politics

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”

The symbol of shame is removed from Calvary Hospital

/ MurrayCampbell

On Sunday afternoon as the sun shone in Canberra, a shadow emerged as the cross was removed from Calvary Hospital. The blue cross that hung on the building front and centre, was taken down as the ACT Government prepares to take control of the Hospital Monday morning.

Calvary Hospital is (was) owned and run by the Catholic Church, along with the ACT”s only inpatient palliative care home, Clare Holland House. As of Monday, both will. be under the control of the Government, a government that is also preparing to introduce legislation allowing 14 year old children access to euthanasia. 

Whether it’s the youngest or the terminally ill, Catholic hospitals are renowned for believing in the sanctity of life. We don’t take the life of the unborn and we don’t assist the terminally ill to take their own life. As we sit fit to turn our backs on the God of the Bible, Western cultures are turning to ideas and practices that so often belittle the vulnerable, and in the name of ‘kindness’ or ‘choice’, we invite and protect their killing. 

Christian Churches have long been associated with hospitals and hospices. Indeed, Australia continues to rely upon these healthcare providers to carry the weight of caring for the sick, the injured, and the dying. Aussie society may be turning its back on Churches, but whether it’s education, social work, and medical care, we require the organisations that our churches have started and support.  Monday morning will see a hospital and hospice join the ranks of our post-Christian culture that perceives the message of the cross as objectionable and interfering with our preferred ethics of life and death, truth and lie. 

Calvary is a Bible word, describing the location outside Jerusalem where Jesus was crucified. The symbol of shame has been removed from Calvary Hospital by the Government. I’m not one for displaying religious images, icons, and crosses. We are a people of the word not iron illuminated icons. But leaving aside the question of physical representations of the faith, the sight of a government taking down the Christian cross is telling. It’s as though through the blindness or perhaps sheer arrogance of government officials, they think that removing the cross is a mark of progress. Far from it! 

The cross, now so familiar to the world, carries with it disdain and misunderstanding. For some, it is a fashion item to wear around the neck imbedded with jewels. For others, the cross represents an era of human history that we will do well to move on from. 

The cross has caused offence for millennia. The Romans understood the ignominy and shame attached to this cruel machine of torture and execution. More recently, ISIS crucified Christians in Syria and Iraq as an attempt to terrorise populations into submission. Philosophers and comedians alike continue to ridicule the cross, as though it’s worthy of a public mocking. 

The early Christians were aware of both the political and personal shame attached to the figure of the cross, as was Jesus. The Apostle Paul famously picked up on this theme of shame in his letter to the sex crazed city of Corinth. Writing to the Christians of Corinth, he said, 

“For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.  For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
    the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?  For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe. Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,  but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,  but to those whom God has called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.  For the foolishness of God is wiser than human wisdom, and the weakness of God is stronger than human strength.”

The cross is the ultimate emblem of suffering and shame. The cross is also the symbol of salvation and life. For in that single death, our shame was taken by the one without, and he died the death that sinners deserve. The cross also confuses and collides and will not allow us to ignore it: we either embrace its message or push against it.

Perhaps there are internal politics going on between the government and calvary care that we are not privy to. But from the information that has been published and made public, it’s difficult not to conclude that there is something hideous about a government punishing an organisation for not welcoming death for young and old alike. There is no sophistry in denigrating the cross. There is no wisdom or pride found in removing Christian freedoms and stamping the authority of the State on religious institutions. What you call the stench of death, the believer finds the aroma of life, for in the crucified and risen Christ is the greatest stimulus for love for neighbour and care for society’s most vulnerable.

To build an ethic of medicine and care while rejecting the Lord of life is doomed to failure. But the long and dark road is likely to be littered with the bodies of the unwanted and the inconvenient. My mother died recently, following a long illness, and the care she received in both hospital and hospice was excellent and ensured her pain was managed. If hospitals are in short supply of effective pain management for the terminally ill, then we would do well to better finance and equip doctors and nurses for such essential care. 

As Jesus hung on the cross, gasping for breath, muscles contorted, and with blood, running down his fastened body, he cried out these words which have echoed through the generations, 

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

Subsequent to public statements made including by Archbishop Christopher Prowse who explained,

“The very first thing a totalitarian government does, when it seizes Christian assets, the very first thing they all do … they take down the crucifix…When the religious cage is shaken by a wolf, when the cross … is taken down, we realise how important our religion is, when it’s under attack’,

The ACT Government and Hospital Board have each produced a statement, saying that it was the Hosptial who took down the cross and not the Government (https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-07-03/former-calvary-hospital-becomes-north-canberra-hospital/102554384). The distinction in this case is little. It’s a case of semantics as the Govt has taken control of the hospital (despite Calvary appealing to the Federal Court to stop the take over). The removal of the cross is symbolic of this forcible snatching and bringing Calvary health under the control of the ACT.

As one friend has suggested, given the Government wasn’t behind the removal, are they now prepared to reinstate it?

QandA Episode raises questions about religion in Australia

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I threw my hat in the ring and tweeted this,

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

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

First, we can’t escape religion.

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

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

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

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

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

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

As the book of Ecclesiastes puts it, 

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

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

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

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

Second, everyone worships.

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

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

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

As both the law and Jesus teach, 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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.”

Melbourne is filled with rage and it should grieve us

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Sex really is binary”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalms 15 says,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Age says no to the Lord’s Prayer. What does this Christian minister say?

/ MurrayCampbell

The near-annual call to remove the Lord’s Prayer from the Victorian halls of power has reemerged in the media.  Boroondara Council has suspended the recitation of the Lord’s prayer, after being directed by a ‘legal letter’ alleging that the practice is unlawful.

In 2021,  Former MP Fiona Patten of the Sex Party (now Reason Party) introduced legislation to have the Lord’s Prayer removed from the Victorian Parliament. The motion failed, but the Attorney General indicated that the Government would reconsider legislation in the new Parliament. 

The Age newspaper has tonight reaffirmed its push to ban the Lord’s Prayer from our political institutions. An Editorial was published, arguing that today’s multi faith society and a decline in Christianity demonstrate that this Christian prayer no longer has a place in our political institutions. 

“In the 2021 census, barely 44 per cent of respondents said they were of Christian affiliation. New migrants, meanwhile, were more likely to practise a different religion (40.7 per cent of those arriving from 2017 to 2021) or no religion at all (28.5 per cent) compared with those affiliated with Christianity (28.4 per cent)…These trends are likely to continue. According to the census, while older generations are still more likely to practise a Christian faith, more than 60 per cent of Millennials either follow a different religion or none at all. This necessarily has implications for those public institutions that still incorporate the Christian faith into their procedures, among them many of Victoria’s local councils.”

As a Christian minister living and serving in Victoria, I have some thoughts about this perennial debate. I have shared them previously and I’ll repeat them here for the sake of public information and discussion.

The Age Editorial makes a point (as did Fiona Patten back in 2021) and it’s not without some merit, but it’s not without a reasonable refutation. 

First, this is an audible reminder to Victorians of the fact that Australia has been profoundly and positively shaped by Christianity. The prayer offers both a historical and cultural connection to the worldview that has provided vital and foundational influence on Australian life. The Lord’s Prayer serves as one of the few remaining signals in Parliament to our nation’s Christian past. This is a past that many wish to have erased although doing so will also remove the very foundations upon which our society depends for stability, tolerance, and viability. 

Second, the Lord’s Prayer is a salient reminder of our humanity and our dependence on God who is Sovereign and good. We ultimately need a God of Biblical proportions to give us wisdom and understanding as we lead, serve and live. 

However, again missing in this conversation is this key question: What is the Lord’s Prayer about? What are we praying?

This prayer which brings great comfort is also dangerous to pray. The words Jesus taught are not vague spiritual notions; nice and innocuous. If anything, the Lord’s Prayer should probably come with a warning sign or some kind of disclosure before reading. Indeed, there are bigger and better reasons for avoiding this prayer (and for praying it). Let me explain.

The prayer begins with Jesus addressing,

“‘Our Father in heaven,”

Jesus invites us to call God, Father. This is an incredibly wonderful idea and it’s one that’s unique to Christianity. To know God as Father suggests that he is not an impersonal being, but he is relational and personal. What a remarkable concept Jesus is teaching!

However, God is not everyone’s Father and it’s imprudent to call him such. It is inappropriate for any child to call me dad, only my children can do that. Similarly, only God’s children can truly address him as Father. It is exclusive and yet it is also wonderfully inclusive, for no one is born Christian but we are adopted by grace, a gift from God. The Bible shows us that the privilege of knowing God as Father comes through faith in his Son. This is one of the great possibilities that’s opened in Christianity, we can come to know God as Father.

It is either a bold or very foolish politician who addresses God as Father if they have not first put their faith in his Son. 

Notice also how the Lord’s Prayer petitions God to end this fallen world and to judge wrongdoing,

“your kingdom come,
your will be done,
    on earth as it is in heaven.”

This prayer is asking  God to bring an end to all sin, evil, and death, and to judge the guilty. It is also an appeal for God to unveil his rule publicly and universally so that we might live under and enjoy eternity with him in the new creation. Are we ready to pray for Divine judgment on the Victorian Parliament, and all our attitudes and actions? 

The Lord’s Prayer recognises God who provides our daily provisions and who is able to do the harder work, of forgiving us our sins: “forgive us our sins as we forgive those who sin against us.” Such a petition is humbling, requires honesty, and it provides a stunning possibility; Divine forgiveness. There is hypocrisy and hubris to ask God for forgiveness and to speak words that depend on a crucified and risen Christ without intellectual and heart assent to them. 

If we’re being honest, prayer can act like a placebo, serving to trick my consciousness into believing everything will work out. Prayers, even in many churches, have become about upholding tradition rather than the intended purpose which is about knowing and delighting in God. However, one cannot read this prayer with understanding and come to those conclusions.

I understand why some Christians (and even unbelievers) are keen for the Lord’s Prayer to remain in the Parliamentary (and Council) program and I’ve above outlined two reasons above. At the same time, I am not keen to see our political and council representatives heaping more coals on their heads by speaking words that condemn them before an authority who stands above their own station.

Removing the Lord’s Prayer is another indication of a culture turning its back on the very beliefs upon which the very best of society is built. However, its continuation is not a sign of living faith but of hypocrisy and dead religion. While there is great sadness in seeing my State of Victoria walk away from the God who exists, lives, and saves, the answer is not found in the local Council or in the State Parliament but in the local church. Christians should take care in how we argue, for we are mistaken if we conflate civil society with the Kingdom of God. The Kingdom of God and the cause of Jesus Christ isn’t extended through such cultural nodding toward Christianity. The Lord’s Prayer belongs to the Church. The Gospel is advanced when Christians believe, pray, and live out what Jesus taught us to pray.

This prayer provides comfort to millions of Christians and is far more weighty and formidable than I suspect many assume. My advice to the Victorian Parliament today is to pause and read it very carefully and to ponder the theological statements Jesus is making.

Essendon apologizes to Andrew Thorburn

/ MurrayCampbell

Religious freedom received an early Christmas present this year with Essendon Football Club today issuing an apology to Andrew Thorburn. 

The forced resignation of Andrew Thorburn in October, following less than 24 hours in the job as Essendon’s new CEO, was one of the biggest stories in Victoria for 2022. After journalists dug into his church’s website, they found sermons where both homosexual practices and abortion were referred to as sinful. 

It was a classic case of cut and paste; find something controversial and ignore the rest. There was one insensitive analogy contained in one of the quoted sermons, but otherwise, the views expressed by Thorburn’s church are what you will find in any Christian Church across Australia. City on a Hill, is a mainstream Anglican Church that preaches the sermon Gospel that is common around Australia and which is deeply embedded in historic Christianity. In today’s age of tolerance and diversity, classical Christian views are considered today’s heresy and worthy of public humiliation and even loss of employment. Thorburn’s sin was that he attends COAH and until recently served as Chair of the Council. 

The Essendon board clearly thought that were acting with the backing of the new moral majority. Certainly, there was plenty of outrage found in printed media and Premier Daniel Andrews was quick to grab the footy and run with it. Perhaps the more accurate metaphor was that Andrews tackled the man without the ball! He said,  

“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.”

Business columnist for The Age, Elizabeth Knight, argued that the Thorburn case is proof that religion and business don’t mix and Christians holding to, you know, Christian things, should be excluded from the business world.

“Business doesn’t mix with religion in the same way it doesn’t mix with pleasure. Some would argue that AFL is a religion among its legion of fans, but first and foremost it’s a business. Andrew Thorburn and Essendon’s management that stupidly appointed him as the chief executive should have understood this.”

“A decade or two ago, corporations and their stakeholders may have tolerated Thorburn’s association with a church with strong views on the homosexuality and abortion. But not today.

Whether Thorburn personally holds those extreme opinions is irrelevant, Essendon is a valuable and highly recognised brand, and it cannot afford to be tarnished by any proximity to views that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan base and the broader community.”

At the time, Andrew Thorburn released a statement in which he fairly summed up the situation,  

“ today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square.”

While Essendon FC initially responded in tune with the public cheer squad, they almost certainly acted outside the law. Legal experts have for months suggested that Thorburn has a case against the football club for unlawful religious discrimination. 

Andrew Thorburn engaged with lawyers and has now engaged with Essendon. Today, the football club has formally apologised to him and donated an undisclosed sum to an ethics institute. Thorburn has agreed to drop all legal action against the club. 

Will others follow suit and apologise for their role in this unnecessary saga?

This is a welcome outcome. One, it communicates to the business world that you can’t push out Christians (and people of other faiths) from the workforce on account of their religious associations or beliefs. More importantly, as someone who has been watching at some distance, I am thankful for the way Andrew Thorburn has responded throughout. I didn’t read or hear any vindictive words or slanderous retorts, as did fill much of the discourse surrounding the story. Rather, he approached the club and offered to help on a volunteer basis. He didn’t demand financial recompense as he might have done, instead, the agreed sum is going to a charity. 

The Bible verse that comes to mind as I learn of how Andrew Thorburn has behaved is 1 Peter 3:9.

“Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.”

While the law may have come to Thorburn’s defence in this instance, Victorians are very much aware of how religious freedoms have diminished somewhat in recent years. And given the Government and current cultural preferences, these freedoms are likely to further narrow in times ahead. So while we were shocked by the appalling treatment Thorburn received by Essendon, our Premier and others, I’m grateful for the gracious way Thorburn has responded, and it’s one that we may do well to consider for ourselves when that day arrives. 

You see, Christians can hold to Jesus’ teaching about marriage and about life, and treat others with kindness and grace. Accepting the Bible’s vision for human life and human sexuality doesn’t breed bigotry, but a profound desires for the best for others. Holding these things together may be anathema to our zealous culture, but they can and do belong. Christians don’t choose between truth and love, or between grace and goodness. Indeed, this is one of the wonders of the Christmas message.

When it comes to Christmas, once we’ve unwrapped all the pageantry, presents, and tinsel, we find the message of God come to earth. The infant born in Bethlehem was the universe’s maker, true God from true God. God didn’t leave heaven to experience the most ordinary of beginnings because his view of the human condition is one of a premiership winning footy team. God saw helpless, hopeless, sinful people breaking all the rules of the game and thumbing their noses at the umpire. Knowing this, God determined, in love I want to redeem them.

The Bible text for my Christmas Day sermon puts it this way, 

“ we do see Jesus, who was made lower than the angels for a little while, now crowned with glory and honor because he suffered death, so that by the grace of God he might taste death for everyone.” (Hebrews 2:9)

Today is a good day for Victoria. Christmas Day points us to an even better day that can be known every day regardless of how the wind is blowing in old Melbourne town. 

A Christian responds to Victoria’s State Election

/ MurrayCampbell

On Saturday morning before going to vote at the Victorian State election, I sent out this tweet, quoting Psalm 146,

“Do not put your trust in princes,

    in human beings, who cannot save.

When their spirit departs, they return to the ground;

    on that very day their plans come to nothing.

Blessed are those whose help is the God of Jacob,

    whose hope is in the Lord their God.”

This morning, the day after the election, I retweeted these Bible verses. The reason being, the words of the Psalm remain true, before and after the votes had been cast and counted.

 I understand that in quoting Psalm 146, some people might be a little annoyed and perhaps a tad angry,  especially among voters disappointed by the election result. I certainly don’t mean to sound unfeeling or facile, as though the election was unimportant. I happen to believe elections do matter because government plays a significant role in the life of society; controlling much power and influence. After all, Government is a legitimate institution that falls under the banner of God’s common grace. It may not be the main game, but government nonetheless plays an important supporting role. 

It is also the case that Government has less influence in setting the direction for society as it is about providing the legal, economic, and social mechanisms by which society moves in the direction that it is already preferencing. The old adage about politics being downstream of culture is complicated but still true. 

The reason behind sharing the Psalm 146 quotation is that I’m wondering if we are attaching too much responsibility on Government for fixing social ills and rectifying economic currents. This is true for both the left and the right of politics. Have we become too dependent upon Parliaments and MPs for addressing what was once the prevue of churches, synagogues, media, and an array of social organisations? If we have lost trust in those civil and religious institutions (which seems to be the case), faith in our governments is also in sharp decline. There lies perhaps some of our misplaced faith and therefore frustration and despair at the political scene. We are not meant to burden Government with all our hopes and demands and needs. A healthy society needs to spread that load. Indeed, a truly healthy society would not require government to create what we have in Australia: a society wrapped in red tape and wads of laws and rules stickier than gaffer tape.

There are better governments and worse; it’s rarely a zero-sum game.  More Victorians than not prefer the given election outcome over the alternatives. After all, that is what the votes indicate. Many Victorians are pleased with the outcome, with many others perplexed or angered, and more than a few are underwhelmed by the choice of candidates that were on offer. I suspect there is also a deep suspicion of and discontent toward political parties across the spectrum. Sometimes it’s a case of choosing the least bad option available, or at least that’s how many voters are feeling: I don’t like this candidate, but at least they’re not the other candidates! 

How did we respond to the election at church today? This morning my church prayed for the new state government, as we do regularly for whoever is in charge at Spring Street and in Canberra. And we also prayed for our local representatives in Parliament. That’s what Christians do. It’s one of the few constancies in the unpredictable world of politics; churches pray for those in authority. To the reluctant among us, let’s consider it this way, if the Apostle Paul could pray for the Roman Emperor, then we ought to pray for our governments. 

We should pray for our political representatives because they carry significant responsibility. Given the platform that we build for our leaders (or scaffold as it may be), praying is the right thing to do. Of course, government isn’t the big game in town, but its role impacts life at every level and therefore great wisdom, patience, integrity and compassion are necessary.  

Without some kind of cultural reorientation, I suspect Governments will become bigger and bolder. It is interesting to see how Australians, or at least Victorians, have become more comfortable with authoritarian personality and political styled governing. The myth of the convict, bushranger, and nonchalant Aussie digger may still exist in local sporting clubs, but as a people group, we are quite accepting of big government and monocratic-styled leadership. I’m not arguing a case either way here but simply noting the public trend.

Of course, my eyesight is myopic and so looking at the next 4 years is an imprecise art. There are, after all, no more prophets! My guess is that in the name of freedom, more laws and regulations will be introduced, and in the name of economic prosperity, more debt inducing spending will occur. If we follow the now predominant current, I anticipate that we’ll see tighter controls on social behaviour, fewer parental rights and a more pronounced religion-socio education drive.

I would not be surprised if we see religious freedoms further eroded during this next term of government. That’s no scare campaign, I’m simply noting the growing list of legislative changes that have been enacted in Victoria in recent years: from removing freedoms from religious organisations and schools to employ people of faith, to banning some religious conversations and prayers with threats of criminal charges and prison time, and now to Premiers interfering with workplace appointments because a football club appointed a Christian man who also serves on the council at his local church. I’d be surprised if the cultural vultures do not require more blood to be taken.

Of course, what Victoria is experiencing is simply a few steps ahead of the rest of the country and it’s indicative of an entire part of the world that has not only lost its moorings but is consciously tearing them apart and doing so without realising that without these foundations, we are left to be smashed about by the wind and waves.

So I go back to the verse in which I began, Christians should not look to government to be the saviour of society. Don’t put your trust in princes and premiers. Honour them and pray for them, but let’s not expect government to rescue society from the deepest and darkest of places.

This is one of the flaws present in left-leaning politics; it believes Government is the answer.  Hence it’s no surprise to see legislative agendas enveloping society around a new moral religion. God is optional in the new religion, but the worship of the sexualised individual is compulsory. Anyone thinking otherwise just isn’t listening to Daniel Andrews and Victoria’s Human Rights Commissioner and a hundred other bureaucrats working with the Government. 

There is a counterpoint emerging on the right side of politics that is also deeply concerning, and perhaps more so. Daniel Andrews may talk about how his catholicism influences his life, but people can see through the disconnection. Christian nationalism, on the other hand, has started to captivate some pew sitters and pastors and therefore it is more likely to create issues for Gospel ministry in Victoria. This theorem is thankfully marginal and I pray it doesn’t take hold as it is doing in parts of the United States, but nonetheless, I don’t wait for 100 mosquitoes to enter my house before dealing with the first one.

Christians, be careful of voices that speak more about politics than they do the Great Commission and use more words of anger than they do words of compassion and mercy. By all means, as commitment to common grace and out of love for your neighbour, keep government accountable. Christians might join a political party and stand for Parliament, but even the most Christian of political leaders and most Christian of political agendas isn’t going to redeem society. That kind of thinking ignores the testimony of Scripture, namely that the gospel is God’s power of salvation and the church is God’s big game in town. Our churches are more likely today to sit on the sideline of culture and be ignored by many,  but nonetheless, the church is the centrepiece of God’s work. Therefore, whatever you do in the name of political inspiration, aspiration or disappointment, don’t confuse it with the Gospel, don’t conflate common grace with saving grace, and don’t fuse the church with the state. 

The best way we can love our fellow Victorians is by serving your church and being clear on the gospel.

I’ll finish up here with one final word about misplacing hope and faith in political elections. During the Premier Daniel Andrews victory speech last night, he said, “Friends. Hope always defeats hate.”

The statement is true, although one might like to fill the word hope with some content and also define hate as something more than an imprecise aspersion on your opponents. 

Also, the irony of this comment was not lost. The election campaign was about as spiteful and negative a campaign as I’ve seen, and it was true across the major parties. And yes, our Premier’s chosen rhetoric can at times be described as hateful. In fact, I can think of few political leaders excising as much hateful language as Mr Andrews, especially as he describes people of faith in Victoria. His verbal attacks are often little more than vicious mischaracterisations of people (think Andrew Thorburn), but verbal attacks of this kind garner wide support in Victoria because it fits the religious narrative that now dominates the horizon. 

Daniel Andrews is not only an advocate but a victim of a worldview that sees all other views as anathema and a danger to society. The new dogma that he seems to preach demands that we either agree and follow the new moral absolutes or we belong to the devil. Love means full acceptance and tolerance means public affirmation, and any diverging from the narrow path is justification for public humiliation by our Premier and others. It’s a tricky path though because the definition of acceptance and tolerance are continually changing, like the staircases at Hogwarts. Orthodoxy one week is heresy the next, as public figures are finding out once they’re cancelled. 

 I am forever grateful to Jesus who didn’t affirm everything about me, and who didn’t accept some of the desires of my heart. God did something far greater and more loving. God disagreed and even called out my living as sin. The Bible even says it’s worthy of death, and yet God loved disagreeable people and his only Son gave his life on the cross. So yes, hope has defeated hate. 

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

“Businesses can’t afford to be tarnished” by Christians, writes Business Columnist

/ MurrayCampbell

Business columnist for The Age, Elizabeth Knight, writes that there is an irreconcilable difference between business and Christianity, which means businesses and even AFL Clubs are right to exclude people on the basis of religious beliefs.

She says,

“Business doesn’t mix with religion in the same way it doesn’t mix with pleasure. Some would argue that AFL is a religion among its legion of fans, but first and foremost it’s a business. Andrew Thorburn and Essendon’s management that stupidly appointed him as the chief executive should have understood this.”

“A decade or two ago, corporations and their stakeholders may have tolerated Thorburn’s association with a church with strong views on the homosexuality and abortion. But not today.

Whether Thorburn personally holds those extreme opinions is irrelevant, Essendon is a valuable and highly recognised brand, and it cannot afford to be tarnished by any proximity to views that are deemed offensive by a big chunk of its fan base and the broader community.”

Victorian Christians are understandably shaken this week, given Premier Daniel Andrews public attack on Andrew Thorburn which added pressure on Essendon’s board to see him out the door after less than 24 hours in the role. And now we have a business columnist for one of the country’s major newspapers, justifying businesses no longer employing people of faith. 

We should note that it is illegal for the workplace to discriminate against job applicants and employees on the basis of their religious beliefs, but here we are with a business columnist pretty much saying that’s how it needs to be.

Let’s not play the hypocrites game that is being kicked around this week: ‘it’s not about personal religious beliefs’. Pretty much everyone who has said this has also added in the same breath, ‘he had to go because of his views and association with that church’.

Elizabeth Knight doesn’t even feel the need to hide the religious vilification that is spilling out this week. Those standing against Thorburn feel as though the crowd is behind them and cheering on them as though they’re at the Colosseum. 

A word to readers who haven’t yet lost their sense of decency and the belief in the good old-fashioned sense of tolerance. When Knight says that businesses can’t afford to be ‘tainted’ by association with churches like City on a Hill, let’s be perfectly clear about what this means.  City on a Hill is a normal, typical, mainstream Christian Church that teaches, believes, and practices the historic faith. They are no more controversial than Jesus and the Apostles and every faithful Christian Church since. 

It is true, that there are a few ‘Christian’ voices speaking in support of Essendon. Let the reader note: those folk are the very same ones who’ve given up the Bible and the Gospel and instead bought the theology from the same book as the Essendon Football Club. They tend to be the same voices who supported Daniel Andrew’s conversion laws to ban Christians from speaking and convincing to individuals of the Christian view of human sexuality. Even praying with people can result in a criminal conviction! Unsurprisingly,  their churches are declining into obscurity whereas traditional churches are far more likely to see growth. That’s not hubris, it’s the way it works.  

My bigger point here, one that I’ve made already this week and one that we’ve been warned about for years now by Christian leaders including Stephen Mcalpine, is that the workplace is not a secure or safe place for Christians (nor indeed for Muslims and Jews). Many Christians were already nervous at work, even fearful, because of the pressures to celebrate all manner of “diversity” events. Admitting you’re a Christian is like telling people you have COVID and you’re about to cough all over them! If Essendon can find a way to remove a high profile Christian man, of course, others can do so, and indeed it’s been going on for some time now. 

Andrew Thorburn was right when he said, 

… today it became clear to me that my personal Christian faith is not tolerated or permitted in the public square.

Elizabeth Knight is nodding her head, 

“Running Essendon was a job that Thorburn could have managed even as a side hustle. But it’s hard to see where he will get his next gig, even after the current controversy dies down.”

Christian, be clear about your convictions and don’t let this temporary and passing age cause you to stumble or fall short. 

Christian, be wise in how you conduct yourself at work and on social media.

Christian, show kindness even toward those who oppose you.

Christian, talk to your pastors and church and shore up ways we can support and encourage each other

Christian, “Consider it pure joy, my brothers and sisters, whenever you face trials of many kinds, because you know that the testing of your faith produces perseverance.” (James 1:2)