Open Baptists closing the door on the Gospel

/ MurrayCampbell

A new Baptist network in Australia has been announced. Rumours have been circulating for some time as disenchanted Baptist pastors meet to discuss the future. They are concerned by signs that State Baptist Unions may be reforming. By reformation, I don’t mean ‘Reformed’ but rather an evident desire among Baptists to affirm foundational beliefs, including around marriage and human sexuality. Whether we like it or not, views on marriage, sex and gender have become a point of orthodoxy in our secular culture. Given the Scriptures are already clear and as Christians, we are people of the word, it makes sense for our churches and denominations to build clarity on these matters.

The Open Baptists are open for business, but the question is, open to what and to whom? 

Photo by Life Of Pix on Pexels.com

The name kinda gives the game away. They are open to new expressions of sexuality and closed to Jesus’ teaching on marriage They are open to new ways of reading the Bible and closed to the Bible’s own hermeneutic. They want our Baptist associations to be open to all manner of theological convictions and ideas, as though the only way to be Baptist is to accept everything and stand for almost nothing.

In part (a large part), these Open Baptists are responding to NSW and ACT Baptists who have undertaken the faithful steps to insist that churches and pastors adhere to the “basic doctrines, objects and values of the Association”. Part of this includes affirming the Christian definition of marriage, in contrast to the recent redefinition of marriage under Australian Federal law. Churches that fail to do so, may be removed from association and pastors lose their accreditation. 

Of course, there isn’t anything outrageous about the step undertaken by the NSW and ACT Association. Indeed it is a positive one for it is signalling that Baptists believe what God says and we trust his good word. But not everyone is happy, indeed some Baptists are fuming and others are saddened.

On their website, the Open Baptists state, 

‘We are a group/network of Baptists and Baptist churches across Australia and beyond, committed to acknowledging Jesus Christ as the head of the church, the priesthood of all believers, freedom of conscience and the autonomy of the local church. We partner together, aware of our differences, in mutual support and mission to see the good news of Jesus made known.’

That paragraph sounds pretty awesome and every Baptist could probably say a loud Amen. The problem is, they have filled these principles with meanings that Baptists don’t subscribe to, and while highlighting these Baptist distinctives they are ignoring others. 

Let’s not be confused by calls to historic Baptist convictions; this is only part of the story. Baptist associations have always established parameters for fellowship, and this includes statements of faith and affirmation of theological priorities. This doesn’t lead to uniformity but supports genuine Gospel unity, from which flows mission, theological education, and ministry partnerships.

The website later admits that issues related to marriage and sexuality ‘have been particular points of concern for some’. Well, that’s an understatement! It is this very issue that has led to this moment.  

To be fair, some of the Baptists who are interested in this new network are not embracing same-sex marriage (and other current notions around sexuality and gender identity) but they so value the autonomy of the local church that they hold that all the churches should coexist.

Baptists are right to cherish autonomy and freedom of conscience, but these are not an open door to justify any kind of errant ideas and views. A Baptist association is a group of autonomous churches in fellowship together, through agreement with core theological and spiritual truths as defined by God in his word. When churches break these, it is only appropriate that they are called to repentance and should they persist, then they are shown the door. 

Surely we recognise that Christians have a higher responsibility; namely faithfulness to God and obedience to his word. Autonomy and conscience don’t serve us particularly well when we’ve cut ourselves loose from the Gospel.  That’s the issue facing Baptists today in Australia. Where churches and pastors hold errant views on crucial matters, is it appropriate for them to remain in fellowship with the wider association? Doesn’t Jesus call out religious leaders when they espouse wrong teachings and ethics? Don’t the Apostolic writings urge churches to dismiss those who abandon the faith and teach aberrant ideas?

If Open Baptists believe Jesus Christ is the head of the church, then surely they would believe what Jesus teaches about human sexuality and submit to him in teaching and practice. That’s the thing, ‘open Baptists’ are closed to what Jesus teaches about marriage and human sexuality. For example, in Matthew 19 Jesus says, 

Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

In a single statement, Jesus repudiates the sexual progressivism of the Pharisees of his day, he insists upon the Genesis paradigm for marriage, and he defines all other sexual activity as porneia, meaning sexual immorality.  That’s not what at least some Open Baptists say and do.

The Open Baptists are holding a conference next month to discern the nature of their network and what kind of relationship, if any, they will have with State Baptist associations. 

The keynote speaker at this conference is a current lecturer at Whitley College and former pastor of Collins Street Baptist, where she campaigned for same sex marriage, despite the agreed position of the Baptist Union of Victoria. 

Canberra Baptist is hosting the event, and so presumably is supportive of Open Baptists. It is well known that Canberra is among a  number of churches railing against the Baptist Union affirming classical marriage and refusing to embrace alternative views. 

Lest we think that this is all about sex, this is but a presenting issue.  Dig a little deeper and I suspect we’ll uncover other doctrines that open Baptists either dilute or altogether try to extinguish. It is no secret that among some of these progressive voices are Baptist pastors and theologians who advocate universalism, who reject penal substitution atonement, and who diminish Fatherhood language for God, and much more.

The real issue isn’t even sexuality but the authority of the Bible and the trustworthiness of God who speaks through his written word. Once all the hermeneutical gymnastics and eisegetical smoke machines are cleared, the Bible really is clear on marriage. The subject matters so much to Jesus that when he addresses the church in Thyatira, he is adamant that the church must not tolerate teaching that leads to sexual immorality. Doing so isn’t loving or kind or useful to either the church or to unbelievers in the community.

The current pastor of Canberra Baptist Church recently stated her disagreement with NSW and ACT Baptists, and did so by expressing this view, 

I also hold as incredibly precious that we continue to interpret Scripture; that our understanding of the world, our contemporary learning about gender and identity and attraction is shaped by what we know of the love of God and the dignity and worth of every human being.

And, finally, based on that understanding of being church and reading Scripture, I hold as incredibly precious our seeking to be a community that welcomes LGBTIQ+ people and recognises their call as followers of Jesus; that honours those in faithful committed relationships and those who are single; that invites everyone to live out God’s intentions for us as God’s people.

This is a very different expression of Christian belief and practice from what we find in the Scriptures. In sharp contrast, Paul beautifully outlines the power of God to wash and sanctify and justify in Christ. As though preempting open baptists, he emphasises that sinful sexual practices are a shut door on the Kingdom of God, but there is a door open filled with grace and forgiveness to everyone who enters through repentance, 

Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men 10 nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. 11 And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

When God has so wonderfully opened the door to eternal life, why would any Christian church choose to close it. Where is the love of neighbour in that? Why would other churches think it’s good to partner with these door shutters? If anything shouldn’t we be guarding our churches against gatecrashers?

Time will tell whether these Open Baptists will try to remain in fellowship with existing Baptist unions or depart to begin their own association. One thing seems to be clear and that is, in NSW and ACT, baptists have resolved that faithfulness to the Gospel does matter and that it is no longer possible to partner with churches or pastors who have moved away and embraced errant teachings and practices. Let them go. NSW has removed the sticky question of property, allowing these churches to keep their properties as part of the trust while no longer being in association. This arrangement should work both ways. Hopefully, other State Unions will follow suit.

There is a stark difference between this organisation and new networks that are setting up in other denominations such as the Anglicans. While groups like GAFCON and the Diocese of the Southern Cross are rallying around Christian orthodoxy in settings where their denomination has become hostile toward Gospel orthodoxy, Open Baptists have emerged as an anti-reform voice.

‘Open Baptist’ is a clever name but also quite misleading. It’s a descriptor of those embracing today’s spiritual zeitgeist and shutting the door on God’s Gospel and keeping people from seeing the glory of God in the face of Jesus Christ. Baptists are a big family and we need to be big enough to say no, when the head of the church, Jesus Christ, says no. 

Perhaps Jesus’ parable is more pertinent than we realise, 

13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

October 5 – The unfolding story of Andy Stanley and his teaching and pastoral approach has some parallels to issues explored in the above piece. Sam Allberry’s response on Christianity Today is worth reading, not only as Sam refutes Stanley’s approach but as a man who is same sex attracted, these issues are personal. I appreciate the way Sam neither dilutes Gospel clarity nor Gospel compassion, doctrinal truth or pastoral grace. https://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2023/october-web-only/andy-stanley-unconditional-conference-theology-lgbt.html

Every generation needs reform: 5 Lessons about Reform from 2 Chronicles

/ MurrayCampbell

Church must change! Bring on the great reset! Make Church great again!

Sloganeering can sound like a clarion call or like cringe. This self-absorbed need for redefining, refreshing and relevance has captured the attention of many strands of Christian thought and Church growth networks. It may sound new, fresh and revitalising, but there is rarely anything new under the sun. While Churches diagnose the issues with as much concurrence as a circus of entrepreneurs, evangelists and the local university student union,  and while answers are equally disparate, there is a semblance of agreement that in Australia our churches have taken some missteps, while others have leapt over the precipice and into the void.

We’ve had several visitors to church recently who are struck by the fact as a church we read the Bible and preach through the Bible, and we pray. Apparently ,many Melbourne churches don’t see the need to do this. My question for Melbourne churches is this, what are you doing? Who are you listening to? What are you teaching?

As a Church, we’re currently preaching through 1 and 2 Chronicles. After 18 years at Mentone Baptist Church, we were yet to explore this 2 volume work. I decided that 2023 is the year to do so. As I read, prepared, and preached I noticed that one of the recurring themes in Chronicles is this topic of reformation. While aspects of reform are to fore in many of the sermons, we gave it special attention for 2 weeks as we examined the life and times of one of the key reformers in Judah’s history, King Jehoshaphat.

Other than King Solomon, more chapters are dedicated to Jehoshaphat’s reign than any other King in 2 Chronicles. That fact alone caused me to take a good look at his rule and the events that took place under him. 

Jehoshaphat was a reformer. There are principles and lessons about his reforms that are useful as we consider what it means to reform the church today.  As you’ll see, these characteristics are not unique to Jehoshaphat, these features are found consistently throughout the Bible and yet they find vivid expression in this Old Testament period. 

The word ‘reform’ is used in politics and economics and law and education. When reform is announced, it means there’s something wrong, the system is broken or out of date and needs reforming. It requires fixing or renewing. 

Reform is famously used to describe one of the great Christian movements of history to which we owe so much today, the Reformation: with Martin Luther, John Calvin, Thomas Cranmer, and best of all, the Baptists! What happened is that throughout the 16th Century, Christians living in different cities and speaking different languages were convicted by God’s word that some of the official teachings and morals of Rome were in error and out of step with the Bible. Across Europe, people went back to the Bible, ad fontes, and God began to reform and renew thinking, theology, education, civics, ethics and more. The Bible again changed the world. 

This notion of reform didn’t however first appear in 16th Century Europe. We find reforms taking place in the Bible, and the reign of Jehoshaphat is one such example.

1. Every new generation needs reform

Jehoshaphat is among many Kings of Israel and Judah who understood that each new generation need reforming. While he doesn’t initiate his reforms as quickly as someone like Hezekiah, he nonetheless commits to returning Judah to God’s covenantal promises. This is set in stark contrast to his northern contemporary, King Ahab, who flew the flag of progress and change.

17:3 The Lord was with Jehoshaphat because he followed the ways of his father David before him. He did not consult the Baals 4 but sought the God of his father and followed his commands rather than the practices of Israel. 5 The Lord established the kingdom under his control; and all Judah brought gifts to Jehoshaphat, so that he had great wealth and honor. 6 His heart was devoted to the ways of the Lord; furthermore, he removed the high places and the Asherah poles from Judah.

Jehoshaphat might be King but he understands God is God and his role under God is to serve and obey him. So begins the process of removing errant practices and ideas and returning the people to God’s revealed will in his word. 

Reform isn’t about maintaining dead religion or resisting the future or pining for the glory days of film noir or art deco. The Chronicler explains reformation is about devotion to God and a heart for His people. We read how Jehoshaphat’s heart was devoted to God’s commands. There is no distinction for Jehoshaphat between seeking God with his heart and following God’s words. Heart and mind, attitude and action, belong together and move in unison when we love God. We don’t choose between loving God and obeying the Bible. We don’t choose to be a heart Christian or a mind Christian.  

In loving God, Jehoshaphat leads Judah in reformation in these important ways:

  1. He sought God and followed God’s commands
  2. He removes idols
  3. He raises up teachers to teach God’s words to the people of God
  4. He appoints judges for the towns and regions

Jehoshaphat’s reforms include an aspect of the negative, saying no to false worship and removing practices and objects that distorted or altogether replaced the true worship of God. His reforms are also positive, sending out teachers and judges who will bring the people back to God’s words and cause them to live under the covenant.

7 In the third year of his reign he sent his officials … 9 They taught throughout Judah, taking with them the Book of the Law of the Lord; they went around to all the towns of Judah and taught the people. (17:7,9)

5 He appointed judges in the land, in each of the fortified cities of Judah. 6 He told them, “Consider carefully what you do, because you are not judging for mere mortals but for the Lord, who is with you whenever you give a verdict. 7 Now let the fear of the Lord be on you. Judge carefully, for with the Lord our God there is no injustice or partiality or bribery.” (19:5-7)

2. We move forward by going back to God’s word

Jehoshaphat leads the people not forward and away from God, but forward with God by going back to the word. He is a word-centred leader which is evidenced by him sending out teachers to all the cities and towns of Judah, men who took the Scriptures with them and taught the people.

One of the myths embedded in some missiology and church planting manuals is that to reach people today we need to find new ways and innovations. If I collected $10 for every time I hear talks and blogs and books advocating fresh, relevant and powerful ideas for churches, I’d soon be in a position to buy the Vatican! 

Of course, not everything new in the world and not every innovation is bad and wrong; that would be silly. Mission and Church have a language. I don’t simply mean linguistic and verbal language, but there are communicative signs and symbols in the way we do music and the way we organise church meeting places and the way we connect the gospel with people’s lives and cultural moments. But attached to many plans and dreams for the future, is a hubris and misstep that believes reaching people for Christ today requires new methods and new messages.

New is superior. New is more interesting. New is more authentic.

Of course, this vibe runs deep through many facets of our culture: think art,  music, movies, and even ethics. Ethics today is like experimental art. In places like Melbourne, what’s noticed and praised are new expressions and new definitions for those big questions of life,  ‘who am I’ and ‘what’s life about’. He old old story lacks gravitas, it doesn’t sell tickets, or so we assume.

This thinking is of course myopic. Plenty of new ideas are also disturbing and dangerous. Think of the subject of the movie Oppenheimer: the atomic bomb!

In fact, ecclesial commitment to innovation often creates new problems rather than fixing old ones. The consumer bent model of church that provides a cinematic experience or the moshe pit frenzy, the slick preaching that feels like a Netflix special, or the stripped back lounge church where we don’t preach or sing or do Bible because that creates awkward conversation.

Neither am I not arguing for traditionalism or conservatism. We don’t need to clean out the organ pipes and take classes to understand thee and thou. The tie is not more faithful than the t-shirt, or jeans over the dress. It’s not that one hour on Sunday is holier than 2, or a 50-minute exposition more faithful than 20. Within God’s given shape for church, there is great flexibility and freedom. And yet Jehoshaphat understood that faith has particular content and contour which shapes all of life. 

The shape and trajectory of the local church is far less glamorous and sounds way less cool and exciting and all the other adjectives we use to appeal to our congregation’s hearts, time and money.  And yet, it is far more substantial.

In the case of Jehoshaphat, his reforms produce something far more interesting and engaging and serious than what had previously captured Judah’s attention. In what we might consider rather mundane detail, in commissioning teachers to go to the towns and people with an open Bible, this King was shepherding the people wisely and lovingly. 

Going back to the Bible isn’t a static process or a regressive move. Accepting all those profound ideas about the Trinity and atonement and the incarnation are treasures to wonder and share, not hide away in the too-hard drawer. The Bible’s teaching about sin and salvation, men and women, sex and gender, are to be embraced with thankfulness, not written out of the church. The Bible itself gives us directives as to how to read, understand and interpret the Scriptures. We don’t dismiss any verse or chapter as untrue or irrelevant, but we read appreciating its significance in that salvific moment and in the trajectory of salvation history, which of course finds climax in the person and work of Christ. 

Big dreams and vision setting is fine, and even inspiring, so long as it’s driven by the biblical view of the gospel and grounded and shaped by God’s words in the Bible. The Bible is, after all, God’s loving word for the church. And yet how often is Scripture little more than background noise in our plans and moves and ideas and implementations.

Relevance is a mean master and pursuing it is often a sign that we’ve already lost our way. Many of the Kings of Israel and Judah had that attitude and found prophets to proffer that kind of message. Jehoshaphat doesn’t try to change or update God’s words with the latest trends coming out of Philistia and Ninevah. Instead, he raises up teachers who call the people back to God’s word. 

This word is, as Psalm 19 declares, perfect. One can’t improve a Mozart Piano Concerto. One doesn’t add fresh brushstrokes onto a Rothko canvas. Some things are perfect and complete. 

Jehoshaphat isn’t alone in grasping the need to reform a generation by going back to the word. Jesus holds the Scriptures in the highest regard and he was at pains to explain that not one dot or stroke will disappear. 

As we read the Apostles’ letters, they stress how Christian leaders and church congregations alike must not manipulate the text. We must not change the text or try to reinvent the Scriptures, but faithfully pass them on from one generation to the next. 

It’s what Paul says to Timothy. 

And the things you have heard me say in the presence of many witnesses entrust to reliable people who will also be qualified to teach others. (2 Timothy 2:2)

Timothy is to pass on to the next generation of teachers the same body of teaching given to him from the Apostle who in turn received it from Jesus.

Paul elaborates on his point later on,

But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it, 15 and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, 17 so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.

2 Preach the word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction.

In this age of expressive individualism and disconnection and disappointment, in this age of social media and AI, viruses and geopolitical tremors, God has already shown churches the way. The way forward for our churches is to keep going back to the Bible. That means our gatherings need lots of Bible: reading the Bible out loud in Church and preaching from and through the Bible, and ensuring our songs and prayers are soaked in Scripture. It means our small groups spend time in the word. It means discipleship is more than sharing life and coffee but is teaching them to obey everything Jesus commanded the Apostles (Jesus did say this in the Great Commission). It means structuring our churches and ministries by the word and making sure our mission ventures are about explaining and exhorting the gospel word.

That’s not irrelevance or dullness, it’s captivating. I don’t know what your favourite song is but whatever it is I suspect you have listened to that song 100s of times and you still love it and enjoy listening and singing along.

When Australian and English cricketers were interviewed during the recent Ashes series, they spoke about their love for the game. These cricketers have played hundreds of games and every week they practice in the nets for hours, hitting ball after ball after ball. These world-class athletes share how they are always trying to improve their game. There’s always something new that they can learn about cricket: a shot or ball position they can improve.  The game is still the same game and rules and aims remain the same, but this doesn’t diminish their love of cricket. 

The Bible is so big and deep and rich, that we do not need to alter it or go searching for a new word. By going back to the Bible and believing God, we’re not drinking out-of-date milk gone sour, this is life-giving, drink and food. This word is new every day.

Jehoshaphat’s reforms produce some rather interesting responses

3. Reform made the nations take notice of Judah

Jehoshaphat’s reforms and his renewed focus on God’s words were noticed by surrounding nations, and it caused them to take interest and even to fear the Lord.

Only twice in all of Chronicles do we find this phrase, the fear of the Lord fell on the nations. Both occasions happen during Jehoshaphat’s reign. 

The first instance is ch17, early in his reign.

9 They taught throughout Judah, taking with them the Book of the Law of the Lord; they went around to all the towns of Judah and taught the people.

10 The fear of the Lord fell on all the kingdoms of the lands surrounding Judah, so that they did not go to war against Jehoshaphat. 

I understand that this might feel counterintuitive. To be relevant don’t we need to embrace all the new trends and fads? The reforming church isn’t chasing relevance or neither are we stuck in the mud with rude and angry characters who bemoan everything that is happening in society.

A church in the word will stand out: different, surprising, disagreeable and yet also appealing, objectionable but yet good.

As Tom Holland famously called out English bishops,

‘“I see no point in bishops or preachers or Christian evangelists just recycling the kind of stuff you can get from any kind of soft left liberal because everyone is giving that…if they’ve got views on original sin I would be very interested to hear that”.’

There lies the lie. For Churches to have a future in Australia don’t we need to adapt and change our colours and contours, even our doctrine? The reign of Jehoshaphat says otherwise.

4. Not every prophet is a true prophet

One of the famous incidents during Jehoshaphat’s reign involves what is described as a foolish and even sinful alliance with King Ahab of Israel. There are important lessons to learn about the nature of Christian unity and when it is wise to partner with others and when it is not, but I want to observe the one thing Jehoshaphat does faithfully here: he distinguishes between false words from God and the true word. 

“But Jehoshaphat asked, “Is there no longer a prophet of the Lord here whom we can inquire of?

Ahab has 400 prophets who in unison present what Ahab wants to hear. Their word is popular and soothing, it suggests an air of authenticity and persuasiveness, after all, it’s 400 to 1! Their message plays into Ahab’s a priori commitments and desires. However, as Micaiah spells out, behind these prophets is a lying spirit.

“So now the Lord has put a deceiving spirit in the mouths of these prophets of yours. The Lord has decreed disaster for you.”

Some of our ideas have good intentions but the timing is wrong or they are poorly executed. Sometimes our dreams for mission and church are noble but unwise. There are also messages, sermons and words offered that have demonic origins. Watch out for those sophist explanations of why the atonement isn’t the atonement or why the resurrection of Christ is spiritual but not physical or the appeals to new spirit insights as to why God’s sexual ethics has changed. 

Paul argues similarly, 

“The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons. 2 Such teachings come through hypocritical liars, whose consciences have been seared as with a hot iron. 3 They forbid people to marry and order them to abstain from certain foods, which God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and who know the truth.” (1 Timothy 4:1-4)

Reform isn’t moving away from the Bible and searching for new truths or new words from the Spirit. That’s the kind of attitude that gets Churches into trouble in the first place. In the case of Ahab and his prophets, the word of the Lord was proven true and the prophets false, but only when it was too late.

Micaiah declared, “If you ever return safely, the Lord has not spoken through me.” Then he added, “Mark my words, all you people!” (v.27)

In other words, you’ll know when it happens! You’ll learn God’s words are true when it’s too late.  There is a reason why liberal denominations tend to sink faster and their buildings serve as tombs for spiritual corpses. They promise the gospel of the world and as Jesus says, take it and forfeit your soul.  

5. Reform is fraught with failures and shortcomings.

Jehoshaphat’s reforms made positive impact on those outside Judah, but inside we are told God’s people didn’t want to change.

The end of Jehoshaphat’s life and reign is recorded with these words, 32 He followed the ways of his father Asa and did not stray from them; he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord. 33 The high places, however, were not removed, and the people still had not set their hearts on the God of their ancestors. (20:31-33)

By the end of his life, Jehoshaphat’s reforms were incomplete. At times he compromised and he was inconsistent. After 20 years of teaching and instructing the people, the people still had not set their heart on God. 

The Chronicler doesn’t suggest that Jehoshaphat’s reforms were an error of judgment or built on false assumptions about God and the Bible. Rather, this illustrates the nature of human hearts. There is a warning here, that we can sit under the Bible for years and all that does is bring judgement on yourself because we will not take this gracious word to heart.

It also serves to remind us how normal Christian ministry, that is, ministry of prayer and word, is most often slow and arduous. We thank God when we see lives changed and we grieve when people’s hearts remain unchanged or indifferent. This doesn’t mean God’s method is no longer working. It’s the reality of the human condition. Keep praying and keep teaching.

The famous Reformation of Luther and Calvin made profound changes from which we continue to eat the fruit today: both in our churches and even our secular society. Among the myriad of writers and thinkers and activists, there were some hairy moments, saints behaved like sinners, and whacky enthusiasts and bullish thugs all did their bit to try and manoeuvre reform down all kinds of dangerous roads. Where the true church is, there is always someone with a false passport lurking nearby. 

I recently learned that Martin Luther King’s famous ‘I have a dream speech’ didn’t convert anyone that day or in the days that followed. Today, it’s known as one of the greatest speeches of the 20th Century, but at the time, some of his closest advisors thought that it wasn’t very helpful. They read the manuscript and urged him to leave out those parts which with time proved to be the most memorable. Historian Dominic Sandbrook describes the speech as a slow burner. With time this speech on the steps of the Washington Monument became a hallmark of the civil rights movement.

Paul famously shows us that the word of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing. The Gospel is stupid, silly, immoral, untrue, irrational, we’ve all heard the objections. And yet the same word is the power of God and the wisdom of God that brings salvation to all who believe. Reforming any church or organisation, even our own hearts, can be painful and cause anger, frustration and more. And yet God’s mission and method is as true and good today as it was in Germany 1517 and Carthage in 410, in London 1854 and Shanghai in 2019.

Do you love the church? Do you love the Gospel? Do you long to see God’s Kingdom growing around Australia? 

There is wisdom in Jehoshaphat’s example. The Gospel is engaging and enthralling. The Bible is stunning and shocking. A reforming Church is Spirit-filled, word-centred and life-giving,  joyful and sober-minded, intentional and creative, firm in belief and gracious and kind toward those who yet do not believe. 

The future for churches in Australia doesn’t lay in coveting ourselves with the latest cacophony of trend words and theories, but in pressing ever closer to Christ and letting his word shape our message and method. 

The question isn’t whether churches need changing, but are we being changed and sanctified by the word? If we’re not, then we will be as useful to the Kingdom of God as Ahab’s prophets. If we are, then we can trust God will accomplish his saving purposes and see Jesus keep his promise, “I will build my church”.

Pride will destroy you, your ministry, and people around you

/ MurrayCampbell

You may be familiar with this famous saying, “Pride goes before destruction, a haughty spirit before a fall”. It comes from the Bible, Proverbs 16:18.

We have mixed feelings about pride in Australia. On the one hand, we like to run over any tall poppy with the lawnmower. And yet pride is splashed across Instagram and Facebook pages all the time: pride in achievement and success,  pride in people, pride about identity.  Pride has become an idea or slogan to embrace and celebrate.

We have a discombobulated relationship with pride. 

To quote Pride and Prejudice, 

“[Mr. Darcy’s] pride,” said Miss Lucas, “does not offend me so much as pride often does, because there is an excuse for it. One cannot wonder that so very fine a young man, with family, fortune, every thing in his favor, should think highly of himself. If I may so express it, he has a right to be proud.”

“That is very true,” replied Elizabeth, “and I could easily forgive his pride, if he had not mortified mine.”

I think Australians are selective about the pride we denounce and the pride we embrace.

As a Church last Sunday we looked at the reign of King Uzziah from 2 Chronicles 26. In the account, the theme of power and pride rears its ugly head in devastating form.

Uzziah comes to the throne at the age of 16 and he starts well. While most teenage boys are gaming and playing cricket and using their testosterone for all manner of quick fulfilment pursuits, Uzziah was ruling a nation. He begins well,

4 He did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, just as his father Amaziah had done. 5 He sought God during the days of Zechariah, who instructed him in the fear of God. As long as he sought the Lord, God gave him success.

Uzziah rebuilds military towers and rebuilds towns. He organises and leads the army well. He brings people together. He led the army in battle against the Philistines, verse 7, ‘and the Lord helped him’. It’s not difficult to imagine the excitement surrounding this positive beginning. Uzziah is doing what pleases God and he’s looking after the people and protecting them. He oversees State run building projects that run on time and to budget.

Then it goes horribly wrong. Verse 16 spells out the downward progression,

 But after Uzziah became powerful, his pride led to his downfall.

Power – pride – downfall. 

While power is usually spoken in negative and abusive ways today, power isn’t inherently bad or wrong. God is all-powerful. By his powerful word, God created the universe and he made you. By his powerful word God exercises justice and administers mercy. In this strength, he stops nations and cares for the hungry. God also gives people strength – physical, mental, and spiritual strength. 

Power can achieve much good and also much sin. In the hands of sinful people, which is all of us, power and strength is a present temptation. We have the creative ability to twist and misuse power in all kinds of ways.

Power doesn’t inevitably lead to pride but when it swims in the bathtub of humanity, it’s like putting an egg in boiling water for 6 minutes; the outcome is pretty likely. 

1. Pride grows in all kinds of soil

We mustn’t think of pride in a one-dimensional way. Pride can grow in all kinds of soil: in success, in power, in failure, in suffering. Pride is adaptable and fits snuggly in all different sizes.

Pride is having that concern for yourself and your reputation over and above God and his glory and the good of others. Pride is a belief that I am better or that I deserve better.

Pride includes but isn’t limited to boasting and feeling big about yourself.

John Piper is right when he observes, 

Boasting is the response of pride to success.
Self-pity is the response of pride to suffering.

Boasting says, “I deserve admiration because I have achieved so much.”
Self-pity says, “I deserve admiration because I have suffered so much.”

Boasting is the voice of pride in the heart of the strong.
Self-pity is the voice of pride in the heart of the weak.

2. Pride redefines reality, defining identity and worth against other people. 

In Uzziah’s case, his pride is fed by power. He came to believe that power justifies freedom to live on one’s own terms. Uzziah comes to believe that power is a road to autonomy and freedom for defining life’s norms. He no longer felt the necessity to follow God’s laws. He had the liberty to take licence. He thought, I can even enter the Temple ignore the law and relate to God as I decide. 

This pride exhibits itself in a shameful act in God’s Temple.

16 But after Uzziah became powerful, his pride led to his downfall. He was unfaithful to the Lord his God, and entered the temple of the Lord to burn incense on the altar of incense. 

Of course, the reality is Uzziah was never independent. All the good he achieved only came about because of God’s help. As verse 5 reminds us, “As long as he sought the Lord, God gave him success” The Lord blessed his endeavours. The Lord was his helper. Not only that, the people he serves are God’s people. And this is God’s Temple and yet Uzziah’s self-confidence persuades him to strut about on his terms.

It’s here that I think it’s worth seeing how the story plays out and in doing so displays the stupid stubbornness of pride and its ability to destroy. 

3. Pride doesn’t listen to wise counsel

We read that a large delegation of priests warn Uzziah and urge him to stop his behaviour,

17 Azariah the priest with eighty other courageous priests of the Lord followed him in. 18 They confronted King Uzziah and said, “It is not right for you, Uzziah, to burn incense to the Lord. That is for the priests, the descendants of Aaron, who have been consecrated to burn incense. Leave the sanctuary, for you have been unfaithful; and you will not be honored by the Lord God.”

Pride doesn’t listen to wisdom. Pride ignores warning. 

3. Pride produces anger

Pride doesn’t know when to stop. It’s insatiable and when confronted, the typical response is anger. Pride and anger go hand in hand. Pride is never an isolated or controlled sin. When challenged,  the proud responds with anger. Why? Because you’re questioning my identity and my freedom. We get very defensive. 

19 Uzziah, who had a censer in his hand ready to burn incense, became angry. While he was raging at the priests in their presence before the incense altar in the Lord’s temple, leprosy broke out on his forehead. 20 When Azariah the chief priest and all the other priests looked at him, they saw that he had leprosy on his forehead, so they hurried him out. Indeed, he himself was eager to leave, because the Lord had afflicted him.

This idea of freedom is as ancient in time and as contemporary as the next model iPhone. Personal autonomy is perhaps the number 1 value today in Western cultures including Australia.. We want freedom and search for it, even demand it. Take pride! Express yourself!  

Of course, Jesus said, ‘You can gain the whole world and yet forfeit your soul’, but who today believes Jesus?

Pride isn’t an ally, it cheats you. Pride is like a performance-enhancing drug that gives illusions of greatness and being faster and smarter than everybody else, but it is an illusion that will wear off.  

Pride sets us up against other people and so you either become envious and jealous because those people are more successful or more liberated than you or you look down on others who are less successful and enslaved by the very things you have broken away from. 

In a certain book of the year, there is this great line, “Progress panders to our pride”. It’s true. We love to talk progress: in technology, ethics, education, and science. Much progress is positive and brilliant,  but as we engage morally and intellectually better than those who lived before us. We are quick to judge past generations. We even mock and condemn ideas that were considered normal 10 years ago. 

Even Christians jump eagerly onto the pride wagon as though our grasp on the Bible today is greater than Christians from former days.  

We live in a proud culture. I feel sorry for most Australians whenever Melbournians talk. They must think Melbourne has an identity crisis because we’re constantly going on about how great we are. We’re the capital of this in the capital of that. And in case we thought years of lockdown might humblest us a little bit, they were wrong. 

I no longer need God. I will use God on my terms.

I am God.

Pride give us a sense of freedom. Susan and I had this nostalgia moment last night, so to quote that 80s Pop group, Tears For Fears,

It’s my own design

It’s my own remorse

Help me to decide

Help me make the

Most of freedom and of pleasure

Nothing ever lasts forever

No matter how confident we are in our proud bubble,  reality will always catch up. God can’t be outmanoeuvred. No matter how rich, influential and powerful, we can’t out-power play God. 

4. Pride has consequences

In Uzziah’s case when he took licence with God, God showed him who is God. 

That’s the thing with pride, it doesn’t respond to gentle correction or open rebuke. When pride is confronted it either turns to defiance or to bitterness. 

As Uzziah stood in the Temple in defiance against God’s law, leprosy broke out on his forehead. It’s a powerful real life illustration. In God’s holy Temple where nothing unclean can enter, Uzziah’s unclean and proud heart is now visibly unclean.  

He is subsequently banished from the Temple and so removed from the presence of God and the only place where he could atone for his sin. He is also removed from the palace, the seat of his rule. Uzziah can no longer perform his duties as King or enjoy the privileges of being King. 

Uzziah spends his final years in isolation. The message is, pride does not end well. 

Uzziah’s obituary,  in verse 23, reads, ‘he had leprosy’.

5. The way to break pride before pride destroys you

Uzziah’s start was so promising and yet he didn’t reach the finish line. 

Pride isn’t just a societal problem; it is an ever present temptation for people in ministry. Pride will destroy your ministry and harm the people around you. Sure, it may go unnoticed for some time, and it may be excused because of your ministry successes, but the outcome is fixed. If only Uzziah had listened to the priests. 

The only saving grace is to humble ourselves before the one who made himself nothing for us. There is one King of Israel who can truly say, ‘I’m the greatest’ and yet he chose to live in the dust and dirt and make friends with sinners and die on a cross.

He broke the chain: power – pride – fall.

Jesus took the harder path: power – humility – exaltation  

Philippians ch.2 gives us this astonishing insight,

“In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:

Who, being in very nature God,
    did not consider equality with God something to be used to his own advantage;

rather, he made himself nothing
    by taking the very nature[b] of a servant,
    being made in human likeness.

And being found in appearance as a man,
    he humbled himself
    by becoming obedient to death—
        even death on a cross!

Therefore God exalted him to the highest place
    and gave him the name that is above every name,

that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow,
    in heaven and on earth and under the earth,

and every tongue acknowledge that Jesus Christ is Lord,
    to the glory of God the Father.”

No one has more power than God and the Son of God shares this authority and power. And yet he laid aside his glory and took the path of humility and suffering and shameful death. What Jesus reveals about God is breathtaking. God says, I’ve come to serve. He humbled himself that we might share in his resurrection.

At the recent Athletics World Championship, there was this beautiful moment between 2 female pole vaulters, America’s Katie Moon and Australia’s Nina Kennedy. All the other contestants had bowed out. After a gruelling competition, both Moon and Kennedy were exhausted. They had successfully cleared 4.90m but both failed in their third attempt at 4.95m. The umpires wanted to continue and lower the bar and award first place to whoever successfully jumped first. 

Kennedy looked across to Moon and said to her, ‘‘Hey, girl, you maybe wanna share this?’

The expression on Moon’s face said it all. They are now both world champions. It was such a lovely moment. 

One of the things that makes Christianity unique and good is that God’s Son came to us and he says’ I want to share with you my victory over death and sin’. He longs to share with those who’ve failed and have no hope of coming near God. When we grasp the nature of Divine grace, there is no room for pride in our ministry and life, but only thankfulness and gratitude that moves us to a life of service for the sake of others. 

Pride will destroy you. Pride is an ugly ministry companion that doesn’t let go easily. Pride will undo years of ministry, preaching and leading. If a friend has the courage to say, I think you’ve become proud, listen to that loving correction. Let God break that chain before it breaks you. Daily immerse ourselves in the humbling grace of God in Christ, that we might avoid the route taken by Uzziah and instead walk the one taken by the Lord Jesus 

Richard Dawkins asks an important question and here is my answer

/ MurrayCampbell

I can imagine Richard Dawkins sitting in the back row at the Areopagus, stern-faced and shaking head, and leading a small chorus of sceptics.

Richard Dawkins is continuing his mission to evangelise people out of Christianity (and religion altogether) and to secure his message of a world without hope. 

Today in a video message, he asks, ‘Do you want to be comforted by a falsehood?’

It’s a good question and an important one. Does anyone want to find consolation in a fabrication? Does anyone want to pour all their hopes into a dead end? For Professor Dawkins death is of course the dead end, with nothing beyond and no light to give hope to either the dead or those who are left behind. 

“When your brain decays there is absolutely no reason to suppose your consciousness will continue, so the grounds of plausibility, the balance of plausibility is heavily in favour or there been no survival after death and that is something and that is something we need to live with. It’s not all that horrifying a prospect when you think about it because we think as Mark Twain said, ‘I’ve been dead for billions of years before I was born and never suffered the smallest inconvenience.” 

I suspect that Dawkins’ answer will arouse applause and retweets from fans and devotees, and with a satisfied Amen. Leaving aside for a moment the question of whether he’s right or not, his answer isn’t particularly consoling. Dawkins says that he finds solace in the finality of being no more, but I suspect most people including a lot of atheists are not so convinced. Our intellectual commitments (whether theistic or atheistic) come under a sudden assault when death approaches and when a loved one is lowered into the grave. There is a longing for death not to win. There is palpable hope that life may continue and love to beat any final breath. 

Why divorce cognitive processes from heart filled yearnings? Of course, the two can be in conflict and they can also partner together as a harmonious duet, as we find in Christian theism.

Dawkins (and fellow atheists) believes that once our final breath expires and we are buried, the totality of what we were begins to rot and we cease to be. All that is left is the box in the ground holding our biological material and the memories that people have of you. Again, some readers may find that a satisfying end of the story, but most of us don’t. Whether we find it satisfying or not isn’t evidence of what is ultimately true.

The thing about the Christian view of resurrection is not one of lacking commitment to the intellectual process but appreciating that there is more going on. It is not wrong to appeal to deep heart filled longings, for those emotional impulses are part of who we are as human beings. We are more than those heart desires, not less.

I believe, along with Oxford and Cambridge Dons, scientists, poets, plumbers and children, that the Christian explanation of resurrection is both intellectually satisfying and emotionally, psychologically, spiritually liberating and consoling.

Something happened that day just outside Jerusalem that changed the world. Women and men saw something that didn’t compute. The evidence defied their prior assumptions and challenged their emotional state. They saw and heard and touched Jesus raised from the dead. 

Before we line up the Biblical accounts with ancient mythology, we mustn’t assume that resurrection was a commonly held view in the ancient world, for that is not the case. Many ancient religions believed in some kind of life after death, although not all (including many Athenians in the First Century AD).  The Christian notion of resurrection is altogether different 

As Dr Chrisopher Watkin summarises in his new volume, Biblical Critical Theory, 

“The nature of the resurrection is very different to the ancient notion of rising gods known as apotheosis. The bodily nature of resurrection sets the Christian claim apart from other superficially similar narrative patterns in the ancient world. The Romans, for example, were familiar with the idea that a mortal person could undergo an apotheosis to become a god, but apotheoses were spiritual, not bodily, and the deified mortal would not be expected to tread the streets of Jerusalem for forty days before ascending to heaven. Apotheosis was also a privilege reserved for the rich and mighty, not for the common artisan and certainly not for the crucified criminal. Christ’s resurrection was also different from the myths of dying and rising agricultural gods in other pagan religions. N. T. Wright, author of the 740-page The Resurrection of the Son of God insists that “even supposing Jesus’s very Jewish followers knew any traditions like those pagan ones—nobody in those religions ever supposed it actually happened to individual humans.”

Richard Dawkins talks about plausibility, as does the Apostle Paul at the Areopagus. He insists, let’s examine the evidence. At that centre of Athenian learning and thought, Paul argues for the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. He began, 

“He  [God] has given proof of this to everyone by raising him from the dead.”

Proof? I can hear Dawkins of Athens reproving! What proof? Dead people stay dead. Their brains, blood, muscles and organs decay and become a manure in a box. 

Of course, Paul, like Jesus and like Christians everywhere, knew that dead people don’t rise. That’s the point and the resurrection testifies to our wrong assumptions about God and life and death. 

What I found interesting in Dawkins’s tweet is how he relies heavily on Bible reasoning in order to muster an argument against God and the notion of life beyond death.  Take, for example, this paragraph from Paul’s First Letter to the Corinthians, 

“But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14 And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15 More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17 And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19 If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.

20 But Christ has indeed been raised from the dead, the firstfruits of those who have fallen asleep. ” (1 Corinthians 15:12-18)

The Apostle, and subsequently Christian theologians, scientists, and believers in general, all understand the implausibility of resurrection and understand that single event of history that dumbfounds the Sadducees and Epicureans of every age. 

It is worth noting that Paul’s words were written within 20 years of the events that surrounded Jesus’ death in Jerusalem. He even says to his readers, that many eyewitnesses are still alive so go and talk to them. His are not the words of someone covering up evidence and trying to commit fraud on the public. The resurrection is a public event that is open to investigation. 

For Dawkins, as brilliant a scientist as he is, he believes in a closed universe and so it’s unlikely that he’ll accept any compelling evidence that punctures his system. Even Jesus was aware of how our a priori commitments block us. He famously said, “‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’”

Why? Because there is more going on in our minds and hearts than just intellectual questions and the pursuit of what happened.

Richard Dawkins may have made up his mind, but death will continue to haunt us. The grave is the one appointment we hope to avoid and yet will come. To take consolation in Christ is not fake or feeble, but reason finding hope. 

If you are interested, below is a short summary of the evidence outlined in the New Testament as well as a summary of some of the more popular objections to the resurrection.

The facts:

1. Weeks out from his death on the cross Jesus predicted with startling accuracy what would happen.

 “Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life”. (Matt 16:21)

2. Jesus genuinely died and his death was verified by the executing authorities (Matt 27:50-54)

3. After Jesus’ death had been verified, Pilate released the body to Joseph of Arimathea who buried it in his own new tomb, carved out of rock in a garden near the place of the crucifixion (Matt 27:57-60).

4. The tomb was sealed and was guarded by Roman soldiers (Matt 27:62-66).

5. A number of women witnessed the burial and presumably the posting of the guard (Matt 27:61)

6. On the Sunday following the crucifixion the body was no longer in the tomb (Matt 28:1-7).

7. That same day, and over the next 40 days, Jesus met with his original disciples and others (later Saul). During this period the commission to be his witnesses, first to the Jews and then to the nations, was given by Jesus himself (Matt 28:1-20)

8. After 40 days Jesus was taken up into heaven, a cloud hiding him from sight (Acts 1:9-11)

Some arguments against the resurrection:

TheoryChief exponentsSome suggested responses
Intentional fraud by the disciplesJewish High Priests; H.S Reimarus (1787)How could it be done despite the guard and the suspicion of the authorities? How could the lie be sustained for the rest of their lives and in the face of fierce persecution?
Swoon TheoryPaulus (1833) Huxley (1896) Thiering (1992)His death was verified by experts when Pilate raised questions. If he did revive in the cool of the tomb, how did he roll away the stone, get past the guard, and walk all the way to Emmaus with those wounds?
The women went to the wrong tombLake (1907)The women were nearby as Jesus was buried. Joseph of Arimathea would certainly know which tomb was his. The guards and the seal would have made the tomb rather conspicuous. The authorities could have just gone to the right tomb and produced the body.
Jesus was never actually crucified (someone was)The KoranIt is inconceivable that the Jewish authorities would have stood by whilst the Romans crucified the wrong man. Surely this argument would have been used by the Jews to combat the apostle’s preaching if it was true (and even if it wasn’t but was credible)
The resurrection is an allegory not a factWoolston (1728)There is no evidence in the Gospels that this part of the narrative is allegorical as opposed to the rest.
HallucinationStrauss (1835) Spong (1993)The number and variety of people, times, and types of appearances tell against this theory. This attitude of the disciples was either fearful or aggressively opposed (Saul) at the time of the appearances. Fear and aggression are not the usual preconditions for a hallucination of an unprecedented event.
Spiritual resurrection and/ or divine vision evoking faith in the disciplesKeim (1883) Lampe (1966) Carnley (1987)Jesus himself goes to great lengths to demonstrate he is not a ghost or a vision. The empty tomb is unnecessary and the arguments of Paul do not make sense if the resurrection does not involve the crucified body of Jesus. What happened to the body?

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”

Hope from grief in Korumburra

/ MurrayCampbell

The small Victorian towns of Korumburra and Leongatha are reeling at the deaths of 3 much loved members of the community and their local Baptist pastor who remains in seriously ill.

The case of the mushroom poisonings has captured national interest and curiosity, perhaps in part because of the number of victims and much more because of the ongoing mystery surrounding what actually happened. The story continues to make front-page news across Australia after two weeks. Journalists are feeding papers and television screens with any minuscule update, and sometimes with a splash of speculation and suspicion.

This isn’t just a story akin to an Agatha Christie whodunnit, this is impacting real people in very real ways and in the most horrible of circumstances. Media intrigue is understandable, although some reporting is unhelpful by whipping up public attention and innuendo, making it more difficult for grieving families and friends to process the unspeakable.

The situation is far from over; Ian Wilkinson remains in critical condition although he is improving and police investigations are ongoing. Respecting privacy and process remains paramount.

There are times when we feel the pain experienced by a stranger, how much more the grief of friends. Korumburra Baptist Church shares the same Baptist heritage and association as the church where I serve.

I would like to draw attention to a single note that has become clear through what has been a horrific couple of weeks for the Patterson and Wilkinson families. This note that has sung above all the discordant sounds is that of faith in God. Journalists have repeatedly highlighted ‘the faith’ shared by Heather and Ian Wilkinson and Don and Gail Patterson, and the faith that is also evident among members of Korumburra Baptist Church. 

This faith, of course, has an object. This faith is not in faith itself nor is it grounded in an uncertain immaterial subject matter or hopeful imagination, but in a real person who died a real death and really rose from the dead and confirmed to be the son of God.

They talk about faith in a person most trusted. There is great consolation found in Jesus Christ. For in him we find there is God who understands, who cares, and who offers stunning hope. Suffering and death are not foreign to him. Indeed, the most awful of circumstances hasn’t diminished trust in Jesus but finds assurance in such moments.

The Psalms, for example, explore the highest and lowest moments of human experience, the deepest joys and greatest sorrows. Psalm 23 famously describes the harrowing journey through the darkest chapter of life, The Psalmist retells the experience in stark terms, not downplaying the horror but also filling it with comfort. There is something peculiar and substantive about this Christian hope in the face of terror and darkness.

“Even though I walk through the valley of the shadow of death,

    I will fear no evil,

for you are with me;

    your rod and your staff,

    they comfort me.”

This Psalm serves as encouragement, that even through the darkest descent, God isn’t absent. Indeed, the Bible shows us how Jesus has walked that treacherous path in advance of us. The Lord Jesus trod that darkest path and did so through to the very end. He walked through ahead of us, that he might see us through. The Psalmist exclaims that life wins; through death comes eternal dwelling in the house of the Lord forever.

Consider these words, to which the Psalmist is shadowing, 

 “Praise be to the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Father of compassion and the God of all comfort, 4 who comforts us in all our troubles, so that we can comfort those in any trouble with the comfort we ourselves receive from God. 5 For just as we share abundantly in the sufferings of Christ, so also our comfort abounds through Christ. 6 If we are distressed, it is for your comfort and salvation; if we are comforted, it is for your comfort, which produces in you patient endurance of the same sufferings we suffer. 7 And our hope for you is firm, because we know that just as you share in our sufferings, so also you share in our comfort.” (2 Corinthians 1:3-7)

This Jesus punches through history, like the dawning of the sun providing warmth and light and giving life. In a world where there is so much darkness, we hear daily reminders of suffering and evil, and yes that ultimate enemy, death. Faith in the risen Lord Jesus sources a hope that doesn’t disappoint or fade. While we may feel weak and unable to face the times, His resurrection speaks a stronger word than the strongest opposition.

From two tiny Victorian towns that few Aussies knew existed, Australians are hearing a note of exquisite hope in the midst of terrible pain. When you next hear of the ‘faith’ that sustains the Pattersons, Wilkinsons, and people of Korumburra, I recommend leaning in closer to see who it is that offers such peace that passes understanding.

Life is short. It is precious, temporary and with an undisclosed due date. Except there is more to the story. The Jesus story has exposed the nihilist agenda, for he died and then rose from the dead. The resurrection of Jesus is a permanent sign inscribed in history that evidences hope is sound. It is this solid hope that sustains grieving families.

Come, Lord Jesus

Christian Nationalism is part of the problem, not the solution

/ MurrayCampbell

We live in an age of schisms and divisions, suspicions and attributing the worst of motives on those with whom we disagree. Kindness and gentleness are beyond the pale, and considered conversation is slammed as a betrayal to the pursuit of truth and justice. 

Christians and non-Christians alike across the social and political spectrum are frustrated. We see a culture dumping Christian thought and ideals as though it’s nuclear waste.  Many feel the need to lob rhetorical grenades across the trenches and snipers sit at the ready to shoot any messenger who dares motion into no man’s land. 

Photo by Nothing Ahead on Pexels.com

Of course, I’m using hyperbolic language…but only just. The tectonic plates of belief and hope are moving and causing major disruptions to every sphere of life. Of the answers being proposed by Christians (in some circles) is one gaining some traction in some areas of American and European Christianity, and it’s finding its way onto Australian shores as well: Christian Nationalism. 

It’s not as though Christian Nationalism is brand new; iterations have existed at different points in history, often with long-term disappointment, bloodshed, and Gospel compromise.

I understand why Christians across the United States are concerned and even angry at the some of values and views that have captured hearts. I appreciate why Aussie believers are troubled by various moral agendas that have been normalised in our political and educational institutions. However,  frustration and concern with politicians and the political process is not a reason for reactionary theology and poor exegesis.

We don’t fix one problem by adding another one; that way we end up with a bigger mess!

Stephen Mcalpine has begun a series of articles examining, Stephen Wolfe’s The Case For Christian Nationalism’. It’s not that McAlpine is itching to read Wolfe, but he notes how ideas like Wolfe’s are crying loud in both America and Australia, and a sizeable pack of mostly younger Aussies are hearing and repeating these ideas.

I encourage people to read McAlpine on this.

One of the standard bearers of Christian Nationalism in America is a pastor by the name of Doug Wilson. He serves at a church in Moscow (Idaho) and he offers a politico-religious rhetoric that could almost find a home in that other Moscow.

This week a 2021 video with Douglas Wilson has been doing the rounds again on social media. As Wilson exhorts an audience to pray for family and country, he says, 

“When God raises up the right stand bearer…now is the time, don’t take the bait, wait until God’s deliverance arrives, and when that happens we will know”

Who is this deliverer Wilson is waiting to arrive and to deliver America from what? 

To quote one friend, “Errmmmm. Pretty sure God’s deliverance already arrived about 2000 years ago?”

Grabbing Biblical words may appear strong and compelling but fusing Christological promises and categories with political identities is one bad technique.  There is only one Saviour of the world, and his name isn’t Donald Trump or Joe Biden or any world leader. There is one ultimate deliverer, the one whom the Israelites in Egypt waited and for whom the Exiles prayed and who finally came and is revealed in the person of Jesus Christ. 

This is what happens when we grab OT language and remove it from its context and ignore how the Bible’s own logic tells us that OT promises are pointing to and fulfilled in Jesus Christ. American theology too often falls down on account of weak Biblical Theology. Whether it’s prosperity teaching, Christian nationalism, or even sexual ethics, ignoring the Bible’s big storyline leads to misusing words and categories, and that leads to all manner of problems. Thanks to theologians like Graeme Goldsworthy, Barry Webb, and many others, we ought to know better here in Australia. It’s not that Biblical theology is a new idea, just read Paul in Romans 9-11 for a masterclass in biblical theology. The story of redemption and how the various threads and themes of the Old Testament come to their climax and fulfilment in Christ is all there on the pages of the New Testament. But like its cousin prosperity teaching, Christian Nationalism has the bad habit of taking Old Covenant promises to Israel and misapplying them straight into modern day political systems, as though America is the new Israel (or Australia).

The topic of Christian Nationalism is on my radar this week as I’m preaching tomorrow on 2 Chronicles ch.7. It is a sublime passage that features the Temple and sacrifice and the presence of God. It is a chapter that gives both a word of warning and blessing to Israel. 2 Chronicles 7 contains a verse that is often used (or rather misused) as a call to a nation to abide by. 2 Chronicles 7:14 says,

“if my people, who are called by my name, will humble themselves and pray and seek my face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, and I will forgive their sin and will heal their land.”

Russell Moore notes how this verse is sometimes torn from its intended purpose and used by American Nationalists to claim Divine blessing should America wear more Jesus t-shirts and grow bigger beards, 

“But the fact is 2 Chronicles 7:14 isn’t talking about America or national identity or some generic sense of “revival.” To apply the verse this way is, whatever one’s political ideology, theological liberalism.”

He’s right. This verse was addressed to God’s covenantal people, Israel. The fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel is found in Christ. The people of God in the new covenant aren’t any given nation, but the church and the church is international. The fulfilment of God’s promises to Israel no longer carries physical terrain and border and a nation’s sovereign political and judicial system. Citizenship is about belonging to the church. 

The book of Hebrews wonderfully explores how these themes in 2 Chronicles 7 are made perfect and permanent in Christ.  In another place, the Apostle Paul explains what the Gospel accomplishes in redeeming a people for God. The Gospel bursts barriers and borders and builds a church, 

“For he himself is our peace, who has made the two groups one and has destroyed the barrier, the dividing wall of hostility, 15 by setting aside in his flesh the law with its commands and regulations. His purpose was to create in himself one new humanity out of the two, thus making peace, 16 and in one body to reconcile both of them to God through the cross, by which he put to death their hostility. 17 He came and preached peace to you who were far away and peace to those who were near. 18 For through him we both have access to the Father by one Spirit.

19 Consequently, you are no longer foreigners and strangers, but fellow citizens with God’s people and also members of his household, 20 built on the foundation of the apostles and prophets, with Christ Jesus himself as the chief cornerstone. 21 In him the whole building is joined together and rises to become a holy temple in the Lord. 22 And in him you too are being built together to become a dwelling in which God lives by his Spirit.”

We may grieve how people in our suburbs and streets are turning their backs on God, but how amazing is it that the Gospel is booming in places like Nigeria and Iran and Korea and Brazil and China. The Gospel’s flavour is multi-ethnic and international and bursts through political barriers and national borders. Praise God!

I’m not saying that Christians in Australia walk away from the public square and sit tight on uncomfortable pews behind stained glasses windows. It’s not that Christians shouldn’t participate in the political process. It’s not that we should ignore social issues and cultural debates. Such things are part of common grace and ways we can love our neighbours. It’s not however the main game. The halls of Parliament and legislative offices are not the places where God is working out his redemptive plans. It’s not just Christian Nationalists who are making that grave mistake, but some of our (theological) liberal friends who see Governmental involvement as the way to tear down sinful structures and build the Kingdom of God. In that sense, both left and right can be guilty of rubbishing due diligence with biblical theology and therefore distorting the gospel itself.

Christian Nationalism is a scourge and it will serve no good for the future of God’s Kingdom. Christian Nationalism ends up making the State into the Church and the church into a political party and turning the Gospel of grace into a weapon to beat down political opponents. Instead of being God’s message of reconciliation, it distorts the gospel into a message of social conservatism and one that sees political progressivism as the great Satan. Social and moral conservatism can be as dangerous to spiritual health in its intentions to create new forms of legalism and allegiances.  

The Apostle Paul engaged with the Gospel Governors and doorman, soldiers and businesswomen,  intellectuals and slaves. Where he preached, small communities sprung up, called churches. These communities, filled with men and people transformed by God’s gracious gospel,  lifted up something beautiful and good, making people envious to see the beauty and grace and goodness of God,

“You will know how people ought to conduct themselves in God’s household, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth. 16 Beyond all question, the mystery from which true godliness springs is great:

He appeared in the flesh,
    was vindicated by the Spirit,
was seen by angels,
    was preached among the nations,
was believed on in the world,
    was taken up in glory.” (1 Timothy 3:15-17)

If you want to impact society, believe the Gospel, serve your local church, and love your neighbour.

World Cup players explain how gender difference is harming players

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“So God created mankind in his own image,

    in the image of God he created them;

    male and female he created them.”

The Herald Sun story goes on to point out,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Missing

/ MurrayCampbell 

Adventure summoned like a morning trumpet,
The clarion sound sang brilliant and brittle,
Commanding snap attention,
With vibrato that bent uncertain.

Flying away,
To pursue the future.
Pushing away the cloud and smoke,
As though swimming freestyle through the pool.

The disappearing dot,
Motions eagerly across the horizon, 
And beyond both eye and ear.
He has gone.

A camouflaged uniform deceives,
Like the wallaby hiding among the rocks.
In that assumption found and grasping hope,
A long wait begins and motions without sound.

Believing and wondering, 
Drowning anticipation of tomorrow’s sky,
Screaming at the Ecclesiastes dot that is no longer there,
And inhaling the nightmare prayer.

The drone of technology is a vicious servant,
Punching holes in the earth and exposing all who claim safety,
Calculated and precise, sniffing out its prey,
Those found are obliterated into an early grave.
 
Never found, 
Nothing to hold or see, 
Absent, 
Missing.

Terror insists control,
Only to dump the soul in Hades anger,
Who but Orpheus can enter that realm, 
And row my son home?

The willow leans upon the corridor wall,
Lonely and observing passers by.
His cap protrudes from on top the stand,
Without a head to shape its home.

Grabbing at the thinning air, 
And wielding a deadened heart, 
Throw it at the Ypres salient, 
To where his body somewhere lays.

The blue sky mocks those who are fallen,
And those who remain glare at its endless cheerful derision.
It is forever stained with red,
A graffiti fit for a missing tomb.

Can mortal men be consoled by immortal God?
A Father to the lost and missing?
Our hands emptied, no grasp is felt, 
Might a gracious Father welcome them home?

‘For this son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.’


When we fail to learn from the story of Ananias and Sapphira

/ MurrayCampbell

He’s done it again!

Last week I wrote about a local pastor who has come out and publicly rejected penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). I explained how his argument fails on several fronts: 1. It fails because the Bible repeatedly and consistently affirms PSA and that it is central to the atonement, 2. It fails in that PSA has been taught and believed by Christians throughout church history, 3. By rejecting PSA, he strips people of the only hope we have for the forgiveness of sins and new life. 

In my article, I also observed that there is a connection between rejecting PSA and rejecting the Bible’s teaching on human sexuality and sin. Those who follow the new sexual narrative eventually end up redefining the gospel and the heart of the atonement. Rob Buckingham of Bayside Church is simply the latest of a litany of pastors and churches that are following that trajectory. 

Calling out local pastors isn’t something I like to do, hence why I have rarely done so. I’m thankful to God for the local pastors who are preaching the gospel and faithfully upholding God’s word and ways. Praise God for them! This instance is somewhat different because Rob Buckingham is a notable figure around Melbourne and there are 10,000s of people living in the area where he teaches (and where I also serve). It’s one thing for the average secular Steve and Lucy to cast aspersions on the Bible, but it’s a very different game when a church representative encourages people to doubt and disbelieve God.

It turns out, it’s not only the atonement and sexual ethics where Buckingham does a rewiring of the Bible. Buckingham believes other bits of the Bible aren’t true either. 

Acts 5:1-11 is historical

In his latest article, Buckingham explores the story of Ananias and Sapphira from Acts ch.5. The story is, as Buckingham admits, disturbing. However, rather than accepting the story as true and historical (as we are meant to read it), Buckingham wants us to think the story is almost certainly not real. Why? Because as he explains, the God presented in Acts 5 isn’t the kind of God he wants to worship, therefore the story is probably untrue. 

“A literal understanding of this story troubles me because it doesn’t appear to reflect God’s nature of unfailing love and forgiveness.”

I’ll come back to this thesis later on. But let’s notice the idea that weaves throughout Buckingham’s presentation of Acts 5, 

‘The story may be a parable rather than a literal historical event.’

“what KIND of truth is found in Acts 5? Is it factual, or is it symbolic, a parable designed to teach truth while itself not being a true story?”

“People sometimes get hung up on facts rather than truth.”

He then raises doubts in readers’ minds, suggesting that maybe Peter got it wrong,

“Peter pronounced the sentence, possibly operating a gift of the Holy Spirit. Was he a novice in using these powers? Did he learn from this?”

We’re not meant to imitate Bultmann

It’s like Buckingham heard someone mention Rudolf Bultmann and decided, ‘demythologisation is the way to go!’ For those who are unaware, Bultmann was a 20th Century theologian who thought the Bible was largely unbelievable and so he stripped the pages of much of its history and instead tried to find metaphorical and moral meaning in the text. Just as Buckingham has found a moral nugget for his readers to keep. Apparently, Acts 5 is there to teach us, ‘Honesty is the best policy’! 

In contrast to the ifs and maybes and couldn’t be’s that Buckingham proposes for Acts 5, the reality is, the author of Acts was a skilled historian who wrote down with great care the things he heard and saw and knew. In his first Volume, the Gospel of Luke, Luke explains his process for writing, 

“Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word. 3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus, 4 so that you may know the certainty of the things you have been taught.” (Luke 1:1-4)

Luke then begins volume 2 with this introduction,

“In my former book, Theophilus, I wrote about all that Jesus began to do and to teach 2 until the day he was taken up to heaven, after giving instructions through the Holy Spirit to the apostles he had chosen.”

There is no sense in which Luke wants us to think the stories are mere parables or fiction with a moral attached. This is history. This is the history of the now risen Christ empowering his people by the Holy Spirit to preach his word to the ends of the earth.

The one thing Buckingham seems to be confident about is this, 

“If Ananias and Sapphira were real people, they were a part of the church and Christians. They would have been considered “saved.” There is no pronouncement that they were “lost”. I hope they’re in heaven.”

In other words, the story probably isn’t true but if it is, this couple would be saved and in heaven today. Buckingham may ‘hope’, but his hope has no warrant in the text which argues against him. It’s quite the example of how to bend and manipulate a Bible text against its’ own given meaning. The Bible text gives us no indication that Ananias and Sapphira were genuine born again believers who are now in heaven with God. Peter’s pronouncement on them and the fact that they died immediately, suggests quite the opposite:  The text suggests that this married couple were not real Christians and were not saved. Whatever their involvement and interest in the Church and their apparent ‘generosity’, with Apostolic authority Peter says,

“how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land? 4 Didn’t it belong to you before it was sold? And after it was sold, wasn’t the money at your disposal? What made you think of doing such a thing? You have not lied just to human beings but to God.”

There’s the warning. This Bible story isn’t offering us a platitude about honesty being the best policy. It is raw and real in warning those who think we can con God. We can’t fool God. We can play Christian and play the role of church but God knows our hearts. And of course, that’s the sticking point for Buckingham. He doesn’t believe God would judge this married couple, let alone them not being in heaven.

What happens when the Bible clashes with our view of God?

Returning to the reason why Buckingham encourages readers to doubt the historicity of Acts 5, according to Buckingham’s view of God, He loves and forgives but he doesn’t seem to judge or punish. 

The Bible does beautifully tell us that God is love and that God forgives. The Lord Jesus came to save sinners. The Gospel is God’s word of redemption to all who believe. 

Numbers 14:18 reminds us that God’s heart to forgive isn’t just a New Testament idea but one that comes from and is patterned in the Old Testament. After all, the God of the Old Testament is the same God of the New Testament.

“‘The Lord is slow to anger, abounding in love and forgiving sin and rebellion. Yet he does not leave the guilty unpunished; he punishes the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation.’” (Numbers 14:18)

The same Scriptures also teach us that God opposes sin and he judges sin. Indeed, God’s opposition to sin and God judging is an aspect of his love. Did Jesus never condemn? Did Jesus never judge? It’s not hatred that drives God to speak and act against peoples’ lying and stealing and murdering and raping. It is love for people and love for righteousness that leads God to oppose and punish evil. After all, do we really want to believe in and worship a God who isn’t angry about sin?

The godfather of Melbourne evangelicalism, Peter Adam, wrote these words in 2018,

“What is true? Is God loving or is God wrathful?

The answer is that both are true. We find God’s love and God’s wrath in the Old Testament…We find God’s love and God’s wrath in the teachings of Christ…We find God’s love together with his God’s wrath in the rest of the New Testament too.”

Adam rightly summarises, ‘We should fear God as judge and trust him as Father. God is both just and loving: God judges those who turn from him, and he cares for those who turn to him.’

It is Jesus who said, 

“And if your eye causes you to stumble, gouge it out and throw it away. It is better for you to enter life with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell” (Matthew 18:9)

“But I will show you whom you should fear: Fear him who, after your body has been killed, has authority to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, fear him” (Luke 12:5)

As we read Acts 5, the Apostle Peter exposes the depth of evil lurking behind Ananias and Sapphira’s decision to deceive God and the Church. Buckingham, on the other hand, downplays their action to the point where he suggests the punishment is excessive and maybe Peter is playing the hypocrite

“The punishment doesn’t appear to fit the crime. Far worse sins are recorded in the New Testament Scriptures without death as the punishment. Consider the case of a young man committing incest with his stepmother and Peter’s rank hypocrisy that Paul condemns to Peter’s face. But Peter doesn’t drop dead as a result.

If this is a literal historical event, my only thought is that the apostles wanted to protect the baby church. Such protection wasn’t needed as the church matured.”

Who should we believe? Peter the Apostle (who was present) or Rob?

Does it matter whether this story is true or not? Yes, because Acts is recording history not myth. Yes, because like the rest of Acts, chapter 5 is showing us the real God who really saves and who really judges. 

We can’t con God


One of the responsibilities of pastors is to give people confidence in the Bible and that we can trust that the Bible is God’s true, good and sufficient words. Let the Bible speak for itself. Let God through his word, encourage and correct and rebuke us. Not us moulding God into our own image and justifying our own moral preferences, but God renewing our hearts and minds.

No wonder unbelievers have little interest in the Bible and little confidence in God; because there are Christian leaders leading the charge to create disbelief in the Bible and the God of the Bible.

We know what happened following this incident because Luke tells us,

First of all,  “Great fear seized the whole church and all who heard about these events.”

Second, the Apostles continued their ministry and the church continued to meet in public. Some people didn’t dare join while ‘more and more men and women believed in the Lord and were added to their number’. 

While Buckingham wants readers to think the story isn’t true and that it doesn’t reflect his god, in real life this incident caused people to take God seriously, many believed the Gospel, the church grew and many others were blessed by the work of the Apostles. You see, we don’t need to take Buckingham’s path in order for the Gospel to work today and for churches to remain relevant. Instead, let God surprise us and shock us. Let his word create intrigue and challenge us. Let his holiness cause us to fear and to sorrow. And may his Gospel of grace cause us to confess our sins and to find eternal consolation in His Son.