Penal Substitution Evidences the Godness of God

/ MurrayCampbell

“Bearing shame and scoffing rude,

in my place condemned he stood,

sealed my pardon with his blood:

Hallelujah, what a Savior!”

Man of Sorrows is a much-loved hymn that meditates on the wonder of Christ’s death for us. Like so many Christian songs that churches sing with conviction and praise, we are reminded of the intense beauty and grace of God’s sacrifice on behalf of sinners.

What happens though when a pastor decides to tell his congregation that the heart of the gospel is not only not the heart of the gospel, but is objectionable and not believed by him?  

A Facebook comment appeared on my feed yesterday that caught my attention, and so, in a moment of mimicking my greyhound chasing the rabbit. I followed. 

Now, I am friends with some of the local pastors and there are others whom I have never met or don’t know personally. What I discovered yesterday though made me profoundly sad. I love my local community and long for people to hear the good news of Jesus Christ, and grieves me when pastors and preachers espouse alternative gospels. In this particular case, a local pastor who is well known across Melbourne recently presented a series of sermons and blog posts on the atonement. The first message in the series was dedicated to debunking penal substitutionary atonement.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I’m sure Rob Buckingham thinks he is doing churches a service, but I found his commentary disappointing and misleading, and again sad. Sad, because the Gospel is good news and I fear Buckingham has turned it into bad news that needs changing. The message of the cross is considered shameful to many, but as the Apostle exclaimed, it is the power of God and the wisdom of God.  The significance of Jesus’ death on the cross centres on atonement. The Bible shows us many facets or aspects of the atonement: Christus Victor, reconciliation, example, and redemption are all aspects of the atonement, and yet at the heart of the cross is penal substitutionary atonement (PSA). This, Buckingham admits, he no longer believes belongs to the Gospel.

I will explain how this is the case shortly, but let’s first visit Rob Buckingham’s argument against PSA.

Dr Jones and how sexual ethics can change the cross

Buckingham’s opening question is this, ‘Did God kill Jesus?’, a line he borrows from Tony Jones. Buckingham explains how his own thinking has been influenced by Jones’ representations of the atonement. For those who don’t know the name Tony Jones (no, not the former ABC presenter), he’s a theologian who was part of the Emergent Church scene in the late 90s and early 2000s. The emerging Emergents saw the dust collecting in many churches and decided to make church relevant again. Sadly, we’re still paying the price today. Many of Emergent’s notable figures, including Jones, ended up seeing Christian orthodoxy as the problem and began dumping doctrine and ethics overboard faster than a hot air balloon throwing off passengers in order to gain more altitude. Jones, for example, came out in 2008 in support of same-sex marriage, long before Obama and Joe Biden realised the shifting pendulum. In 2012 Jones wrote a book, ‘A Better Atonement: Beyond the Depraved Doctrine of Original Sin’, outlining why he rejects not only original sin but also penal substitutionary Atonement. It is this material that Buckingham leans heavily upon.

I wanted to pause and mention Jones here because he’s emblematic of holding that two-barrelled deadly combination. This combination of rejecting PSA and affirming the new sexual ethics is commonplace.  If I was given $100 for every time I hear of another pastor/church supporting the new sexual milieu and later learning that they no longer hold to other Christian doctrines, especially PSA, I could retire next year! I don’t think it’s a coincidence. Indeed, my understanding is that Buckingham’s theology of sexual ethics has also changed and moved to closely align with current secular sexual ethics. There is a connection between what churches believe and teach on human sexuality and how they view the cross, and that means we can’t play that disingenuous game of ‘what we have in common is greater than any disagreement’ and ‘we share the same Spirit and body despite these differences’. 

If you doubt the connection, last month Buckingham wrote a separate piece where he explains, ‘How the Bible works’ and there he claims,

“This progression of truth is called the Arc of Scripture. Over time, the Bible shifts from the revenge mentality to a better way. The Bible’s arc shows how people’s view of, and relationship with, God has matured over time…. gender diversity, LGBTIQA+ rights, and dozens of other examples demonstrating that the Bible is not a static book.”

Back to his argument against PSA, Buckingham alleges it’s the Holy Spirit who’s told him!

“In recent years I have sensed the gentle nudging of the Holy Spirit to find out if this really is an accurate representation of the Gospel, the good news of Jesus, and I don’t believe it is”

While Buckingham suggests that it is the Holy Spirit who has changed his thinking, I think it’s best for Christians to stick with what the Holy Spirit has written. The Spirit of God doesn’t give mixed messages or contradict the Scriptures. After all, he is the author of all the Bible! The formula is as old as Eden, ‘did God really say?’

Penal Substitution is older than the Reformation

Buckingham introduces PSA with a reference to the Reformation. He suggests that PSA was ‘popularised during the Reformation’. He then later returns to discount another aspect of the atonement that he finds deeply immeshed in the Reformation. Maybe I’m misreading him here,  but it’s almost as though Buckingham uses Reformation as a byword to represent ideas Christians should avoid today. First of all, every Protestant denomination owes its existence to the Reformation. We are children of the reformation whether we like it or not. Second, Buckingham’s brief reference doesn’t do justice to church history. PSA has been taught and affirmed in Christian churches since the earliest days, indeed in the Scriptures itself. This single point is important because Buckingham is trying to build a case that conflicts with Christian churches extending from the book of Acts right through to today.

A thousand years before the Reformation, the Early Church Fathers taught, affirmed and wrote about PSA. Here are a few examples, 

“If the Father of all wished His Christ for the whole human family to take upon Him the curses of all, knowing that, after He has been crucified and was dead, He would raise him up, why do you argue about Him, who submitted to suffer these things according to the Father’s will, as if he were accursed, and do not rather bewail yourselves?” (Justin Martyr)

“Thus, taking a body like our own, because all our bodies were liable to the corruption of death, He surrendered His body to death instead of all, and offered it to the Father. This He did out of sheer love for us, so that in His death all might die, and the law of death thereby be abolished because, having fulfilled in His body that for which it was appointed, it was thereafter voided of its power for men. This He did that He might turn again to incorruption men who had turned back to corruption, and make them alive through death by the appropriation of His body and by .the grace of His resurrection. Thus He would make death to disappear from them as utterly as straw from fire.” (Athanasius)

“But as Christ endured death as man, and for man; so also, Son of God as He was, ever living in His own righteousness, but dying for our offences, He submitted as man, and for man, to bear the curse which accompanies death.  And as He died in the flesh which He took in bearing our punishment, so also, while ever blessed in His own righteousness, He was cursed for our offences, in the death which He suffered in bearing our punishment.  And these words “everyone” are intended to check the ignorant officiousness which would deny the reference of the curse to Christ, and so, because the curse goes along with death, would lead to the denial of the true death of Christ.” (Augustine)

Not only did the early church affirm and explain PSA, but so did Christian theologians throughout the early and high middle ages, the Reformers, and Evangelicals from the 18th through to the 21st Century. Thomas Aquinas, John Calvin, John Bunyan, John Owen, Martyn Lloyd Jones,  John Stott, and Tim Keller are but a few of the countless names who preached and believed that Christ died in the place of sinners and satisfied the righteous anger of God.

Definitions matter

Of course, in understanding what someone believes it’s useful to listen to their own words, because definitions and meanings can differ depending on the person. Buckingham suggests this definition of PSA:

“God loves you but is also angry with you because of your sin. Because God is just, he cannot simply forgive you. God’s justice must be satisfied. And so, because he loves you, he punished his Son instead of you. Jesus’ death on the cross appeased God’s wrath. You no longer need to bear God’s wrath if you believe this. If you reject this, you must take the punishment of God’s anger both now and forever. In summary, God killed Jesus for your benefit.“

There are several flaws in this description, not least the final phrase that Buckingham puts in bold. There is this glaring omission in this summary:  the Son is also God. This qualification matters immensely as I’ll explain below.  At this point, Buckingham seems to buy into the same fallacious view of the atonement that Steve Chalke and others have thrown around in recent years, suggesting that PSA is a form of ‘cosmic child abuse’.  Buckingham pulls up short of repeating that allegation, but he does say this, 

“What loving parent would punish their own child for the wrongdoing of another?”

We may not, but God did and in doing so the Son wasn’t thrust onto the cross against his own volition and desire, he willingly went to the cross. 

In what is one of the most important volumes written on the atonement, Steve Jeffery, Mike Ovey, and Andrew Sach open Pierced for our Transgressions with this summary of penal substitutionary atonement and notice how it differs from Buckingham in tone and substance, 

“The doctrine of penal substitution states that God gave himself in the person of his Son to suffer instead of us the death, punishment and curse due to fallen humanity as the penalty for sin.

This understanding of the cross of Christ stands at the very heart of the gospel. There is a captivating beauty in the sacrificial love of a God who gave himself for his people. It is this that first draws many believers to the Lord Jesus Christ and this that will draw us to him when he returns on the last day to vindicate his name and welcome his people into his eternal kingdom. That the Lord Jesus Christ died for us – a shameful death, bearing our curse, enduring our pain, suffering the wrath of his own Father in our place – has been the wellspring of the hope of countless Christians throughout the ages.”

Buckingham overlooks the vital piece of the puzzle, ‘God gave himself in the person of his Son’. The Triune God was acting in perfect unity and will on that cross. God himself is bearing the penalty for sin, out of love for sinful human beings. As true as it is that the Father gave his only Son, it is true that God is offering himself. As Donald Mcleod wrote, ‘God surrenders himself to the worst that man can do and bears the whole cost of saving the world.’

Does forgiveness require sacrifice?

Buckingham proceeds to argue that God can forgive sin without sacrifice. He says, ’“The cross was not needed for God to forgive people” (I think he’s pointing to life before the New Testament as an example of this). The problem here is that the claim isn’t true. Throughout Old Testament, God made provision for blood sacrifices to be offered for the sins of his people. Those sacrifices, as Jesus indicates at the Last Supper and as Hebrews explains, were a shadow pointing to the real and sufficient sacrifice for sin: the cross. 

Hebrews 9:22 states, 

“without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness”.

Both prior to and following the events of Easter, Jesus himself said, he had to die.

‘The Son of Man must suffer many things and be rejected by the elders, the chief priests and the teachers of the law, and he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life’ (Luke 9:22).

The verb, ‘must’, functions as a Divine imperative, reinforcing the notion that in God’s wisdom, he ordained for his Son to enter the world and to die on the cross.

PSA affirms the Godness of God

Rob Buckingham has a gift of clarity and he’s upfront in explaining why he can’t accept PSA. There are two reasons and in my view, both trip the alarm. I’ve already mentioned the first, his imagining that the Spirit of God has changed his min, and this doozy,

“This theory makes God somehow less than God. God loves you and wants to save you, but he can’t until his justice is satisfied. See the problem? It makes justice greater than God. Justice is in charge here, and God becomes its servant.”

There we have it. Penal Substitution clashes with Buckingham’s view of God. He has a certain view of God, and that means reinterpreting the Bible to fit that self-made portrait. He shares how God is good and gives good gifts to his children. Yes, he is and God does. But why must we choose between the two? Is God not both? Does God not demonstrate both anger and kindness, grace and judgement? The cross is the superlative example of where God exercises his justice and mercy, his love and wrath. 

Why divorce justice from God? Buckingham’s argument fails in this way: for example, according to Buckingham’s logic, the concepts of love and holiness and righteousness and truthfulness are also greater than God and therefore make God somehow less than God. Love isn’t hovering somehow above God. No God is love. God’s righteousness and holiness are not external entities that attach themselves to the eternal One. Does God contradict God? Can God act outside of his own character? Of course not. He is the God of justice and he acts in accordance with his righteousness. This is one of the sublime truths of the cross: 

“God presented Christ as a sacrifice of atonement, through the shedding of his blood—to be received by faith. He did this to demonstrate his righteousness, because in his forbearance he had left the sins committed beforehand unpunished— he did it to demonstrate his righteousness at the present time, so as to be just and the one who justifies those who have faith in Jesus.” (Romans 3:25-26)

Does the Bible teach and affirm penal substitutionary atonement?

The answer is yes. Both Old and New Testaments teach that PSA is central to atonement and they do so by their employment of specific language (ie propitiation) and in the many symbols, metaphors, and images that are sprinkled across the pages of the Bible.

If I may  cite 3 examples here:

First, the temple was central in Israel’s life and key to ministry of the temple was the sacrificial system, and at the heart of the sacrificial system was the blood of an animal taking the place of the sinner to avert the wrath of God. Indeed, the most sacred day in the calendar was Yom Kippur. Kippur (or atonement), carries connotations of forgiveness, ransom, cleansing and averting God’s wrath, and this final aspect is clearly on view in the teaching about the day of atonement in Leviticus 16.

A second example is the Servant Song of Isaiah 53; it may only constitute a small part of this prophetic book and an even tinier part of the OT, but its significance is rarely overestimated. The Servant Song delivers more than a penal substitutionary view of the atonement, but PSA lays at the heart of its presentation of the work of God’s servant.

The four Gospels either explicitly quote or implicitly reference the Servant Song more often than any other OT passage. R.T France is correct when he talks about Jesus‘ repeated self-identification with the servant of Isaiah 53. Thus, the entire trajectory of Jesus’ earthly ministry as recorded in Scripture is an embodiment of the suffering servant whose life culminated in a cross and death, before climaxing in a resurrection:

“But he was pierced for our transgressions,

he was crushed for our iniquities;

the punishment that brought us peace was on him,

and by his wounds we are healed.

We all, like sheep, have gone astray,

each of us has turned to our own way;

and the Lord has laid on him

the iniquity of us all.”

A third example is Paul’s tome, the letter to the Romans. Paul explains that the primary human condition is sinful rebellion against a righteous God who is now revealing his wrath against us. No human effort can save us from this judgment, only the substitutionary death of Christ. The great turning point of Romans is that masterful exegesis of the gospel in 3:21-26, which spells out God’s gift of righteousness that comes through faith in Jesus Christ and by his propitiatory death on the cross. Throughout Romans, Paul explores the full gamut of the atonement, in all its facets and with many of its wonderful implications, but laying at its heart is PSA.

“With the other New Testament writers, Paul always points to the death of Jesus as the atoning event, and explains the atonement in terms of representative substitution – the innocent taking the place of the guilty, in the name and for the sake of the guilty, under the axe of God’s judicial retribution” (J.I Packer, Knowing God)

There is one point where I found agreement with Buckingham, and that there is no single dimension to the Bible’s presentation of the atonement. The Bible offers us richness in the significance of Christ’s death on the cross: from Christus Victor to example, and indeed penal substitution. Buckingham (and do some theologians) calls these ‘theories’. The weakness of the word theory (and metaphor for that matter) is that it can imply a disjunction between theory and reality.  This is why I prefer to use the language of facet and aspect to describe the different parts of the atonement. I think this matters because the cross carries more than symbolism, it affects actual judicious judgment, brought upon the Son in the place of sinful human beings. The cross brings real salvation and genuine reconciliation. We can no more speak of the cross as metaphor and symbol, as we would of the Federal Court of Australia sentencing a guilty person to prison. There may be symbolism and metaphor to be found, but the atonement cannot be reduced to those categories; it is an actuality.

The old rugged cross

Much more can be said, but I hope this is enough to help readers grasp what’s at stake with the atonement. I imagine Buckingham wants to give people confidence in the message of the cross, but denuding the cross of its power and refusing the Bible’s own testimony doesn’t build confidence. It strips people of the Christian hope. The world needs a God who judges and a God of mercy: that God should take onto himself in his Son my sin and its penalty, this is the kind of good news that saves lives and secures hope for the future. Of course, it’s controversial. The cross creates shame and embarrassment and disagreement, but the way forward isn’t to reframe the cross so that it fits more neatly with the wisdom of the Greeks and the morals of the Romans, Instead, let us cling ever tighter to the old rugged cross.

Listen to Jesus and not the Archbishop of York

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

image from Archbishop of York’s website

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God the Father is the Father.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

An Ode to English Cricket

/ MurrayCampbell 
Ashes to Ashes,
Dust to dust,
Step out of the crease,
The Aussie eye says yes please.

But fairness the English cry.
‘It’s not cricket’, they  sigh.
Piers Morgan short circuits.
The MCC turn to  outrage,
And Rishi Sunak jumps on the diplomatic stage.


Bairstow is still standing at Lord’s,
Stunned that the Aussies know his tricks.
Broad screams rude words at this wicket,
As Stokes looks to Woakes for a speeding ticket.


What more can the Aussies do?
Other than look away from this English zoo.
We helped as much as we could,
Smith dropped a catch
And Starc tried he best too.

Maybe draw a bigger line?
What about putting up a sign?
“Here’s the crease, 
Don’t leave if you want your innings to decease?”

But I get it, I really do.
If the English wore our shoe,
Their keeper wouldn’t throw the ball,
And stump us out to enthral,
The barmy army in their latest pub crawl.

So much blood and spilled tea, 
Over that single delivery.
Carey, Cummins, and Albanese, 
May be we should turn down the rivalry.

At Headingly,
Let us ask the English team, 
When they’d like to stay or leave.
Did they like this ball or that shot?
We can replay that for you, Sir Lancelot.


If there's a moral to this sorry tale,
It’s hide your hypocrisy,
Under veils of angry memes and sad faces,
Or trip over at Borough Market your shoelaces.

There is still time dear England, 
You have 3 more tests to contest, 
The burning coals on the headrest.
Just maybe, letting this go through to the keeper is best!

It’s not cricket?

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The symbol of shame is removed from Calvary Hospital

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Grudge Match

/ MurrayCampbell

There are plenty of grudge matches fought out on football fields, cricket pitches, and tennis courts. There are teams we love to hate and athletes who infuriate us. To win, athletes and spectators alike need a certain intensity and killer instinct. However, once the final ball is bowled and when the siren blasts, you shake hands, give respect, and even renew friendship. 

Last night Channel 9 televised ‘The Longest Feud: Ian Chappell v Ian Botham“.

Ian Chappell and Ian Botham are two of cricket’s greats. As a young boy, I remember spending summer hours watching cricket on television. I’m old enough to have seen both of these cricket legends play. In 1977 (I’m not so old that I remember this incident!) At the Hilton Hotel in Melbourne, something happened which spurned a dislike between these men that continues even today. 

The original incident is very much a ‘he said’ and he said’ scenario, and I suspect we’ll never know the truth unless one Chappell or Botham fesses up. I’m in the same boat as everyone else. We weren’t present when the alleged ground zero event took place which has led to this nearly 50-year feud. As the documentary traced their history and interviewed them today,  the animosity between Chappell and Botham sounds and feel quite real. I, and presumably other viewers, anticipated that the documentary is one of those ‘bad to good’ stories, where hating parties find reconciliation. The program climaxed with the two men meeting in person to discuss their grievances. Everything was set for a manly heart-to-heart and where some semblance of common ground is found. That was not to be the case. 

When pushed to say something positive about the other man, Ian Botham managed to speak well of Chappell cricketing and captaincy prowess, whereas Chappell could offer nothing other than further insult. There was no agreement, no acknowledgement of wrongdoing and the verbal sparring was as heated as ever. 

One friend suggested, “Chappell is awful. Implacably so. From the earliest days. Botham is just laddish.” The summary resonates, although none of us really knows. While I suspect many viewers were left shaking their heads and thinking, seriously, makeup, shake hands and share a beer, in the real world the Chappell and Botham story isn’t so unusual. Fueds and grudges are about as ancient as history itself.

Genesis tells two stories of persons holding a grudge. 

There is Esau who held a grudge against his brother Jacob for wronging him.

Later there is Joseph whose brothers sold him into slavery. Years later, when their father died, they thought that their younger brother would take advantage of the moment to, ‘What if Joseph holds a grudge against us and pays us back for all the wrongs we did to him?”

The grudge isn’t a friend. It’s a form of anger (that may or may not have justified causation) that evolves and twists, creating excessive and unjust feelings and wanted responses. The grudge doesn’t want, ‘an eye for an eye’, but a head for an eyelash or foot for a toenail. The grudge is a form of bitterness whose taste sticks and refuses to let us go.

It takes a man to admit fault and to ask for forgiveness. It takes a man to offer forgiveness. Time can sometimes soften hearts and create space for healing and reconciliation. It can also the true that time calcifies the heart and makes us unwilling to budge and extend a hand of friendship. There are some offences so impactful and hurtful that reconciliation isn’t possible and without repentance, forgiveness isn’t possible. There are other pains caused by harmful words and actions that may dissipate with time and we can overlook them. Not every offence is a sin. Some sins against us are forgiven but the relationship is so broken that normalised relations can’t be rebuilt, although there is civility and an aspect of peace now lived. 

This is one of the staggering truths about Jesus; we caused him offence beyond measure, such that an eternity of hell is the fitting end. And yet, in insurmountable love and mercy, he grabbed all our offences and bore our punishment on the cross. Jesus was prepared to die for his enemies so that we might become his friends. That’s the kind of story ending we long to see. The world needs a super saviour with such integrity that he doesn’t compromise on righteousness and yet is able to restore us to peace.

Of course, this requires humility on our behalf. Not a weak or insipid capitulation to social pressure, but a strength that owns our own sins and says yes, to that blood-soaked cross where Divine mercy is given.

The Botham vs Chappell feud wasn’t good television. It was sad. The rawness of these men’s pride is all too common. If there’s any message coming from the program it is this, don’t carry a grudge to the grave. Seek peace while we may. This may be something to act upon in the immediate, and for other circumstances, this may take years. Yes, because we live in a world that’s screwed up, we may not find that place where forgiveness and peace are renewed; where and when we can’t, leave it with God. 

Esau’s grudge against Jacob continued, and the schism continues to this day.

 In the case of Joseph’s brothers, they asked for forgiveness. Joseph listened to their words and wept. He then said,

“Don’t be afraid. Am I in the place of God? You intended to harm me, but God intended it for good to accomplish what is now being done, the saving of many lives. So then, don’t be afraid. I will provide for you and your children.” And he reassured them and spoke kindly to them.”

How much more has Jesus offered this message to us. 

An American export we can do without

/ MurrayCampbell

Can anyone else see what’s wrong with this tweet?

“I choose the Australian church for my first “mission trip” because no one cares about white Christian Westerners.”

Michael Foster is an American Pastor who is coming to Australia later in the year on a mission. Apparently no on cares about ‘white Christian Westerners’ in Australia and the issue is so pressing that we need an American to fly across the Pacific and bring salvation. 

Foster has never visited Australia, and yet in recent days he issued a series of clarion calls on what is wrong with Australian Christianity and he has the guts to fix our ills!

“Im spending two weeks in Australia in September.

I never planned to leave my country.

I love it here. 

But then 95% of the church in Australia caved to totalitarianism in ‘20.

So I count it privilege to fly out there and encouraged the 5%. 

May God grow their numbers.”

Leaving aside Foster’s superficial take on the cultural and Christian landscape of a nation he’s never spent time in, what point is he trying to make when he alleges, ‘no one cares about white Christian Westerners’ and what is his mission?

Does this American not realise that Australia has the highest percentage of migrants of any country in the Western world? Is this a bad thing? 

That aside, what does this tweet suggest to the huge numbers of Asian, African and Middle Eastern brothers and sisters who belong to our churches and who are amazing and vital members in the work of the gospel here?

What is Foster trying to say about churches in Melbourne that don’t speak English or who are majority Chinese or Persian or Korean and Vietnamese? 

One of the places Foster is due to speak is a Melbourne suburb where 55% of residents were not born in Australia. More residents are ethnically Chinese, Vietnamese, Cambodian, Indian and Sri Lankan, than of Western descent. What kind of message is Foster’s tweet sending to this local community? 

Does Keysborough need rescuing from some white American dude? And do white Christian Westerners require some kind of protection or assistance from this American preacher? If anything we can be learning lessons from our brothers and sisters in China and Iran and Nigeria. 

If Michael Foster’s mission to Australia isn’t enough to throw up a red flag, there’s more. Foster is apparently coming to fight for the small number of Aussie churches who railed against Romans 13 during the COVID pandemic. 

Titus 3:1 tells Church leaders to “remind the people to be subject to rulers and authorities, to be obedient, to be ready to do whatever is good”. Foster has another mission.

Yes, the pandemic was an incredibly hard season for all Australians. Yes, the pandemic response has created all kinds of social, health, and economic pressures we will be addressing for years to come (as early as 2020 it was clear that prolonged lockdowns would have this effect). Yes, not everyone agreed with every Government policy. Yes, mistakes were made (hindsight is an easy tool to wave around).  Yes, Christians have many responsibilities and our attitudes and decisions should be informed by multiple theological threads. Christians hold together multiple responsibilities at the same time. Yes, Christians have some warrant for concern by Government overreach on different issues. Yes, some Christians acted selfishly and promoted anti-authoritarian and even dangerous ideas. There were of course a few churches filled with self-taught epidemiologists and prophets who were able to discern that Covid was fake news, or at most, just a really nasty virus. The majority of churches however chose a different path, one that neither blindly disobeyed Government and one that didn’t cave into totalitarianism. 

Foster’s shallow and even misinformed view of how Australian Churches lived through the pandemic is easy to call out. Although he doesn’t seem to be the type of guy who’s up for conversation.  When I pushed back on him yesterday, he insisted that I be ‘defrocked’! Can you imagine defrocking a baptist pastor?! 

I wouldn’t have known Michael Foster was visiting Australia later this year, nor would even know his name except that a friend messaged me yesterday and reminded me of an American Pastor who has a nasty habit of denigrating women.

The first time I came across Michael Foster was last year and once more a few months ago. The context was an online exchange between Foster, Douglas Wilson and others. I was appalled by how he spoke about and to women. 

And before a reader asks, is Foster a complementarian? No, he is not. He rejects complementariansm and his online attacks (those I’ve seen) have been aimed against complementarian women.

Dr Dani Treweek is (in no particular order) a theologian, a Sydney Anglican, a Deacon, a complementarian, a woman, and single! Dani is a thoughtful and engaging academic who has recently published a significant work, The Meaning of Singleness: Retrieving an Eschatological Vision for the Contemporary Church. Dani is a gift to the church and her study on the subject of singleness is a blessing to Australian Christianity. 

Last year, Dani challenged views expressed by Michael Foster and Douglas Wilson on a podcast.

“Wilson and Foster embark on a shared lament about the impending crisis facing churches whose pews are soon to be filled with lonely, unlikeable, tubby spinsters who have nothing in their lives and so spend their days endlessly seeking the benevolent attention of their ever-patient but extremely busy and very important senior pastor.”

She sums up Foster and Wilson’s views on single women as:

  • the reason women are single is because “Baby […] You can do better than this. You’re not likeable” or because they are too “tubby” to be considered of marital value to the men around them (at least the ones they haven’t driven into the arms of Islam);
  • single women are derogatorily dismissed as a “bunch of old spinsters”
  • anyone not married by the time they are 40 are issued the dire warning that they ‘will be lonely’
  • elderly widowed women are depicted as a tiresome burden upon the senior pastor’s time and energy
  • the only valuable and valid expression of love in action is if it is directed towards someone’s own offspring and then their offspring
  • single women are the harbingers of “chaos”
  • unmarried women don’t “have anything” in their lives”

If your pastor holds these kinds of attitudes toward single women, please save yourself and find another church. 

Someone shared Dani’s material with Michael Foster over on Twitter and his initial response was this,

“I find all exegetical criticism suspect from any woman who calls herself a “Reverend.”

Thankfully several people pushed back on his tweet, including this,

“Really poor form to start your response to a carefully argued and Biblically sound critique “I find all exegetical criticism suspect from any woman who calls herself a “Reverend.” You could start by reading her article & repenting of your cavalier attitude to a godly sister.”

Sadly, this wasn’t a one off bad moment on social media. In an exchange this year, Michael Foster presented a tirade of condescending and sexist comments including these, 

“Ma’am, I’m not interested in more of the same.

I’ll spend my time gutting this nonsense, normalizing marriage, & equipping couples to live happy & fulfilled lives serving God.

The trendiness of pandering to lifelong singleness is coming to an end. You’ll soon need a new trend.”

And this…

“Yes, it is you who needs me. The sun is setting on your ilk, Rev. Dr. Ma’am.”

And let’s not forget…

“Don’t let heartless PhD mislead you.”

And once again…

“My last word to you is God will hold you accountable for those who mislead. 

It’s heartless and cruel to tell both men and women that the state of singleness is the same as a gift of celibacy.”

Condescension? Absolutely. Misogyny? Certainly sounds like it. But I’m told that Michael Foster has written the manual for men! 

As it happens, I have many American friends. They are godly, thoughtful, and generous people. I love my American friends and spending time with them is a great joy. We in Australia have also benefited much from Christian men and women from the United States who share their gifts and time with us. We can and do learn from them. But let’s be honest, the United States is also famous for exporting some ideas and people that we can do without. 

The last time an American visited our shores to preach about all that Aussie Churches were doing wrong, we listened politely and tried to find a useful strand amidst the straw. I don’t think we need another.

So why I have bothered putting together a few words about an American far far away? Because I think Foster’s online presence gives Christians a bad name and  I think men who speak to women in the manner that he does, should be called out. Perhaps those inviting Foster are unaware of some of his ideas and words? I don’t know.

Of course, Christian organisations and churches are free to invite whomever they wish. Churches have a freedom to align themselves with teachers and teachings. Not everyone agrees with everything I write or every conference I’ve helped organise. I get that. No doubt, there is a market, albeit a small one, for Foster’s views about women and defence of ‘white Christian Westernism’. It is also appropriate for others to send up a red flare to signal, do we really need another preacher fostering these kinds of attitudes Down Under.

The Bible is dangerous and more

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

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

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

Photo by Brett Jordan on Pexels.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made”

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

“Blessed are the meek,

    for they will inherit the earth”

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

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

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

As one Chinese Pastor shared,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

/ MurrayCampbell

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

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

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

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

Photo by Tim Mossholder on Pexels.com

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Psalm 139 exclaims, 

“For you created my inmost being;

    you knit me together in my mother’s womb.

I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;

    your works are wonderful,

    I know that full well.

My frame was not hidden from you

    when I was made in the secret place,

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

Your eyes saw my unformed body;

    all the days ordained for me were written in your book

    before one of them came to be.”

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

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

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

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

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

Eulogy

/ MurrayCampbell

Marsali Ashley was born at Ryde Hospital in Sydney some years ago, to Cyrus and Etti Ashley. I say some years ago because my mum belonged to a generation where sharing one’s age wasn’t the done thing. Having been born some years ago the family moved from Sydney to the Hawkesbury River where she spent much of her childhood. My mum is the youngest of three children. Robert and Ken are her older brothers.

One of my earliest memories is of visiting my mum’s dad (my Granddad) in Sydney and him playing the bagpipes for us. It was a Scottish crazed family, hence my mum was given a Gaelic name, Marsali.

My mum’s mum died from cancer when she was 16. My mum soon left school and home to live in Sydney. In 1961 she moved to Melbourne where she lived with her grandmother and aunt. It was during the 60s that my mum started attending Mentone Baptist Church. She became a member and served in many different ways including with the youth and Girls Brigade and helping raise money for missionaries. 

It was during those formative years that my mum decided to go to Bible college and serve overseas as a missionary. She looked back to those years with great fondness. My mum studied at MBI, today known as MST. Following the completion of study in 1969 she joined APCM now Pioneers in PNG. There are lots of acronyms here, FYI!

It was in Papua that my mum met a fellow by the name of John Campbell who was there for 12 months to help with building and engineering projects with the mission agency.

While both mum and dad originate from New South Wales, when returning to Australia for their wedding day they chose Melbourne. For as Sydneysiders eventually admit, Melbourne is better. The wedding was held at Mentone Baptist Church, with the great Alec White marrying them.

The plan was to then return to PNG after further training but God had other plans. In 1977 we moved to Wodonga where my Dad became a teacher at Wodonga Technical School. 

My mum and dad have 3 children. Penelope and myself were born here in sunny Melbourne, and our baby brother Ian arrived just up the road from home at the Wodonga Hospital. Those 14 years spent in the country were pivotal for our family. 

We have many fond memories of those years.

While dad taught us to shoot, mum cooked the rabbits for dinner. We would spend days out bush and wanderings on friend’s farms, collecting blackberries, mushrooms, apples, and the odd cow. 

We loved our family holidays to Queensland and a highlight every year were our trips to Melbourne. My mum may have come from humble means but she also had expensive taste. We would lunch at Georges in the city (what was then Melbourne’s equivalent of Harrods). We would shop and enjoy a taste of the finer things that can be appreciated in this world. I suspect it was those visits that gave me a love for Melbourne, the city where we would all settle down to raise our own families. 

We returned to Melbourne in 1992 to finish school, where we lived in Burwood and my mum worked in aged care. We attended Camberwell baptist church where I met Susan, and where my mum was reacquainted with Susan’s parents whom she first met 25 years earlier.

Our mum encouraged us to excellence whether it was with schooling, music, drama or sport. While some of her reporting of our achievements contained a touch of hyperbole, I know she was thankful to God and proud of us. Whether it is Penelope with her drama classes or Ian playing cricket and water polo or me learning how to iron a shirt. 

I understand that my mum could be a little tricky at times. Like all of us, my mum had her flaws but the greatest gift she and my dad gave Penelope, Ian and I was the good news of Jesus. From the youngest age, I recall us going to church every Sunday. We often read the Bible together at dinner time and prayed. Mother would give words of encouragement to look to Jesus and trust him. 

We are thankful to God that that’s what our mum and dad have done for us. To give us a love for God and his word is a life well lived.

Our mum was Grandma to 8 grandchildren: Harry, Archie and Imogen, Hannah, Beatrice and Heidi, Olivia and Jasmine. She was very proud of her grandchildren and in her final days, she spoke of her love for them and how proud she was of them.

We know mum is now alive in the presence of God and enjoying him forever; not on account of her own righteousness but Christ’s perfect sacrifice on the cross. 

In her final weeks, we have been reminded of these words of the Apostle Paul, 

“For to me, to live is Christ and to die is gain.  If I am to go on living in the body, this will mean fruitful labor for me. Yet what shall I choose? I do not know! I am torn between the two: I desire to depart and be with Christ, which is better by far;  but it is more necessary for you that I remain in the body.”

The Christian cannot lose. It’s not because we are better or more deserving, but because mum trusted Jesus she is now with Christ, which is better by far. This is my Dad’s hope, and Penelope, Ian, Matt, Rachel, Susan and I share this hope. And I pray that it will be your hope also.