the distinctive course of Christianity’s evolution—a course that, in the opinion of growing numbers in Europe and America, has left God dead—then how are its values anything more than the shadow of a corpse? What are the foundations of its morality, if not a myth?” 

In cities like Melbourne, we are creating drought like conditions for the garden. That is, we are trying hard to remove theological language and spiritual concepts from the public space, but killing off every blade of grass and every root is harder than we might imagine.

As the book of Ecclesiastes puts it, 

“God has also set eternity in the human heart; yet no one can fathom what God has done from beginning to end.” 

We are wired to believe in God. Searching for meaning and hope beyond blood and brain, and behind the molecular and physics is instinctive. 

While the amassing nones like to claim autonomy, and a sense of epistemic and moral maturity, in blowing off God, they are, in fact, still relying upon posits or values instilled in us via the Christian God. Hence what we have today is not less worship, but rather a distorted worship.

Indeed, to rid ourselves of Christianity is to uproot basic societal goods such as notions of equality, forgiveness, and tolerance. All these things and more find their origins in the God of the Bible.  That is not to say that the atheist doesn’t have a moral framework, of course, she does. But these ethics have a Christian vein running through them and even when they don’t,  they are ethics created in opposition to the Christian God. 

Second, everyone worships.

Everyone worships. Worship does not necessitate a higher being or god of some description. Worship isn’t limited to temples, churches, prayers and choral music. Worship is about giving oneself to a person, object or idea. Worship means giving credence to and sacrificing for the cause that your heart most desires.

The Bible itself doesn’t reduce worship to acts of prayer and song that are contained within a religious ceremony and building. While there is a particular emphasis on communal worship (whether it is at the Temple or church), the language of worship extends to all of life. For example, Romans 12:1

“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”.

As both the law and Jesus teach, 

‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your strength and with all your mind’; and, ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’” (Luke 10:27)

Not only is worship an all-of-life attitude, but it is also often centring on areas of life that might surprise. Timothy  Keller has made this powerful and somewhat disturbing observation about American politics in recent years,

 “They have put the kind of hope in their political leaders and policies that once was reserved for God and the work of the gospel. When their political leaders are out of power, they experience a death “

As philosopher Dr Christopher Watkin notes in his best selling book, ‘Biblical Critical Theory (an idol is a Bible way of describing substitutes for God), 

“Any idol engenders this sort of dogmatic totalitarianism because it becomes, within creation, the ulti-mate measure of what is good, drawing a line down the middle of the created order and classifying some of its objects, impulses, and values as unmitigatedly good and others as unrelentingly evil. This is the lot of those who “have sup- posed that the Final Good and Evil are to be found in this life” and so “with wondrous vanity . . . have wished to be happy here and now, and to achieve bless- edness by their own efforts.”

The only way to escape this totalitarianism is to have an object of worship that is outside the created order. Any idol on the creature side of the creator- creature distinction will lead to a situation in which some thing or things in the world are pursued in an unqualified and undiscerning way, and other things (whatever gets in the way of or stands opposed to the chosen idol) will be denounced or loathed in a similarly dogmatic way” 

The convinced naturalist or materialist isn’t without gods and idols, they simply take on a different form. Dr Watkin again, 

“These idols have their own cultic rituals, argues Richard Bauckham, namely the advertising that mediates to us their values and desires. Adverts are not sell- ing objects; they are selling us ourselves, repackaged and dependent on the aura of this or that product to graft onto us a borrowed identity”.

Worship is an act and attitude of thankfulness, adoration, and love. It’s something we all do from the Internet to work, from the shopping centre and to the church. The only question is, who or what are we worshipping? Who or what are we giving our lives to?

Indeed, the ancient gods of Molech and Artemis may have changed their names, but their insatiable desires remain with us. We label them with sociological terms such as self determination and expressive individualism. 

The worship of gods can be oppressive and problematic. The worship of self is arduous, stifling, and egocentric, for it means that everyone else and everything exists to serve me. We can’t deny the fact that religion is responsible for all kinds of heinous activities throughout history, both as a distortion of religions and sometimes as a result of faithful adherence to religious beliefs.  It is also the case that our godless counterparts have been proud participants in what is called sin and evil.

Australia may be trying to move away from Christianity, but we can’t easily distance ourselves from the cross: that symbol of Divine love, justice and mercy. We do, after all, acknowledge Good Friday as a national public holiday. 

For all our advancements and developments, we haven’t found a substitute for the cross of Jesus Christ, and neither do we need one. If Jesus should die for my sins and then defeat death on the third day with his resurrection, surely that should at least cause us to consider, does my religion or lack thereof, offering this kind of freedom and new life?

An evening with Dr Christopher Watkin

/ MurrayCampbell

Mentone Baptist Church recently organised a special event for our local community with Dr Christopher Watkin.

Knowing ourselves is one of the great questions. 

Christopher Watkin is an Associate Professor of European Languages (French) at Monash University, Melbourne. His books include Difficult Atheism (2011), French Philosophy Today (2016) and Biblical Critical Theory (2022).

Chris is emerging as an important intellectual figure in Australia today and he has a rare gift for explaining profundity and complexity with great clarity. Even more than his academic contributions, I value his epistemic humility and the gracious way he interacts with other people and ideas, and his servant’s heart.

His latest book, Biblical Critical Theory, has been likened to a 21st-century version of Augustine’s City of God. If you are able to find and purchase a copy, it is indeed well worth one’s time.

Both Chris’ presentation and QandA are recorded in the video below. Enjoy.

Email admin@mentonebaptist.com.au if you are interested to learn more about the subject matter raised in this presentation.

Melbourne is filled with rage and it should grieve us

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Sex really is binary”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalms 15 says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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