Our shaky world has lost a rare jewel. In an age pivoting against grace and sacrifice and instead pushing toward retaliation and self-actualisation, Queen Elizabeth gave the world much needed stability. Her faith in Jesus Christ, she confessed, was the ‘bedrock’ for her life of service. Maybe, just perhaps, we might reconsider the source of her hope and rediscover that better way to lead and live together.
“Precious in the sight of the Lord
is the death of his faithful servants.” (Psalm 116:15)
The Queen is dead. God save the King
I went to sleep last night having heard the breaking news that the Queen’s family were rushing to Balmoral and with Doctors concerned for her. I woke at 3:35am and checked my Twitter feed, and I watched the world hear the announcement that the Queen has died. This is one of those rare moments in life that one doesn’t forget. I spoke with my children this morning and told them, this is a history defining day.
With her death, there is a tangible sense of loss and grief. I am sad today. I never had the privilege of knowing her or meeting her. I once saw her for a few seconds in Australia as she drove by, and yet like many millions around the world, we sense that the world is a poorer place today with her passing.
Like most people, I have known only one monarch during my life and so it is hard to fathom a world without Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth. She was our head of State. Her image is printed on all Australian currency. Her name was never far from the news. The Queen of the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth became a grandmother figure to leaders across the globe, giving stability and assurance to a rapidly changing and uncertain world.
Queen Elizabeth II ascended the throne during the post-war years, and she reigned through the revolutionary 60s, the rise of pop culture, man on the moon, the fall of the Soviet Union, the creation of the internet, 9/11, the smartphone, Brexit, and countless crises and peaks. Her Majesty served her country and the Commonwealth with unparalleled grace, repose, sincerity and love. The Queen had the remarkable fortitude to stand above the heat of political maneuverings and culture wars. Even through family tragedies and sadness, our Queen did not flinch from her promise to love and serve her people.
In part due to her long reign, and much because of her dignity and servant nature, Queen Elizabeth stands as perhaps the most important world figure of the last 70 years. Her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill, arguably the most important man of the first half of the 20th Century. It does not require much argument to see Her Majesty as the most emblematic and esteemed leader of the second half of the 20th Century and over these first decades of the 21st Century.
It is right to pause today and give thanks to God for her life. It is appropriate to take time to consider her passing and to mourn. The reason is not that her life has more value than any other. Thousands of people have died across the world today and Queen Elizabeth is but one of those lives. However, her position as our monarch, and the integrity and honour in which she has conducted her role, leaves not only an impression on the pages of history but perhaps brings a close to one of the final chapters of history.
Her reign oversaw the greatest momentum in human technological and economic advancement that history has ever witnessed, and the world through globalisation became much smaller. In recent times, especially over the last 5 years, we have begun to watch a disintegration of global homogeny and there is an infection eating our culture and splintering communities and families alike. While we have never been closer in proximity, waves of ideology is attacking the very notion of human identity and defying the imago dei, and nationalist ideals are rekindling and creating a world that is less safe for our children. The pieces are moving quickly and any notion of Francis Fukuyama’s vision is proven to be little more than hubris and misplaced self-belief.
I will pray for the Queen’s family today, and pray for King Charles III. The Scriptures command Christians, “petitions, prayers, intercession and thanksgiving be made for all people— for kings and all those in authority, that we may live peaceful and quiet lives in all godliness and holiness”, and so that is what I will do.
The greatest contribution offered to the world by Queen Elizabeth was her faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, in whom she believed and placed her ultimate hope. At Easter 2020, Her Majesty spoke of the resurrection of Jesus,
“The discovery of the risen Christ on the first Easter Day gave his followers new hope and fresh purpose… As dark as death can be – particularly for those suffering with grief – light and life are greater.”
Last year in her annual Christmas speech, the Queen shared her trust in the Lord Jesus. She said,
“Jesus teachings have been the bedrock of my faith”.
And she concluded by pointing us to her hope,
“His birth marked a new beginning. As the carol says: The hopes and fears of all the years are met in Thee tonight”
A monarch who bows the knee to Jesus as Lord encapsulates the posture and foresight to rule and be an example for people to follow.
The Queen is dead. Elizabeth lives.
“For we believe that Jesus died and rose again, and so we believe that God will bring with Jesus those who have fallen asleep in him.” (1 Thess 4:14)
Queen Elizabeth ascended to the throne during a time of dawning hope and mounting optimism following half a century of global bloodshed. She leaves the earth with the light of hope in human determination growing dim over the world, but the light she saw in God’s gospel of grace remains bright and clear and now our Queen is meeting the King of Kings and enjoying his presence forevemore.
“Sovereign Lord, as you have promised,
you may now dismiss your servant in peace.
For my eyes have seen your salvation,
which you have prepared in the sight of all nations:
a light for revelation to the Gentiles,
and the glory of your people Israel.” (Luke 2:29-32)
I’ve just read what is a pretty ordinary piece of opinion writing The Age. The approach isn’t uncommon, but it’s not particularly helpful. It is another attempt to deride Anglicans who wish to hold onto Anglican beliefs. Let’s remember, the beliefs in question (human sexuality), aren’t particular to Anglicans but are shared by Christians Churches globally and ever since Jesus inaugurated the church.
Dr Kate Milner writes about some of her experiences growing up in churches, including an inner city Anglican Church in Melbourne. As the headline states, As a woman, I am glad to be free of the Anglican Church, Dr Milner is ‘relieved’ to be no longer part of the Anglican Church. Why?
She explains,
“When I read about schisms within the Anglican church and anger about the breakaway Diocese of the Southern Cross, which does not support same-sex marriage, I feel both sadness and relief. I feel sad that it has taken so long for the fundamentalist, ultra-orthodoxy of this emergent network and their extreme values to be called-out. While I lived it every day for decades, in the midst of it I was never able to find words for the bigotry of what has been described as a “network of ultra-conservative, fundamentalist, patriarchal, schismatic Anglicans who, predictably, claim to be the only truly orthodox Anglican Church.”“
Dr Milner doesn’t engage with the theological convictions that have given rise to the Southern Cross Diocese. She doesn’t offer any alternative other than a passing reference to a few Bible words, although with no consideration for their Bible meaning. Instead, she mounts a verbal attack on her previous church and any like it (which apparently includes the newly formed Southern Cross Diocese). Dr Milner’s approach is simple and effective in a superficial sense. She unloads a barrage of insults. It doesn’t matter whether the words are true of these churches or not. It doesn’t matter whether she has even understood the meaning of her chosen words. Just throwing them at churches is sufficient. Obviously, someone thinks her tactic succeed, after all, it made the opinion page of a national newspaper!
I get how today’s rhetorical bamboozling works. Words are power and power brings influence and change. And so if I look inside the garbage bin of words and find the right ones to bring emotional charge to an issue, then that’s what I’ll use. The thing is, when one takes a look at Milner’s chosen language, one quickly realises that she’s firing blanks: loud but empty.
Fundamentalist? No
Patriarchal? No.
Ultra Conservative? No.
Bigotry? No.
Kate Milner may not like the fact (and it is a fact), but churches associated with GAFCON (and now with Southern Cross) hold to mainstream normal orthodox Christianity. There is nothing outrageous or ‘ultra’ anything about what these churches believe and practice. Indeed, the belief that men and women are men and women, and that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, is as normal as it comes. These Anglican Churches affirm the same Christianity that is growing around the world today and which conforms to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It’s the same Christianity preached by the Apostles and which comes from the lips and life of Jesus.
By the sounds of it, Dr Milner prefers to align with a religion that is not those things, but (mis)using words because they come from the bag marked ‘terrible religious words’ and because it garners the ‘right’ kind of angry allies, is far from cultivating reasonable and important conversation. Therein lies a problem. If critics (and yes, there are also a few Anglican bishops who belong to this cheer squad) rely on spurious insults and slander to push for the downfall of orthodox Christianity, then their cause is already faulty.
I’m not privy to Dr Milner’s story beyond what she has written but I hope and pray that with time she changes her mind, because Christianity is good news. It’s the greatest message we can ever embrace. Sure, Christianity doesn’t swing along with the ever changing sexual revolution and all its latest iterations; Jesus offers a better story, a more secure hope.
I’ve read a lot of nonsense recently with people attacking Churches for doing the very thing churches are meant to do: believe and live out the Bible. But there is also danger here for Christians. Yes, we grieve when people defame the name of Jesus and insult our churches, but we must also guard our own hearts and tongues. We mustn’t copy those who oppose us and resort to their patterns of speech. When we fail, we ought to repent and ask for forgiveness. It’s easy to respond when you’re angry or hurt with the same low level verbal artillery, but we mustn’t.
Sometimes the wise decision is to say nothing in response; you cop the flack and ask God to sort it out. I’ve had to repeatedly learn that important lesson over the years. At other times it is prudent to speak and correct the allegations. It’s the Proverbs 26 dilemma:
“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,
or you yourself will be just like him.
Answer a fool according to his folly,
or he will be wise in his own eyes.”
There is also a time and place for strong words. After all, Jesus cursed the Pharisees and the Apostle Paul could say of the false teaches infiltrating the Galatian churches,
“If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse”
Such language however should never be used lightly or inappropriately. Too often even Christians begin at 9 and dial up the rhetoric from there. The problem is, public discourse doesn’t encourage meekness and reasonableness and patience. We desperately need such approaches, but today’s world of white noise gives little attention to careful, fair, and important argument. Outrage and derogatory superlatives is the staple diet. If you want to be heard, use bigger meaner words. As it happens, words like ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘bigot’ have become the religious version of Godwin’s law. They’re lazy and often untrue insults, but use them and the Colosseum crowd will lap it up.
My advice is this, avoid the mud and don’t forget the long game. If responding to every misrepresentation endangers us of jumping into the Colosseum and swinging our sharpest rhetorical swords, it is probably better to practice patience and joyfully take the hit. Other times, for example, when my neighbour is being slandered, speaking on their behalf may be a loving action. When ecclesial leaders promote a gospel that is no gospel at all, and there is an opportunity for us to speak with the manner of Jesus, then faithful church leaders ought to speak up so that God’s good news isn’t muddied. If we are looking for examples to follow at this present time, of how to speak truth with grace and clarity, look no further than to how evangelical bishops have conducted themselves in the public space over the past month, including Kanishka Raffal and Richard Condie.
“When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:23)
“Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 2:29)
“If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.” (1 Peter 4:14).
Let’s keep learning to respond and engage in a Christ like way.
A game of AFL is taking place on a local oval when a small group jump the fence and start kicking a round ball along the ground. The game stops. Players approach the group and ask them to desist.
They retort, ‘we’re also playing football.
The players answer, ‘no, you’re playing a different game. Different ball, different shaped ground, different goals….if you’re interested, you can join us but first of all, get rid of the soccer ball’.
The group insist, ‘no, we are playing football. We can all play together at the same time.”
In trying to point out the obvious, someone again speaks up, ‘hang on, look…the balls are a different shape. The goals are different. You’re wanting a completely different sport.’
Ignoring the self-evident, the group gaslight the footy plays and again insist,
“We’re going to use this ground. Let’s talk about it. Let’s arrange a series of meetings to sort it out. After all, what we share in common is far greater than our differences.”
In the meantime, the match has been severely disrupted, the umpires feel bullied, and with each new sentence uttered by the small group of soccer players, they encroach further onto the oval and begin handing out Man U jumpers to everyone.
A significant announcement was made this week, one which may change the Church landscape in Australia. The decision is not so much about changing the game but is confirming that we will not change the game. GAFCON is responding to what is a tireless intrusion onto Christian Churches by certain bishops and leaders who are trying to change the Gospel beyond recognition. They are not playing the same game as Christians Churches, but something quite different.
Bishop Richard Condie, has explained the situation well,
“You know as well as I do that there is an emergency…When some of our bishops have failed to affirm basic biblical teachings [on marriage and sexual ethics] at the recent General Synod – when 12 of our bishops failed to uphold what Christians have taught for millennia – you know there is an emergency.”
“The issue for us is the authority of the Bible.”
He’s right. And let’s not fall for the red herring, “GAFCON are obsessed with sex and sexuality”, as one person put it yesterday. Not at all. It is the errant bishops who keep pushing and insisting churches allow and change their doctrines and practices on sex and marriage. GAFCON is rightly observing how these aberrant views impact and are ultimately shaped by a distorted theology of the Bible and the Gospel.
Marriage may be the presenting issue, but it is about so much more. There is an irreconcilable view of the Bible, of the cross, of the nature of sin and salvation, and the list continues. It shouldn’t surprise us to learn that ecclesial leaders who reject the Bible’s teaching on sexuality often don’t believe in other crucial doctrines including the atonement and the resurrection.
As we turn to Jesus, we find the superlative includer. Jesus shows kindness and mercy toward those who for 100 reasons sit outside the Kingdom of God. The very definition of a Christian is someone who did not belong and now by grace alone is welcomed by God. The same Jesus insisted on the biblical teaching on marriage and human sexuality. Jesus describes any sexual activity outside marriage between a man and a woman as ‘immoral. Today’s faithless bishops are pretty much saying, Jesus is wrong.
The Bible is clear, our moral practitioning is connected to other essential Christian beliefs about God and about sin and salvation and more.
“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.” (1 Corinthians 6:9-11)
“ We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, 10 for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine 11 that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” (1 Timothy 1:9-11)
Churches that adopt the anthropological positions of popular culture are not serving their community well or God. They are giving people a message without hope and without grace. They are like an old English General sipping his brandy from a grand chateau while sending a carrier pigeon to the front line and telling the soldiers in the trenches, ‘there is peace. You are safe. All is well’.
Even as hundreds of Australian Anglicans meet in Canberra this week, I’ve heard some Anglican voices crying out, ‘peace, peace…what we need to do is keep dialoguing and living together’.
This reminds me of Bishop Curry and his famed sermon of ‘love’ at Meghan and Prince Harry’s wedding in 2018. Behind the scenes, this preacher of love was seizing church properties and dragging leaders before disciplinary hearings. For what crime of the church? These pastors and churches continued to teach the orthodox position on marriage rather than capitulating to the culture.
Conversations and meetings and forums and synods have met for years, and sadly little progress made. What are Christian Churches meant to do when bishops and coaches insist on changing the very game?
GAFCON is choosing faithfulness to God over allegiance to broken institutions.
The Sydney Morning Herald has published a fair report on the story, although there was this one unfortunate line,
“The Diocese of the Southern Cross was formally launched in Canberra on Sunday. The first service was led by a rebel minister who resigned from the liberal Brisbane Archdiocese because he “cannot go along with same-sex blessings”.
Rebel isn’t the right word to describe Rev Peter Palmer. He has given up a steady stipend and is now driving a bus to put bread on the table. His congregation has lost their church’s property. Far from being a ‘rebel minister’, Palmer is a Christian minister who has chosen to remain faithful to Jesus while his Diocesan bishops have chosen faithlessness to both the Gospel and the churches under their care.
As news of this week’s GAFCON announcement circulates, I am not hearing cheers and laughter over the decision to introduce a new Anglican Diocese in Australia, but tears and lament at seeing ecclesial leaders persisting with errant teachings and destroying churches under their care. And there is love for God and the deep desire for the Gospel to go out to Australians.
Christ’s Church is holy to God. The Gospel is too vital for Christians to play ball with those who are maligning it. People (both inside and outside churches) are too important and misleading them with errant teachings doesn’t help anyone.
This issue isn’t limited to the Anglican Communion. There are other Christian denominations in Australia facing similar trouble. Eventually, we must decide, who will we follow. Will we obey the Lord of the Church, Jesus Christ, or will we play the role of the chameleon and keep changing the gospel according to the whims of the culture?
Preface: please read the entire piece & not just one or two snippets. The whole argument matters, not just a quote or two. thank you
———————————–
I’m beginning to think that when some people read ‘1984’ and ‘A Brave New World’, their impression is, what a great idea. Let’s model our society on ‘Oceania’ or ‘World State’!
There is a certain predictability about our political and social overlords: Christianity is bad, science is a subject in the Arts faculty, and conscience is only free for those who follow the right agenda.
In its latest iteration, Victorian Legislative Council member, Fiona Patten, from the Sex Party (sorry, it’s now called ‘Reason’ Party) is tabling legislation that will force Church-based hospitals and health institutions to perform abortions. Patten’s Bill threatens these hospitals with losing their public funding if they refuse patient requests for abortion.
Before I respond to Patten’s reasoning, I want to admit that abortion isn’t a topic I like to write about. I appreciate how this is a very real and sensitive and emotionally charged issue for many people. Despite angry messages that I receive from certain quarters, the reality is, women carry tremendous guilt and pain from having an abortion, even many years later. ‘Celebrate your abortion’ may be a thing right now, but behind the slogans, many women struggle. The way to find forgiveness and freedom from the past isn’t to redefine a wrongful act as good, as our political representatives feel necessary today, but to take the harder and better road that Jesus outlines: admit our terrible decisions and turn to God who is big enough and willing to wipe away every spot of guilt. Churches and religious organisations remain communities who gladly help where there is a difficult pregnancy, and who also gladly welcome people who carry heavy burdens. Churches are not communities of the moral oppressors, but of those who found a loving and forgiving God. I encourage readers to ignore the caricatures of Christianity that we read about in the media and instead check out the real thing for ourselves.
Having said that, Fiona Patten explains her legislation,
“Publicly funded hospitals and other health institutions have no right to refuse these legally enshrined rights that a woman has control over her body and reproductive health.”
“Religion is a blessing to many amid the mysteries and vagaries of existence, but imposed religious faith has no place in the public health system.”
According to The Guardian,
“Patten said institutions should not be able to claim “conscientious objection” and that the bill would ensure public hospitals were not able to prevent a doctor from performing legal abortion procedures.”
First of all, let the reader understand, Fiona Patten does not believe in the separation of Church and State. She thinks that the State ought to control religion. The State of Victoria has witnessed the slow erosion of this healthy distinction (and partnership) in recent years, including the State removing freedom from religious institutions to employ people on the basis of their religious convictions, and banning certain prayers and conversations with fellow Victorians. Patten believes that the State should force religious health providers to perform acts of killing unborn children, an action that deliberately cuts against sound religious convictions.
Patten regularly campaigns to have any vestige of Christianity removed from the public square (ie think the Lord’s Prayer in Parliament*) and she regularly promotes legislation that will bring down State sanctioned secular ideology onto religious organisations. This is but the latest manifestation of a growing trend.
This is dangerous political overreach.
Second, does Fiona Patten appreciate that her threat will only further harm our health system, a healthy system that is already overburdened and not coping? Is throwing rocks at vital and overworked hospitals going to help the sick and injured? Removing public funding from these hospitals won’t save lives and relieve the mounting pressures and massive backlog of important surgeries.
Instead of threatening religion-based hospitals, perhaps our political representatives should ask, how can we be helping?
Third, in the grand tradition of doublespeak, Fiona Patten obscures the reality of abortion by ignoring the life of the child and speaking of a woman’s right. Few activists admit today that the child in the womb is anything less than a human being. Science and technology simply won’t allow the ‘clump of cells’ myth to continue. We can see the little human inside the mother’s womb growing. Even at 16 weeks, we now know that babies are thinking and feeling. They respond to sound and to music. Their cognitive faculties, creative faculties, and listening and communication skills are far more advanced than was once believed.
“I am reminded of the words spoken by one excited mum, ‘As soon as the sound of your greeting reached my ears, the baby in my womb leaped for joy” (Luke 1:44).
A society that claims a right to destroy such life is a society that has lost sight of its humanity and its obligations to the most vulnerable. But not content with abortion taking place in public and some private medical centres, move is afoot to force religious medical providers to perform this unconscionable act.
The prophet Isaiah said,
“Woe to those who call evil good
and good evil,
who put darkness for light
and light for darkness,
who put bitter for sweet
and sweet for bitter.”
I suspect Fiona Patten’s Bill will fail to win sufficient support in Parliament. I could be wrong, but I don’t think the majority of Victorians would think her reasoning is reasonable. Nonetheless, let the reader understand that she doesn’t represent a marginal cultural perspective but rather she belongs to the vanguard of cultural change. We shouldn’t be surprised to see, as we have on other issues, that ‘try, try, again’ will eventually see hardline authoritarian secularism succeed.
I wonder, does Fiona Patten believe that the State should have the power to coerce her to act against her conscience? As we’ve seen with the Manly 7 and a growing list of examples, the argument for conscience moves in only one direction, and that’s not a song and dance routine that I want to follow.
What do other Victorians think? Should doctors and nurses be compelled to take human life?
What a crazy, sinful, grief giving world we live in.
The insatiable blackhole of today’s groupthink requires a response that our political and culture wars can’t handle. Facts, figures and commonsense rarely belong to the debates of today, and even more rare is the nuance and grace that we desperately need. In our thinking, we need to dig deeper.
Of course, Christians aren’t going to cave into Patten’s threats and start killing babies. What an absurdity! Without giving an inch to this grim ideological pressure, I caution against responding with anger or with spite. Rather, follow the example of Jesus. At the beginning of what we now called the Passion week, Jesus stood over Jerusalem, and he wept. Jesus said,
“If you, even you, had only known on this day what would bring you peace—but now it is hidden from your eyes.” He then entered the city, resolved to lay down his life for those who wanted to take his.
—————
The NRL is the latest promoter of inclusion to exclude people of faith. On Monday the Manly Sea Eagles unveiled their newest jersey, with the gay pride colours splashed across the front.
I have little interest in the game of Rugby League, although I did live through the scrummage of Sydney for 4 years. When it comes to preferencing football codes, for me NRL ranks some below quidditch (sorry, I meant, quad ball!). Having said that, stories like the one coming out of Manly this week are happening across Australia in schools and workplaces, as well as in sports. This is simply the latest high-profile example of what is now going on in many pockets of societal life, work, and play. I regularly hear stories of children being urged and manipulated into wearing coloured ribbons and supporting organisations, and workplaces forcing special days and causes onto staff.
The 7 Manly players informed the club that they cannot wear the rainbow jersey on account of their religious beliefs. This isn’t a decision that they or any players should be forced to make. After all, the fact that Muslims, Christians, marrieds, singles, gays and others can already wear the normal jumper is a sign of inclusion. But we are no longer living in that world. Professional sport now comes attached to all kinds of amendments and attachments.
The public reaction has been mixed, and the media have jumped all over it. Manly’s coach, Des Hasler, was put in the unenviable position of facing the media yesterday. I thought he did a sterling job given the circumstances. On behalf of the club, he apologised to everyone and recognised that the club had handled the issue poorly (apparently no club official thought it worthwhile to first talk to players about the jersey idea and see if it would cause anyone offence). The club (whether they wish to or not) will go ahead with the new jumper for this weekend’s game and the 7 players will sit out the game.
Like a well-regulated bowel motion, Peter FitzSimons leapt to his usual tricks. Within minutes of the story breaking, he swung his rhetorical axe and called for the 7 players to leave Manly.
“The short answer for all seven should be: “No probs, and good luck with your new club!”
Yesterday, he continued, writing an opinion piece for the SMH. Even before the game starts, Fitz blew his whistle to call out anyone who might disagree with him,
“o many points, so little time. So little space, so many space cadets.’ You have been named!”
That’s good to know. Fitz views dissenters as intellectually feeble and cognitively inept. He’s smart enough to know that such insults will win praise among his followers, but it achieves little in encouraging serious dialogue.
Fitz not only detests Christianity, he doesn’t get it.
“What the hell is wrong with you blokes that you don’t get it? You are prepared to trash the entire Manly season on this issue alone? In a world where rugby league has led the sporting fraternity in making change, in making it clear that the game really is for all races, all genders, all sexualities, all religions you want to make a stand for …”
Let’s be clear, it is the football club that made the decision and assumed players would have no issue wearing the different jumper. I’m sure the 7 players love the game and their club and are desperate to play, but what Fitz fails to realise is that there is a higher code than football. For Christians, all of life is about Jesus and wanting to represent him well. If we are forced to make a decision between Jesus and football, the answer is kind of obvious.
In our age where we are supposedly sensitive toward the consciences of others, does FitzSimons really believe these players should act against faith and conscience?
It was Jesus who said,
“Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross and follow me. For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me and for the gospel will save it. What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, yet forfeit their soul? 37 Or what can anyone give in exchange for their soul?”
Fitz not only fails to appreciate the nature of Christian discipleship, he also misrepresents the rainbow banner.
“That is all that Manly wearing the rainbow jersey is saying. To put it in terms that might resonate, “We are all God’s little creatures, and we come in all shapes and sizes, all colours, all sexualities, so isn’t it all just wonderful!””
Wearing the jumper isn’t about solidarity, it represents conformity. Wearing the colours is very much about promoting what Stephen McAlpine famously calls, ‘our sexular age’. He says,
“the Pride story is a good news story itself. It’s an alternate gospel.”
Mcalpine is right. The pride story is a story of self salvation. Redemption is all about self realisation. Rather than the Bible’s story of us needing divine salvation from sin in ourselves, today’s culture says that I define my own value system and it’s the job of God and everyone else to affirm me.
As pop icon Taylor Swift proclaimed during a recent speech,
“I know it can be really overwhelming figuring out who to be, and when. Who you are now and how to act in order to get where you want to go. I have some good news: it’s totally up to you. I also have some terrifying news: it’s totally up to you.”
That’s today’s gospel: Be your authentic self.
The thing about the pride gospel is that it’s not satisfied with individuals arriving at their own decision, everybody else has to join the chorus, and not singing along just proves you’re a hateful awful, repressive social recalcitrant.
In the real world, I can think of same sex attracted people who’d refuse to wear the rainbow colours. There are gays and lesbians who don’t wish to promote the LGBTIQ+ movement, and who for various reasons could not in clear conscience support Manly’s decision. Of course, they won’t stick their heads over the parapet, and I don’t blame them. Why should they share their views, only to have Peter FitzSimons call them bigots?
The rainbow message doesn’t represent inclusion, it’s about capitulation. It represents doing away with traditional sexual ethics and embracing a new and unforgiving ‘truth’. Does anyone remember the Coopers’ beer incident from 2016? Two politicians sat down over a Coopers beer to talk about same-sex marriage. Tim Wilson spoke in support of changing the law and Andrew Hastie spoke against. It was a civil conversation about an important issue, and yet within hours pubs around the country were destroying their supply of Coopers beer and the company was pressured into apologising and to wave every rainbow flag they could get their hands on.
Today’s message isn’t to hum along to ‘let it be’, it is forced conversion. The Manly story is a perfect example of this. The players were given no choice other than to wear the pride colours, regardless of their personal convictions.
This isn’t just a problem for professional sportsmen and sportswomen, the pressure is real in workplaces, universities and schools across the country. HR Departments pressure employees to fall into line with the latest version of the coloured flag. School is a difficult environment for children who are convinced by Christian, Jewish or Muslim views of sexuality, marriage and family.
Peter FitzSimons continues his game plan by weirdly mounting what reads like a backhanded racist attack,
“You are mostly from the wonderful Islander community, one that is beloved in the football community and wider still. Nevertheless, there really are shocking bigots who have attacked that community through nothing other than their own bigotry. How do you not get that your actions disgust most, but please many of the very same bigots who judge people on their race?”
Is he seriously suggesting to these Islanders didn’t arrive at their Christian beliefs through their own careful investigations and deliberations, but somewhere they are victims of bigots (presumably white colonial Christian missionaries)? I suspect a retraction is in order.
A number of people have already alerted Fitz to his inconsistent views. Instead of acknowledging his mistake, he doubles down and insults people for recognising the hypocrisy in his position.
For example, a young muslim woman stood for her beliefs earlier this year and refused to wear the rainbow colours on her AFLW jersey. She said,
“As the first Australian Muslim woman in the AFLW, I have a responsibility to represent my faith and my community,
In Fitz’s mind she receives a free pass because,
“she is already progressive enough to break down the barriers to be the first Islamic woman to play in the AFLW – and to have played in the Pride round last year, albeit without personally wearing the jersey.”
Both cases are pretty much identical, and yet Fitz blows the whistle at one and not the other. Why? Because it’s okay for a white Aussie bloke to blow his trumpet against male Christians. But a Muslim woman isn’t an acceptable target. In other words, because she is a Muslim woman we can forgive her, but these 7 Christian men are beyond our grace. In contrast to Fitz’s double standards, a more consistent view is to say that both have reasonable cause not to wear the pride jumper and they should not be compelled to do so.
I remember at the time of of the marriage plebiscite, Lisa Wilkinson was among the voices promising that same sex marriage won’t change anything.
“What happened in Ireland, and Great Britain, most of continental Europe, most of the Americas, New Zealand, Canada and all the rest?
Again.
Nothing.”
Jane Gilmour assured Aussies,
“The people advocating for marriage equality in Australia are not attempting to impose their beliefs on to any church, they are simply objecting to churches imposing their definition of marriage onto the rest of us.”
Australia’s new Attorney General, Mark Dreyfus, spoke at a Freedom for Faith Conference in 2016, saying,
“I challenge people here to demonstrate that changing the Marriage Act will lead to negative changes in religious freedom.”
I don’t think anyone really believed Wilkinson and others at the time. After all, other social commentators gladly preached a message of social change,
For example,
Auberry Perry, in The Age (Sept. 3, 2017),
“This survey offers us a conscious opportunity to make a firm stand in support of a secular government and to reject discrimination or favouritism based on religion. It’s our opportunity to say that religion has no part in the shaping of our laws. A vote against same-sex marriage is a vote for religious bias and discrimination in our legislation, our public schools, our healthcare, and ultimately, in the foundation of our social structure.”
Mauvre Marsden wrote in the Sydney Morning Herald (Oct 4, 2017),
“Yes, marriage is not the final frontier. Yes, we want safe schools. Yes, gay conversion therapy is child abuse. Yes, we want transgender kids’ agency to be respected and supported – regardless of what their parents want. Yes.”
We’re no longer living in Athens and we’re no longer invited to speak at the Areopagus. This is imperial Rome where sacrifice to the gods is made compulsory for every citizen. I can hear Fitz saying, ‘you can believe in your Christian God at home or in the private setting of your church, but out here you are obliged to follow our gods.’
In the space of a few years we have seen hundreds of organisations and corporations guilted into signing up the latest iterations of the sexular age. After all, no one wants to be called a bigot, especially as the insult is usually untrue. Public statements and policies can barely keep up with the changing rules that are determined by our moral overloads. The changes have real implications for real people. In Victoria, religious organisations have lost the freedom to employ people on the basis of the association’s beliefs. Again in Victoria, some religious conversations and prayers are now illegal. The Christian view of marriage and human sexuality is described by Victorian Education Department materials as phobic. Across Australia, businesses, clubs, and schools feel the pressure to embrace all the latest (and ever changing) sexologies.
I’m not hankering for the supposed good old days and neither am I bemoaning today, this is about recognising the space in which we now live.
Let’s be honest, when the boss at work or school principal hands out the rainbow flags and pin, the answer for Christians is clear. However, when you’re being tackled, it’s normal to feel the pressure. It’s not easy to stand up to a group assault. After all, won’t life be easier if we slip on the jumper? We’re not being asked to make a public comment, not yet anyway. And it’s just for 1 day in the year…until next year.
If you (Christian) haven’t already sorted out your convictions, now’s the time to do so. Understand your ultimate allegiance and prepare your answer.
I thank God for the Manly 7. Anyone thinking that because they are well paid professional footballers, their stance is an easy one, think again. Sometimes a high profile makes the fall harder.
And I feel for Fitz. He mocks and disdains the message that he clearly does not understand. It’s the message that means everything to these Manly players, even more than playing rugby league. Their decision may impact their future in the game (time will tell), but I suspect they understand that choosing to wear that jumper would bring an even greater cost.
What’s even more problematic than the position forced on the Manly 7, is how the public conversation is forced into a false dichotomy: either you fully support gay players and wear the colours or you are a hateful bigot. This is a false binary. No matter how often Peter FitzSimons and your HR department preach it, it remains untrue.
The life of Jesus Christ shows how he often disagreed with peoples’ thoughts, words and actions. Does his disagreement represent fear and hatred? Or is it love that drives him to say ‘no’ to us? The central message of Christianity is that God disproves of our many of our desires and decisions, and yet his love led the Lord Jesus to the cross. Christians can’t wave the rainbow flag but we can and do love our gay and lesbian friends. We enjoy playing sport alongside you and eating meals and going to concerts. There is something good and sensical, although sadly it’s becoming rare, when we can say, I disagree with you but I am nonetheless committed to your good. I think you’ve made a mistake, but I remain your friend.
————————-
Steve McAlpine helpfully explains the difference between the pride colours and wearing a jumper with club sponsors in this piece – https://stephenmcalpine.com/manly-in-babylon/?fbclid=IwAR29Az8ICNVJf_VcXSUwINDxnwTZBekk53gnkMUFHYcHGfkL1VT4as1JntM
“I’m not an idiot”, so said Michael Jensen in an interview with Peter FitzSimons for Sunday’s Sydney Morning Herald.
FitzSimons opening barrage on Jensen was to portray Christianity in his typically parodic manner, as though Christians are a bunch of uneducated, antiscientific, and annoying cluster of flies. Hence, Michael’s initial response. Although to be fair, apart from the opening line to Jensen, the article is pretty decent and Fitz does a good job in questioning both Fiona Patton and Michael Jensen. His topics were the Lord’s Prayer and churches’ tax exemption status.
For those who don’t know of Fiona Patten, she is a member of the Legislative Council in the Victorian Parliament. Her party, Reason Party, was formally called the Sex Party. Unsurprisingly, Patten is a passionate advocate for progressive sex ideology. Michael Jensen on the other hand is Senior Pastor at St Mark’s Darling Point in Sydney and holds a PhD from Oxford University.
On the topic of the Lord’s prayer, Michael Jensen is typically Christian as he sees both pros and cons with Parliament reciting the Lord’s Prayer. On the issue of tax exemption rules, Jensen explains,
“the first thing to say is that Jesus told us to pay taxes and churches should too, on [straight-out businesses they run]. But churches as places of worship come under the charity law as a community group and for the purposes of taxation don’t have special privileges that other community groups don’t have. So sports, for example, don’t pay tax because they are a community group, as are trade unions, things like Men’s Shed, the CWA and indeed political parties. So this is not a special provision just for churches. And when it comes to churches, the view is that money put in the plate has already been taxed – it is people’s after-tax dollars – and so doesn’t need to be further taxed, just as when people donate to community groups.”
“Tax law needs supervision, needs compliance and needs data to be administered properly. Most of the long-established churches like ours have an accumulated wealth, particularly through property, because of our longevity in Australia – and most of our buildings are held in a trust to support the purposes for which the organisation exists, which is not for making profit. So we’re not remotely a business in that sense.”
Jensen is correct. I acknowledge that I’m biased, but it does not require a PhD from Oxford to realise that Jensen’s explanation is reasoned and grounded in what actually happens in churches across Australia and how their financial paradigm fits comfortably within the ACNC (Australian Charities and Not-for-profits Commission). Of course, where churches engage in business enterprises they rightly follow the law and pay their taxes. If and when there are examples of churches failing to comply, it is appropriate for authorities to investigate.
Fiona Patten holds a very different view from Michael Jensen. In this interview, she offers a clear explanation as to why she believes churches should be taxed: she doesn’t like them.
“If you are talking about religious charities, providing shelter for the homeless, food for the hungry – what we in society consider real charity – I absolutely think those genuine charities should be tax-exempt, and I totally support that. But the problem is the tax exemption the law provides for “the advancement of religion”. That used to be regarded as being for the public benefit but fewer people than ever think that. And why should you get a tax break for promoting a superstition?”
First of all, what Patten describes as ‘real charity’ is in error. The ACNC includes all kinds of organisations, including, community sporting clubs, unions, political parties, Rotary and Lions, and more. Is Fiona Patten suggesting that all these should have their tax exemption rescinded because they are not involved in giving food to the hungry?
If you look at Patten’s words, her position is hardly an argument, but it is a reason of sorts. She doesn’t like religion, therefore churches should lose their tax exemption status. Now, there are many charitable organisations that I don’t particularly like or attach much value to. I don’t enjoy swimming or basketball, but should these sporting clubs lose their not-for-profit status because I personally don’t receive benefit? Can I not admit what is true, and that is, that other people find value in these community organisations even if I don’t? But of course, this is the issue: Christianity is not only viewed as irrelevant, but it is also immoral and dangerous. Or at least, that’s the narrative being preached around the country from university campuses to school classrooms and newspaper opinion pieces.
In this interview, Michael Jensen is simply stating facts, as the Federal Minister for Charities, Andrew Leigh, confirmed. And yet, social media yesterday turned on industrial-sized heaters, blowing angry and distasteful commentary.
John Dickson said,
“The Fitz article is good. The responses demonstrate a key point in our debate about taxing churches as businesses. Those who oppose church tax exemptions do so (almost invariable) because they despise – ‘bigoted’ ‘stupid’ ‘paedophilic’ ‘nonsense’ ‘fairytale’ – religion!”
A few hours later John tweeted further,
“The level of anti-religion argument in this country is very poor. It is emotion and distaste all the way down. Bring back the old atheists, I say!”
Over at the land of twits I offered a simple affirmation of Michael Jensen’s answers, and it didn’t take long for Fitz’s followers to unload. It’s not as though people offered rebuttal as such, it was more akin to pointing a flamethrower at anyone standing with Jensen.
For example,
“I just read this, all nonsense. You talk about dependence on God, which one, Thor, Odin? Get this nonsense out of our govt.”
“What rubbish”
“What benefits did christianity bring again? Ignorant belief in imaginary gods used as an excuse for control of others, forced unwilling pregnancies on women, looked away from paedophilia & domestic violence, great examples of man’s evil though.”
“Seriously, can’t you do better than that?
“Let’s reverse it – You just love religion. That’s the only real reason you have for defending tax breaks for religion.
See how facile that is?”
And then this doozy for a happily married man of 22+ years…
“You virgin Murray!”
I can receive a lot worse than these contributions, but the examples I’ve cited are nonetheless telling. These comments and countless more like them simply rehash Patten’s view: ‘I don’t like religion, therefore we should remove their tax exemption.’
It’s a sad state of affairs but this is the calibre of what’s becoming normalised public scrutiny and debate today. Rather than weighing on facts and reason and listening carefully to the other, debate is shut down by the loudest mob. They don’t need to rely on evidence or rationality, pushing people into silence is effective. And it’s proving effective because Christianity is no longer seen as stupid, it is an evil that requires intervention. Of course, Christianity and evil are diametrically opposed, but this is not how Aussies are taught to view Christianity any longer.
Yes, Christians are at times obnoxious and give off an unpleasant smell. More often, Australians assume to be true what they hear repeated often enough and they believe what they are taught, and what we are taught is that Christianity is bad for you. Hillsong was used as an example by both Patten and people on social media. Hillsong is a popular target, and for some reason, but 99.9% of churches are not Hillsong, and judging the whole on the basis of that single example is superficial at best, and fallacious at worst.
It’s important for Christians to come to terms with how the fabric of education and belief has shifted in Western countries like Australia. The Christian message, and therefore Churches, is a social toxin that requires social, political, and even legal action to minimise its spread. It is therefore only natural for people to believe churches don’t deserve their tax exemption status. After all, if Christianity is bad for you, why should the Government provide tax exemptions?
There are people who are hurt by religion. There are people who hate religion, by which they usually mean Christianity. There are many people who simply do not understand Christianity. Michael Jensen has served us well.
Yesterday’s pushback on Jensen reminds me how Churches have more work to do to correct these misnomers about churches and money, and most importantly about the nature and purpose of the local church. Of course, churches can preach and live as faithfully to Jesus as possible and still face wild outrage and bitterness, but let’s not be too quick to throw out all opposition into the basket named, ‘hatred’. One of the trends we are seeing is growing ignorance of what Christianity is about and for that, we can hardly blame the average Aussie. To be sure, our cultural elites must take some responsibility as they distort Christianity in the ploy to remove her influence from society. Churches shoulder greater responsibility for the confusion that exists in our broader society. Why? Gospel clarity and conviction and teaching and life are often missing from our churches. The beauty and power of the Christian message is often defused by poorly trained pastors or through religious Benedict Arnolds.
I happen to agree with Fiona Patten in that some religions are little more than superstition, but others are not. Christianity is necessarily and integrally grounded in history and reality. The claims of Jesus Christ are consequential because they are rooted in real events and real people and for a real world. Far from superstition, Christianity provides the very ideas that have converged to build the very best of Australian society and the building blocks necessary for democratic liberalism and social pluralism: the equality and dignity of all human beings, the art of persuasion not coercion, belief in the rule of law, and so on.
Christians have a better story. It’s not a story that Christians are somehow better than others (for we are not), but a living example that shows how crucified and now living Christ is better. The Federal Minister for Charities, Andrew Leigh, is an atheist and yet recognises the ways in which belief in God and joining a religious community changes peoples lives for the better, creating greater generosity and servanthood and helping out for the good of others (cf Leigh’s interview with John Dickson).
While fewer Australians are formally identifying with religion, the fact is that the advancement of religion remains hugely important to millions of Australians. More so, at a time when Australia is experiencing less social cohesion and staggering levels of loneliness and people living without hope, there is an argument for churches having an even greater role and responsibility in bringing people together. Removing the tax status of churches is not only irrational, but Australian society will also be worse off. Churches are communities where people come and share life together and find the answers to life’s greatest questions. These are communities where people enormous amount of time and energy to loving others and sacrificially giving. These are voluntary associations where people gather to learn and discover the greatest message the world has ever known. Yes, it requires money for the upkeep of buildings and utilities and ministries. The social capital for broader Australian society is huge, and dare I say it, the implications are of eternal nature.
Disagree with Christianity by all means. Let us listen and argue well and disagree well, but removing churches’ tax exemptions will achieve little more than shooting ourselves in the head and expecting a good outcome to follow.
I’m going on leave today and beginning the first family holiday in 3 1/2 years. Before I sit beside the swimming pool and eat lots of satay, I thought I would update a list that I scribbled down late last year which mentions some of the tasks and responsibilities pastors have had to carry during the pandemic.
You’ll notice a couple of items have now been successfully crossed off the list, however, there are others that have been added.
Pastoring a church is a tremendous privilege and joy, and it’s not always an easy task. Indeed there are reasons why many pastors burn out after the first few years and many don’t make it beyond 10 years in the ministry. The COVID pandemic has bowled a googley at all of us, no matter our religious views, job, and life situation. Pastors are not immune from the daily stresses, troubles, and temptations that we all face. If there is a difference, there is an expectation that pastors will continue to work with a smile on the face, that they will accept all comments made to their face and behind their back, and push through whatever the cost.
Many pastors have shared with me how they are going; some were treading water late last year, and some now feel as though they’re sinking. This isn’t because our task is necessarily harder than others , but for this one simple reason, we are just like everyone else. It’s because of one such conversation that I first wrote down and share this list, hoping to an open window and let people see inside and gain a snapshot of the kinds of issues and responsibilities confronting pastors in Melbourne churches at the moment (in no particular order). Additions to last year’s list are written in bold and those items that are now resolved are crossed out:
These are some of the things pastors are working on right now. As I hope you can see, these things are rarely quick, easy or unimportant. Most of these activities demand an intellectual, emotional, and psychological gravitas that overwhelms pastors at the best of times, let alone in the time and place we currently find ourselves. This isn’t a cry for help or asking for a slap on the back. This is just a little message to share what pastors are up to at the moment. To our churches, we love you and we’re there for you in the good times and the bad. But understand, we are also tired and the emotional fuel tank is running pretty low.
We get tired and grumpy and worn out. The words, actions, and attitudes of others impact us too. We love the people whom God has committed under our care, but there is only Saviour and we’re not him!
I am incredibly thankful for the saints at Mentone who despite their own tiredness and troubles, are persevering and together we are running the race.
And that’s how it’s meant to work. This isn’t about pumping up pastors with pride but as each member lovingly serves the other, pastors are better able to give and serve as we ought. And indeed, as pastors do their work well, the congregation is released to ministry and to grow together. This is why when one of my own congregation asks how they can be praying for me, I often ask them to pray for the church: let us keep loving one another and serving each other with patience and grace. Everyone wins and God is glorified and the Gospel is seen for what it is: stunning and beautiful and good.
The Apostle Paul put it like this,
“Be completely humble and gentle; be patient, bearing with one another in love. Make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace.” (Ephesians 4:2-3)
“Therefore if you have any encouragement from being united with Christ, if any comfort from his love, if any common sharing in the Spirit, if any tenderness and compassion, 2 then make my joy complete by being like-minded, having the same love, being one in spirit and of one mind. 3 Do nothing out of selfish ambition or vain conceit. Rather, in humility value others above yourselves, 4 not looking to your own interests but each of you to the interests of the others.
In your relationships with one another, have the same mindset as Christ Jesus:” (Philippians 2:1-5)
And pastors, let’s remember we are not superman, batman or whoever the current superhero is meant to be. And we are certainly not the world’s Saviour.
“And let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us, 2 fixing our eyes on Jesus, the pioneer and perfecter of faith. For the joy set before him he endured the cross, scorning its shame, and sat down at the right hand of the throne of God. Consider him who endured such opposition from sinners, so that you will not grow weary and lose heart.” (Hebrews 10:1-3)
Do you believe the Bible supports abortion? I’m not asking whether you support abortion or not, and to what extent. My interest here is more narrow. As you read the Bible, is your impression that the Scriptures advocate abortion or speak against abortion?
Sean Winter, from the University of Divinity, argues in The Conversation, that Christian support for legislation prohibiting abortion is a cultural and political stance. It has nothing to do with the Bible.”
I’ll admit, I was taken back when I read Winter’s argument. Even now as I write, I am stunned by his colander approach to the Bible. Winter makes some effort to quote many of the Bible verses that Christians refer to, but for the most part, he simply throws them away as irrelevant to any discussion on abortion. For someone who repeatedly states with imperial determination, ‘the Bible says nothing’, he offers virtually no interaction with the body of teaching in Scripture that speaks to the issue. Quoting and then dismissing Bible verses isn’t an argument.
Winter’s (mis)use of the Bible deserves a response, not because I think there is any weight in his argument but because the issue of abortion matters, women matter, children matter, and what the Bible teaches matters.
His central thesis is, “Christian support for legislation prohibiting abortion is a cultural and political stance. It has nothing to do with the Bible.”
The article reads like a classic example of, I know what my conclusion is, therefore I’m going to do my utmost to squeeze Christian theology into my preconceived preferences.
Does the Bible use the word abortion? No. Does this mean that the Bible is silent on the issue? Absolutely not. There are many words not found in the Bible and yet the Bible speaks clearly and wonderfully into these situations. For example, the word ‘Trinity’ doesn’t appear and yet the Triune God is the most foundational of all Christian beliefs. Christian theology is rarely built on a single word or sentence from the Bible but properly takes into account the entire counsel of God and rightly attributes words and teachings according to their context in God’s schema that is salvation history.
Let’s take a few examples,
Of Psalm 139 Winter suggests,
“What the Bible does contain are some verses which seem to refer to the status of the unborn fetus. The most famous and commonly cited is Psalm 139:13–16, a poem in which the Psalmist expresses the view that God created them in the womb.”
Winter offers virtually no argument, he simply discounts this famous Psalm as offering no contribution to the subject of abortion. Let’s examine the verses in question,
The Psalmist is adoring God and recognising God’s exquisite craftmanship, and he shouts what is true of all children,
“For you created my inmost being;
you knit me together in my mother’s womb.
I praise you because I am fearfully and wonderfully made;
your works are wonderful,
I know that full well.
My frame was not hidden from you
when I was made in the secret place,
when I was woven together in the depths of the earth.” (Psalm 139:13-16)
The child inside the womb is a child. This child is God’s creation and known to God, they are not a mere clump of cells and nonperson. There is no point at which the embryo is not human life and worthy of living. There is no artificial date set, as though they became a person at 12 weeks or at birth. The beauty and wonder of personhood is observed and considered from conception, ‘when I was made in the secret place’.
When it comes Jeremiah 1:5, Winter again wants us to think ‘there is nothing to see here’.
“Before I formed you in the womb I knew you,
before you were born I set you apart;
I appointed you as a prophet to the nations.”
At the very least, this verse attributes Divine value and purpose to Jeremiah, which exists even before the point of his conception. Far from adding nothing to the conversation on abortion, Jeremiah 1:5 heightens the importance and dignity of the child carried in his mother’s womb.
Winter then resurrects the worn-out trope, ‘Jesus said nothing’. This line of thought is sometimes brought out of the cupboard when someone wants to argue that Christianity supports homosexual relations: Jesus never said anything, therefore the act is morally good and Christians should support it. It doesn’t take much scrutiny to realise how tenuous is this argument. For example, when it comes to marriage, Jesus affirmed the Genesis paradigm, that marriage is for a man and a woman and all other sexual relations is porneia.
Winter asserts,
“Jesus isn’t remembered as saying anything about the unborn. Paul is silent on the issue.
Attempts to claim otherwise are ideologically informed cases of special pleading.”
On the question of Jesus and abortion, Winter’s logic can as easily be reversed. Jesus never spoke in support of killing unborn children, and so “attempts to claim otherwise are ideologically informed cases of special pleading.”
As we read the Gospels in the New Testament what we find with Jesus is that he repeatedly and consistently affirmed the value of human life, from the youngest to the oldest. Jesus was known for his welcoming of and love of little children. Jesus loved the vulnerable in society and taught his disciples to do likewise. Who is more vulnerable than a little baby not yet born?
Perhaps the Bible’s clearest word on the topic of abortion is the 6th Commandment,
“You shall not murder”.
In the Sermon on the Mount Jesus reaffirmed God’s law, including this prohibition, do not murder. If Jesus upholds the commandment on murder and murder is killing innocent human life, then it’s not ‘special pleading’ in believing Jesus disproves of abortion. That is the natural and right way to read the Bible. The only way for Winter to get around this teaching is if he believes the child in the womb isn’t a person. On this point, Winter seems unwilling to tell his readers. He is quite absolute about some things, but for some reason, he’s not able to tell us whether the embryo is a person or not.
Although, at one point he makes this rather odd statement,
“The Christian rejection of abortion seems to have been predicated on assumptions the fetus is a person”
Ummm…yeah, and it’s not an assumption, it is a biological fact. Is Sean Winter seriously suggesting that the foetus is not a person? Before ultrasounds, some abortion proponents could trot out that view, but we can now see with our own eyes how false that myth is. It just happens that the Bible was already right in what it describes about the unborn.
The Bible is clear on these two factors: the unborn is a person and murder is wrong. Combining these two teachings of the Bible which is the logical thing to do, it’s apparent that Sean Winter is not even close to finding support for his thesis. Again, he may find a little traction amongst those who are searching for religious support for abortion, but even a half-measured reading of the Bible demonstrates that he falls shorter than teeing off a 5 par hole with a breadstick.
Once Winter has finished dismantling nothing from the Bible, he then proceeds to whitewash the known views of early Christians who consistently saw abortion and infanticide as sin.
Early Christians were renowned for saving newborns who were unwanted and left to die from exposure and starvation. Abortion was an acceptable practice in many ancient civilisations but not among Jewish and Christian communities. In the ancient world, abortion was not always successful and doctors couldn’t discern the sex of the baby until birth. Hence, at birth, many little girls were left to die. Christians took them in and loved and raised them. Why? Because it was a political maneuver? Or perhaps they were convinced from the Christian faith that saving the lives of the littlest children was right.
The first century Jewish text, Sentences of Pseudo-Phocylides 184–186 (c. 50 B.C.–A.D. 50) says that “a woman should not destroy the unborn in her belly, nor after its birth throw it before the dogs and vultures as a prey.” Christians adopted the Jewish view of the unborn, as they did with many ethical principles from the Old Testament.
The Didache 2.2 (c. A.D. 85–110) commands, “thou shalt not murder a child by abortion nor kill them when born.”
The Letter of Barnabas 19.5 (c. A.D. 130), said: “You shall not abort a child nor, again, commit infanticide.”
500 years before the invention of the ultrasound, John Calvin said this of Exodus 21:22
“The fetus, though enclosed in the womb of its mother, is already a human being, and it is almost a monstrous crime to rob it of the life which it has not yet begun to enjoy…if it seems more horrible to kill a man in his own house than in a field, because a man’s house is his place of most secure refuge, it ought surely to be deemed more atrocious to destroy a fetus in the womb before it has come to light,”
The position Calvin spells out from Scripture is today demonstrably proven through scientific technology. The living mass growing in the mother’s womb is indeed a human being.
One doesn’t need to be a gynaecologist or obstetrician or theologian to realise that the Bible is big on life and takes a very dim view of killing innocence. Winter is so far off the mark. “Christian support for legislation prohibiting abortion is a cultural and political stance. It has nothing to do with the Bible”? Not even close. The Christian view of life has everything to do with the Bible and everything to do with Jesus. Yes, this has political implications, as does every worldview. Winter’s claims are big and will no doubt be taken up as truth for some readers, but they are as false as the yeti and bunyip.
Winter’s most significant transgression is how he snuffs out hope. By stripping the Bible of its meaning about life and killing, Winter rips the hope of Christ who offers forgiveness and new life. In recasting abortion as no longer an issue for God, Winter’s position leaves women without the hope that someone is able and willing to remove the guilt and pain they carry. I understand that it is currently popular to boast about abortion, but I also know the profound scars that are left behind. The Gospel is good news because Jesus sees our sins and he loves to forgive and restore. For Sean Winter to take away the need for forgiveness and restoration, is simply cruel and unbiblical.
I’ve decided to dive into the conversation surrounding FINA’s decision on gender. I’m not jumping in because of some ‘culture war’, but I’m a dad with 3 children who each play sport. They have all played sport at a high level, including my daughter, and speaking up for girls in sport is the right thing to do.
I want to begin by saying what should be obvious, transgender people deserve our compassion. While many ideologues and activists require critique and even our condemnation. Learning to distinguish between these two groups isn’t always straightforward but is important.
FINA’s decision to ban biological men from competing in international swimming has caused a wave of criticism in some circles. One can get the impression that the divide is spread evenly across the lanes; I however suspect that is not the case, but as with many issues it is often the case that vociferous voices give the impression of greater numbers.
It wasn’t so long ago that everyone knew men were men and women were women. It didn’t require a university degree or a catalogue of carefully asked questions. Seeing and knowing the differences between men and women formed part of basic human knowledge. Apart from approximately 0.018%of people who are intersex (a properly defined medical condition), everyone falls neatly into either male or female. But of course, as the sexual revolution shifted from arguing for gender equality to removing distinctions between the genders, it is becoming near impossible to define what is a man and a woman. Indeed, school children are berated for suggesting this natural binary and one can find themselves hauled before the HR Department at at work for believing so.
Dr Carl Trueman is correct when he writes, “The expressive individual is now the sexually expressive individual. And education and socialization are to be marked not by the cultivation of traditional sexual interdicts and taboos but rather by the abolition of such and the enabling of pansexual expression even among children.”
Chip Le Grand has written what I think is a very interesting piece for Saturday’s The Age.
“FINA has also answered a thornier question that all sports bodies, in one way or another, must grapple with; can the biological advantage that comes from going through male puberty be entirely surrendered by someone who no longer identifies as male? The FINA position is that, in swimming, it can’t.”
Rugby League has quickly followed FINA and other sporting authorities may well follow. While the decisions are pretty definitive, they are unlikely to be the final and forever position. For anyone engaged in reading gender theory and watching their HR department and school curriculum, it’s pretty obvious that FINA’s decision will be overturned at some point. We are regularly reminded by gender theorists and political activists that they are rarely satisfied with the status quo . The pursuit to obliterate social structures and gender norms is their incessant agenda. It’s obvious by the fact that even the pedestrian Aussie is either unable or too scared to define men and women any longer. There is now an inbuilt nervousness and fear of backlash should we say what a woman is.
Stephen McAlpine is correct when he notes,
“Just give it time. With the explosion of gender identity issues, and the railroading of our culture towards affirm and celebrate “or else” there’s going to be a storm in a World Cup not just a tea cup at some stage. Someone’s rights are going to trump someone’s rights. That’s what you get in this zero-sum game Sexular Age.”
I wish to make a few comments here in light of Chip Le Grand’s article and some conversations I’ve had over the past week.
First, FINA’s decision is fair for women.
Le Grand explains how “the FINA guidelines are based on the cumulative research and wisdom of some of the world’s leading authorities on physiology, sports law and anti-discrimination.”
He cites Doriane Coleman, professor of law at Duke University,
“replacing biological sex with the more subjective, social construct of gender – something the Obama administration had already done in anti-discrimination law – would have potentially dire, unintended consequences for women’s sport…It doesn’t take a sea of them to obliterate the females’ competitive chances at every level of competition,” she warned. “If only a very small subset turn out to identify as women, we will be overwhelmed.””
Le Grand goes on to point out,
“There is no longer any serious argument about the sporting advantage derived from testosterone, which biological males produce from the onset of puberty at about 15 times the rate of women. As Joyner explained to the FINA extraordinary congress in Budapest, it is the reason that the current US national records for 50m, 100m and 200m freestyle events for 13 and 14-year-old boys are faster than the women’s open world records for the same events.
Hunter told the congress: “As a result of testosterone and possessing the Y chromosome, males build larger, stronger and faster muscles, they have larger lungs and airways, they have bigger hearts to pump more blood, and they have more oxygen carrying capacity within that blood. Males are taller. They have longer limbs – arms and legs – they have bigger feet to kick water, they have bigger hands to pull that water.”
While attention this week is focusing on elite sport, the disparity between boys and girls is apparent in community sport and even clear at junior sporting levels.
I think of a netball competition where a talented boy outshone even the best female players. I think of a football (AFL) competition where a boy was allowed to play in a girls competition and girls feared for their safety. They didn’t want to play against this muscular dude who is significantly stronger and more powerful than any girl playing the game. I think of my daughter who plays at a high level of cricket. While she enjoys playing in both girls and boys cricket, in the higher grades of boys cricket the fast bowlers are discouraged from sending down thunder claps at her. Both players and coaches and parents understand the obvious. This isn’t a case of boys needing to change the way they view girls, but rather one where boys are rightly observing reality.
As a dad who with three children who all plays sport at a fairly high level and as a parent to what is a lot of community sport and knows numerous coaches and clubs and how they are trying to navigate these issues, The answer is not as simple as those who identify with the other gender let them play. That inevitably means girls missing out on team selection or winning competitions and it often puts them in a place where they are in physical danger. Now I have heard some non-sporty types tried to argue against this but I tell you this is simply reality. Go stick your head out of your iPhone and go down to local footy games and watch what actually happens.
I’m not arguing against boys and girls playing competitive sport with each other. There are some sports where this is workable and at some levels, but there is a difference between mix gendered competition and a girls/women’s competition.
Second, women’s sport forces transgender women to undergo changes.
While this isn’t Le Grand’s argument, his evaluation of the issues show us how transgender athletes are disadvantaged. Transgender women are are forced to medically alter their testosterone levels and therefore reduce their physical strength and biological character in order to compete.
Third, be concerned for young children.
One concern coming further from FINA’s ruling is that it doesn’t rule out children who transition before the age of 12. This may lead to increased pressure upon pre-pubescent boys and girls to medically altar their hormones and bodies at an even younger age.
Fourth, men ought to be speaking up.
Susan and I have raised our boys to show respect to girls and to protect them. Any time they fall short they know dad and mum will be having a conversation with them. I find it quite extraordinary that on this issue, too often it is women who are left to defend women’s sport, while the men cower behind the ifs and buts and I don’t knows.
This isn’t hard. Allowing biological men to compete in women’s sport will mean women missing out on team selection and missing out on competition medals, and in some sports this is dangerous to their physical well-being. If you don’t believe me, just watch a 15 year old boy tackle a girl in AFL. The argument, ‘but this isn’t happening very often’ is simply naive. It is true that it’s not happening everywhere, but examples are not hard to find, and as we continue to the smoke from the pot of expressive individualism and gender theory we will likely see the exceptions become a new norm.
Annabelle Bennett is a member of the FINA legal and human rights panel who framed its eligibility guidelines. She admits,
“this case involves a collision of scientific, ethical and legal conundrums. It also involves incompatible, competing rights.”
Bennet has hit the issue on the head. What do we do when science disagrees with an ethical position? What do we do when reality clashes with personal preference? Too often, our culture will choose against science. Instead of creating fairness and equity, it will create a bigger splash and eventually wash out women’s sport altogether.
For those who are smart enough and bold enough to know that ignoring biology isn’t the way forward and yet also have empathy for those who struggle to fit with their sex, how should we think about FINA’s decision? First of all, they made the right decision, and believing so is good for women. Supporting FINA is advocating for women. Second, FINA is now considering a transgender class-action for elite swimming meets. I have reservations about this move, but I nonetheless recognise that it is a possible way forward. Third, we ought to show compassion on men and women who are either struggling with their gender identity or who simply cannot reconcile sex and gender. Compassion doesn’t require us to agree with or support every feeling or every decision made. That’s the misstep some people make in their understanding of compassion; they assume kindness must lead to agreement and compromise. If that were the case, God’s compassion toward us in Jesus Christ would be shallow and ineffectual. In following His example, we are not required to ignore male and female distinctiveness, but as Jesus did, we honour these as an anthropological good. As a Christian I also mustn’t lose sight of how Jesus welcomes and loves those who sit outside and who experience marginalisation.
PS. Apologies for any typos. I’ve written this while watching my children at sport this morning
MurrayCampbell.net 