Coming soon…a podcast for and about Melbourne, engaging in the big issues through the lens of the Christian faith
A NEW PODCAST FOR MELBOURNE
ethics
Playing God with Children
A Melbourne influencer has created a public controversy this week following her announcement on Instagram that she spent $45,000 on gender selection treatment in the United States.
Nine News reported,
“A Melbourne influencer has publicly defended her decision to go public with her choice to fly to the US to select her baby’s sex.
Caitlyn Bailey, who has two boys and a girl, flew to the US and paid $45,000 to ensure her next pregnancy, conceived through IVF, would be another girl.
The single mum has a following of more than 60,000 users on Instagram and uses her platform to promote her lifestyle and parenting journey.
‘”I chose to share my story and my journey purely because I thought if there’s people out there that it could potentially help and not feel so alone, that’s why I shared it.’
“I didn’t share it to start online arguments or have you know troll conversations, it’s just, it makes me feel sick to my stomach to think about the negative side of things, I’m all about positivity.”’
What are we to make of this woman’s choice? If there is no moral dilemma, then why has her personal decision created such public consternation?
To say that our society is confused about the unborn is an understatement. A child in the womb at 8 weeks brings excitement and joy to one mother and despondency or disappointment to another, and a child’s life is measured by the woman’s inclination and decision. Gender selection is illegal in Australia, and yet if the mother waits a matter of weeks, the child can be aborted; delayed gender selection.
We know more about pregnancy today than ever. Through science and technology, our knowledge of little ones and from the earliest moments of life is staggering. Whether it is seeing the first heartbeat at 6 weeks or the baby moving to music at 16 weeks; the old trope that he or she is nothing more than a ‘clump of cells’ can no longer be sustained. And yet, the fight for abortion rights is as loud as it has ever been.
While our society is confused about the value of the unborn, this Melbourne influencer is at least trying to be consistent. If carrying through with a pregnancy is the woman’s choice, why is it unethical for her to have that choice taken from her so early in the process and not later on? Is there something about the gender of a child that is outside the woman’s authority? I happen to think this mother’s actions are appalling, but is she not simply following through with the logic routinely applied to how we view the unborn? Yes she is, and yet her choice sits uncomfortably; we know intuitively that choosing the gender of your child is unethical and unloving and more.
Sometimes this is known as ‘designer babies’. Let’s use the older word, eugenics. And that word should cause us to shudder. And maybe that’s one reason why the consciences of many Melbournians has been pricked by this particular news story.
One reason why gender selection is outlawed in many countries is because it would lead to the mass killing of girls. Prejudice against females is as modern an issue as it was an ancient one. Modern technology gives license to patriarchal societies to eliminate unwanted girls and to preference boys as the eldest or only child. The method may have changed, but there is little moral distinction between these practices and what the Ancient Romans did when unwanted girls were born.
One of the facts that the influencer doesn’t speak to is what happens to all the embryos that don’t fit her preferred child. The typical IVF process creates multiple embryos (it doesn’t have to be done this way), and those that are male are either discarded straight away or are frozen and probably discarded later on. It’s not just a matter of choosing the gender of your child, but letting die those with the wrong gender.
The incongruity of our view of the unborn is further displayed in that this IVF procedure is known as ‘gender selection’. But aren’t we told with absolute authority that gender is not determined by biology but is about personal preference and social conditioning? It’s interesting to see how language shifts when it suits. Of course, divorcing gender from sex is a furphy and just occasionally, like today, we are reminded that this is the case.
The larger point that this case has exposed is that the argument, ‘it’s the ‘mother’s choice’ doesn’t wash when it comes to gender selection. This point is important because we are admitting that even as an embryo this life has a dignity and value already separate to that of the mother.
There are a range of emotions and expectations surrounding pregnancy: joy and fear, love and nerves. The child however is not the sum of these emotions and expectations. Every baby is a gift, whether they are a boy or a girl. Should it so matter to parents that they can assume a right to choose or dispose of a child because of their gender? Gender selection is immoral and I’m grateful it’s illegal in Australia. This law is one of those little reminders that pierce through our incongruous age.
Every child is a little miracle and deserves every chance at life and to be loved. A parent may forget, although I suspect many do not when their conscience kicks into gear, but these little ones are not forgotten by God. They are loved and welcomed by God.
We have become rather effective at playing God with children. How different does the ancient Psalm depict the worth of the child, those who are wanted and those unwanted,
“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.” (Psalm 139:13-16)
I’m aware that any time I write about an issue such as this, there will be readers who have in the past made decisions regarding their unborn child that they know were wrong and to this day the decision haunts them. The God of the Bible shows us that he can outdo with good our worst decisions. Our wrong choices, don’t curb God’s commitment to see life win. And as the Gospel of Jesus shows us, His grace and mercy is able to forgive and heal the deepest shame and guilt. That’s the thing with our society’s doublespeak, we need to be told that we’ve done nothing wrong and yet there’s a part of us that knows otherwise.
One final word, the woman has expressed her fears of trolls. Trolling is not acceptable. Trolling masquerades as righteousness but it’s a little more a cowards way of venting and causing others to fear. It’s not the way to respond to this story or to any. Don’t be a tool. Offer a comment or critique and sign your real name to it.
A Masculine Lie?
“Greet Tryphena and Tryphosa, those women who work hard in the Lord. Greet my dear friend Persis, another woman who has worked very hard in the Lord. (Romans 16:12)
Why spend another few minutes writing about this ‘sin of empathy’’? Because like its partner in crime, Christian Nationalism, the sin of empathy mood is making way into different corners of Australian Christianity. Opening the doors and letting it inside is only going to make an unnecessary mess, so I’m hoping we leave it outside for the wind to blow away.
Are many men feeling emasculated and shamed for being men? Sure. Are many women threatened by the genderless thinking that is today impacting safe women’s spaces and sports? Absolutely.
The notion that macho-masculinity is somehow the answer to the Church’s woes and that feminine characteristics are the primary sin of the church is theologically shallow and pastorally dangerous. Indeed, the ‘sin of empathy’ crowd is as theologically and pastorally flawed as those who see church as a gender free zone. The danger with the latter is that it’s easy to spot. The world’s values aren’t the church’s, and good old-fashioned evangelicals realise that we don’t get our tune from the culture at large. The danger with the former, patriarchy, is that to the reactionary evangelical type, this can come across as a solution. But why exchange one set of faulty thinking for another? Jumping from one house on fire to setting another light is no way forward.
Men blaming women doesn’t sound particularly masculine to me. It’s Adam 2.0 rather than the Second Adam.
For example…
In the latest online defence of his book, Joe Rigney made this claim,
“in my book The Sin of Empathy, I call Feminism “Queen of the Woke,” because of the way that feminism takes a female strength and pathologizes it by deploying feminine compassion where it doesn’t belong.”
Dani Treweek responded with this,
“Let me translate for y’all.
“Deploying female compassion where it doesn’t belong” = women making any meaningful contribution to the life and ministry of the church.”
I have now read enough of Rigney’s position to know that Dani Treweek is representing him fairly. In fact, the more he doubles down online, the less his views resemble complementarianism and instead suggest a neo-patriarchy.
Rigney then replied,
Once again Dr. Treweek misrepresents the argument of the book, but in the process reveals how deeply influenced she is by feminism.
And yet Joe Rigney says things like this,
“There is a reason that the empathetic sex that women are barred from the pastoral office, they were barred from the priestly office in the Old Testament for the same reason. Because priests and pastors, priests in the Old Testament, pastors and ministers and elders in the New Testament, are charged fundamentally with guarding the doctrine and worship of the church, of setting the perimeter for what is in and out. That’s the calling. And therefore the sex that is bent and wired towards care, nurture, compassion and empathy is ill-suited to that role. So it’s no surprise that in a culture that has become dominated by feminism, it’s deep in the American system at this point, that in that same timeframe, you would have an outbreak of empathy that would become the steering wheel by which every institution is hijacked.”
Back on X (Twitter), Rigney then proceeded to outline how he values the contributions of women in the church…which he then outlines as having babies and cooking meals.
I’m not joking.
‘I’m forced to conclude that, for Dr. Treweek, raising children, managing households, and caring for hurting people are not “meaningful” ministry in the life of the church.
Which is the fundamental feminist lie.’
Ours is an age that often downplays the role of mothers and ignores the tireless love exercised in the home. Our society isn’t the most friendly and affirming for women who make the decision to sit out of the workforce to help raise a family. Is this, however, the sum of women’s contribution to the body of Christ?
It seems that poor Phoebe and Priscilla and a host of women in Romans 16 didn’t get Rigney’s memo.
Again, yes, we ought to esteem and value marriage and children. Ephesians 5 is a wonderful godly model that remains so today. If the totality of women contributing to the church is sex, children, and meals, may I contend that you have wandered a long way from the Scriptures. If Rigney appreciates that it is more, why not include it?
More urgent, how pastorally insensitive and even dangerous, is Rigney’s assumption here? What do Rigney’s words say to single women in our churches? What does his sweeping generalisation communicate to women who are unable to have children?
I know The Handmaid’s Tale’ is a lefty dystopian myth, but sometimes one can imagine where they got the idea from.
To the young men who might be tempted to buy into the Moscow method, it’s only a matter of time before you trip over your beard. If you think that the answer to gender slippery slides is to stand at the top cleaning your rifle and asking when dinner is ready, I humbly suggest that someone ought to push you off the slide.
If men want to know how to lead and serve and love, look to Jesus. Follow his example. We don’t encourage faithfulness in our churches by making gender redundant or by making men sound and smell just a little bit like Andrew Tate.
April 10 Update: Read Dani Treweek’s excellent and detailed review of Joe Rigney’s ‘Sin of empathy’ over at Mereorthodoxy https://mereorthodoxy.com/sin-of-empathy-joe-rigney-book-review
The Problem with Social Cohesion in Victoria
Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has announced a new set of laws under the banner ‘social cohesion’.
‘Social cohesion’ when attached to government and laws has a touch of the Machiavellian about it. One doesn’t know whether to think it’s more like George Orwell or Monty Python!
The Government’s initiative includes a new ‘social cohesion pledge’. Any community group applying for government funding will need to make the pledge, promising to support social harmony and inclusivity.
No doubt this is a testing time for any government. There are pressures applied from all kinds of directions, and at times this leads to inaction or delayed resolve. As we have seen over the past year, this has given more oxygen to antisocial, and in this case, antisemitic voices.
I think this specific set of government measures are sensible and necessary, but I cannot but help think that it may open the door to future measures that are unreasonable and damaging.
There is a cowardice hiding behind masked protesters. There is an ugly hatred being propagated by some of the protests we have seen on Melbourne streets. If you can’t protest without wearing masks, carrying threatening objects, and using disgusting slogans, maybe that should signal that you or your cause is a problem.
Victoria was never the perfect State, but we have witnessed developments over the past decade that are injurious and bring grief to many. We are less peaceful than we were. We are less inclusive and kind. There is more personal and social distress and with little sign of a turnaround. Melbourne has become Australia’s protest capital (not a title to boast about). Ever since 2020, when the government turned a blind eye to certain marches while slamming others, every Jane, Nguyen, and Bob has seen fit to grind city streets to a halt. Not a week goes by without banners and angry faces blocking traffic.
I support these particular measures because antisemitism cannot under any circumstance be allowed to fester. If we think that our society is beyond and above 1928 Germany, we are suffering from a greater dose of egomania than I thought.
However, I am not comfortable with Jacinta Allan’s language of ‘social cohesion’. I get it; they are trying to address a specific problem without naming the elephant in the room. Why not call it ‘Rules for Safe Protests’ or something like that?
The reason why I’m uncomfortable about the Government’s language of ‘social cohesion’ is because the task of social cohesion doesn’t belong to the government, but to the people. When government sees itself as the answer to every social ill and when the people demand government to fix every crisis, we are obfuscating personal responsibility and creating systems of governance that cannot bear the weight of such responsibility.
This is one area where the work of Dr Christopher Watkin is worthy of consideration. Monash University’s Dr Watkin articulates a positive and important work on contract theory. He says,
“Civil society is sometimes the neglected dimension of the social contract, the “missing middle” as it has been called. We have a tendency to jump straight from government and law to the individual.
These civil society relationships across different visions of the good are a glue that holds our social contract together.”
From his book, Biblical Critical Theory,
‘the vague and sporadic measures taken by contemporary governments to shore up the social contract with well-meaning but half-hearted attempts at “civic edu- cation” have little effect, when all the while billions of advertising dollars and a destructive paradigm of competition in all areas of society expertly catechize individual consumers to be little predisposed to the civic duties a strong social contract requires. No rewriting of the social contract can be complete without giving serious attention to its cultural and liturgical infrastructure.’
No Government is up for the job, and it’s not designed to be. Part of the problem embedded in any Government setting the rules for social cohesion is that this is never a natural space. This is one of the heresies attached to secularism. Secular may be preferable to Sharia Law and Christian Nationalism, but it is no more epistemologically and morally neutral. Secular is the sum of the worldviews present in and controlling the moral impulses of the day.
There are wonderful pockets of social cohesion is found in all kinds of places and communities across our State. There are sporting clubs and men’s sheds, and there are temples and synagogues. It is certainly experienced in local churches.
Churches are frequently more culturally diverse than the communities surrounding them. Where I have the privilege of serving and belonging, we have people from China and Uganda, families from Vietnam and India, Nigeria and Columbia. Young and old mix together, single and married are friends and serve one another. Of course, Churches have their failings and blindspots, (after all, the very point of Christianity is that there is only one perfect saviour and we’re not him!), and yet there is profound togetherness and other person-centredness.
The Victorian Government is also currently working on expanding anti-vilification laws, which some are concerned will tighten the noose of faith groups from teaching and practising in accordance with their convictions. It’s amazing how often the State has assumed the bishopric role when Christian praxis hasn’t supported their social agenda. There is a mine of irony in Victoria where Government identifies a growing social disorder and yet clamps down on one of the few societal groups who are truly exhibiting positive social health and life. If we are interested in civil society, maybe we ought to return to the worldview that created the ideas and values from which this vision derives: Christianity.
Well, it’s Christmas time, the ultimate day of truce-making, although that first holy night was filled with peril. Nonetheless, the hope born that night in Bethlehem really is the only hope we have today. Come, check out a local church and see that hope in action.
Let me leave you with the great Messianic promise of Isaiah,
‘The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
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.
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.
Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
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.
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 Melbourne Synagogue Burns
‘We hoped for peace
but no good has come,
for a time of healing
but there is only terror.
You who are my Comforter in sorrow,
my heart is faint within me.
Listen to the cry of my people
from a land far away:
“Is the Lord not in Zion?
Is her King no longer there?”
“The harvest is past,
the summer has ended,
and we are not saved.”
Since my people are crushed, I am crushed;
I mourn, and horror grips me.
Is there no balm in Gilead?
Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no healing
for the wound of my people?’
(Jeremiah 8:15, 18-22)
Adass Israel Synagogue is located up the road from where I live and the church where I serve. The Synagogue is located in the Council area, adjacent to mine, which, in Melbourne distance, makes us pretty much neighbours.
What took place yesterday was pure unadulterated evil and has tarnished our city, perhaps in ways we may not comprehend for some time to come.
In the early hours of Friday morning, 2 men set fire to the Synagogue, causing extensive damage and injuring two people who were inside at the time. The perpetrators went about their deed, hiding their identities as the cowards they are. There is no courage or moral fortitude in attacking a place of worship.
Melbourne is home to more Holocaust survivors than any other place in the world, apart from Israel. Between my home and the city, stand many Jewish schools and synagogues. My kids regularly played sports with and against local Jewish schools, such is the vibrant community in this part of Melbourne.
William Cooper is one of our great Australians. A Christian man and Aboriginal leader, William Cooper stood in solidarity with the oppressed. With foresight, Cooper understood the unfolding evils in Germany and spoke up when most world leaders remained silent. On December 6 1938, William Cooper led a march in Melbourne to the German Consultant, in response to the infamous Kristallnacht, and condemned the “cruel persecution of the Jewish people by the Nazi government in German.”
86 years later, to the day, my Melbourne, our city, witnesses a burning Synagogue.
For all our pseudo-sophistry and boasting in our cosmopolitan and cultural greatness, travelling in our DNA is the same iniquities that have tainted all cities of old, including what was once considered the most ingenious and advanced culture in the world: Germany. We Melbournians love to sing our own praises, in this gleeful myopia that sometimes has more in common with Nero than William Cooper.
Of course, this chromosomal thread appears in all kinds of ways; sometimes we call it out and other times we call it good or choice. The unnerving fact is that Melbourne has not decided where we will fall.
Today, Jewish families around Melbourne are less certain about tomorrow. They are less confident and free. That ought to bring great sadness to our city and shout a loud warning.
Two millennia ago, an elderly Jewish man lived in Jerusalem. We are told in Holy Scripture,
“Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him” (Luke 2:25)
May the consolation of Israel pour out His grace and peace.
Beware of local cults
This year I’ve received 2 phone calls at the church office this year from young women reaching out to local churches and offering to help us engage with young people and help them navigate life and follow God. I suspect there have been more, but we didn’t answer the phone.
On both occasions, the callers were young women who were incredibly polite and gracious. Straight away, their smoothness raised questions in my mind and their offer to look after or help out the young people at church was certainly strange. Their spiel very quickly turned to Bible study groups that they offer which will apparently save a generation from all the pitfalls of today’s society.
Maybe I’m suspicious by nature, but something didn’t sound right, so I asked what organisation they represent. Their tone changed immediately and became nervous and defensive. It’s like they were reading off a script and didn’t know how to handle the question. On both occasions, the callers weren’t keen to share the name of their organisation. Alarm! In addition, I asked them for a website that provides information about who they are and what they’re about. After trying to avoid an answer, one of the women gave me a website (which turned out to contain zero information). Another alarm was triggered.
It was fairly clear that they were representing a religious cult or sect of some sort; the only question was, which one. Eventually, they gave me their name, Zion Christian Mission Centre’. I hadn’t come across that name before, so I asked the Elders at my church and the pieces came together. The ‘Zion Christian Mission Centre’ or ‘Zion Church’ is a front name for the Korean cult, ‘Shincheonji Church of Jesus’.
I knew about this group because they have been targeting university students across the country for several years. In particular, they are effective at taking vulnerable international students who are wanting to learn about Christianity. Christian university groups have given specific warnings about this cult.
Trying to extract students from the ‘Shincheonji Church of Jesus’, is no easy task. Sadly, they are also manipulating people in the general community and targeting churches as well. One friend of mine has watched someone they know swallowed up by the Zion Church, like seeing a friend swept away by a flood and not wanting to be rescued. It’s really sad and dangerous.
The Herald Sun published today an article warning about Shincheonji Church of Jesus and how they’re weaving their way onto the Australian Catholic University campuses. Well done HS.
The ABC published an exposé back in 2021 which is worth reading.
There is no point mucking around with this; cults are dangerous. Cults have existed across cultures and societies since ancient times, and despite the bad rap they receive, cults are alive and active today. I ask AI to give me an image of a ‘cult’. The first showed a ‘colt’ outside a barn. On the outside a cult may appear friendly and furry, but inside they are quite something else!
Some cults, because of their success and size, are no longer considered such, and we find they are recategorised and morph from cult to ‘sect’ or even a Christian denomination, even though they are not such. It’s part of the difficulty of defining such things.
Cults (and much like religion) latch onto human vulnerabilities and hopes. They offer community. They promise hope, security, or that thing which are affections are wanting to be met. We shouldn’t be surprised by such groups. Jesus warns that errant and self-seeking groups will come about to confuse and steal and destroy people’s lives.
On the surface, they may appear Christian-like and caring. Who doesn’t want to find a caring community? And studying the Bible is a great thing to do. How can we discern between a cult and a genuine Christian Church?
Cults share these 3 ingredients:
Heterodox teaching + controlling behaviour + false promises
Their teaching doesn’t reflect the Bible doctrine (which is affirmed and articulated in historic Christian creeds and confessions), but they add to or subtract from orthodoxy. For example, they might deny the full and eternal Divinity of Jesus Christ. They often have a leader who gives prophetic words that contradict Biblical teaching about God or heaven/hell or spirituality.
In the case of the ‘Zion Church’, it started with a man in South Korea named Lee Man-hee. He claims to be a last-day prophet and even Messiah-like figure. Apparently, the book of Revelation is written in code and only a special prophet like Lee Man-hee is able to discern its meaning. To be saved and have heaven you must be a member of Shincheonji Church of Jesus and abide by the teachings of Lee Man-hee.
Second, despite the warmth and acceptance you receive at first, the more engaged you become, the deeper the tentacles of control become. Do they recommend you leave home and join a shared house with their members? Do they urge you to cut ties with your family? Do they claim to be the only true church?
Third, they offer false promises. Like a tongue that’s been sliding in gallons of castor oil, cult are slippery and we offer your promises and deals that they are unable to deliver and is not theirs to make.
Of course, a religious group (even a Church) might have one or more of these elements but when all three are present, the language of ‘cult’ is not amiss. While cults in the West traditionally take on a Christian favour, they do exist in other cultural and religious settings.
Cults are like gangs; once you’re hooked into the mob it is very difficult to separate yourself. They are secretive, controlling, and legalistic. There are hidden truths that tantalise and can only be revealed as you commit more of yourself and ascend the leadership structure. Soon enough, you find that more of life becomes controlled by the group leader, and rather than hearing a grace-filled message (which is the Christian Gospel), it is a spirituality of laws and rigorous requirements that determine spiritual health and success.
Over the years I’ve dealt with people from all kinds of places, and so I have experience in asking questions and discerning real from fake. When I took those phone calls, I might have smelled a rat in the first 30 seconds (or wolf), but I couldn’t name which one straight away. Even then, sometimes a fraud is sophisticated and convincing and sway pastors. We can all be taken in by a good story.
Beware of ‘Zion Christian Mission Centre’ and whatever other names they might go by. Here is some advice:
Should you receive a random message or call, or walk up at uni or knock on the front door by a stranger, ask questions.
- What is the name of your organisation?
- Tell me your website and socials so I can look for myself.
- Don’t agree to anything on the spot.
- Don’t hand over personal details.
- When unsure, ask a mature friend to see what they think.
- If you’re part of a church or Christian group on campus, go to one of the leaders and ask for them for wisdom.
Warnings:
- If a so-called Christian group is unable to or reluctant to provide basic information about their name, website, what they believe.
- They offer to meet with you 1-1 to read the Bible intensely and with high commitment.
- They misdirect when you question them and what they teach.
- They use guilt to control you and draw you in further.
- They distance themselves from mainstream churches, thinking they alone are right and true
- Does their teaching contradict key Christian beliefs and practices?
- Do they require a ‘special leader’ to rightly interpret the Bible?
Finally, if you do find yourself entangled in a cult, there is hope and there is a way to be freed. Don’t feel shame, ask for help.
England’s Ban should lead to rethink in Australia
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
Never Again
The world said, ‘Never again’. Following the Holocaust, where 6 million Jews were slaughtered, guilt, conviction and repentance led much of the world to exclaim, ‘Never again’. Most people believed the words, and yet today, in the year 2023, that promise is losing confidence and support.
Two weeks have passed since the terror attack on Israel killed 1400 people and left thousands injured, and more than 200 as hostages. It is not the condemnation of Hamas that surprises, but the support for Hamas that is rallying voices in cities worldwide, including Australian cities.
A friend of mine, as she tries to make sense of what is happening, made this remark,
“Over the last week or so it’s dawned on me how much I’ve domesticated Satan in my own thinking. Yes he is the subtle tempter. But he is also the blatant protagonist of violence, clamour, hatred, cruelty & death. And he’s currently having an absolute field day. God have mercy.”
Indeed, Lord have mercy.
What we are witnessing around the globe, from Melbourne to New York, Sydney to London, are scenes that harken back to the darkest moments in 1930s Germany. Of course, the geopolitical situation is not analogous, and yet a deep and vile hatred toward the Jews is manifesting. These are not quiet murmurs but public and vocal, and at times the anti-semistim is lauded by crowds and even by political and so called ‘erudite’ groups.
We can try and explain away some anti-semitism by suggesting it’s just the fringe. When the forecourts of the Sydney Opera House witnessed a mob shouting, ‘Gas the Jews’, and when young Jewish men were threatened on the streets of Melbourne with ‘I’ll kill you’, our minds calculated that these are the words of the tiny few.
The world has seen footage of children in American schools chanting, ‘“From the River to the Sea, Palestine Will Be Free”, a saying that means eradicating Jewish people from the land of Israel.
Bari Weiss’ office was defaced over the weekend with ‘F#ck the Jews’.
There is story after story.
Lest we think that the awful language is limited to a few thugs, there are politicians and academic institutions supporting Hamas against Israel. Many Universities and Colleges in the United States have produced statements in support of the Gaza ‘uprising’ and condemning Israel.
Harvard University, for instance, is considered one of the world’s leading institutions of education. Yesterday, the halls of Harvard were filled with students supporting Palestine against Israel. This followed a letter that was signed by 30 student groups at Harvard blaming Israel for the atrocities on October 7. They didn’t even wait for the dead to be counted before asserting,
We “hold the Israeli regime entirely responsible for all unfolding violence”.
So, Hamas terrorists are not responsible for raping, kidnapping, and murdering innocent civilians but somehow they are justified or simply victims being swept up in a moral fight against their oppressors? Apparently, a few of these student groups have since rescinded their support of their letter, saying that they hadn’t read the letter carefully.
Sydney’s Town Hall plays to all manner of social causes and lights up to display solidarity, and yet the Mayor of Sydney has blocked the attempt to show the blue and white of Israel. These are not examples of antisemitism, but this is not a time to play the argument of moral equivalence and to sidestep what took place in Israel. But to make clear, ‘never again’.
It isn’t helpful to exaggerate how wide or deep the anti-Jewish sentiment runs through our cities, for large portions of our populations see how vile such dehumanising is. It is becoming clear, however, that antisemitism exists and it is perhaps more commonplace than we realised, and it is event present in our elitist institutions with noise and clanging. We didn’t believe it. Perhaps we still refused to accept it. But for all our sophistry and hubristic self-belief, we are not immune from profound ugliness and distaste.
Contrary to the wistless historical positivism about history’s arc turning toward justice, the 20th century blew that idea out of the water.* The early decades of the 21st century have further reinforced that the saying is vapour. History is more like a Wagnerian cycle; prolonged agony with an audience gasping for resolution amidst near-eternal dissonance. Yes, we see progress and good in many spheres and yet none removes that basic instinct to sin.
My friend is right to attribute the evil of recent weeks to Satan. Satan is a cunning foe, and he is also a powerful ally in the ambition of hatred and death. It is not as though people are helpless victims in his hands, but rather he exploits our pre-existing heart condition. Lurking in all our hearts is far more sin than we are prepared to admit. It was Jesus who made the diagnosis,
“For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”
That is what we are seeing spillover around the world. Deep-seated views and convictions are sensing opportunity to come out and be expressed. Anti-semitism is but one example of many blots on the human heart, but it is a fearful one.
I still cannot fathom how a Melbourne Anglican Minister went on Twitter (X) in support of Hamas’ violent and bloody attack on Israelis. It is beyond belief.
Never again.
It is difficult to overstate the seriousness of the unfolding situation in Israel and Gaza. It is impossible to fathom the anxiety and fear overwhelming people in Israel and Gaza. National leaders and diplomats are pressing to control the situation and to find ways to release the pressure valve while at the same time acknowledging Israel’s right to destroy Hamas. For 3,000 years, Jerusalem has magnetised world history, and it remains so today. What happens in Israel doesn’t remain in Israel. We live in a global community, and when a stone is thrown in one part of the world, the ripples spread wide.
Surely we are gripped with sadness, grief and diminishing trust in man’s ability to overcome.
Never again.
Among the stories that gripped attention for more than a week is the speed to doubt and disbelieve. As reports were given to journalists and to the public of atrocities in Israeli homes, towns, and fields, many said, no. This isn’t true. We don’t believe you. Show us the bodies. Yesterday Israeli Defence Force representatives invited journalists into a room and played video footage of the dead. Films taken by Hamas show their members torturing, killing, burning and yes even beheading Israelis. The media are now reporting what ears refused to believe but eyes have now seen and witnessed now through flood of tears.
Andrew Neil retells,
“Journalists in tears as IDF shows them body cam footage of massacres by Hamas terrorists on Oct 7 with civilians and soldiers being shot, stabbed, tortured and burned merely because they were Jewish.
Their corpses were bound, gagged and riddled with bullet holes and knife wounds.
In one clip, a Hamas terrorist throws a grenade at a father and his son. The blast kills the father, while the young boy is covered in his blood. The child is dragged inside and forced to sit next to his brother, whose eye is a bloody mess after being subjected to horrific torture. One of the boys sobs: ‘Why am I alive?’
Other footage shows IDF soldiers beheaded with their headless corpses left splayed in the streets, while a contingent of female soldiers were injured by a grenade then shot at point blank range.
A Hamas gunman brags on the the phone to his parents about ‘killing 10 Jews’. He is using phone of a Jewish woman who has just been murdered and boasts that he ‘is a hero’ after killing Israelis with his ‘own hands’.”
Never again?
Unlike the waves of self-appointed Middle Eastern experts offering their opinions, I am not an expert. It does not, however, require a PhD in political science to understand that Hamas’ attack on Israel was evil and that Israel has the right to defend herself and her people and to agree that Hamas must never again have the ability to repeat these atrocities.
We can also and ought to affirm the protection of civilians across borders and people groups, regardless of their religion and ethnicity. How damnable are Hamas for preventing their own people from fleeing south. That Israel’s Defence Force gives prior warning and urge people to move away from targets, is demonstrably more than what a nation at war would normally do.
We pray and call for the protection of innocent Palestinians and Israelis. Speak up and stand against anti-semitism. We pray for justice. We pray for peace. Surely, we can give up our godless pretensions and take God at his word,
The Lord is angry with all nations;
his wrath is on all their armies.
He will totally destroy them,
he will give them over to slaughter.
Their slain will be thrown out,
their dead bodies will stink;
the mountains will be soaked with their blood.
All the stars in the sky will be dissolved
and the heavens rolled up like a scroll;
all the starry host will fall
like withered leaves from the vine,
like shriveled figs from the fig tree. (Isaiah 34)
Never again.
As it happens, I don’t believe that the modern state of Israel is the fulfilment of Biblical promise. I think that view misses the point about how the person of Jesus Christ fulfils all of God’s ancient promises. And yet one cannot ignore the Apostles’ teaching in the New Testament about how God loves Israel (the people); therefore we must also. This is a part of the Bible that Christians have sometimes ignored or abused. Sadly, the history of Christianity in Europe is marked by chapters of persecuting Jews. There are also positive moments, whether Oliver Cromwell welcoming Jews to return to England or the posture of preachers like Charles Spurgeon who insisted, ‘a Christian must be the last person who ought ever to speak disrespectfully or unkindly to the Jews’.
Never again.
Political and military courses have a place and imperative. However, the ultimate answer to justice and mercy, peace and reconciliation is the Christ whom we in the West are trying to remove from the story. Indeed, the world has tried that approach before. The world once famously rejected the Messiah. They arrested him under false pretences. They accused him of all manner of wrongdoing. The soldiers then had him tortured and forced him to carry the implement of his own execution. They crucified him, hands and feet until dead. And yet as Peter explained to the crowd in Jerusalem at Pentecost, it is through that very cross God was winning redemption for us. To confirm this ultimate victory, God raised Jesus from the dead.
Many of us remain sceptical today and others quietly go about thinking, maybe. In Gaza today and scattered around Israel too, are small groups of Christians, believing the world’s only hope is this Jesus.
In my previous and initial reflections on what happened on October 7th, I quoted an Old Testament Bible passage, and I do so again, because of how fitting it is. These words were written by a Jewish man who rested his hope on the promise of God. As he spoke of looming disaster and chaos and suffering, because of sin, Isaiah also gave words of comfort and hope. How the world today needs this kind of concrete hope.
“Nevertheless, there will be no more gloom for those who were in distress. In the past he humbled the land of Zebulun and the land of Naphtali, but in the future he will honor Galilee of the nations, by the Way of the Sea, beyond the Jordan—
2
The people walking in darkness
have seen a great light;
on those living in the land of deep darkness
a light has dawned.
3
You have enlarged the nation
and increased their joy;
they rejoice before you
as people rejoice at the harvest,
as warriors rejoice
when dividing the plunder.
4
For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,
you have shattered
the yoke that burdens them,
the bar across their shoulders,
the rod of their oppressor.
5
Every warrior’s boot used in battle
and every garment rolled in blood
will be destined for burning,
will be fuel for the fire.
6
For to us a child is born,
to us a son is given,
and the government will be on his shoulders.
And he will be called
Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,
Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.
7
Of the greatness of his government and peace
there will be no end.
He will reign on David’s throne
and over his kingdom,
establishing and upholding it
with justice and righteousness
from that time on and forever.
The zeal of the Lord Almighty
will accomplish this.
A friend pointed out the origins of the ‘arc of history’ quote, which is from Martin Luther King and posits a faith in God who will make all things news. This differs from how the phrase is commonly used today, unfortunately
The Voice and what we prayed at church yesterday
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”
Listen to Jesus and not the Archbishop of York
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.”
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)
