ethics

England’s Ban should lead to rethink in Australia

/ MurrayCampbell

As an Aussie, I’m bound to knock and mock the English, but just occasionally we should pay attention. During the same week as England banned puberty blockers on minors, the NSW Government introduced legislation to ban ‘conversion practices’. The irony isn’t lost.

England’s National Health Service (NHS) has banned prescribing puberty blockers for children and teenagers. A report states, 

“We have concluded that there is not enough evidence to support the safety or clinical effectiveness of [puberty blockers] to make the treatment routinely available at this time.” 

This report came about a pressure mounts from past patients at the Tavistock Clinic. Most notable is the High Court Case of Bell vs Tavistock.

In 2020, Keira Bell won a landmark High Court ruling against Tavistock and Portman NHS Trust, for its dangerous treatment of children who have gender dysphoria. Ms Bell was prescribed puberty blockers at age 16. As an adult Ms Bell sued Tavistock, alleging that young people do not have sufficient awareness to make an informed decision to undergo invasive treatments that will have long-term effects on their physical and mental state. Three judges ruled in her favour

Notice the clear language quoted by the The Times,

“under-18s in gender clinics need “far better mental health services to help them to reconcile themselves to their (sex) — not life-changing physical interventions that might alleviate short-term distress at the price of long-term trauma”.

Tavistock Clinic has since been shut down, and this week the NHS announced that such treatment for children suffering from gender dysphoria is banned. England is following other European countries who’ve recognised the same dangers. This is but the latest red flag signalling a fundamental problem with the way our society views gender and sex and the way we care for the vulnerable. 

Evidence is mounting; the real and dangerous conversion therapy involves pumping children with hormones and chemicals that stall or prevent puberty, alter the physical appearance, that may bring about infertility and often lead to the surgical removal of healthy body parts.  While England and Europe begin to move away from these experimental treatments, Australia is doubling down. 

Enter NSW.  The NSW Government this week released its conversion therapy Bill. The NSW proposal is not as extreme as the Victorian Laws that were introduced in 2021, but they prove that there is both political pressure and capital by submitting to groups of gender theory activists. No one disputes that among a few marginal religious groups, there were some weird and harmful practices. These practices do not have their origins in the Bible but were influenced by secular education taught to psychiatry students in the 1960s. Origins aside, Victorians were led to believe that there was a major and evil problem going on in Churches around Victoria, but when reports were published and evidence presented,  it was clear that almost no one knew of let alone practised these so-called therapies. The real target was mainstream and normal religious activities such as talking and praying. 

What is going on is that the latest self-appointed preachers representing ‘expressive individualism’ have a clear agenda to destroy what it is to be male and what it is to be female, and therefore what it is to be human. Hence, in part, when the Victorian laws were being debated, groups behind the legislation and some of the most vocal proponents, targeted Christian churches, and in effect created laws to prohibit 2000 years of orthodox and classical Christian teaching and practice about gender and human sexuality.  Remember, that it is illegal in Victoria to discuss with an individual the Bible’s presentation of gender and sex, lest the individual is somewhere influenced.

Abigail Shear (who is not a Christian), has highlighted the sociological phenomenon that is fuelling the extraordinary rapid rise of gender dysphoria in Western societies. In her book, Irreversible Damage, she shows that before the 2010s, the number of people with gender dysphoria was incredibly small. The percentage amounted to roughly 0.01% and that group consisted almost entirely of boys. Today, transgenderism has become commonplace, with somewhere between 4-10% of children now identifying with the opposite gender (or identifying with one of the now 70 possible gender identities that apparently exist), and girls, in particular, are being affected by this. Shier notes,

“Between 2016 and 2017, a number of gender surgeries for natal females in the U.S. quadrupled with biological women suddenly accounting for, as we have seen, 70% of all gender surgeries. In 2018, the UK reported 4400% rise over the previous decade in teenage girls seeking gender treatment. In Canada, Sweden, Finland, and the UK, clinicians and gender therapists began reporting a sudden and dramatic shift in the demographics of those presenting with gender dysphoria from predominantly school-aged boys to predominantly adolescent girls.”

This new trend has become trendy. A uni student shared with me how they feel socially lesser and out of touch because they are not experimenting with their sexuality and identity. That is not to say gender incongruence isn’t a real and very difficult thing for some individuals, but there is more going on.

At the time of the ‘conversion practices’ debate, clinics in Melbourne saw a drastic rise in the number of children undergoing the very kinds of treatment that took place at Tavistock.  Instead of reasoned debate and reasonable laws, the Victorian Government under then Premier Daniel Andrews shouted down concerns as belonging to bigots of the worst kind,

“Cruel and bigoted practices that seek to change or suppress a person’s sexual orientation or gender identity will soon be stamped out across Victoria, thanks to new laws introduced to Parliament today.    

The Bill denounces such practices as deceptive and harmful, reinforces that the ideology behind these practices is flawed and wrong.”

Here lies a major obstacle in Australia. We are not permitted to have the necessary conversations and inquiries to examine what is going on in the clinics and what kinds of long-term impact treatments are having on our children.  Last year,  a senior staff psychiatrist was stood down in Queensland after raising concerns about ‘best practice’ for caring with gender dysphoric children. 

In Victoria, anyone challenging the new orthodoxy faces threats of re-education programs and even criminal charges. Even reluctance can be deemed ‘suppression’ and see children taken from the home. Any conversation or prayer with an individual about these issues can result in allegations and a visit to court. 

Progressive activists and politicians have effectively stifled conversation and today the law is a live weapon that’s held over anyone who dares present an alternative. Instead of caution, it’s full steam ahead in Victoria, with school programs designed to encourage children to question their bodies and doubt their biology. We’re yet not witnessing the end of this tragic chapter; in the meantime, real people and children are being used. 

What cost are we willing to pay before we end this horrific abuse of vulnerable children? There have been recent attempts made in both the Victorian and South Australian Parliaments to open an inquiry into the medical treatment of children suffering from gender incongruence; both were blocked.  Shouldn’t England’s decision at the very least validate a real and thorough investigation into the process, practices, and ethics behind what is going on?

In the meantime, The Victorian Premier has backed a public ‘performance’ coming to a Melbourne theatre where a female actor will ingest a cocktail of tranquillisers to fall unconscious and is then sexually assaulted by fellow performers, live on stage. Yes, this a criminal act, but because it’s a performance somehow it is morally acceptable.

May I suggest, that when it comes to sexual ethics, we have a problem.

It’s another reason why I am so convinced by the person and promises of Jesus. He doesn’t manipulate or abuse. He can love without affirming. He can empathise and help. He doesn’t diminish the individual, but came ’to seek and save the lost’. 

This week I have the privilege to explore these amazing words from the book of Hebrews. When we fail to understand each other whether deliberately or ignorance, even parents or friends or teachers or Governments, there is one who does get us, 

 “Therefore, since we have a great high priest who has ascended into heaven, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold firmly to the faith we profess. For we do not have a high priest who is unable to empathize with our weaknesses, but we have one who has been tempted in every way, just as we are—yet he did not sin. Let us then approach God’s throne of grace with confidence, so that we may receive mercy and find grace to help us in our time of need”. (Hebrews 4:14-16)

The NSW Parliament adopted the conversion practices legislation on March 22

12 Bible Propositions about the Ethics of War

/ MurrayCampbell

I grew up in Australia where war was either absent or seemed distant. It was too far away and had little to do with playing cricket and going to school and enjoying summer holidays in Queensland. And yet, for nearly half of my life, Australia has been involved in military missions and in war.  

The world is never far from experiencing war and armed conflict. We are however witnessing the most significant assault on global peace perhaps since the Second World War. In many parts of the world there are hotspots and threats. There are aggressive and egregious regimes built on hatred and see destabilising societies as their Divine calling. It’s not that we are without our own sins and failures; there is more than we are likely to ever admit. But some of the commentary, protests and tiktoking that derides Australia and America, is problematic. Can you believe that today young adults are reading Osama Bin Laden’s letter to America and agreeing with this now dead terrorist?

The war in Ukraine dominated the news for a year. The noise of war continues in that land but it’s now mistakenly heard as a soft murmour as the world now fixes attention on Israel and Gaza. All this demands focus while geopolitical tensions in South East Asia is like waiting for the Australian fire season following months of heat and drought.

There are lots of conversations and opinions being expressed about the nature of warfare, and when and if it is ever a moral imperative. The global scrutiny being applied to Israel’s armed response to Hamas’ terrorist attack is staggering. The volume of antisemitism is frightful and the speed at which online preachers demand the cessation of fighting displays our sheer ignorance of human nature and what evil is. At the same time, as our eyes watch on from the safety of our homes 1000kms away, we are witnessing the tragedy of war and the immense complexities associated with fighting ‘a just war’.

In 2015, the Australian Government announced that they would be stepping up their bombing offensive against ISIS in Syria. I wrote a short piece to outline 12 BIble propositions about the Ethics of war. In light of the current and terrible events we are seeing, I thought I’d republish this list. Given that this list predates the current war in the Middle East by 8 years, it may help us to consider the morality of war without the heat of the current battle.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Great tomes have been written on the subject of war. Christian theologians have offered careful and complex views on war and whether it is ever just and justifiable. The question I am seeking to address here is somewhat narrower, and that is, can Christians ever support war? Can participating in war be consistent with Christian faith?

Answering these questions is no easy task, partly because the Scriptures do not give us a definitive position, and partly because the rationale and particulars of armed conflict differ from one to the next. In addition, in every conflict, there are multifarious motives, aims, and experiences that when combined deny us the possibility of simple and obtuse theorems about war.

Historically, Christians have come to different conclusions regarding the practice of war. We cannot ignore the fact that there have been times when ‘in the name of Christ’ many anti-Christ acts have been committed. Sins of commission have stained history blood red, and perhaps so have sins of omission. Christians must not build their theology of war from either Gandhi or Napoleon, but from the belief that God is the Lord of history and that he has given a book that speaks truth and wisdom, even in the 21st Century.

In attempting to construct a theology of war there are a series of theological propositions that we shouldn’t ignore or relegate:

Continuity

1. The God of the New Testament is the God of the Old Testament. Christians are not Marcionites. God is not honoured by the fallacious suggestion that the God of the Old Testament is a different God to the New Testament, or that his character has changed, or that in the Old Testament God was wrong to make war. God’s character is eternal and unchanging.

2. God is holy and just. God’s acts of violence are described as God’s just judgements on sinners. He is a holy God who cannot tolerate sin. Should God tolerate rape? Should God tolerate people sacrificing babies to Molech? Should God tolerate the greedy stealing from the poor? God did not sanction all the violence and war that was exercised in the Old Testament, however, he did oversee and lead some war.

3. God has an understanding of justice that no person or group of people possess. He also has the ability to always do right, which no Christian can achieve.

Discontinuity

Christians cannot read the Old Testament without through the lens of the Gospel of Jesus Christ, who is the fulfilment of all the Scriptures – “Everything must be fulfilled that is written about me in the Law of Moses, the Prophets and the Psalms” (Luke 24:44).

4. The Old Testament has a geo-political centre that is removed by Jesus in the New Testament. Whereas God’s people in the Old Testament were a nation, God’s people are now from and in every nation. God’s Kingdom is of a different nature, As Jesus said to Pilate, ‘My kingdom is not of this world’.

5. God’s anger is demonstrated supremely in the cross of Jesus where Christ died to satisfy God’s righteous wrath. History has a cross dividing it, such that there is no longer any moral or theological support for Holy War this side of the cross. God’s righteousness is revealed in the Gospel of Jesus Christ and his propitious death brings peace to all who believe. This once-for-all all death has an efficacy for disarming hate, anger and greed:

“When you were dead in your sins and in the uncircumcision of your flesh, God made you alive with Christ. He forgave us all our sins, having canceled the charge of our legal indebtedness, which stood against us and condemned us; he has taken it away, nailing it to the cross. And having disarmed the powers and authorities, he made a public spectacle of them, triumphing over them by the cross.” (Colossians 2:13-15)

6. The Kingdom of God grows through the proclamation of the word of God, and not through political or military means. Christians believe in war, but it is a spiritual war, one that is engaged by putting on the armour of God (faith, righteousness, truth, etc) and by using the sword of the Spirit (the Bible) and undergirding it all with prayer. If the power of God for salvation is in the Gospel of Jesus, then it is erroneous to believe that Christianity will extend through war. Not only that, it suggests that coercion is an effective means to grow the Church, whereas the Bible speaks nothing of coercion but it does speak of persuasion through speaking truth and living out God’s love to all.

7. The Bible nowhere teaches that a Church can engage in war, and it gives us no room for supposing that armed conflict can aid Christian progress, however, it does leave room for the possibility for the State to engage in war.

The State is not the Church. In Romans ch.13 the Apostle teaches,

“Let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and you will be commended. For the one in authority is God’s servant for your good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for rulers do not bear the sword for no reason. They are God’s servants, agents of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also as a matter of conscience.”

i. Governments are not beyond the rule of God, even though they may reject his dominion.

ii. Governments have a value in and for this world, for the good of society, which includes collecting taxes to pay for civic needs and to judge and punish those who do wrong.

iii. At the very least verse 4 refers to law enforcers and the judicial system that exists within a nation, but it is likely that Paul also has in mind the exercise of military action. Even if Romans 13:4 does not speak of war and only of civic responsibilities, the point is nonetheless unavoidable, Paul affirms that there is a place for Governments to use the sword in punishing wrongdoing.

Further Principles

8. There is a difference between turning the cheek and loving our neighbour. If one saw their neighbour being attacked, it would be immoral to stand by and do nothing, and it would be right to come to their aid, to defend them and fend off the attacker. While Christians ought to pursue peace, even at great personal cost, loving our neighbour may necessitate military intervention.

9. “If it is possible, as far as it depends on you, live at peace with everyone” (Romans 13:18).

10. The Bible discounts many of the reasons that have been used in history and in contemporary global and sociopolitical scenarios for waging war: for conquest, for profit, for revenge, and for religious advantage.

11. When Christians engage in war it should not be under the banner of Church or Gospel, but as as expression of submitting to the Government and loving our neighbour.

12. People should not go against the conscience, except when their conscience violates Scripture.

Can war ever be just? Ultimately the answer to that question is no, because even on a good day people are prone to sinful desires. War is never fully just but it may be justifiable. Occasions of crisis may arise where more action is required than simply prayer and good wishes. It is a loving act to lay down one’s life for a friend, and even more so for a stranger who is being oppressed by a militaristic or terrorist regime.

Should Christians fight in war? Often the answer will be no. We ought to be reluctant. But there may be circumstances where the Government decides to go to war, and should the reasons be congruent with a Christian’s understanding of the Bible, participating in that war is permissible. Indeed, in some instances military action is the necessary response to an existential threat against the nation.

War, however, is not the ultimate solution to evil in the world; only the Gospel of Jesus Christ is powerful enough and pure enough and sufficient enough to do a penetrating work in the human heart. The world lives in the epoch of peace, where God is manifesting his patience and grace, calling men and women to repentance and reconciliation. While millions of people are coming to realise and experience God’s shalom, there remains much that is wrong in the world, such that even the most laudable acts of human kindness and justice can not overcome.  Christians, though, believe that God remains holy and he promises a day when he will judge the living and the dead. Many injustices may escape our attention, but they will not allude God:

“I saw heaven standing open and there before me was a white horse, whose rider is called Faithful and True. With justice he judges and wages war. His eyes are like blazing fire, and on his head are many crowns. He has a name written on him that no one knows but he himself. He is dressed in a robe dipped in blood, and his name is the Word of God. The armies of heaven were following him, riding on white horses and dressed in fine linen, white and clean. Coming out of his mouth is a sharp sword with which to strike down the nations. “He will rule them with an iron scepter.” He treads the winepress of the fury of the wrath of God Almighty.  On his robe and on his thigh he has this name written:

King of kings and lord of lords.” (Revelation 19:11-16)

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 2024, 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 exist 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 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 give 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 quite different from how the phrase is commonly used today, unfortunately

The Voice and what we prayed at church yesterday

/ MurrayCampbell

The 2023 Australian Indigenous Voice referendum is less than two months away. This national conversation is producing strong emotion and opinion across political and social spheres, and not without reason. 

The Yes and No Campaigns are in full swing and trying to capture the votes of everyday Australians. It appears as though influencing the religious vote has become a crucial part of campaign strategy. Leaving aside the question as to whether the category of ‘religious vote’ exists, politicians and community leaders are trying to win over religious Australians, so much so that The Australian recently ran a piece examining, ’Faithful on both sides hear rival gospels of the voice’. 

On both religious and secular platforms, articles are being published and events organised to help religious Australians consider The Voice. For all the arguments about divorcing religion from the public square, it seems as though churches and religious societies are a useful mule to carry the message for both proponents and opponents of the Voice. 

As a Christian, I believe the Bible gives us principles that shape how we engage in society and how we think through critical moral issues. I can no more neglect seeing the world through the lens of the Bible than I chew food through my mouth or speak with an Aussie accent. 

The Bible orchestrates tremendous theological principles that inform our thinking and attitudes about social issues: love of neighbour, reconciliation, justice and mercy, and more. These are deeply Christian ideas, ones that are so embedded in Australian society that we often don’t recognise their origins.  Indeed, many of our secular assumptions today are the vapours of Christian theism, continuing to influence our desires for civil society and to do good. 

I’m not suggesting that there is always a direct and clear line between a Bible principle and a moral or societal issue. Sometimes that is the case, but often it’s not. I think this is where some Christian voices fall down as they argue for or against the Indigenous Voice to Parliament. There isn’t a single Bible verse that confirms or rejects the Government’s proposal. Rather, it is a matter of wisdom and discerning how to apply healthy and good ideas to particular situations. 

The Referendum is also a constitutional debate. The Referendum is a legal, political, and societal consideration, and so relying on gut instinct or emotive argument isn’t sufficient. At the same time, we shouldn’t ignore the heart-felt emotion that is being expressed, especially by Indigenous Australians. Listening well and understanding the other is something we can afford to do. This also means that Christians might (and should) find common agreement on guiding principles and yet may find themselves landing on different sides of this proposal on account of legal and constitutional considerations. I’m not for a moment suggesting an even split or spread among Christians; I don’t know. I am simply making the point that Christians in agreement with principles may come to different conclusions about their practice in the Governmental and constitutional spheres.

For Christians, this Referendum is unlike the marriage plebiscite of 2017 where there is a clear and direct line between the Bible and the definition of marriage. Our position on marriage was and remains in line with both the Bible and what I’d argue is the anthropological and classical understanding. At the time our church prayed that Australians would continue to affirm the classical understanding of marriage, but we also restrained from instructing people how to vote. 

Neither is this Referendum analogous to the Republican referendum of 1999; this is more consequential. And I don’t think this referendum is identical to the 1967 referendum which ensured that Aboriginal people are counted as part of Australia’s population and considered under Australian law. That referendum was a long overdue correction, and the fact that 10% of Australians didn’t support the referendum is to our shame.  Slowness in acknowledging the imago dei and therefore equality and dignity of Indigenous peoples before the law is a reminder of a sin-stained history, but also one where wrongs have been righted and progress made.

Among Christians, there are divergent views about the model presented by the Albanese Government and the chosen wording. That doesn’t mean that every viewpoint is valid or helpful or Biblically sound, but there are considered Christian voices arriving at slightly different conclusions, from Michael Jensen to John Anderson, Gray Connolly and Andrew Judd. Even among Indigenous Christians, there are varying thoughts about The Voice to Parliament (I don’t know whether, like the general Indigenous population, the majority of Aboriginal Christians support the Voice. Someone might be able to point to data on this).  My aim here isn’t to delve into these debates and to weigh various arguments, nor suggest who may or may not be correct in their judgments.

My aim here is one step further back, or perhaps it is a forward step, and that is to encourage considered and prayerful engagement on this issue, and with an awareness that Australians are looking to see how Christians speak to the Voice. I understand that by saying this, some folk will be disappointed. Others will be frustrated because I’m not urging a vote for or against. I can hear the rude jibes already. So be it. Perhaps there lays the very thing that I want to address.

I appreciate how Churches may feel pressure to campaign one way or the other, and many pastors no doubt hear impassioned pleas from congregation members to make public statements in one direction or another.  It is okay for Christian leaders to offer another way:

  • The issue deserves careful inspection and as citizens, we are responsible for informing ourselves. Encourage people to read and understand.
  • Praying is a good thing to do. It really is. This is the one task churches must surely undertake.
  • Show respect and kindness toward those who hold a different to the one you have.
  • Don’t allow this Constitutional issue to create disunity in a church.
  • Ignore and refuse to buy into the unkind or hyperbolic rhetoric being thrown around on social media and news bites.
  • Be careful to avoid binding the consciences of others where the Scriptures are not binding us. On this point, if I can clarify, Christians must oppose racism wherever we see it and are positioned to oppose and restore proper dignity and recognition. Racism is evil and is anti-Christian. Christians should also be concerned for the well-being of Indigenous Australians. I believe most Christians are, and while many believers support the Voice, others are not convinced that this is the right model. Avoid assuming people’s motives.

I mentioned prayer above. Here is what we prayed as a church yesterday at Mentone Baptist Church. Perhaps it is a prayer others might like to pray also as our nation faces a testing time over the coming months:

“Abba Father

Our nation’s past is complex, Lord, and so are our hearts. We pray for all the debate happening around the referendum about the Aboriginal Voice to Parliament at the moment. 

You are a God of justice, and we pray that the outcome would be a just one. You are a God of mercy, and we pray that the outcome would be a merciful one. 

You are a God who cares for the widows and orphans, the weakest among us, and we pray that the outcome and the way the debate is conducted would honour the weak and helpless. 

We pray for our own hearts, that your Holy Spirit would convict us of our own sinful attitudes, wherever they may lie. 

We pray for our Aboriginal brothers and sisters in Christ. We thank you for the deep godliness and sanctification of many aboriginal Christians who are living for the Lord, often in tough circumstances. We pray you would keep them faithful to your word, and fill them with your Spirit boldly to declare the praises of him who called them out of darkness into his marvelous light. We pray that you would open a door for their ministry, so that more and more aboriginal men and women can find freedom, fulfilment and life in Christ.

With issues like the Voice likely to cause divisions among Christians, we pray the words that Jesus himself prayed in John 17:

“My prayer is not for them alone. I pray also for those who will believe in me through their message, that all of them may be one, Father, just as you are in me and I am in you. May they also be in us so that the world may believe that you have sent me. I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one— I in them and you in me—so that they may be brought to complete unity. Then the world will know that you sent me and have loved them even as you have loved me.”

We pray in Jesus’ name,

Amen”

Local School makes rainbow flag compulsory on school jacket

/ MurrayCampbell

Virtue signalling comes in all shapes and sizes, fitting all manner of philosophical and political sermons. These gestures become problematic when they lose their voluntary nature and subscription is forced. No doubt, schools are feeling vulnerable. They are aware of the very real social pressures facing our culture. While some are jumping into the cultural firestorm with a smile, others are coerced into introducing different special days and language and symbols, lest they be called out as bigots and left behind on the station as the sexular train moves on.

Last month a local high school introduced a puffer jacket for students. Melbourne’s winter may not be a frigid as Canada’s and Norway’s, but it does get chilly. When children are walking to school and standing outside during lunchtime, the polar blasts can be really uncomfortable. Cheltenham Second College, following months of conversations with the school community, decided that Melbourne’s winter is cold and kids need something warm to wear.  Great idea!  The school now has a warm puffer jacket for students to wear. Fantastic! Or it should be, but you see, the school has accompanied the new jacket with a new uniform policy, whereby the puffer jacket wears the Aboriginal flag on one sleeve and the gay pride flag on the other. According to parents speaking with Neil Mitchell on 3aW this morning, the jacket is not compulsory but any student wearing it must display the flags, neither covering them up nor removing them. 

I live near Cheltenham and I know families connected with the school, so I began asking around. One school parent said to me this morning, 

‘Parents are buying the puffer jacket to keep their kids warm and are removing the rainbow flag.  The children are then being handed detention for being out of uniform….’

The school website also states that “note: these are the ONLY jacket option for all Year 7-12 students to be worn over the College wool blend school jumper for warmth or directly over the school uniform.”

In other words, do you want to be warm or cold at school?

This may not be the most important story in the news today, and of course, it is not, but this is impacting local families, and it is symptomatic of a much broader issue that is now controlling both public narrative and private conscience.

First of all, there is a massive difference between the Aboriginal flag and the gay pride flag. While I don’t believe wearing the Aboriginal flag should be compulsory on a school uniform, there is no moral equivalence between the two flags. One is about honouring the first Australians, and the other represents the reorienting of peoples’ sexual ethics. 

So why am I interested in this story? Because, like I said, I live in the area and I know families at the school and families who are looking for a secondary school for their children in the future. 

The situation at Cheltenham is different to other stories, in that they are forcing students to wear the rainbow flag as part of the uniform. But I know many other school scenarios where the latest iteration of the sexular movements is making schooling harder for children and families. It is becoming more difficult for Christian families to send their children to public schools. For many, they cannot afford to pay the fees of a private school, but neither will they subject their children to an education system that is proactively sterilising Christian and traditional sexual ethics. And it’s not as though independent schools are automatically safer. I know of students who are bullied and viewed as bigots because they hold to a sexual ethic that 5 years ago was considered pretty normal. 

When families share with me the quandary of where to educate their children, I understand why many no longer feel welcome in State schools and are instead saving every dollar to give their children a safer education at independent and religious schools. Ironically, these are the very same Independent schools that the Victorian State Government is targeting: 1. By removing the freedom of independent schools to only employ persons who adhere to the religious views of the school and 2. By removing the payroll tax exemption for these schools (Due to pressure, the government has changed the threshold and so fewer schools will now be subject to the change).

There is a profound misunderstanding in Victoria as to what secular education represents. State schools are not meant to be homes that drive socio-political agenda and push controversial sex theories. Secular education is meant to provide a space for all children. In seeking to be inclusive, Cheltenham Secondary College excludes numerous families and their children, and even punishes them for removing the ‘pride’ flag. 

I also feel for the students who are thinking through their sexuality and who may not feel comfortable in their physical bodies. These students deserve kindness and care, not to be used as pawns in an ideological game. The school is guilty of forcing the false binary between support and hatred, affirmation and rejection. Such an abuse of power is dangerous both to LGBT students and to families who adhere to classical understandings of human sexuality and gender. LGBT students are probably feeling exposed and vulnerable because of parental anger and other students are feeling outed and hurt because they cannot with a conscience support the rainbow flag.  

The whole saga should be avoidable, but that’s the thing, each new letter and word that drives the sexular train will not allow for passive passengers. Everyone must be a paid-up flag waving and slogan repeating member, and with a smile. They call it tolerance and inclusion and freedom and choice!

So let’s consider the choice: a Melbourne school is forcing students to choose between warmth and cold. Stay warm and wear the jacket or stay cold and remain outside the school’s blessing. It’s a hard choice and one parents should not have to make. I suspect that it’s going to be a very long winter, and the challenges for children and their families will become more acute. 

It’s another reason why Christians need to remember these 3 basic truths: our home, our uniform, and our belonging. 

Our home: 

we are exiles, living away from our true home

Hebrews 13 says, ‘Let us, then, go to him outside the camp, bearing the disgrace he bore.For here we do not have an enduring city, but we are looking for the city that is to come.’

Our uniform:

“clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.” (Colossians 3:12)

When the Apostle Paul writes, ‘to slander no one, to be peaceable and considerate, and always to be gentle toward everyone,’ he then adds, and remember that’s how we once lived. In other words, don’t forget grace. In disagreeing with a school’s policy we mustn’t turn to unhelpful and ungodly words and responses. Speak up and ask the school to overturn this policy, but do so in a manner that is honouring God and expressing love toward those with whom you disagree. 

Our belonging:

We get to belong to all kinds of communities: schools, sport, social. But where we belong, more than anywhere is the local church. If we’re going to survive this long and freezing winter, we need the warmth of Gospel centred, Spirit given, word filled, loving fellowship, that a local church can offer all who are weary and cold and weighed down. 

Talk about giving a cold shoulder, the school released a statement this afternoon doubling down on its policy. In short, wear the flag or stay cold!

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)

It’s not cricket?

/ MurrayCampbell

The Ashes is the ultimate sporting test. Australia versus England over 5 Test matches (each is 5 days in length) across 5 weeks.

The Ashes have been played every 2 years since 1882, play alternating between England and Australia. The teams contest the famous Ashes trophy, which has got to be one of the tinniest sporting cups in the world, standing at a minuscule 10.5cm.

Anticipation over the famed rivalry has been growing for months, and once the first ball was bowled on June 16, every eye in Australia was glued to the big screen all night, every night.

The already frenzied series burst the thermometer on the final day of the second Test, when England batsman, Jonny Bairstow was dismissed. The gentlemen of the Marylebone Cricket Club forgot their manners as boos swept across Lord’s Cricket Ground and tirades of abuse let slip against the Australian players. Commentators argued and the Aussie supporters applauded, as a solemn Jonny walked off the ground. 

Was he out? It’s not cricket! What about the spirit of the game? It was the umpire’s decision. 

For the 6 and a ½ Aussies who had their power cut and haven’t heard this most pressing news story, Bairstow missed a delivery bowled by Australia’s Cam Green. Our wicketkeeper, Carey, took the ball and with a single action threw it at the stumps. Bairstow, not realising, left his crease and was given out, stumped! 

Even the Victorian police can’t stay away from this one!

According to the rules of cricket, he’s out. There is no murky area in the rules as to whether he should be out or not. When the ball is in play and the batsman is out of his crease, he can be run out by the fielding side. 

But according to the English (and a few Aussies too), it seemed as though Bairstow believed the over was completed and the ball was no longer in play, and so he started walking up the pitch to chat with fellow batsman and Captain, Ben Stokes. This so-called ‘sneaky’ play by the Aussies has been deemed unsportsmanlike and contra the spirit of cricket. 

The English believe the decision cost them the Test match (and the Ashes series?), but I’m not so sure. Stokes’ brilliant century came as a near direct response to the Bairstow decision. Without it, would Stokes’ have taken on the Aussie bowlers as aggressively and combatively as he did? It’s all speculation, isn’t it?

As Twitter raged and the gentlemen of the MCC lost their gentlemanliness, and the British PM attempted to ball a rhetorical googly, footage emerged of Bairstow attempting the very same move against Australian batsman Marnus Labuschagne, only 2 days earlier. And more than that, England’s coach, Brendon McCullum, is threatening to abandon the after Ashes drinks with the Aussies, despite McCullum employing the same tactics when he himself played for New Zealand. 

So there we have it, cricket is a serious sport played by professional sportsmen who use the rules to their advantage and claim ‘spirit and sportsmanship’ when those rules seem unfair. 

The cricket community is divided between those who follow the rules and those who want to follow the ‘spirit of the game’. Or to introduce a theological category, are you a law-based person or a grace-based person?

The reality is, if the shoe was on the other foot, the English public would be clapping and applauding, ‘jolly good play’, while we Aussies spat the dummy. That’s the temptation of human nature; there’s a smudge of hypocrisy in all of us. 

How much more is this the case on the bigger scale of life: we acknowledge and follow rules when they work in our favour, but we can be quick to jump to ‘grace’ when we feel as though these rules are harsh and unfair. Sometimes the rules are unfair. Sometimes the rules are misapplied. Sometimes rules are unequally practiced. 

On the biggest stage of all, how can we account for a God of justice and God of grace? How can the Lord of the universe consistently apply righteousness and judge lawbreakers, and yet offer grace and mercy to those of us (namely, all of us), who by the letter of the law are out? 

Sometimes we’re lazy and ignorant. A lot of the time we know what’s right and good and yet we decide to go the way. Cheating God’s ethic and pretending holiness is optional, is the status quo. It’s like we declare any ball from God a no-ball.

Here are a few stunning sentences from the Bible that give us the answer to the world’s greatest quandary, how can Divine justice and mercy exist and become our experience?

“God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God.” (2 Corinthians 5:21)

“If we claim to be without sin, we deceive ourselves and the truth is not in us.  If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness. If we claim we have not sinned, we make him out to be a liar and his word is not in us.” (1 John 1:8-10)

“But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. 22 This righteousness is given through faith in[h] Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, 23 for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24 and all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus. 25 God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement,[through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— 26 he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:21-26)

I think these Bible verses are worth contemplating because in the game of life, real justice matters and real grace is desperately needed. We can’t live without either but as in cricket, we side with one and not the other.

Are you a justice person or a mercy person? The reality is, we can’t live without a measure of ultimate right and goodness. Life requires axioms for real, secure, and free living. We also need grace, because we all fall far short of the glory of God. If I look at myself, I stand short of the crease, exposed and there’s no coming back from that. Thank God, he didn’t declare, not out. Rather, he walked in my place, taking all that shame and guilty verdict so that we can enjoy the cricket of life forever. 

That’s the thing with God and what makes Christianity, Christian. Jesus Christ is the Don Bradman of the universe, only better. He never played a bad shot. He never missed the ball and never stepped away from the crease. Every shot he played perfectly and yet he gave himself out. He bled out on a cross so that we be welcomed back into the game. No hypocrisy, no double play, no breaking the rules, but perfect justice and perfect grace.

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”

Donald Trump isn’t the Messiah

/ MurrayCampbell

Donald Trump is being compared to Jesus Christ this week. Suffering and crucifixion analogies have been thrown around during Passion Week as President Donald Trump prepared to learn of the charges against him and then presented himself to the authorities in New York State.

Representative Marjorie Taylor Greene, protested in Manhattan,

“Jesus was arrested and murdered by the Roman government,” she said. “There have been many people throughout history that have been arrested and persecuted by radical corrupt governments, and it’s beginning today in New York City.”

As the President left the Course house and boarded his plane to Florida,  he joined in a ‘prayer call’, comprising an eclectic group of religious Trump followers.

I have seen footage of and tweets all week that make comparisons between Donald Trump’s trial and that of Jesus.  None of this is new. Adopting and hijacking the person and work of Jesus for political and social agendas is more common than we might realise. People have been doing so since Jesus’ actual trial and crucifixion. Constantine tried it at Milivian Bridge, David’s ‘The Death of Marat’ and 1000 other paintings that superimpose Christ’s sufferings,  the Confederacy and the KKK, the Taiping Rebellion, Horst Wessel,  some anti-vax campaigners, and more. 

Political agendas from both right and left have a long history of misappropriating the person and mission of Jesus Christ. I recall an incident only two years ago; a representative of the Victorian government informed a group of Melbourne church leaders what Jesus’ views on gender would be today, and then told us that contravening this thinking may lead to criminal charges. In case you’re wondering, this person was not even close to reflecting Jesus’ teaching. 

Sadly, there are times when members of Christian communities and leaders of Churches get swept up by these false narratives. That doesn’t mean that there is never any validity to the concerns they raise, but that it is bad theology and even blasphemous to equate their situation with that of Jesus’ suffering. 

Notice the religious language that President Trump chose for his speech following his court appearance?

 “America is going to hell”

Well, yes, that is a theological truism. It also accurately describes people in every nation, but it has nothing to do with allegiance to Donald Trump or some other political leader, but whether we can find atonement before God for our own sinfulness.

It is of course possible to think that the charges against President Trump are politically motivated and also believe that Trump has little moral compass. After all, behind the 34 felony charges of falsifying financial records are allegations of adultery and sexual immorality. There is no semblance of Jesus in this story. That is not to suggest for a moment that the political alternatives are morally or spiritually better. As a Christian leader, my responsibility isn’t to navigate political left or right but to follow Jesus and faithfully point people to him, a course that is altogether different.

Let it be said again, lest anyone is unclear, there is no comparison between President Donald Trump and Jesus Christ. One is a deeply sinful human being, the other the innocent Son of God. The former President carries with him a lifetime of transgressions, Jesus went to the cross taking our sins onto himself.

It is intriguing to see how again our society never moves far from the cross of Jesus Christ. All of history pivots on those three days: from the cross to the grave and to resurrection. And despite our best attempts to rid the culture of Christianity’s DNA, people from all walks of life and with all kinds of agendas, still think it is advantageous to attach themselves to the image of the suffering and dying Christ. 

What if, instead of identifying with the crucified One, we understand what the Easter story really does tell us, and that is, we all stand against Him. Rather than seeing ourselves close to Jesus, we are more like Peter who disowns, Judas who betrays, the Pharisees who denounce, and the crowds who mock.

Donald Trump is no Messiah figure. He is not an innocent lamb laying down his life to save a nation. He may or may not be innocent of these particular charges. But neither Trump nor President Biden and any political leader comes remotely close to the one who had written above his head on the cross, ‘the king’.

Regardless of where we find ourselves on the political spectrum, it’s nonetheless intuitive for us to find a hero in the story. We walk through life searching for someone who triumphs over adversity and overcomes iniquity and who can bring about the new Jerusalem.

Sometimes we put ourselves in that position as the hero, but when the hubris dissipates we are left with despair.  Sometimes we elevate our favourite celebrity or politician, but none of them qualifies to carry the burden. There is only one hero and Easter reveals him, and what a hero Jesus is,

“Father, forgive them, for they do not know what they are doing.”

Andrew Thorburn Case: when values is about religion

/ MurrayCampbell

The Andrew Thorburn story is returning to media attention. The Age is tonight* reporting that Thorburn “has hired legal counsel and is pursuing legal action against the club after he was forced to resign.”

Thorburn lasted as Essendon’s CEO for less than 24 hours. Journalists went hunting and tracked down several ‘controversial’ comments made in sermons at Thorburn’s local church some 10 years ago before Thorburn had joined. As newspaper columns appeared, Victoria’s Premier, Daniel Andrews came out and publicly attacked Thorburn’s church,

“those views are absolutely appalling.”

“I don’t support those views, that kind of intolerance, that kind of hatred, bigotry, is just wrong.

“Those sort of attitudes are simply wrong and to dress that up as anything other than bigotry is just obviously false.”

Within hours Andrew Thorburn was given an ultimatum by the Essendon board, choose the club or his church. Thorburn chose his church. 

In a statement, Thorburn explained,

“Today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square, at least by some and perhaps by many. I was being required to compromise beyond a level that my conscience allowed. People should be able to hold different views on complex personal and moral matters, and be able to live and work together, even with those differences, and always with respect. Behaviour is the key. This is all an important part of a tolerant and diverse society…

…Despite my own leadership record, within hours of my appointment being announced, the media and leaders of our community had spoken. They made it clear that my Christian faith and my association with a Church are unacceptable in our culture if you wish to hold a leadership position in society.

This grieves me greatly – though not just for myself, but for our society overall. I believe we are poorer for the loss of our great freedoms of thought, conscience and belief that made for a truly diverse, just and respectful community.”

I’m not here to comment on any potential legal action, for such things are beyond my expertise. As this story will fire up again over the coming days, it is worth highlighting once more the extraordinary nature of the decision made by Essendon Football Club and the interference by Victoria’s Premier. 

I was speaking with a member of the Victorian Government recently. He was quite open and adamant in his support of Essendon’s stance against Andrew Thorburn. One on the hand, he acknowledged that it’s against the law to discriminate against a person’s faith, but in the same breath, he insisted Thorburn shouldn’t lead Essendon given his connection with a Melbourne church. Not only that, this MP told me that any suggestion people of faith could lose their job because of their beliefs, is nothing more than ‘scaremongering’. Given that we were literally talking about a live example, I don’t think he was aware of the irony filling his words. Not only that, what a cold response to thousands of Victorians who now feel vulnerable in the workplace.

As I was thinking about the conversation afterwards, the issue is one of semantics or rather, it’s a game of bluff. He sees the issue through the lens of ‘values’, rather than religion.

He could say (correctly so) that it’s against the law to discriminate against someone in the workplace on the basis of their religion and yet he also believes it’s legitimate to force someone out of their job if their values don’t align (Ie their religious values). In other words, we don’t live in a society where there is a neat division between religion and secular, or between private and public. Everything is religious. Every value and action, every job and interest, is shaped by underlying commitments and views of the world, and these inevitably take on a religious flavour. It’s not as though some sexual ethics belong to a neutral space while religious views are found elsewhere. All values are religious in nature.

Victoria is like Ancient Rome where there is a god for everything. We’ve dispensed with the names; there’s no praying to Juno, Diana and Venus. We simply sacrifice to and live for sexual freedom, power, wealth, or whatever is our ultimate aim. Hence, when a religious view clashes with an assumed (or stated) value, the value wins out as though it’s morally omniscient. That is why football, like cricket and rugby league, is no longer about playing the game. Sport is attached to a set of dogmas, and sponsors often serve as the priests, making compliance certain, while the Board acts as bishop.  Of course, an AFL Club isn’t a church or a Christian school where particular religious views are necessary.  Having the right kind of religious view shouldn’t be a prerequisite for senior management in the ‘secular’ business or sporting world, but as the Andrew Thorburn case demonstrates, such distinctions no longer apply.

Values is simply a disguised way of talking about a person’s deep beliefs and practices. Values aren’t distinct from religion; values are always an expression of religious convictions, whether we attribute a god to them or not. The situation in Victoria, as our Premier has expressed, is that if a Christian’s ‘values’ don’t align with a place of employment, they may well find themselves receiving similar treatment to Andrew Thorburn. They may protest, as did my politician friend, ‘it’s values, not religion’, but such smoke and mirrors don’t fool anyone. 

Essendon’s President David Barham also attempted to play this game of dodgeball. When announcing Thorburn’s resignation, he tried to blur the lines, 

“I also want to stress that this is not about vilifying anyone for their personal religious beliefs, but about a clear conflict of interest with an organisation whose views do not align at all with our values as a safe, inclusive, diverse and welcoming club for our staff, our players, our members, our fans, our partners and the wider community.”  

Political theologian, Jonathan Leeman, is right, 

“secular liberalism isn’t neutral, it steps into the public space with a ‘covert religion’, perhaps as liberal authoritarianism…the public realm is nothing less than the battleground of gods, each vying to push the levers of power in its favour.”

That is the world we inhabit. This is the air we breathe. It may take a little time for HR departments to catch up with the reality of what their guidelines and directives signify, but we no longer have to speculate or hypothesize: we have one very public case in point glaring at us.

Before I finish up, I noticed that there are a few details in The Age reporting that are incorrect: 

First, City on a Hill is not a ‘small’ church. It is probably the largest Anglican Church in Melbourne, and one of the largest Anglican Churches in Australia.

Second, it is not a ‘conservative church’ as opposed to normal or standard. City on a Hill adheres to the same beliefs and practices that are typical of Christian Churches across Australia and the world. This Church sits comfortably within the same orthodox Christianity that has existed and flourished for 2,000 years.

Third, there is no homophobic material on their website. What one finds, as with other Christian Churches, is the Jesus driven belief that sex is a great God given gift reserved for marriage between a man and a woman. And let’s not forget, that Australian law reflected a classical view of marriage until 5 minutes ago. There is nothing phobic when Jesus called out sexual transgression. He did so because people matter and ignoring God’s design is a perilous trip. The extent to which Jesus loved was crucifixion. Jesus didn’t bleed hatred on the cross, but love and mercy toward the same people transgress God’s good ways.

One may not like or agree with Christianity but throwing around language like phobic is lazy and untrue. Churches follow Jesus’ example, by loving and welcoming everyone who comes along. We don’t have to agree with every word, action, and value in order to love and welcome another. If that ethic was true, then Jesus is the world’s worst social heretic! Thank God,  that “God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:8)

*all the major newspaper were reporting the story by the end of the evening