Do we need another Creed?

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

A new declaration,  ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity,’ was launched late last year. I hadn’t heard of this Sex Creed until a friend on Facebook made a comment before Christmas, and another friend messaged me about it. Since then, I’ve read the website and asked for friends’ opinions. One question that immediately came to mind is, do we need another Creed?

I love and appreciate a good Creed. Indeed, to this day, the universal church subscribes to four formal Creeds: The Apostles, The Nicene, The Athanasian, and Chalcedon.

Despite the rumours, Baptists affirm the ancient Creeds. To be sure, some baptists insist upon the mantra, ‘no creed but the bible’, but they do so ignoring much of Baptist history and overlooking the Creedal material found in the Bible itself. Leaving aside that in-house debate, what do I think of the ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’?

First, I want to commend the idea of addressing biblical anthropology.  There is merit (if not necessity) for churches, denominations, and paragroups to clarify and confess a Christian understanding of sex, gender, and the Gospel. What it means to be human is one of the biggest issues of our time. It is one reason why theologians like Brian Rosner and Carl Trueman are writing important volumes on the subject. Scholars like Dani Treweek and Christian apologists including Rebecca McLaughlin are speaking to vital questions surrounding human sexuality and being.  It isn’t hyperbole to say that our society is confused about what it means to be a man and a woman. Even more basic,  we live in an age that is increasingly unclear about what it means to be human. This haze easily hovers over and influences Christians in the pew. It is not easy to be a Christian in the workplace or at school and believe what the Bible affirms about marriage and sex.

It is the role of pastors to preach the full council of God, and with grace and gentleness teach the Bible’s vision for human sexuality and gender. It is incumbent upon denominational heads and Christian organisations to ensure we are guarding the faith and protecting the people under our care by providing sufficient affirmation of and clarity on these topics. 

Churches need greater clarity and conviction on the Bible’s teaching on humanity, not less. We need better discipling in our churches to help people think in a Bible and Gospel way about what it means to be human. Accompanying truth, we need oceans of grace, kindness and patience. How we draw lines in the sand matters.

So what about the, ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’? 

There are a number of church and parachurch leaders who have signed the document, although that number remains tiny in comparison to the actual number of denominational and church leaders across the country. Several notable evangelical leaders have signed, as well as a number of friends of mine, men for whom I have great respect and personal friendship. 

(As a quick aside, I was amazed as I read the list to note how many Christian organisations exist in Australia. I had never heard of some of the organisations.  It feels as though every Bob, Jane, and pet dog has its own registered ministry organisation, which all sounds very significant and important!  The list also includes Roman Catholics, secular professionals, and a few from overseas.)

At this stage, I have 4 questions/observations, which I have asked of others and haven’t yet found adequate answers.

First, who wrote the Creed? The authors’ names are not published anywhere. From what I have gleaned after asking a friend who signed the Creed, a group called the Canberra Declaration is behind it. Apparently, there are so many people involved, that they didn’t wish to identify specific authors. That doesn’t quite wash given that if 100 people were involved, there would yet only be a small handful of people editing and finalising the end product. Knowing who is behind the document is important.

Second, while there is good theology contained in the statements (for which I’m thankful), where is the Gospel? The final article mentions forgiveness, but for a document that is supposed to summarise the Christian view on sexuality and gender, there is little weight given to the Gospel of grace and no attention offered to the eschatological vision for human sexuality and gender. In these two ways, the statement is lacking. 

Third, I find the language of ‘Creed’ problematic. A Creed by definition is authoritative and formal and is universally recognised. This is one reason why in the history of the Church, the number of recognised Creeds is incredibly small: fourto be exact. Throughout history, other types of important documents have been written. For example, there are Confessions of Faith, which are more numerous than Creeds, and which hold weight for Christians within particular denominations or movements. Creeds, however, are considered more weighty. Even during the Reformation, which produced countless Confessions and Statements, the Reformers didn’t propose further Creeds. In the waves of 20th Century liberalism, where almost every Christian doctrine has been attacked or undermined by progressivism, Churches have not written a new Creed.

According to their website, the category of Creed is deliberate. On more than one occasion they refer to the Nicene Creed and assume a similar position for ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’.

“Every era has its particular heresies. In the 21st century, heresies abound in the area of human sexuality. The church has not been immune to these errors. We believe the time has come for a new creed that affirms the timeless teachings of the church regarding sexual integrity, and that articulates God’s glorious design for sex and marriage as revealed in Holy Scripture.

Our hope and prayer is that the Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity will gain global approval from biblically orthodox leaders in the Catholic Church, the Anglican/Episcopalian Church, the Lutheran Church, the Presbyterian Church, the Orthodox Church, Evangelical and Pentecostal churches, and many more besides. We also welcome the support of Christian schools, charities, para-church ministries and missionary organisations.”

Lest anyone think that this Murray Campbell is hiding behind his laptop and unable to affirm a biblical anthropology, the record shows that I have been more vocal on these issues than many.  In 2021 I featured on the front page of The Age newspaper for standing up to the Victorian Government which introduced dreadful laws that stifle Christian speech and practice about sexuality. Several years earlier, I received numerous lovely fan letters for advocating the classical view of marriage on the ABC. So, no, I’m not one of these compromising or complicit chaps. I do, however, disagree with using the category of ‘Creed’ for such a statement. 

I note this 2024 conversation between Al Mohler and Carl Trueman. Trueman is no slouch when it comes to upholding Christian orthodoxy and he’s no poor student of history. He made these comments about the ascendancy of anthropology as a mark of Christian faithfulness, 

“I still believe that the best way for churches to preserve the faith and to make sure it’s communicated in a stable way, both to the people in the pew today and for future generations, is to have creeds and confessions, or the equivalent thereof, in our churches functioning as a way of capturing the essence, the deposit of the faith. I think what has changed in the last couple of, well really in the last decade, the whole question of identity has become much more pressing, and that’s raised a whole host of issues that I didn’t anticipate at the time I wrote the first book, but which I think confessionalism also addresses. In addition to the stuff that I did cover, I would use an example, for example, gay marriage that popped up really. It was brewing, but it became a big thing sort of 2013 to 2015 in the United States, and I remember a lot of friends saying, “Do we need to add, say a chapter to the Westminster Confession, or the second London Baptist confession to address the issue of gay marriage?” And my answer was always, I don’t think so.

I think what we need to do is first of all use our confessions and apply them to the issues that arise today. But I also became aware in answering that question that way, that one of the things that confessions did that I think has become very, very important is precisely because they give a summary of the faith. They also show how different elements of the faith interlock and interconnect with each other, and they show the broad framework of Christian doctrine that then allows us to address, for example, questions of sexuality or identity by realizing that, well actually, we’re not looking for a Bible verse on this. We have to think in terms of holistic structure of Christian doctrine, and creeds and confessions really do help us, I think, see that sort of architectonic structure that is very, very helpful in facing the crazy stuff that we’re addressing at the moment.”

Unfortunately, by claiming ‘Creed’, the document comes across as a little pretentious, like some other recent declarations that claim to offer a prophetic voice to the Australian Church and society. I’m generally wary of such posturing. 

If the aim is to be a truly national Creed, why not take proper time to work through formal processes? This comes to my fourth point, 

Fourth, this document hasn’t gone through the necessary rigour and ecclesial channels to hold the weight of ‘Creed’.

Historically, Creeds were the outworking of ecumenical Councils where Church leaders attended and worked through presenting theological issues. Unless I’m mistaken or missed the invite in my inbox(!) this Creed has not undergone any such Synod or Conference.

My biggest issue with ‘The Australian Creed for Sexual Integrity’ is that it purports to be something that it is not. It’s like claiming a PhD without going to university or driving on the road without a licence simply because you know how to drive. This Creed claims too much, and it lacks a transparent and considered pathway for instituting such weighty words. Perhaps these are among the reasons why the majority of Reformed evangelical leaders have not signed it.

Others have noted certain ‘nationalistic’ overtones on the Creed’s website and explanatory notes.  The website authors themselves highlight a conscious decision to incorporate the Australian flag colours in the logo and to launch the Creed on the same day as the Australian Lighthouse Charge at Beersheba. Why draw such parallels? When one realises some of the groups who are putting their names to the Creed, their reputation of signalling Christian nationalism and anti-everything is telling, and unfortunate. 

I understand the pull to sign a document. Christians are looking for clarity. Christians are looking for leadership. As we feel the assault of culture that is taking one blind turn after another, and causing grief and harm to people we care about, we want to see people healed and protected and coming to know the Lord Jesus.  Had we not been in the situation where many Christian leaders have been reluctant to stand on Holy Scripture*, we may not find ourselves in a place where a group of unordained individuals have grabbed the bullhorn and produced a less than satisfactory piece of writing. 

I appreciate that not everyone will agree, but there are better ways forward. I’m happy to be persuaded otherwise, but at this point in time, my view is that we don’t need another Creed. Statements, yes. Updated polices, Yes. We need ongoing clarity and commitment to biblical anthropology by faithfully teaching and living out God’s words and ways, and by Christian denominations finding constructive ways to affirm what God has ordained in his word. 

—————————-

*this statement needs some qualifying for there are Christians leaders who have stood firm with pastoral conviction and love)

Is Wes Huff correct, did Jesus believe he is God?

/ MurrayCampbell

Joe Rogan’s interview with Wes Huff has reached millions of views. As a (now former) non-Joe Rogan fan, I wanna say that it is well worth the 3 hours, not least for Rogan’s masterful conversational style.

Until last week Wesley Huff was little known outside the icy lands of Canada. Huff is an academic and Christian apologist who is currently undertaking PhD studies in the New Testament field. His field of expertise relates to ancient texts, in particular studying ancient New Testament manuscripts. In case you’re thinking that this is the making of a somewhat dry and brief Rogan episode, think again.

If you’re keen, here is the link to the interview. My interest here is not to regurgitate the entire 3 hours or comment on every online response. I’m interested in one salient point that came out during the interview and which has stirred the waters since.

During the interview, Wes made a series of assertions about Jesus in quick succession,

“You have this Jewish itinerant guy who is walking around Roman occupied first century Judea, he is making some pretty audacious claims; he claims to be God himself and then he predicts his own death and resurrection…’

It’s the line about Jesus ‘audaciously going around claiming to be God Himself’ that has grabbed attention and has created something of a stir. Isn’t it fascinating how Jesus’ identity remains a hot topic today as it was during his lifetime? No matter how many elements of culture try to tame Jesus, he continues to surprise and subvert and reignite interest.

Alex O’Connor is a popular YouTube influencer with more than 1 million followers on his ‘CosmicSkeptic’ Channel. He put together a response to the Rogan interview and has tried to dissect and rebut some of Huff’s statements. Gavin Ortlund has done a fine job responding to O’Connor’s critique. I want to speak to this one particular objection O’Connor made to Wed Huff, and that is, Jesus claimed to be God, 

“[Jesus] was audaciously going around claiming to be God Himself. I don’t think that’s true. Nowhere in Mark, Matthew, or Luke does Jesus actually claim to be God in His own words. At best it’s just in John’s Gospel that divine claims begin to appear.”

O’Connor’s suggestion is big news, if true. If he’s right, it undercuts 2000 years of Christianity and in all probability, destroys Christianity’s credibility. Of course, his claim isn’t new. I’d be surprised if you haven’t heard people making similar conclusions whether in your own education or among friends. In 2015, Australia’s Phillip Adams interviewed Frederic Raphael where Raphael threw out as though it was vernacular truth, ‘the Jews who would not accept that Jesus was the Son of God, nor of course did Jesus’. 

Who is right, O’Connor or Huff? In our cyber connected world that’s deluged with opinions and comments and points of view, finding the truth can be tricky. Sometimes it feels as though the truth has been locked in a vault and cast into a blackhole somewhere past Uranus and well beyond our scope. 

And the question of Jesus’ Divinity is about as big a question as they come. It is not, however, one of the questions where we are left to ruminate and wonder and remain in the dark. We can go to the sources and investigate for ourselves (which is one of Huff’s main theses). Scholarship and academia is useful and insightful (can be), but one of the qualities of the Bible is that it is an every person’s book. Anyone can read and grapple with it for themselves. When it comes to the question, ‘Did Jesus claim to be God’?, open a Bible and find out.

Is it the case that Jesus claimed to be God? The question, is Jesus God?, is slightly different from the former one, but they are nonetheless intimately connected.

Obviously, this is a huge topic and one could write a 27-volume tome exploring it, but I suspect few would read it (including myself). Plus, I’m currently on holidays and so brevity is the way to go. What I wish to do here is note a few places that indicate not only Jesus’ Divinity, but also demonstrate that Jesus understood himself to be God the Son. 

In the below list of Jesus quotations, I am including ones from John’s Gospel, because John, like the Synoptic Gospels (Matthew, Mark, Luke) belongs to the New Testament Canon. O Connor wants John excluded from the discussion (presumably because he thinks John is a 2nd-century document, a view which scholarship widely discounts today).  Imagine a detective explaining to the court, that we have discarded this this evidence because it doesn’t fit with the conclusions we had already made!

Each Gospel, including each of the synoptic gospels, offer different perspectives and material and emphases, but none contradict the other others, but rather they complement one another. The fact that there are a couple of details that leave scholars scratching their heads to this day, says more about our own limitations than it does about the Bible texts where there is extraordinary coherence and synthesis.

Even if we take up O’Connor’s challenge and leave John’s Gospel aside, there is ample evidence that displays Jesus’ self awareness of being God. But given John’s place in the Canon, I will at times include Johannine references. 

The clear but subtle awareness of Jesus’ Godness

Jesus’ ministry was not set in 21st-century Australia or America, as though he is answering our questions by using stories about the iPhone or analogies from cricket or Taylor Swift. Jesus was a first-century Jew.  He lived in a Roman occupied region and who’s ideas, words, and actions were consciously steeped in and fulfilling Old Testament themes and promises. That means, that when Jesus talks about himself, he regularly deferred to the Jewish Scriptures and spoke in those categories. One of the implications of this is that as we understand the meaning of Old Testament names and images for God and we see Jesus applying them to himself, we begin to see a picture of the One who says he is God.

Take for example, the title, Shepherd. Shepherd has connotations with King David and therefore Messianic expectations, but in places like Ezekiel ch.34,  God equates himself to shepherd who will come, deliver, protect and provide for his people, 

“‘For this is what the Sovereign Lord says: I myself will search for my sheep and look after them. 12 As a shepherd looks after his scattered flock when he is with them, so will I look after my sheep. I will rescue them from all the places where they were scattered on a day of clouds and darkness. 13 I will bring them out from the nations and gather them from the countries, and I will bring them into their own land. I will pasture them on the mountains of Israel, in the ravines and in all the settlements in the land. 14 I will tend them in a good pasture, and the mountain heights of Israel will be their grazing land. There they will lie down in good grazing land, and there they will feed in a rich pasture on the mountains of Israel. 15 I myself will tend my sheep and have them lie down, declares the Sovereign Lord. 16 I will search for the lost and bring back the strays. I will bind up the injured and strengthen the weak, but the sleek and the strong I will destroy. I will shepherd the flock with justice.”

Famously in John 10, Jesus declares, ‘I am the Good Shepherd’. Not only does Jesus speak the unspeakable name of God, he attributes the name to himself (ἐγώ εἰμι).  Jesus sums up his person as the God who is the Good Shepherd. For those who wish to keep John’s Gospel to the side for this debate, it’s not only John’s Gospel that makes the connection between Jesus, God and Shepherd. The Synoptics also do this (cf Matt 2:6; Mark 6:34). In Matthew, Jesus explains his own mission as coming to find the ‘lost sheep of Israel’ (Matt 15:24). Now, is this an explicit claim of personal Divinity? When read in its context, Jesus certainly seems to be making the case. 

Another motif that comes from the lips of Jesus is that of Divine forgiveness. He not only taught that God forgives sins, he did so. When Jesus forgave sins, both his interlocutors and adversaries understood the Divine authority Jesus supposed behind his words, 

“Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:21). It is this charge of blasphemy against Jesus that sets the trajectory of opposition toward Jesus and which ultimately leads to his crucifixion. 

The themes of Shepherd and forgiveness are but 2 of many that are taken up by Jesus to ascribe and describe himself and his ministry and mission. There is subtleness in much of Jesus’ language and today’s readers may not pick up the connections if we’re unfamiliar with the Old Testament, but one thing is clear, Jesus’ enemies got the message, and with time Jesus own disciples and friends also understood: Jesus is saying that he’s God.

Jesus’ self revelation as God is not restricted to his words, but also to his life and deeds. Whether it is controlling a storm at sea or raising the Lazarus from the dead or throwing out demons and evil spirits, his life repeatedly signals more than a man of great kindness and love and strength, but one who is excising Divine authority and purpose.

Jesus’ words

“If you are the Son of God,” he said, “throw yourself down. For it is written: “‘He will command his angels concerning you, and they will lift you up in their hands, so that you will not strike your foot against a stone.” Jesus answered him, “It is also written: ‘Do not put the Lord your God to the test.’” (Matthew 4:6-7)

‘I am the God of Abraham, the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not the God of the dead but of the living.” (Matthew 22:32)

“It is written in the Prophets: ‘They will all be taught by God.’ Everyone who has heard the Father and learned from him comes to me. 46 No one has seen the Father except the one who is from God; only he has seen the Father.  Very truly I tell you, the one who believes has eternal life”.  (John 6:45-47)

“Very truly I tell you, a time is coming and has now come when the dead will hear the voice of the Son of God and those who hear will live”. (John 5:25)

“Very truly I tell you,” Jesus answered, “before Abraham was born, I am!” (John 8:58)

Jesus replied, “If I glorify myself, my glory means nothing. My Father, whom you claim as your God, is the one who glorifies me. (John 8:54)

“I and the Father are one” (John 10:30)

“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.  But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father.” (John 10:36-38)

“How can you say, ‘Show us the Father’? Don’t you believe that I am in the Father, and that the Father is in me? The words I say to you I do not speak on my own authority. Rather, it is the Father, living in me, who is doing his work” (John 14:9b-10)

The many ‘I AM’ sayings of Jesus in John’s Gospel are less about English grammar and is the holy name of Israel’s God, revealed to Moses at the burning bush. The religious intelligentsia rightly understood Jesus’ use of the phrase as calling himself the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob. 

In addition, Jesus’ most frequently used title was ‘Son of Man. While it’s meaning was somewhat enigmatic, Jesus spoke and acted in ways that accorded with the Old Testament and therefore it is difficult to conclude that Jesus viewed the title, ‘Son of Man’, in a way that differed from its use in Daniel chapter 7, where the ‘Son of Man’ is described as one who is given the authority and power of God, and is worshiped accordingly.

What about the Great Commission in Matthew 28:16-20? Here are told that 11 disciples (remember Judas Iscariot had killed himself) are meeting with the resurrected Jesus and worshipping him as God. Like a document that doesn’t whitewash history, Matthew notes that some still doubted, but generally speaking, the penny has dropped and the disciples are worshipping Jesus as God. Does Jesus reject this homage? Instead, he claims an authority that only God has and he reveals the One God (notice how Jesus says, ‘the name’ singular) who is the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit. 

“Then the eleven disciples went to Galilee, to the mountain where Jesus had told them to go. 17 When they saw him, they worshiped him; but some doubted. 18 Then Jesus came to them and said, “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. 19 Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, 20 and teaching them to obey everything I have commanded you. And surely I am with you always, to the very end of the age.”

This is a crystal clear example of Jesus claiming to be God and accepting worship as God.

Words from others that Jesus did not repudiate

“The tempter came to him and said, “If you are the Son of God, tell these stones to become bread.” ((Matthew 4:3)

“What do you want with us, Son of God?” they shouted. “Have you come here to torture us before the appointed time?” (Matthew 8:29)

“Then those who were in the boat worshiped him, saying, “Truly you are the Son of God.” (Matthew 14:33)

“Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.” (Matthew 16:16)

“Some of the Pharisees said, “This man is not from God, for he does not keep the Sabbath.” But others asked, “How can a sinner perform such signs?” So they were divided. Then they turned again to the blind man, “What have you to say about him? It was your eyes he opened.” (John 9:16-17)

“When Jesus saw their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven.” The Pharisees and the teachers of the law began thinking to themselves, “Who is this fellow who speaks blasphemy? Who can forgive sins but God alone?” (Luke 5:20-21)

“Again his Jewish opponents picked up stones to stone him, but Jesus said to them, “I have shown you many good works from the Father. For which of these do you stone me?” “We are not stoning you for any good work,” they replied, “but for blasphemy, because you, a mere man, claim to be God.” (John 10:31-33)

“Yes, Lord,” she replied, “I believe that you are the Messiah, the Son of God, who is to come into the world.” (John 11:27)

“Thomas said to him, “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28)

The reason for Jesus’ crucifixion

Jesus wasn’t crucified because he was leading a rebellion or not being nice to his neighbours. Authorities wanted Jesus dead because he claimed to be God. 

“For this reason they tried all the more to kill him; not only was he breaking the Sabbath, but he was even calling God his own Father, making himself equal with God”. (John 5:18)

“The Jewish leaders insisted, “We have a law, and according to that law he must die, because he claimed to be the Son of God.” (John 19:7)

You can’t ignore the rest of the New Testament

Alex O’Connor suggests that we leave John’s Gospel aside and he doesn’t even entertain what the rest of the New Testament shows us about Jesus’ identity. In this, he’s mimicking Red Letter Christians who surmise that Jesus’ words are the only ones we need to take seriously, as opposed to other bible words and writers. That fails to read the New Testament on its own terms and it fails to take Jesus’ own words seriously

Not only does Jesus insist that all Scripture is about him and fulfilled in him, he spells out to his disciples that under the direction of the Holy Spirit they will teach and provide what we call today the ‘Apostolic testimony’, which is the foundation of Christian truth and life today. Jesus won’t let us think that the disciples’ words are somehow less true or reliable than his. Rather, their words are his words. What Peter, John, and later Paul would write to the churches can be trusted. Their theology of God is Jesus’. Their insistence on both the humanity and the Deity of Christ is perfectly in sync with Jesus.

“the Advocate, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you. (John 14:26)

“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. 27 And you also must testify, for you have been with me from the beginning. (John 15:26-27)

To summarise the evidence:

  • On numerous occasions Jesus indicated that he is God’s Son.
  • Jesus’ opponents believed that Jesus was claiming to be God, and for the said reason they had him killed.
  • Many people believed that Jesus was God and Jesus did not correct them
  • Jesus’ life, character, works, miracles, death and resurrection are unique in the entire history of the world, and each adds weight to his claim of Divinity, not detracts.
  • The first Christians, many of whom were eye-witnesses to the life of Jesus and others were at one time opponents, were prepared to suffer imprisonment and even death for the confession, Jesus is Lord.

Conclusion

The evidence weighs heavily against Alex O Connor and falls in agreement with Wesley  Huff. Jesus made pretty audacious claims, claiming to be God. 

Dripping from this key question of whether Jesus is God, there are all kinds of topics and issues relating to the most momentous things. What kind of God is he? What does it mean for the world if Jesus is God? What does it say about the world? What does this say about me?”

The question of Jesus’ Divinity is more than an interesting topic of conversation among friends or for a podcast. It is too big and important to remain stuck in the books of academics and theologians and philosophers. This world could not contain the message of Jesus Christ in the first century, neither can it today. It demands our attention. Let me finish with the question Jesus once asked of Peter, ‘Who do you say I am?”

It’s Biblical

/ MurrayCampbell

‘It’s biblical’. The disaster is of ‘biblical proportions.’

The Age newspaper ran this headline to describe the terrifying fires in Los Angeles: ‘It was biblical.’

It’s fascinating to see how quick we are to turn to and lean upon biblical language and imagery when trying to make sense of events in front of us. This isn’t specifically a Christian trait, it is a cultural one. In fact, it is a near-universal tone for people grasping for description and explanation of what has befallen them.

The fires in and around Los Angeles are truly epic and terrible. As a Melbournian, I am familiar with fire. Every summer breeds conditions that can be whipped into a firestorm across our hills and outer suburbs within a very short period of time. Though we live across the Pacific Ocean, we are watching with understanding and trepidation for our American cousins.

The observation that I wish to explore for a few moments here is the regularity in which the idiom, ‘biblical’  is used to describe events of monumental significance, and most commonly, those that are tragic in nature. It’s not only the use of ‘biblical’ in the vernacular but our almost subconscious reliance upon the Bible in order to make sense of life’s events. The Bible has so influenced our epistemology and morality and spirituality, that we defer to its words and ideas, often without realising or without belief. 

What does it mean to be ‘biblical’?

On one level, it makes sense that we use the word, ‘biblical’ to describe overwhelming tragic events. After all, the Bible contains a large volume of events with awesome power and of cosmic consequence. Whether it is the Noahic Flood, the Plagues on Egypt, or the destruction of nations and humbling of kingdoms, the Bible depicts massive occasions and crises.

However, one of the mistakes we can fall into is assuming the Bible’s presentation of disaster as simplistic. This is far from the case. Comprehending the whys and what’s of grim events isn’t as easy as dividing the world into good and bad people, or equating blessing with moral people and suffering with sinful people. This is one reason for engaging seriously with the Bible text rather than relying on easy sloganeering. Learn our theology less from Dante and more from the Bible, and when we do we discover that the Holy Scriptures presentation is far more fearful and freeing, awesome, overwhelming and also consoling. 

Let me show you. Take, for example, these five elements that are traced throughout the Bible’s storyline and which intersect and develop as we move from Genesis to Malachi and from Matthew to Revelation. Rather than picking and choosing or making a bland pot of tea, there is more to this ‘biblical’ than we may first realise.

First, disasters, whether ‘natural’ or manmade, signal to us that the world is not okay. The world in which we live, work, and play is amazing and replete with good things, and yet hardship and suffering meet us at every intersection. This is not a utopian world. The greatest minds and technologies still cannot control the forces of nature. We cannot ever curb human instincts toward evil, let alone human error. Indeed, we often use our imaginations and advancements to continue ill, rather than to cure. In this, the Bible is an honest story. The Bible is real to life. The Scriptures don’t ignore the heights of human joy and love and life, nor the greatest ignominy and ignorance. 

The Bible isn’t a fictitious fable where everything ends well and the Princess rides off with the pony. The Bible exposes the cruelty of loss, the horror of death, and the thousand ways life is upended.

Second, today’s disasters are prelude to a day of Divine judgment. The presence of floods, fires, and disease are not moot experiences, simply to be endured.

As C.S Lewis famously wrote, “God whispers to us in our pleasures, speaks in our conscience, but shouts in our pains: it is his megaphone to rouse a deaf world”

In his famous ‘apocalyptic’ sermon, Jesus likens both natural and human-made disasters to a pregnant woman entering labour,

“Such things must happen, but the end is still to come.  Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be famines and earthquakes in various places.  All these are the beginning of birth pains.” (Matthew 24:5-8)

In other words, not only is tragedy and pain signalling a world that is in turmoil, but these preempt, like a siren or rolling thunder, that a cataclysmic event is approaching. Jesus is saying, that as awful as these things are, they are reminders that we will all one day meet the God who is a consuming fire, holy and awesome.

Third, tragedy strikes everyone. We ought to step with extreme caution as we try to understand events in our lives and in those of other people. It is too easy, and erroneous, to suppose the tragedy only strikes the ‘sinner’ and blessing for the ‘righteous. Don’t be like Job’s friends!

In Los Angeles this week, the poor and wealthy alike, Hollywood stars and house cleaners, have shared the same loss. I know of Christians who have lost homes and Church buildings that become ruin and ash.

There are occasions in the Bible narrative where disaster falls on particular people as Divine judgment for specific sins. Many of the most serious words and actions are directed by God on his own people because of their continued evil and unrepentance. Moreover, the biblical testimony describes the world in which we live as fallen and corrupted, and all experience the moment. On one occasion Jesus gave an explanation of tragedy which should caution all before attributing specific Divine judgment for particular events in our time. 

On one occasion when Jesus pushed back on the view that tragedy is necessarily linked to some specific horrible deed lurking in your past. Jesus mentions to local events, one was a massacre and the other a building collapse, and he used both incidents to rebuff the idea that suffering equals guilt, 

Jesus answered, “Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?  I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.  Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them—do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.” (Luke 13:2-5)

Fourth, we long for Divine intervention and grace. Why do we pray? When we lose control and when hope dissipates why is prayer the near universal default? 

Jesus won’t have us believe that this is some evolutionary residue or chromosomal leftover from less developed times.  Jesus (and therefore the Bible), won’t let us think that God is in any way less Sovereign today than in any moment of history. Rather, it is because God is God, and because he is a good God, that we can cry out to him, ‘Abba Father’.

Fifth, and perhaps most important of all, ‘biblical’ does not only denote terrible events, but also the wonderful and life giving.

Not all the ‘biblical’ is bad and disastrous – the truly biblical includes exquisite and extraordinary, grace and goodness. The pages of the Bible are filled with stories of immense love and of extravagant mercy and forgiveness. Even judgment is often met with redemption, and grief finds consolation.   Above all, the most horrifying event of all history, the cross of Jesus Christ, also turns out to be the defining event that produces forgiveness, peace and new life. 

The incarnation is big time ‘biblical’. That God the Son should come into our space and share our humanity and experience every gamut of human suffering. Jesus went further and grabbed hold of human sin and guilt and bore Divine punishment for us by his death on the cross. 

This event of ‘biblical’ proportion is matched by his resurrection. The God Man who died and was laid in the tomb, was raised to real life on the third day: breathing, walking, physical and cognitive functioning life. 

Within hours of the fires erupting in Los Angeles, people were looking for explanations and for people to blame. Indeed, investigations and enquiries will no doubt take place. Such things are important. Lessons need learning. 

My point here is a simple one, equating events to ‘biblical’ isn’t a bad starting place. Most of us will do this, and do so without knowing what is ‘biblical’. In 2025, believers, sceptics and investigators will each turn to the Bible to image, explain and interrupt the events in our world, both great and small. As we do, let’s not mythologise the Bible or reduce the Scriptures to monolithic meaning, but embrace the whole.  

We won’t grasp the ‘why’ of every tragedy in this life and world; such wisdom is beyond our pay grade. What is remarkably Biblical is to realise that God entered human suffering in the most personal of ways. Jesus’ life was marked by suffering. He walked alongside the sick and the destitute. He loved the poor and the outcast. His crucifixion entailed every manner of pain and violence, such that he satisfied the right wrath of God.  He has even extinguished the power of death so that we might share ultimately in his life forever.

Please don’t sing ‘Imagine’ at Funerals

/ MurrayCampbell

Imagine there is no ultimate meaning, purpose or goal toward which our lives are headed.

Imagine there is no overarching design and no inherent significance. 

Imagine if our lives were reduced to the pot luck outcome of billions of years of impersonal atoms and molecules running around hitting and missing, making and destroying.

Imagine a world where the reality of conscience and moral choice has no grounding in a purpose beyond that of group survival in the evolutionary race to the top.

Imagine human affections are ultimately an illusion, a cruel joke orchestrated by the impersonal rules pf physics.

Imagine all the people living for today, for tomorrow is the end.

Welcome to the world offered by John Lennon’s song, Imagine.

Jimmy Carter was buried yesterday, following a State memorial service in Washington DC. Attention on the former American President and Statesman was somewhat overshadowed by the media’s obsession with Donald Trump. Cameras fixated on Trump’s every facial expression and movement of his lips. To the frustration of some, Former Presidents Trump and Obama were caught not only speaking to each other, but laughing and sharing whim as the service began.

The truly strange moment occured when Trisha Yearwood Garth Brooks performed John Lennon’s ‘Imagine’. I don’t know whether ‘Imagine’ was selected by Carter himself, or by his family or by the ecclesial folk at Washington’s national Cathedral. Whatever the case, ‘Imagine’ is a strange and indeed hopeless song for any funeral, let alone one that is meant to be Christian in nature.

I’ve noted over the past decade thanks to several Olympic Games Ceremonies and a COVID celebrity rendition, John Lennon’s ‘apotheosis’ has become an international anthem. To rouse people and provide solace, ‘Imagine’ has become to go to song. And yet, ‘Imagine’ is void of meaning and hope. Lennon’s words strips away ultimate meaning and concrete hope, and instead offers a materialistic world where everything is up for grabs and where death is the ultimate winner. In doing so, ‘Imagine’ provides the very philosophical groundwork for authoritarian and thuggish autocratism. Imagine excuses political aspiration and ideological illiberalism, for who is to judge and hold us to account? What Divine Being establishes truth and justice?

OLYMPUS DIGITAL CAMERA

In contrast to Lennon’s nihilist proclamation, people want to know that there is hope beyond a crisis and that there is hope when faced with mortality.

Imagine gives little consolation to a gravely ill person that not only is death imminent, but that it is ultimately meaningless. This atheistic ethic doesn’t do much to help grieving families who have just witnessed a loved one being ripped from their lives.

We want there to be a heaven; a better world with a better life. We want the cessation of sorrow and suffering, but Imagine cannot offer any such promise. 

At the same time, hell is also a necessity, for we do not want to live in a world where evil wins or where injustice prevails. While we should be thankful for our judicial system, it is not full proof and many terrible deeds are never prosecuted. People need to know that in death the wicked do not escape justice. Imagining there is no hell would be a form of hell its self.

John Lennon’s song collapses in on its own irrationality. He imagines ‘living life in peace’, and there being no “greed or hunger”, but such talk demands a form and purpose, but atheism and naturalism cannot provide such a definition. 

Every funeral is a voracious reminder of the fragility of life and the uncertainty of building society on credit. Hedonism is vanity. Pushing against greed and social disharmony suggests meaning, but meaning is disqualified in a God-absent universe. As Solomon the wise wrote in the book of Ecclesiastes, 

“Meaningless! Meaningless!”

    says the Teacher.

“Utterly meaningless!

    Everything is meaningless.”

Nietzsche was right, at least as far his logic is concerned, that “the masses blink and say ‘We are all equal – Man is but man, before God – we are equal.’ Before God! But now this God has died.” A contemporary of Nietsche, Anatole France retorted without regret,

“It is almost impossible systematically to constitute a natural moral law. Nature has no principles. She furnishes us with no reason to believe that human life is to be respected. Nature, in her indifference, makes no distinction between good and evil.”

What if there is heaven and hell? What if God exists? Everything must change. What we think and say has greater import. How we live and how we treat others has far more consequence. 

What if the God who exists is the God of the Bible: who is Sovereign, and altogether righteous and loving, just and kind? What if Jesus Christ is the perfect image of God, the One who as John testifies, 

“In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.  He was with God in the beginning.  Through him all things were made; without him nothing was made that has been made.  In him was life, and that life was the light of all mankind.  The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness has not overcome it…The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the one and only Son, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.”

These words are far more sustainable and substantial than the sentiment of living in a world without Divine structure. A Biblical view of the world both assesses its beauty and its horror, the worth and the uncertainty. This is not only the Baptist view of reality, but the Christian one, and one that is closer to message (that I believe) that guided Jimmy Carter’s life.

These Scriptures bring us to the most astonishing words, ones that counter John Lennon’s pipe dream with concrete hope, 

 “For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life.” (John 3:16)

What Michael Leunig’s Art Said to Me

/ MurrayCampbell

I was saddened to learn last night that Michael Leunig has died at the age of 79. It’s as though a little part of Australia has died with him.

Leunig’s family announced his death with these befitting words, 

“The pen has run dry, its ink no longer flowing – yet Mr Curly and his ducks will remain etched in our hearts, cherished and eternal.” 

25 years ago, Susan and I were enjoying dinner at a friend’s home when I saw it hanging on the wall above the dining table.  It was a drawing of a man sitting at a grand piano. The man had a particularly large rounded nose, which I had seen before.  There was little colour on the canvas. Like Matisse, the artist conveyed all he needed with two or was it perhaps three tones. 

The etching was simple and clean, almost like a cartoon.  It conveyed something of the simple pleasures accompanying the piano. As someone who had until that time spent virtually his entire entirety life learning to play this magisterial instrument, I was immediately drawn to his work by Michael Leunig; it made sense to me.

Leunig’s cartoons, drawings and paintings communicate life and provoke us to question and consider the Divine design behind the canvas.

Life is beautiful. Whether it’s the inquisitive duck or his vibrant trees or musicians,  Leunig painted a beautiful life. Life is precious and is a wondrous gift.  Acknowledging God who gives life, is both an obligation and a joy. 

Imagine their existing a masterful painting on the wall at home and never stopping to gaze upon it, to understand and enjoy it. How often do we walk about and consume and enjoy the world without stopping to give thanks to the one who designed and enables us to live and participate?

Leunig was renowned for his use of subtle humour to elucidate critical thinking and moral evaluation. It reminds me a little of Jesus who added humorous, almost silly liners while teaching things of great import, 

“You blind guides! You strain out a gnat but swallow a camel”

“It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for someone who is rich to enter the kingdom of God.”

One of Leunig’s better-known drawings is this betrayal of Jesus’s crucifixion. In a mood faithful to the original crowd who mocked Jesus on the cross, Leunig paints a soldier calling out,

“Look at that? Brilliant! You kill the leader and you nip the whole movement in the bud”.

The joke is on us. The cross makes us fools. The cross turns our power into ineptitude. Indeed, the joke is on us, filled with intellectual hubris and moral certainty, as we turn down the only redemption available.

Leunig’s work pushes us to say ‘no’ to ambivalence. It is a gentle and humorous rebuke toward an Australian culture that even today wishes to paint over the most pivotal moment in history.

I know next to nothing about Leunig’s personal life. Whether in concert or in contradiction, his work conveyed a bright message that is being overshadowed by a compounding grey.

Today Michael Leunig no longer needs his paintbrush, for he gets to see his Creator, the One who crafted with his word every colour and shape and mountain range, every ocean and even the stars. And the pinnacle of his creativity, making us, his image bearers.

Again life is beautiful. And life is too easily cut short even at 79 years of age. Life ebbs away, and the blotch of tragedy, sadness, and yes also, evil marks every home. How much do we need a story where such things are overcome.

The Problem with Social Cohesion in Victoria

/ MurrayCampbell

Victorian Premier Jacinta Allan has announced a new set of laws under the banner ‘social cohesion’.

‘Social cohesion’ when attached to government and laws has a touch of the Machiavellian about it. One doesn’t know whether to think it’s more like George Orwell or Monty Python! 

The Government’s initiative includes a new ‘social cohesion pledge’.  Any community group applying for government funding will need to make the pledge, promising to support social harmony and inclusivity. 

No doubt this is a testing time for any government. There are pressures applied from all kinds of directions, and at times this leads to inaction or delayed resolve. As we have seen over the past year, this has given more oxygen to antisocial, and in this case, antisemitic voices.

I think this specific set of government measures are sensible and necessary, but I cannot but help think that it may open the door to future measures that are unreasonable and damaging.

There is a cowardice hiding behind masked protesters.  There is an ugly hatred being propagated by some of the protests we have seen on Melbourne streets.  If you can’t protest without wearing masks, carrying threatening objects, and using disgusting slogans, maybe that should signal that you or your cause is a problem.

Victoria was never the perfect State, but we have witnessed developments over the past decade that are injurious and bring grief to many. We are less peaceful than we were. We are less inclusive and kind. There is more personal and social distress and with little sign of a turnaround. Melbourne has become Australia’s protest capital (not a title to boast about). Ever since 2020, when the government turned a blind eye to certain marches while slamming others, every Jane, Nguyen, and Bob has seen fit to grind city streets to a halt. Not a week goes by without banners and angry faces blocking traffic. 

I support these particular measures because antisemitism cannot under any circumstance be allowed to fester. If we think that our society is beyond and above 1928 Germany, we are suffering from a greater dose of egomania than I thought.

However, I am not comfortable with Jacinta Allan’s language of ‘social cohesion’. I get it; they are trying to address a specific problem without naming the elephant in the room. Why not call it ‘Rules for Safe Protests’ or something like that?

The reason why I’m uncomfortable about the Government’s language of ‘social cohesion’ is because the task of social cohesion doesn’t belong to the government, but to the people. When government sees itself as the answer to every social ill and when the people demand government to fix every crisis, we are obfuscating personal responsibility and creating systems of governance that cannot bear the weight of such responsibility. 

This is one area where the work of Dr Christopher Watkin is worthy of consideration. Monash University’s Dr Watkin articulates a positive and important work on contract theory. He says, 

“Civil society is sometimes the neglected dimension of the social contract, the “missing middle” as it has been called. We have a tendency to jump straight from government and law to the individual.

These civil society relationships across different visions of the good are a glue that holds our social contract together.”

From his book, Biblical Critical Theory, 

‘the vague and sporadic measures taken by contemporary governments to shore up the social contract with well-meaning but half-hearted attempts at “civic edu- cation” have little effect, when all the while billions of advertising dollars and a destructive paradigm of competition in all areas of society expertly catechize individual consumers to be little predisposed to the civic duties a strong social contract requires. No rewriting of the social contract can be complete without giving serious attention to its cultural and liturgical infrastructure.’

No Government is up for the job, and it’s not designed to be. Part of the problem embedded in any Government setting the rules for social cohesion is that this is never a natural space. This is one of the heresies attached to secularism. Secular may be preferable to Sharia Law and Christian Nationalism, but it is no more epistemologically and morally neutral. Secular is the sum of the worldviews present in and controlling the moral impulses of the day.

There are wonderful pockets of social cohesion is found in all kinds of places and communities across our State. There are sporting clubs and men’s sheds, and there are temples and synagogues. It is certainly experienced in local churches.

Churches are frequently more culturally diverse than the communities surrounding them. Where I have the privilege of serving and belonging, we have people from China and Uganda, families from Vietnam and India, Nigeria and Columbia. Young and old mix together, single and married are friends and serve one another. Of course, Churches have their failings and blindspots, (after all, the very point of Christianity is that there is only one perfect saviour and we’re not him!), and yet there is profound togetherness and other person-centredness. 

The Victorian Government is also currently working on expanding anti-vilification laws, which some are concerned will tighten the noose of faith groups from teaching and practising in accordance with their convictions. It’s amazing how often the State has assumed the bishopric role when Christian praxis hasn’t supported their social agenda. There is a mine of irony in Victoria where Government identifies a growing social disorder and yet clamps down on one of the few societal groups who are truly exhibiting positive social health and life. If we are interested in civil society, maybe we ought to return to the worldview that created the ideas and values from which this vision derives: Christianity. 

Well, it’s Christmas time, the ultimate day of truce-making, although that first holy night was filled with peril. Nonetheless, the hope born that night in Bethlehem really is the only hope we have today. Come, check out a local church and see that hope in action. 

Let me leave you with the great Messianic promise of Isaiah,

‘The people walking in darkness

    have seen a great light;

on those living in the land of deep darkness

    a light has dawned.

You have enlarged the nation

    and increased their joy;

they rejoice before you

    as people rejoice at the harvest,

as warriors rejoice

    when dividing the plunder.

For as in the day of Midian’s defeat,

    you have shattered

the yoke that burdens them,

    the bar across their shoulders,

    the rod of their oppressor.

Every warrior’s boot used in battle

    and every garment rolled in blood

will be destined for burning,

    will be fuel for the fire.

For to us a child is born,

    to us a son is given,

    and the government will be on his shoulders.

And he will be called

    Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God,

    Everlasting Father, Prince of Peace.

Of the greatness of his government and peace

    there will be no end.

He will reign on David’s throne

    and over his kingdom,

establishing and upholding it

    with justice and righteousness

    from that time on and forever.

The zeal of the Lord Almighty

    will accomplish this.’

I don’t know what Christmas is but Christmas time is here

/ MurrayCampbell

“I don’t know what Christmas is but Christmas time is here.”

Did you know Guardians of the Galaxy is more than a sci-fi Marvel franchise: they have a Christmas Special!

Peter Quill is missing Christmas on earth. His friends have noticed his despondent face and decide to cheer him up by kidnapping Quill’s hero, Kevin Bacon, and wrapping him up like a slice of prosciutto for Christmas.

And because rock music apparently exists on other planets, an alien band is playing a tribute song to Christmas: ‘Bzermikitokolok and the Knowheremen’. 

The lead singer is chatting to Peter Quill about, “one of your earth traditions…”

This alien rock star (despite an uncanny similarity, not to be confused with your typically aged rock star), explains to Peter Quill that he’s done his homework, 

“Everything I know about Christmas I learned from rocket who learned it from Cosmo who learned it from Kraglin, who learned from you… so I thought I would take it back to the source and make sure I understand this all correctly. This is after all a historical document.”

So far, so good.

The band then starts playing their intergalactic carol, 

Out on the third planet closest to the sun

There’s a special celebration

And it sounds quite fun

A jolly old fellow brings toys to everyone

On a holiday they call Christmas

Now I’m not gonna lie

It makes no sense to me

But here’s what Earthlings told me

About this Christmas mystery

Santa is a furry freak

With epic super powers

He flies to every human home

In under fourteen hours

He’s a master burglar

A pro at picking locks

If you don’t leave milk and cookies out

He will put dung in your socks

Ho, ho, ho, ho, ho

Earthlings are so weird

I don’t know what Christmas is

But Christmastime is here

Or maybe it’s there

Or it’s somewhere

I don’t know, I don’t know






It’s funny. The words are obviously confusing and conflating different ideas surrounding Christmas. It’s as though in outer space, 2 turtle doves and 5 gold rings equals larceny and arson!





Why quote this space Christmas pop song? Because the joke is closer to reality than we might think. Allow me to explain.





With Christmas, we throw all kinds of things into the mix. We have this conception of Christmas that is like a gigantic tinselled blender where we get to toss in a hundred ideas and traditions and somehow together it all tastes amazing.















Let’s leave Turkey and Christmas trees aside, and should we eat Christmas pudding (the answer to that one is obviously, ‘eek’). We can even leave aside December 25 because we don’t know the exact date when Jesus was born and there is no Bible rule about having to celebrate December 25.





Many of our Christmas traditions are like garnishes; nice, but not the essence.





“I don’t know what Christmas is but Christmas time is here.”





I suspect this sentiment is more earthbound than the interplanetary travellers realise.





‘Bzermikitokolok and the Knowheremen’ get one thing right; go back to the source. It makes sense, doesn’t it? Why float around with third-hand notions and rumours when we can open up the original and best source for what Christmas is about? 





The Bible gives us the original and superlative story. It is the one indispensable message. For example, in Luke’s account of the birth of Jesus, we read, 





“The angel said to the Shepherds, “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David a Savior has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”





With a few words, the world changed forever:





God isn’t silent: here is a message is from God





God is no grinch-like character: his message is good news that brings great joy.





The message is about a Saviour. The Saviour’s name is Jesus, and he is ascribed the titles ‘Messiah’ and ‘Lord’. Far from vague and ambiguous meanings,  God’s good news message points to a humble birth with huge God given credentials. As we read from other parts of the Bible, these credentials are tied up with ancient God given promises to bring salvation to a world that is broken and filled with wickedness.





As much as I enjoy roast Turkey and the smell of pine trees, these don’t come close to the magnitude of this Divine word for the world.





A new French restaurant opened in Melbourne recently, Maison Bâtard. The menu is mouth-watering. A host of celebrities were invited to a special gala opening event and were the first to taste the menu. If you’re a famous Melbournian, wealthy or have the right connections, you may have made the cut. Perhaps you were invited!





That’s not how God chooses. When we visit the sources and uncover the message that gave birth to Christmas, we discover something wonderfully subversive and counter-cultural. God’s message is of incalculable importance and God chose to announce his good news, not to the famous and important, but to a group of underpaid, uneducated and probably unlikeable Shepherds. This speaks volumes about theGod who exists.





God doesn’t work according to who’s popular, who’s powerful, or who’s likeable. God acts according to his own character. That God announced his good news to the Shepherds signals grace and mercy. That means, God’s message can be for me.





On that holy night, there was no confusion, no myths, or hearsay. This is a clear announcement from God about his Son Jesus who came to save. 





We know from the sources that as Jesus grew and later began his public ministry, a lot of people pushed against on his message. Some people thought he was a joke. Some people thought Jesus was evil. Others again, dismissed Jesus as though he’s not for me.





These are traditions we continue to this very day. 





This raises a pertinent question, if not Jesus, where do we turn for good news? Where are turning for news that brings about forgiveness, hope, and peace? Where will we uncover substantive and reliable good news that will overcome the sorrow, fear and wickedness we see around in society and also see in ourselves?





There is a serious message revealed that night in Bethlehem. Whether we are living in Eastern Europe or in the Middle East or Eastern Australia, we need good news that will overcome the darkest night and deepest fears.





As we explore the original sources, we learn that God doesn’t just make bold promises, he keeps them. This same Jesus born in the manger, lived out the promise of salvation, even though it meant death on a cross, and from the grave to resurrection life.





“I don’t know what Christmas is but Christmas time is here.”





Except we can know. People celebrate Christmas for all kinds of reasons, and that’s ok. It is possible to distinguish between the add-ons and garnishes and uncover the truth and power in the historical document. The Shepherds responded to the good news announcement by visiting Bethlehem and investigating for themselves. Perhaps now is the season for us to do the same. 

			

	


			
				
				


	

							
The mistaken Baptist Guide
						

			 / MurrayCampbell								

			


		

		

 The Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commission has published, ‘A Guide for the Baptist Union of Victoria’. The ‘Guide’ relates to the Conversion and Suppression Laws adopted in Victoria 3 years ago.





The Guide was released 4 months ago and published on a Victorian Government website, and it is finding more public attention recently, including journalist John Sandeman reporting on it today.





This Government document is problematic and because of growing awareness, it is worth highlighting some of the issues.















The name of the Guide is confusing and highly questionable. The Baptist Union of Victoria Assembly has not discussed or agreed to such a Guide. However, the Victorian Human Rights website, states,  ‘We have developed the Providing Safety for LGBTQA People of Faith guide with and for faith leaders in Baptist Union of Victoria churches”’. 





On the one hand, this is not a Baptist Union of Victoria document, however, the BUV name is all over it. For example, 





    

  • The title, “A Guide for the Baptist Union of Victoria’.
    • 




  • The Victorian Human Rights website, states, “We have developed the Providing Safety for LGBTQA People of Faith guide with and for faith leaders in Baptist Union of Victoria (BUV) churches”
    • 






    

  • The  ‘Guide’ states, “The Baptist Union of Victoria (BUV) recognises that Baptist communities hold a broad range of views about matters of gender and sexuality”. 
    • 




  • The BUV agreed for the HRC to write the “Guide”.
    • 




  • Multiple BUV personnel and pastors met with and provide information and ideas to the HRC.
    • 




  • The Guide acknowledges assistance from BUV and baptist members.
    • 




  • THE BUV is using and promoting the document.
    • 




  • The BUV is now running seminars run by HRC.
    • 






 My understanding is that the HRC approached the BUV and BUV personnel gave permission for this project. They then provided ideas and information to the HRC.  The HRC is now using this Guide to promote the conversion/suppression laws, and as the commissioner states, we hope other Christian denominations will follow the Baptist lead. 





Ro Allen, Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner, wrote the forward which includes this explanation, 





“The CSP Act does not stop anyone from holding beliefs about sexuality or gender, or having conversations with others about those beliefs – it prohibits causing harm to others by trying to impose beliefs to change someone’s gender or sexuality. This is a law to prevent harm. 





Change or suppression practices are actions based on the ideology that there is something wrong or broken about being lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, queer or asexual (LGBTQA), which this law says isn’t true….





The BUV community has been among the first to step up and work alongside the Commission to provide clear support and guidance to its faith leaders and congregations. Over time, we hope to do the same with other Victorian faith communities.” 





The Guide is confusing to the outsider and indeed to Baptists, who understandably assume that this is a Baptist document and one that Baptists affirm.





The 48 page Guide proceeds to give advice to churches and to pastors about how to respond to questions/issues surrounding a person’s sexual orientation and gender identity. At times the document acknowledges a dissonance between formal Baptist teachings/positions and the law, but then it also says things like, 





“The Baptist Union of Victoria (BUV) recognises that Baptist communities hold a broad range of views about matters of gender and sexuality.”





This dissonance within the BUV now manifests itself in a Victorian Government document, and that is a problem. 





The Guide affirms all the latest iterations of sexual and gender expressions, and nowhere affirms the moral goodness of Baptist and Christian views on sexuality and gender. Of course, it can’t because the very fabric of these laws aims to disqualify Christian beliefs and practices on these issues. Instead, the Christian understanding of sexuality and gender is defined in negative terms right throughout the document.





In addition, the Guide encourages churches and pastors to seek advice from affirming churches and provides a list of LGBITQ websites for churches to use.





The dissonance is aired like a screeching car brake. As John Sandeman has highlighted,





The guide outlines restrictions on Baptists and other religious leaders on discussing sexuality and gender identity with LGBTQA persons imposed by the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act 2021 (CSP Act). It acknowledges that the BUV takes the position that “Marriage is the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.” and that “BUV shall not ordain persons who engage in homosexual practice.” The guide says that these statements of belief, and others can be made generally or in sermons and Bible studies, but not when “not targeted at an individual to change or suppress their gender identity or sexual orientation.”





There we have an example of where Baptist practice contradicts  the intent behind Victorian Law. 





For Christians, sex is a beautiful gift from God and that is to be enjoyed within the constraints of marriage between a man and a woman. The Guide explains that while a church or pastor is free to explain formal doctrine in a theoretical sense, they are not permitted to address it to any individual or to insist upon it for any church member. Even praying with an individual who requests prayer, is illegal.





I don’t want to repeat everything I’ve said in the past about these laws. There are aspects that I affirm and others that I cannot, because I’m a Christian. Readers can find those comments easily enough. I will say because it is important and you may not want to read older articles (fair enough): Christians following Jesus (is there any other kind?) will love others and seek their wellbeing. The only message we have is the one we have received and that is of the righteous and loving God whose Son gave his life as ransom for many. God doesn’t pick the do-gooders, he loves those who realise they are deeply flawed. Sometimes, churches forget this. At the time when these controversial laws were being debated, I was among other Christian leaders who acknowledged there have been examples of dreadful attitudes and behaviour toward people who don’t identify as heterosexual. These may not be commonplace, but some people have been terribly mistreated. For that, churches ought to repent. Around 2019, I learned from a journalist how a few fringe religious groups practised ‘conversion techniques’, which were often adopted from mid-20th Century psychiatry, not from the Bible. The Victorian Laws go well beyond prohibiting such awful and dangerous behaviour; prayer is banned and talking with an individual about sex and gender is prohibited, unless the content of your message conforms with whatever is the latest iteration of sexual ethics from LaTrobe. That is staggering, and it’s all the more astonishing given the worldwide exposure of the abuse toward minors with gender dysphoria by State sponsored institutions.





Don’t misunderstand, there is merit in explaining the law, however, this Guide does much more. It contains ideas and advice that is contrary to Scripture and our pastoral responsibility. It is targeting Baptist Churches and for some reason, the BUV thought it wise to give them ammunition and the target. Baptists used to believe in the separation of church and state! This is a Government produced document designed to shape how our Baptist churches think about sexuality and gender issues. Arguing otherwise is simply not believing the authors’ words.  





The thing about the Christian Gospel is that it is about conversion. By definition, Christianity is a conversion religion. Jesus calls people to ‘repent and believe the good news’.  Of course, it doesn’t mean someone who is same-sex attracted all of a sudden wants to marry someone of the opposite sex; that’s not the Christian goal. As many same sex attracted Christians testify, the desire and aim is to be godly, and that includes honouring God with our bodies and relationships. Sure, that may not be a common view in our culture, but in an age where we are beginning to realise that ‘you do you’ isn’t always good and it doesn’t really satisfy, there is something new and intriguing about the old time Bible vision for human flourishing.





In contrast to NSW Baptists who have taken positive action in recent years to confirm Christian belief and practice, imprecision and trying to mimic the Archbishop of Canterbury has an adverse effect on Gospel unity and mission success in Victoria. That ought to grieve our churches.





It is unfortunate, to say the least, that there is now a public document confusing people about where Baptists stand and what we believe. I have already had a member of another Christian denomination contact me because s they were perplexed and couldn’t understand why the BUV would participate in such a project. Not only is this Guide confusing people (both outside and inside baptist churches), it’s almost like handing over a noose for Baptists to hang themselves.





To be clear once again, this Guide is not our guide. It is not a Baptist Union of Victoria document. It is the unfortunate result of a few well-meaning Baptists taking the bait from the HRC.





It is my hope that we Victorian Baptists serve and love our neighbours well, always holding out the Gospel of life, and clarify and confirm that this is not our Guide. 















15 December update:





John Sandeman has spoken with the VEOHRC. This added information only adds weight to concerns that have been raised with this ‘Guide’. This issue is consequential for all Baptist Churches and Pastors in Victoria – https://theothercheek.com.au/a-disturbing-question-about-the-vic-baptists-and-the-conversion-law/










12 Dec update:





David Devine from the BUV Office has spoken with John Sandeman and offered a perspective on the Baptist Union’s role in the publication of the Human Rights Commission’s ‘Guide for the Baptist Union of Victoria’. 





David is a brother in Christ. 





His comments confirm what I have written above and underscore the important issues I have raised. 







Vic Baptists: How we were consulted on the LGBQA  guide to the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Act



			

	


			
				
				


	

							
A Melbourne Synagogue Burns
						

			 / MurrayCampbell								

			


		

		

‘We hoped for peace





    but no good has come,





for a time of healing





    but there is only terror. 





You who are my Comforter in sorrow,





    my heart is faint within me.





Listen to the cry of my people





    from a land far away:





“Is the Lord not in Zion?





    Is her King no longer there?” 





“The harvest is past,
    the summer has ended,
    and we are not saved.”





Since my people are crushed, I am crushed;
    I mourn, and horror grips me.





Is there no balm in Gilead?
    Is there no physician there?
Why then is there no healing
    for the wound of my people?’





(Jeremiah 8:15, 18-22)





  





Photo from X










Adass Israel Synagogue is located up the road from where I live and the church where I serve. The Synagogue is located in the Council area, adjacent to mine, which, in Melbourne distance, makes us pretty much neighbours. 





What took place yesterday was pure unadulterated evil and has tarnished our city, perhaps in ways we may not comprehend for some time to come. 





In the early hours of Friday morning, 2 men set fire to the Synagogue, causing extensive damage and injuring two people who were inside at the time. The perpetrators went about their deed, hiding their identities as the cowards they are. There is no courage or moral fortitude in attacking a place of worship.





Melbourne is home to more Holocaust survivors than any other place in the world, apart from Israel. Between my home and the city, stand many Jewish schools and synagogues. My kids regularly played sports with and against local Jewish schools, such is the vibrant community in this part of Melbourne. 





William Cooper is one of our great Australians. A Christian man and Aboriginal leader, William Cooper stood in solidarity with the oppressed. With foresight, Cooper understood the unfolding evils in Germany and spoke up when most world leaders remained silent. On December 6 1938, William Cooper led a march in Melbourne to the German Consultant, in response to the infamous Kristallnacht, and condemned the “cruel persecution of the Jewish people by the Nazi government in German.”





86 years later, to the day, my Melbourne, our city, witnesses a burning Synagogue.





For all our pseudo-sophistry and boasting in our cosmopolitan and cultural greatness, travelling in our DNA is the same iniquities that have tainted all cities of old, including what was once considered the most ingenious and advanced culture in the world: Germany.  We Melbournians love to sing our own praises, in this gleeful myopia that sometimes has more in common with Nero than William Cooper.





Of course, this chromosomal thread appears in all kinds of ways; sometimes we call it out and other times we call it good or choice. The unnerving fact is that Melbourne has not decided where we will fall.





Today, Jewish families around Melbourne are less certain about tomorrow. They are less confident and free. That ought to bring great sadness to our city and shout a loud warning. 





Two millennia ago, an elderly Jewish man lived in Jerusalem. We are told in Holy Scripture, 





 “Now there was a man in Jerusalem called Simeon, who was righteous and devout. He was waiting for the consolation of Israel, and the Holy Spirit was on him” (Luke 2:25)





May the consolation of Israel pour out His grace and peace.

			

	


			
				
				


	

							
Myer’s Perfect Christmas Message
						

			 / MurrayCampbell								

			


		

		






“Gifts for the naughty and the nice. Share the Joy”





Has Myer rediscovered the evangelistic drive of its founder, Sidney Myer? 





Most Australians may be unaware, but 104 years ago, Sidney Myer became a Christian. Myer was an upcoming Melbourne entrepreneur and businessman. Despite growing success, he had made some rather poor choices in life, one of which resulted in his first marriage ending.





One day, another Melbourne businessman named Lee Neil, had his company bought out by Sidney Myer. Neil then went to work for Myer. Neil was a Christian and over time he shared with Myer his most precious possession, God’s good news of Jesus. 





Sidney Myer could not buy or afford this news of Divine forgiveness. As the Apostle Paul once explained, 





‘it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God’





Once Myer realised this message, this gift of God transformed the way he did business. Generosity was part of the parcel of his success. Myer included his employees in the benefits of a growing company and he shared his profits among those who had little. He even celebrated Christmas by organising lunches for 100s of people. Today, Sidney Myer remains one of Australia’s great success stories, but few are aware of the Divine gift that prompted his philanthropy. Indeed, he rarely made mention of it during his lifetime, apart from a few occasions when he was encouraging others to join a charitable cause. 





Has Myer recaptured Sidney Myer’s greatest vision? 





Perhaps? I suspect not.  The furry creature who features on the billboard is named, ‘humbug’, and apparently you can buy your very own soft and cuddly humbug in Myer. From doing a little research today, I’ve learned that humbug represents the annoyance and grrr most of us feel at some point around Christmas (sound familiar?). Whatever the marketing intention, the statement is true: “Gifts for the naughty and the nice. Share the Joy”.





 In fact, I reckon Myer’s marketing department has underestimated how true their slogan is. Consider these amazing words from the Bible, 





“She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus, because he will save his people from their sins.”” (Matt 1:21)





“Here is a trustworthy saying that deserves full acceptance: Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners—of whom I am the worst” (1 Timothy 2:15)





If anything, humbug underestimates the seismic problem of the human condition that Christmas exposes, just as the red-suited man from the North Pole gets it wrong. We are more than a little grumpy, and unlike jolly Mr Claus who keeps his studious eyes on 2 very different lists, the God of Christmas delivers a very different message. It’s not the righteous who find blessing and the sinners get lumps of coal; everyone sits on the same page.





Here lays the cutting edge of Christianity, which makes the Gospel unlike every other story, philosophy and religion. God doesn’t choose between the naughty and nice. He says, ‘Christ died for the ungodly…God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us… the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! (Romans 5)





The message of the Christ is one of overflowing love and mercy toward those who are undeserving and unable. Imagine a God who gives gifts unmerited! Imagine God whose only Son sacrificed himself to deliver us from every iniquity, even death?  Imagine if the real message of Christmas isn’t ‘be nice not naughty’ but, you are forgiven; come home to God. Of course, we don’t have to imagine. Look at that night in Bethlehem. Check out the infant Jesus and his life, words and deeds. Above all, come to terms with why the only good man chose to die on a Roman cross.





Thank you Myer for your Christmas message this year. I for one, will ‘share the joy’. Jesus really is good news, God’s “Gift for the naughty and the nice.”