The Beatitudes are a word for our time

The assassination of Charlie Kirk on 10th September will bring unspeakable grief to those who knew and loved him.  His death is emblematic of the age in which we are sadly living. Not even an hour was permitted to pass without tirades of opinions and glee expressed online.

People are defending the shooter, even celebrating the murder. Many others dare to say that Charlie Kirk is simply a victim of his own making, while others again try to play the shadowy middle way game of whataboutism. 

People are losing the ability and desire to talk to one another about life’s biggest issues. People enraged by hardship and perceived injustice (or real injustice) drink from the fever-inducing cup that is easily found among online socials, justifying and fuelling hatred for the other.

The city of Melbourne, every weekend it seems, now witnesses protests, vile speeches, and violence. Victorian Police are right now preparing for and dreading another day of protest on Saturday. These thousands are but a tiny few of the many more who express their anger over on Bluesky, X and Facebook.

Photo by freestocks.org on Pexels.com

Most people have no idea who I am and have not heard my name, and yet I have written and said enough to have my name printed in newspapers and even on the front page of The Age. The former Victorian Premier resorted to his famous slander under the Parliamentary privilege because of a view I had expressed.  I have received more than a few ‘colourful’ letters in the mail or messages on the phone. As a consequence, there have been a couple of Sundays when I have had a quiet word with the Elders, just in case someone might turn up to interrupt or protest our Sunday service. Thankfully, when someone has come as a result of something I’ve written, it is in search of a merciful God and not with an agenda to shout down a preacher.

We will not find a way forward for the common good through joining in the competing choruses online; hate breeds hate, and conspiracy is often countered with misinformation. Of course, there is much going on that is maddening, harmful and concerning. Anger has a place (God can be angry), but it mustn’t be the only key in which we speak. Indeed, how we speak and what we say really does matter. Charlie Kirk, from the little I know of him, engaged his interlocutors with grace, and yet he is now dead. Far from reasoning that kindness doesn’t work, we need to double down on grace and kindness.

I have lost count over the past 5 years of how often I have seen comments from certain Christians who self-identify with the final Beatitude (blessed are the persecuted), and subsequently use this to justify relegating the first 7 Beatitudes to the category of ‘not in season’. Peacemakers and meekness and mercy are deemed an inconvenience; how differently Jesus sees things. 

The Christian doesn’t need to second-guess how to respond to world events and how to engage with others. The Christian isn’t left without guidance and recourse. Jesus gives the believer a paradigm in the Beatitudes.

He said:

“Blessed are the poor in spirit,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Blessed are those who mourn,
    for they will be comforted.

Blessed are the meek,
    for they will inherit the earth.

Blessed are those who hunger and thirst for righteousness,
    for they will be filled.

Blessed are the merciful,
    for they will be shown mercy.

Blessed are the pure in heart,
    for they will see God.

Blessed are the peacemakers,
    for they will be called children of God.

Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness,
    for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

“Blessed are you when people insult you, persecute you and falsely say all kinds of evil against you because of me. Rejoice and be glad, because great is your reward in heaven, for in the same way they persecuted the prophets who were before you.

The Beatitudes don’t detail how one enters the Kingdom of heaven, but the life of those who belong to this Kingdom. This posture in some ways pre-empts the final manifestation of the Kingdom by exhibiting its qualities in the here and now; to use Jonathan Leeman’s analogy, it’s much like an embassy in a foreign country.

Some Christians hold to some of the Beatitudes and play loose with others. Some of us focus on peace-making while sacrificing righteousness in order to achieve this goal. Some grab hold of righteousness with clenched fists, while ignoring how Jesus begins, with confession and contrition of our own sins. It is important to see how the Lord Jesus ties them together in an unbreakable bond.  All 8 Beatitudes belong together and work together to build godly character and a life that imitates, albeit imperfectly, the Lord Jesus.

Jesus leads us to begin with confession and contrition, acknowledging our complete dependence on God’s grace, which is his loving gift to us through the atoning death of Christ. The more we grasp the astonishing nature of God’s grace, we can no longer look at other Aussies with any disdain or wanting anything other than their good. 

I suspect some of my Christian friends believe that if we follow the first 7 Beatitudes, the outcome will be peace and happy relationships with everyone, but that’s not where Jesus leads us. He says, ‘Blessed are those who are persecuted because of righteousness for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.’

It is true, we can be shouted down because we’ve said stupid things, hurtful things, and said the right things wrongly; I know I’m guilty of all the above.  Nonetheless, Jesus indicates that living the Beatitudes and being concerned for God’s righteousness may still result in people being offended and not liking us and attempting to silence us. For Christians to think we can escape verses 10-12 is understandable but somewhat naive.

The Christian song sheet isn’t La Marseillaise,

‘Français, pour nous, ah ! quel outrage

Quels transports il doit exciter!

C’est nous qu’on ose méditer

De rendre à l’antique esclavage!’

If the writer or website you read regularly uses language of ‘revolution’ and ‘war’, ‘taking back’, and throwing around rage and expletives, perhaps it’s time to find a more useful read. After all, Proverbs warns us, 

“Do not make friends with a hot-tempered person,

    do not associate with one easily angered,

or you may learn their ways

    and get yourself ensnared”. (Proverbs 22:24-25)

Blessed are the poor in spirit.

Blessed are those who mourn.

Blessed are the pure in heart.

Melbourne needs Christians leaning ever closer to the Jesus of the Beatitudes. The United States and Australia need Christians who are learning to press closer to Jesus’ words, trusting him and doing as he asks. If you’re not yet convinced, then take a look at the cross. Did Jesus abandon his Beatitudes as he hung crucified? Or did he embrace them, such that he died with and for the sins of the world?

That’s the message our city and world need more than ever. That’s the life our churches need to embody more than ever. 

How we speak does matter

Kevin De Young has written an important critique of the Moscow crowd led by Doug Wilson. Kevin’s offering is both irenic and castigating.

Kevin’s stated purpose is less to address theological concerns coming from the Moscow of Idaho, but to explain the success of Moscow and why this ought to concern Christians.

Photo by freestocks.org on Pexels.com

A biting cold in  Moscow 

De Young explains,

“I’m convinced the appeal of Moscow is visceral more than intellectual…people come to those particular intellectual convictions because they were first attracted to the cultural aesthetic and the political posture that Wilson so skillfully embodies. In short, people are moving to Moscow—whether literally or spiritually—because of a mood.”

“My bigger concern is with the long-term spiritual effects of admiring and imitating the Moscow mood. For the mood that attracts people to Moscow is too often incompatible with Christian virtue, inconsiderate of other Christians, and ultimately inconsistent with the stated aims of Wilson’s Christendom project.” 

“The Moscow mood provides a non-stop adversarial stance toward the world and toward other Christians who are deemed (or caricatured to be) too afraid to “tell it like it is.” Moscow cannot become the American Redoubt for conservative Christians if it is too similar to other places, with basically the same kinds of churches, schools, and institutions found in hundreds of other cities. Differentiation is key, and this can only be sustained by a mood of antagonism and sharp antithesis…

“I fear that much of the appeal of Moscow is an appeal to what is worldly in us. As we’ve seen, the mood is often irreverent, rebellious, and full of devil-may-care playground taunts. That doesn’t make us better Christians.” 

It is worth reading Kevin De Young’s piece in its entirety. Behind this mood is a set of theological assumptions about the relationship between Church and State, Gospel and culture. These assumptions are often known as ‘Christian Nationalism’, a position that De Young thinks is problematic, as do I (as I’ve written earlier this year ).

Language really does matter

De Young is rightly concerned about the type of speech Wilson regularly employs to convey the mood. This includes, 

“Wilson’s deliberate decision to use uncouth (at best) and sinful (at worst) language, especially language of a sexual nature.”

Angry speech and coarse speech. As they say, the apple doesn’t fall far from the tree. As the article was shared on social media the very issues Kevin highlighted were being played out in real cyber time. Supporters of Wilson were soon defending his use of vulgar language, as though the times require such vocabulary to come from the lips of pastors. As others expressed thankfulness for Kevin’s article, Moscovites were eager to zoom in and add their own filthy language and derogatory words, presumably as an instrument to silence people. 

Take, for example, the abuse Karen Prior was subjected to when she tweeted, ‘thank you for speaking up’,

I wonder if the people pause long enough to realise that they simply reinforcing the very issues Kevin has outlined in his critique of Doug Wilson and Moscow?

One Aussie Pastor, defending Doug Wilson, summed up well the ‘mood’ concern De Young is highlighting. He said on a friend’s Facebook page, 

“We can lament the state of the church and culture all we want, and natter amongst ourselves about what the right tone to strike is. Maybe it’s just time for haymakers and door slamming.”

Over the last 5 years, I found that the ‘truth and freedom’ brigade is quick to fend off voices calling for considered speech and tone. They don’t see the times as one for making peace but waging war against the culture and against all those weak knee Christian groups who don’t buy into the angry mood. Failure to reach the same heated temperature is viewed upon with suspicions and probable complicity with all that is wrong with culture.

If Jesus overturned tables and made a whip that’s what we’re going to do. If Jesus can call Pharisees ‘vipers’, then let’s make sure we stick that in our rhetorical rifle and fire off a round every day. After all, if we do it often enough we will aim true at some point.  Friend, not every word is meant to sound as though we’re Elijah or Ezekiel in their boldest moments. 

There are many issues in our society that grieve Christians and that we understand are serious missteps that will lead to further harm to people in our suburbs and streets. There are occasions for godly anger. But surely this cannot be our only sustained note in public. We mustn’t gather around rage and all we find problematic, but around the Gospel of grace. If the moral and spiritual sitz im leben of our community is concerning, how much more therefore must we pay attention to the godliness within the church and how we speak with not only truth but also kindness and grace. Are we seeking to persuade people with the Gospel of Jesus Christ or whacking them with a rhetorical blitz?

Gruff doesn’t equal greater faithfulness to the gospel. Using strong language doesn’t equate to greater love or persuasive power?  And coarse language contravenes God’s message of grace and righteousness.

Tone does matter. Tone is about godliness. Tone chooses words. Tone is about conveying truthfulness in love. Our models for public speech shouldn’t be Donald Trump or the anti-semitic sloganees who are marching through the streets at the moment. Loud and brash may grab attention and win the cheers of devotees, and also betray the very Gospel we are claiming to represent. 

The Bible warns us about our tongues.

“Not many of you should become teachers, my fellow believers, because you know that we who teach will be judged more strictly. We all stumble in many ways. Anyone who is never at fault in what they say is perfect, able to keep their whole body in check. When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. Or take ships as an example. Although they are so large and are driven by strong winds, they are steered by a very small rudder wherever the pilot wants to go. Likewise, the tongue is a small part of the body, but it makes great boasts. Consider what a great forest is set on fire by a small spark. The tongue also is a fire, a world of evil among the parts of the body. It corrupts the whole body, sets the whole course of one’s life on fire, and is itself set on fire by hell… (James 3:6)

“Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving.” (Eph 5:4)

“But I tell you that everyone will have to give account on the day of judgment for every empty word they have spoken.” (Matt 12:36)

The Bible urges us to speak not only truthfully but with a tone of grace and respect and kindness. 

“Do not let any unwholesome talk come out of your mouths, but only what is helpful for building others up according to their needs, that it may benefit those who listen.” (Eph 4:29)

 “Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” (Col 4:6)

 “Don’t let anyone look down on you because you are young, but set an example for the believers in speech, in conduct, in love, in faith and in purity.” (1 Timothy 4:12)

“A gentle answer turns away wrath,
    but a harsh word stirs up anger.

The soothing tongue is a tree of life,
    but a perverse tongue crushes the spirit.” (Prob 15:1 & 4)

“My dear brothers and sisters, take note of this: Everyone should be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry,” (James 1:9)

The Bible identifies a correlation between speech and the heart.

“A worthless man devises mischief. His speech is like a scorching fire.” (Prob 16:27)

Avoid godless chatter, because those who indulge in it will become more and more ungodly (2 Tim 3:16)

What is tone? It is the sound attuned to God’s melodic line. Paul wrote that one’s words amount to noise if not spoken in the right manner. When the music score says legato, do I play staccato instead? When the composer indicates pianissimo,  do I bash triple forte? When the composer asks forte, should I play in a whisper? 

Tone is more than a choice of which key to sing, it is a sound of godliness that we want to faithfully match God’s melodic line.  Our tone is a heart issue, and only the Gospel of grace can cure it.  Kevin De Young has sounded a warning, and it is one that has its roots in the pleas and corrections offered up by James the brother of Jesus. While I feel no gravitational pull toward Moscow, this is nonetheless an opportunity to consider the words I use and how. If that’s the takeaway, then I think Kevin has served us well. 

Men, Anger, and Gender Differences

One of the few heresies today is to suggest that there are many if any differences between men and women. We are even at the point where some are arguing gender is so fluid that categories like men and women are becoming superfluous. I suspect however that few will find offence with a hypothesis that submits that anger is a more aggressive issue among men than for women.

The reason for mentioning this is because I’ve come across research that supports a biblical proposition. The Bible presents many positive differences between men and women but on this occasion I’m thinking of a negative example.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

I’m about to start preaching through Paul’s first letter to Timothy at Mentone Baptist. The Epistle is filled with encouragements and instruction for churches, which together provide directives for how a church is to conduct herself. As Paul says to Timothy, this conduct matters because God’s household is “church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth”. 

Despite the positive and constructive way the Apostle outlines life for a local church, some parts of the letter have created significant controversy; not least are the sections that discuss  the roles of men and women in the church. I’ll preaching through the entire letter, including ch.2, but for now I want to share an interesting article that I recently came across which may help us further understand what Paul means in 2:8, 

“Therefore I want the men everywhere to pray, lifting up holy hands without anger or disputing”

Verse 8 is an instruction given by God to men in the church. What follows in vv.9-15 are  instructions given to women in the church.

Paul introduces verse 8 (and the following verses, 9-15, for they form a coherent section) with the strong conjunction, ‘therefore’. Paul is tying this application with what he has written previously in verses 1-7.  The connection  between vv.1-7 and v.8 is not only the subject of prayer, it is also ‘godliness and holiness’. Similarly, godliness and holiness is the concern of vv.9-15.  The Apostle is concerned with godly behaviour in the church as it pleases God and because it functions as a Gospel witness to outsiders. That godliness is on view in v.8 is confirmed by the way Paul contrasts hands used in prayer and hands used in anger. 

Why does Paul’s teaching on men here focus on ‘anger’? Surely anger isn’t a male only attribute?

1 Timothy 2:8 seems to support the idea that anger is a greater issue among men than it is for women. In a paragraph where Paul is making distinctions between men and women in the church, it is observable to Paul that a proclivity toward anger is one characteristic that sufficiently differentiates men from women. It’s not the only distinctive attribute but it is one. 

It’s not that women don’t experience anger. Of course women can be angry, for good reasons as well as for sinful reasons. Is there however something in Paul’s statement that rings true? For example, we know that most cases of domestic violence are perpetrated by men. We also know that most violent crimes are committed by men. Do men and women process anger in different ways? It’s not only such extreme forms of anger.

In 2018, The Conversation published an article on differences between men and women. The focus was on ‘happiness’ and how men and women experience happiness in different ways. The article also speaks of the converse, 

“Gender differences in depression are well established and studies have found that biological, psychological and social factors contribute to the disparity.” 

I note that despite all the talk about how cultural influences inform and determine behaviours research suggests that social factors lack the explanatory power for defining how men and women experience the highs and lows of life in distinctive ways. There is more going on.

I think of 1 Thessalonians where Paul speaks of masculine traits and feminine traits, not because they are mutually exclusive but because there are observable differences between the two genders. The fact that these analogies make sense to us living in 21st Century suggests the meaning is not fixed to those living in Thessaloniki in 50-51AD. It’s also worth highlighting that these metaphors are used positively and with affection.

“But we were gentle among you, like a nursing mother taking care of her own children. So, being affectionately desirous of you, we were ready to share with you not only the gospel of God but also our own selves, because you had become very dear to us.” (1 Thess. 2:7–8).

“For you know how, like a father with his children, we exhorted each one of you and encouraged you and charged you to walk in a manner worthy of God, who calls you into his own kingdom and glory” (1 Thess. 2:11–12).

Back to 1 Timothy. As I read the piece in The Conversation, my eyes were drawn to the section on anger. According to the piece, research demonstrates that men and women express anger differently. 

“Psychologically it seems men and women differ in the way they process and express emotions. With the exception of anger, women experience emotions more intensely and share their emotions more openly with others.”

“However within these studies lies a significant blind spot, which is that women often do feel anger as intensely as men, but do not express it openly as it is not viewed as socially acceptable.

When men feel angry they are more likely to vocalise it and direct it at others, whereas women are more likely to internalise and direct the anger at themselves. Women ruminate rather than speak out. And this is where women’s vulnerability to stress and depression lies.”

This makes sense of Paul’s observation about men raising hands in anger. It’s not that 1 Timothy 2:8 is valid because of what researchers are learning, but rather we shouldn’t be surprised to find that reality matches what Scripture teaches and affirms.

In any discourse about men and women it is unhelpful to overstate differences. What we share, namely our humanity and the imago dei and union with Christ is of staggering beauty and importance. Without losing or diminishing any of those things and more, it is also unwise to downplay or ignore the simple fact that there are also differences. As The Conversation explains, these differences extend beyond social influences, and neither can they fully explained by physiology such as muscle and bone density, and sexual organs. There are psychological and personality differences. 1 Timothy 2:8 seems be to a Scriptural acknowledgment of such differentiation. Indeed, I would argue differences also exist for theological reasons, but that’s a topic for another ocassion.

At a time when we are hearing so many stories about men mistreating women, even within churches, 1 Timothy 2:8 is a timely verse (not that the verse is specifically aimed at men’s behaviour toward women but it surely includes such). It’s also an example of how Paul’s ecclesiastical paradigm in 1 Timothy isn’t limited to First Century Ephesus but how the God’s ways remains poignant and powerful today.

As our society recognises harmful versions of masculinity, it’s good to be reminded that God is also in opposition. God does not condone sinful anger, and neither should the church. The Apostle mentions anger because despite its prevalence among men, it is out of place in God’s household. The answer though isn’t simply to cease a certain behaviour or attitude, it is to replace it with one that is better and is good. It’s a picture of repentance. Paul instructs men, instead of using hands in anger, men ought to lift their hands in prayer. In other words, men should use their bodies for godliness not sinfulness, and they should focus their attention on God who brings peace rather than igniting disputes. 

For men who are aware of anger issues in their life, reach out for help. If you’re part of a church, talk to your pastor. For women who are living with an angry man, please reach out for help.

In addition, here are some further services:


1800 Respect National Helpline: 1800 737 732


Safe Steps Crisis Line (Vic): 1800 015 188


Men’s Referral Service: 1300 766 491


Mensline: 1300 789 978


Lifeline (24-hour Crisis Line): 131 114