Baptist union

Baptists, Creeds and Confessions

/ MurrayCampbell

It’s time to set the record straight. Baptists are not anti-creedal. Or at least, they shouldn’t be. 

Perhaps you have heard Christians (most likely a baptist) assert, ‘no creed but Christ’ or ‘no creed but the Bible’. 

Both of these sayings sound appealing. Which Baptist is going to set up an authority on par with the Lord Jesus Christ? Who would argue that the Church has an authority equal to or greater than Holy Scripture? A desire to preserve the authority of Jesus Christ and the authority of Scripture is noble and right. The rightful Lord of the church is Jesus Christ and the Bible is God’s final, full and sufficient word. Unfortunately, despite their appeal, these creedal mantras present a false equivalence not intended by Creeds and Confessions, they fail to recognise that all Christians are creedal by definition, and they ignore the fact that historically many Baptists wrote and affirmed confessions of faith.

To begin with, throughout our 400 years Baptists have written and given ascent to many Confessions of faith. It is true that many have opposed written and formalised statements of faith, and many others welcomed such agreed formulations.

Even today some baptists are strident in their rejection of Creeds and Confessions. My understanding is that in Australia only one State Baptist Union includes a reference to the rejection of creeds or confessions. They do so, despite requiring all constituents to affirm a doctrinal basis. 

One of the earliest figures associated with the birth of baptists is John Smyth. In 1609, Smyth wrote a confession of faith, although he never published it. Some of Smyth’s ideas though became untenable for many Englishmen who had moved to Amsterdam with him. Smyth became a Mennonite and many of his followers eventually split with him and returned to England where they (under Thomas Helwys) established the first Baptist Church. Smyth was so concerned to avoid liturgy (which he believed stifled the work of the Spirit) that he did not permit the Bible to be read in the gathering. Either way, Smyth is hardly the baptist example par excellence. 

In 1611 Thomas Helwys wrote a declaration of faith for English Baptists living in Amsterdam. Since then,  no fewer than 50 Baptist Confessions of faith have been written, published and affirmed by various baptists across the centuries. Both the Second London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689) and the New Hampshire Confession of Faith (1833/1853) remain in use today across many baptist networks. In other words, any blanket statement about baptists being anti-creedal cannot be sustained. The historical record demonstrates that Baptists are among the most prolific writers of confessions among all Christian denominations. And these do not include all the statements of faith and doctrinal bases that are in use today across baptist fellowships.

When baptists speak of creeds and confessions, the correct description ought to be, many baptists adhere to confessions and creeds while others do not, and at times, both groups live and serve together.

We have answered the question, are baptists anti-creedal. The next question is, should baptists be anti-creedal?

In 2004, Russell Moore made the observation,

“all Christians are, by definition, “creedalists.” After all, the Spirit tells us that the regenerate person must “confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God has raised him from the dead” (Rom 10:9 ESV). All Baptists are, by definition, “creedalists” since our name signifies that we share a belief about the meaning of baptism in identification with Christ. This is where the shell game hypocrisy of the “anti-creedal” Baptists is so disingenuous.”

Since the earliest days of the Church there has been a standard of belief, a statement of foundational truths required by churches. Even the New Testament gives us evidence of such statements. For example, 1 Corinthians 15:3-5

 “For what I received I passed on to you as of first importance: that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, that he was buried, that he was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures, and that he appeared to Cephas, and then to the Twelve.”

Laying behind the anti-creedal movement may be a concern to preserve the authority and sufficiency of Scripture and to uphold Christ’s authority. Far from undermining these, Creed and Confessions, if they’re doing their job, will articulate and support these fundamental elements of the Christian Church. More often, or at least in contemporary situations, the issue is admitting that there are crucial points of doctrine where baptists no longer agree and then having to face the question of what to do next. Confessions and Creeds require agreement and commonality, whereas ‘no creed by Christ or the Bible’ is sufficiently vague so as to include all manner of weird, wonderful and downright heterodox positions. Whereas Creeds and Confessions require settled teaching, there is another “baptist” value that pushes against this, namely that the Spirit of God has new truths to enlighten us. This particular “baptist” distinction is one that I’ll respond to on another occasion for it is as historically controversial as is the question of creeds. Hence the use of inverted commas.

Creeds and Confessions of faith have long played a significant role for churches in articulating faith and doctrine, and in the formation of partnerships and unions. They are not infallible documents as is Scripture, but they can serve as faithful witnesses to and summaries of the Apostolic faith and of teachings crucial to the Church. A church that disconnects itself from historic Christianity is likely to move away from the faith once for all delivered. Is it any wonder that baptists can reject the bodily resurrection of Christ and still remain in union? Should it surprise anyone that penal substitutionary atonement, while formally declared in the ABM doctrinal basis, can be thrown out by some as an abhorrent teaching and yet happily fellowship together?

Creeds and Confessions alike can serve churches in these 4 helpful ways:

First, they ground our churches in the historic faith. They remind us that we are not separate from or distinct from faithful churches who have gone before us over the millennia; we share the same apostolic faith.

Second, they serve as a buttress, helping to preserve a church’s theological convictions. They give churches a reference point for summarising foundational beliefs and distinctives. Somewhat ironic, for all the talk about not relying on confessions, many Baptists are right now rushing about drafting statements of belief in relation to sex, gender, and marriage.

Third, such statements serve to aid the memory and function as useful catechizing tools.

Fourth, they serve to unify the church. For example, when we recite the Apostles Creed at church, with one voice we are affirming the faith that we hold together.

The next time a baptist looks you in the eye and with confidence tells you, baptists have no creed but Christ, perhaps ask them, which baptists? And then, if conversation permits, explore with them the reasons behind their objections. 

When Baptists suppress Baptist beliefs in support of Government conversion Bill

/ MurrayCampbell

The Victorian Government’s Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020 made the front page of Sunday’s The Age. Given the issues at stake, it is indeed headline news.

I was interviewed for that article. Yesterday, another piece was published, this time, The Age found two baptist pastors who support the Bill. I’m sure there are a few more out there, but in light of the fact that there are 100s of baptist pastors in Victoria, we are talking about a small number.

Teash Taylor (of St Kilda Baptist) and Simon Carey Holt (of Collins Street Baptist) have the right to say whatever they want. Victoria is a free State, at least it is until the Bill is adopted early next year. The issue is not their freedom to express an opinion. The point is that their views are incorrect and dangerous.

I observe how their quotes are being used to divide the Liberal Party room. Notice the headline, “Liberals tussle over gay conversion laws as religious leaders split”. 

Imagine investigating a university campus in order to find which students believe in a flat earth. Say they find 5 students…even 20? Should they conclude that the majority of university students believe the earth is flat? Would it be fair to therefore conclude that this belief is valid and that the academic community are split on the issue?

It is always possible to find contrarian voices on any issue. Quoting supportive Christians voices gives the public a sense of confusion and mixed views within the religious community. On the matter of the Government’s Conversion Bill there will of course be some of this. But let the reader understand, the comments made by Teash Taylor and Simon Carey Holt are not representative of what our churches formally believe and teach. Maybe, they are speaking with the best of intentions, but that doesn’t mean their words are not problematic and damaging.

Let’s look at what the two baptists said.

Photo by Pixabay on Pexels.com

Conversion Bill will lead to harm

Teash Taylor said that reforms had “the potential to be life saving”.

Everyone knows that those old practices were always marginal and rare. No one today thinks aversion therapy is a good idea.  No one supports or practices non consensual pastoral care. So what are we talking about? What is it exactly that’s going to be life saving?

One can only presume that what Taylor has in mind is prayer and pastoral conversations where the Christian point of view is presented and encouraged. After all, these are the kinds of religious activities that do take place today and that the Government is targeting. What an odd position for Taylor to take. 

Importantly, there is evidence suggesting that the Government’s Bill will create harm for LGBT persons, not prevent it. 

According to the landmark decision made by the UK’s High Court last week, pushing vulnerable children into undertaking hormonal treatment and other invasive practices is a serious threat to their mental and physical wellbeing. The Victorian legislation however will force parents and medical practitioners down that very path.

Take note of the commentary in today’s The Australian,

“Despite a weak evidence base the gender-affirming approach is so dogmatic that it champions the new wave of criminal laws against any therapy deemed to try to “convert” someone’s gender identity, Victoria being the latest with a draft bill. Cruel attempts to force adults to change sexual orientation appear to be mostly a historical footnote. Laws such as Victoria’s could criminalise ethical attempts to help a trans-identifying teenage girl re-embrace her biological sex and find comfort in her body after the trauma of sexual assault. But counselling to assist medicalised gender change for children is exempt from these cookie-cutter bans on conversion therapy. The risk is that some minors struggling with non-gender issues will seize on trans identity as a solution, will be uncritically “affirmed” by teachers or counsellors at school, and will be put on the path to needless medication.”

Another outcome from this Bill that will cause harm is an increased reluctance among Churches and Christians to give the reason for the hope we have in Jesus Christ. After all, no one wants to be imprisoned, fined, or sentenced to a reeducation camp as though we’re living in Xinjiang Province. But of course this is the goal. Both Premier Andrews and Attorney General Jill Hennessy have admitted such,

“The Bill denounces such practices as deceptive and harmful, reinforces that the ideology behind these practices is flawed and wrong.”

“These views won’t be tolerated in Victoria and neither will these abhorrent practices.”

Churches remain a beacon of light and hope in a city where there is so much darkness. This Bill will have disastrous consequences for our communities who are searching for answers and looking for hope. Will Churches and Christians now refuse to pray with people, even when invited to do so? Will pastors decline from teaching the whole counsel of God in fear that someone will find offence? Remember, offence is sufficient cause to have you dragged before a civil tribunal and for authorities to force you to attend classes instructing you that what Christians have always believed is a lie and cannot be tolerated.

This Bill creates an environment of fear and bullying. Instead of ideas being shared and discussed, and people being persuaded, this a Government attempting to control religious belief. 

Despite recent comments by our political leaders, it remains the case that the Christian message is good news. It is wonderful and extraordinary news for people who believed they can never approach God and that hope can never be theirs.  Jesus says to believe his message is to find eternal life. 

At the same time, the same Christian message always causes offence to some. As the Scriptures say, 

“For we are to God the pleasing aroma of Christ among those who are being saved and those who are perishing. To the one we are an aroma that brings death; to the other, an aroma that brings life. And who is equal to such a task? (2 Corinthians 2:16-17)

If freedom is taken from Christians to speak, engage and pray in favour of the Christian vision for human life and flourishing, we can only expect serious consequences for the health and life of our fellow Victorians. 

All this is unnecessary, had the Government acted reasonably and fairly. The Government acknowledged in 2019 that there are narrow definitions of conversion practice, which focus on those few and rare practices that once existed in marginal religious groups. That would have had validity and probable support amongst Christians universally. However, this Government deliberately settled on parameters that are broad and vague. Indeed, they have already declared that they are open to extending these parameters. For example, while sermons are not currently included in the prohibitions, the AG has said in the Parliament that they may be included at a later stage under new “anti-vilification protections”.

The Baptist supporting imprisonment of fellow Baptists

Let’s turn to Simon Carey Holt from Collins St Baptist. He said, 

“This seems to me to demonstrate an extraordinary lack of self awareness” .

“While it is true that many churches have never sanctioned the more extreme practices of aversion or shock therapy, their consistent messaging that those people of a homosexual orientation are broken and must suppress, deny and repent of their sexuality has been far more consistently damaging and over such a long period of time for so many of its own people.”

What Simon means to say is that he doesn’t believe what the Bible teaches about human sexuality, marriage, and life. He disagrees with Jesus in Matthew 19 and with the Apostle Paul in Romans 1 and 1 Corinthians 5. Simon belongs to those progressive voices who are better informed than the authors of Scripture. 

Simon Carey Holt does not speak for the Baptist Denomination. Nor do I for that matter. However, I happen to believe, for example, the Baptist definition of marriage. This baptist understanding of human sexuality and relationships is in line with what Christians have held across the world for thousands of years. Simon dissents from this and instead follows the view that is currently popular in our culture.

The gall isn’t only in the fact that these pastors reject Christian doctrine around these anthropological questions. It is that they support a Bill that will imprison Christians for doing nothing more than upholding Christian teaching and practice.

For religious leaders to support this Bill is beyond reprehensible. Our Roman Catholic friends and Eastern Orthodox friends are behaving in a more baptist manner on this issue! It is one thing for politicians to pursue a course of action. As Jesus might say, “they don’t know what they’re doing”. However, for Church leaders to do so, even if it is only a few, is an attack on the body of Christ. 

Particularly for Baptists who have a long tradition of upholding the separation of Church and State, for these Baptists to applaud Government intrusion into the prayer life of churches is a slap in the face of the Baptist community. Again, we are not talking about those archaic and awful practices once employed in a psychologists clinic that seeped into a few religious groups, we are speaking about praying and conversation. 

The greater problem isn’t even these two outspoken baptists; it is years of Christian Denominations lacking courage to stand for Christian truth and to refute bad theology when it arises. Years of inaction and faux-peace-making has created this scenario.  It is as though everyone has forgotten Thyatira.  

Will the Andrews Government vision for our churches finally stir denominations into life? Or perhaps it will merely consolidate their dying breath. The best thing Churches can do is continue to lovingly, winsomely, and faithfully present and live out this good news from God. 

Daniel Andrews doesn’t define what is good anymore than Simon Holt or Murray Campbell.  Sexual norms and gender theory is constantly changing, The lines of orthodoxy are redefined almost every year. Even gays and lesbians are finding themselves publicly cancelled and vilified because they do not support the latest version of ‘my truth’. Amidst these shifting shadows is a piercing light that does not change and that continues to promise “life to the full”. Not life without difficulty or confusion, but a contentment and peace and clarity like no other. This message is worth holding onto. .

Clarifying repentance, forgiveness, and baptism

/ MurrayCampbell

Forgiveness and repentance are stunning and central concepts to Christianity.  To not only consider but to experience Divine forgiveness and to live a life of repentance is truly wonderful, life giving and life filling.

Jason Goroncy of Whitley College has written a short article for the Baptist Union of Victoria on the nature of forgiveness and repentance. He offers a few helpful insights. For instance, he recognising how repentance is hard. He is a great line about confession, “confession is neither a transaction nor a negotiation in order to secure forgiveness. Moreover, it is ‘the after-the-last gasp of a corpse that finally can afford to admit it’s dead and accept resurrection”.

Unfortunately, the article is also filled with a series of strange and problematic arguments which may leave readers confused about what Baptists believe and what the relationship is between repentance and forgiveness.

First of all, why is a baptist minister promoting (on a baptist website) infant baptism? 

“This is one reason why infant baptism, not something all Baptists always appreciate or welcome, can be such a powerful witness to the Gospel. It makes public the claim that no amount of sincerity, grovelling, or religious acrobatics can achieve forgiveness. Rather, forgiveness comes before we ask for it, before we are aware of its need before we take our first breath.” 

As I was reading this paragraph a baptist pastor called me. He too was stunned by this out of place argument. The analogy may well find a home in Anglican or Presbyterians circles but it is certainly not Baptist. Don’t misunderstand, I love my Anglican and Presy brothers and sisters, but baptism is one of the key distinctives that set us apart. 

There is a reason why Baptists don’t “appreciate or welcome” infant baptism; it’s because we do not believe infant baptism as taught or practiced in the New Testament. Also, Baptists don’t accept that infant baptism is a “powerful witness to the Gospel” because we’re unconvinced that infant baptism is congruent with Scripture. Baptists do however gladly affirm and acknowledge how believers baptism holds a theological connection with God’s grace, as it does with repentance and faith. Baptism symbolises our response to God’s grace. It marks our receiving of God’s gift of salvation through faith in Christ. 

At Pentecost the crowds listened to Peter preach the Gospel. We read, 

“When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, “Brothers, what shall we do?”Peter replied, “Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. “

As the Baptist Union of Victoria’s Doctrinal Basis states,

“Baptism being the immersion of believers upon the profession of their faith in the Lord Jesus Christ, and a symbol of the fellowship of the regenerate in His death, burial and resurrection;”

I don’t know what Jason’s personal convictions are about baptism. It would be odd for an ordained baptist minister to hold to infant baptism.

It is also a little unclear whether Jason is in fact advocating infant baptism here or not. At one level that point is moot, for the issue is that a Baptist theologian believes infant baptism is a valid theological explanation for the grace of God. That in itself cuts against the grain of what Baptists believe. I confess that I also find it weird to read this kind of theologising in a Baptist context. As someone said to me last night, should we be expecting the next article to advocate for bishops?

There is another statement that sits uncomfortably. Jason claims, “confession is something like waking up to what is already most true about us – that we are loved beyond measure – and about God – that God will not be God without us!” 

I agree with the first and second parts of the sentence. But the third? God refuses to be God without us? Can God not be God without us? Is Jason suggesting that God needs us or that God is somehow lacking without us and without our repentance? What does he mean? I understand how theologians love to write in obscure and impenetrable ways, but sometimes this leaves readers (even intelligent readers) with a conclusion that may not be intended, despite how it reads. I certainly hope Jason isn’t suggesting a needy God.

There is another and broader theological issue that I wish to raise about Jason’s Goroncy’s piece. He repeatedly suggests that forgiveness comes before confession and repentance. Indeed, this is his main thesis.

“The parable [of the Prodigal Son] also suggests that as far as Jesus is concerned, real confession is both subsequent to and made possible by forgiveness. Only the forgiven can confess their sins.”

“forgiveness comes before we ask for it, before we are aware of its need before we take our first breath. It comes like a grieving father breaking all protocols – exposing his bare legs and running out to embrace a traumatised child at the edge of life’s horizon where life has become no life. It is pure gift. It is unthinkable. It is.”

I want to say a big ‘Amen’ to the suggestion that God’s forgiveness is a gift; I couldn’t agree more. If Jason’s primary concern is to guard against human performance and to emphasize God’s grace, that is a worthwhile venture. Indeed, it is not the perfection of our repentance which saves. Only Christ can redeem us, and His atoning death on the cross is sufficient for this task. However, to achieve this emphasis Jason has made a misstep. He seems to conflate forgiveness with grace. Of course the former is an expression of the latter, but the two are not identical. In making this categorical error, Jason argues that Divine forgiveness precedes repentance. 

In the example of the parable of the Prodigal Son, Jason suggests that forgiveness is the action the Father takes as he awaits his son’s return. In my view, that is reading too much into the parable. We are told, “while he was still a long way off, his father saw him and was filled with compassion for him; he ran to his son, threw his arms around him and kissed him” (v.20). This is certainly a picture of God’s grace. It is an exquisite illustration of the Father’s grace toward us. It is compassion that compels the father to take initiative toward his loved and yet undeserving son. In Darrell Bock’s 2 volume commentary on Luke’s Gospel, he summarises verse 20 in two words, “compassion reigns”. But to mount an argument from this scene that forgiveness is given prior to repentance is asking more of the text than we are given. 

This means we need to rely on other parts of the Bible. As we do, we discover that Divine forgiveness does not precede confession and repentance. Rather, grace precedes our confession and repentance (as in the prodigal son parable), and forgiveness follows our confession and contrition. 

Of particular note, following the Prodigal Son Parable, only two chapters later, Jesus say this, 

“If your brother or sister sins against you, rebuke them; and if they repent, forgive them. Even if they sin against you seven times in a day and seven times come back to you saying ‘I repent,’ you must forgive them.” (Luke 17:3-4). (Bold indicates my emphasis)

Forgiveness is conditional upon confession and repentance.

1 John 1:9 explains,

“If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”

Psalm 32:5,

“Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin.”

Again, assuming that Jason’s purpose is to stress God’s grace a priori, we can say that it is not the size of or emotional intensity of repentance that leads to forgiveness. We are nonetheless told in Scripture that forgiveness comes to those who confess their sins and turn from them.  In no way does this make repentance into performance, repentance is the acknowledgement of personal guilt before a holy God, the dependence upon the work of Christ for forgiveness, and the transformed life that follows.

Is there any sense in which God forgives prior to our repentance? Yes, but only in a very particular sense and only to those who are in Christ. To those who are called by God to be in Christ and on account of Christ, God forgives all our sins, including our yet to be committed sins.

Stephen Wellum explains, 

“from God’s viewpoint there is no problem with saying that when he declares us just, he forgives our future sins—as well as our past and present sins—since our future lies before him as an open book. Yet from our point of view, it’s best to think of our justification as the forgiveness of all our past and present sins, and as the judicial ground for the forgiveness of future sins.”

…There is absolutely no contradiction between justification by grace through faith and our need for ongoing forgiveness of sin. We ask God to forgive us not to be re-justified but to walk before him in confidence that Christ has paid it all, and we are debtors to grace alone. Justification occurs once for all time, yet confessing sin and receiving forgiveness is ongoing until we are glorified and sin no more.”

Baptists, Bible, and Marriage

/ MurrayCampbell / 6 Comments

In the midst of all the public conversations surrounding same sex marriage, are some issues of greater importance than how the State defines marriage; among them is the Gospel fidelity of Churches and of their ministers.

Simon Carey Holt is the Senior Minister at Collins St Baptist Church in Melbourne. He has written a piece in support of same-sex marriage. This is not anything new as Simon has made his opinions known for some time, but his latest advocacy has reached the attention of The Age newspaper.

Simon has made a series of strong assertions about why Christians should support same sex marriage, and allegations about how Christians relate to LBGTI people. Throughout the afternoon pastors, journalists, and friends have been asking me about it.  While not  intending to respond to everything he’s written, some sort of response is warranted.

1. The Bible or human experience as supreme authority

Simon admits that a key factor for shaping his view of marriage is experience; the personal stories of people whom he has encountered. In contrast to the historic understanding of marriage he says, “my experience says otherwise.”

To be fair, Simon does believe that the Bible is important for Christians, but as he admits, his experiences are what most influence his position on marriage.

Of course experience is powerful, personal, and emotive. Experience informs us of peoples fears and concerns, their values and dreams. But experience is not synonymous with what is true or best. Just because I may feel something deeply and personally does not automatically prove it to be right or good.

It is also true that everyone comes to the Bible with a mixture of personal history, experiences, ideologies, presuppositions and traditions. And those things colour our reading of the Bible, but this does not mean that experience should be read over the Bible, as Simon Carey Holt implies.

This approach to Scripture is fraught with danger. If experience is allowed to speak over Scripture then whose experiences do we listen to? Which ones are authoritative? Our different experiences need to be interpreted by Scripture, not the other way around. Not only that, the Bible’s self-testimony is that life needs to be interpreted in light of Scripture. Here are some examples:

‘Your word is a lamp to my feet and a light for my path’ (Ps 119:105). It is God’s word that directs our lives, not the other way around.

‘Preach the Word; be prepared in season and out of season; correct, rebuke and encourage—with great patience and careful instruction’ (2 Tim 4:2). The word of God preached has a threefold effect on the hearers: correction, rebuke and encouragement. God’s word stands over the Church and influences believers’ lives.

While we appreciate the logic of non Christians refusing the authority of the Bible, the consistent approach of Christians is that the word of God has authority over us. Genuine repentance and faith involves submitting to this Word and letting it interpret us and change us. To put experience over the word, or tradition over the word or human intellect over the word, is to put ourselves God and that is to make ourselves god.

At one point in his article, Simon appeals to the Bible,

“In his letter to the church in Rome, Saint Paul speaks of sexual failings as far more impacting than all others. “Don’t be immoral in matters of sex,” he writes, “that is a sin against your own body in a way that no other sin is.”

First of all, these words are not from Romans, but from the Apostle Paul’s First letter to the Corinthians (6:18).

Second, the Greek word for ‘sexual immorality’ (porneia), is used in the Bible to refer to any sexual activity outside marriage between a man and a woman.

Third, the very same chapter of the Bible earlier describes a range of porneia which all keep people outside the Kingdom of God, and homosexual practices are among them (v.9).

Fourth, if Simon does in fact wish to appeal to Romans, what he will find is another volume of Apostolic teaching that doesn’t support his ideas.

Simon is spot on about one salient point though, and that is, his views are at odds with his own denomination: “The Baptist Union of Victoria defines marriage as being the union between a man and a woman to the exclusion of all others, voluntarily entered into for life.”

ExperienceScripture.jpg

2. The Gospel of love

Simon also wants his readers to be suspicious of Christians who love LGBTI people. He suggests that such Christians are in fact disingenuous, unless they also support same sex marriage.

He states,

“In much church commentary of recent days, church leaders are at pains to underline their love and respect for LGBTI people, claiming that their aversion to same-sex marriage does not equate with their denial of the integrity of same-sex persons or the worth of their families. The availability of civil unions, they will say, is an expression of this; never have the rights of the LGBTI community been more protected, they argue, and rightly so, but marriage is surely a step too far…despite the current tenor of conversation, the underlying belief has not changed: homosexuality is a dysfunction of personhood. Indeed, the entire argument against same-sex marriage rests on it. To claim otherwise is not only misleading; it is dishonest.”

Sadly it is true that there are religious people who say and do dreadful things to LGBTI people; homophobic behaviour is unChristian. But Simon’s logic is simply untrue. He leans awkwardly toward that polarising rhetoric which so many politicians have adopted – if you don’t support same-sex marriage you are unloving, if not a bigot. Simon is too polite to use some of these words, but that is his meaning.

The reality is of course very different. It is possible to love a person even though you disagree with them. It is quite possible to not affirm a friend’s relationship and yet genuinely desire their good. Can disagreement never be a loving act? Is it never possible to so love a person that you sat to them, “no, I don’t think this is best”?

Love that only ever agrees is a shallow love indeed. A virtue of love through disagreement not only belongs close to the heart of Australian democracy, but comes to close to the centre of the Christian message:

“You see, at just the right time, when we were still powerless, Christ died for the ungodly. Very rarely will anyone die for a righteous person, though for a good person someone might possibly dare to die. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: While we were still sinners, Christ died for us.” (Romans 5:6-8).

The Gospel isn’t God saying, ‘I agree with you’, but  it is God declaring that he disagrees with us and yet loves. The Bible speaks of a God who acted beyond helping his friends. His Son gave his life for people who are disinterested in him and who don’t approve of him. God didn’t wait to win a popularity vote before acting to redeem and reconcile, but he took the initiative and in doing so God refused the path of blind relativism. God loves too much to agree with every desire and ambition we ignite.

Equally concerning is the way Simon frames his argument around his ‘Gospel formation’. I don’t know Simon well enough to speak to this in any general sense, but on the issue of sex and marriage, the Bible’s position is clear:

The Apostle Paul again,

“We also know that the law is made not for the righteous but for lawbreakers and rebels, the ungodly and sinful, the unholy and irreligious, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers, for the sexually immoral, for those practicing homosexuality, for slave traders and liars and perjurers—and for whatever else is contrary to the sound doctrine that conforms to the gospel concerning the glory of the blessed God, which he entrusted to me.” (1 Timothy 9-11)

Over the years I have read all the spectacular hermeneutical gymnastics that tell us how this text means anything and everything other than what it actually says, as though a simple reading of the Bible is the only wrong answer. Perhaps, just perhaps, Paul intends what he says, that the activities listed in verses 9-10 are contrary to the sound doctrine which conforms to the gospel.

While Simon’s argument for marriage contradicts the Gospel, the Gospel of Jesus is for those who have supported views of sexuality and life that are at odds with God. This point is crucial to grasp, for Christians and non Christians alike, because it ought to change our posture toward our neighbours, whoever they may be.

There is scene in The West Wing where the President’s Deputy Chief of Staff, Joshua Lyman, had been receiving counselling for PTSD, following a shooting in which he was one of the victims. Joshua’s colleagues had grown increasingly concerned for his well being as they observed his even more than usual brittle nature and explosions of anger. Following this counselling, Joshua steps into the hallway of the Whitehouse and notices his boss, Presidential Chief-of-Staff,  Leo McGarry, sitting nearby.

Leo asks, ‘How’d it go?’

Josh Lyman: Did you wait around for me?

Leo proceeds to tell Josh a parable,

“This guy’s walking down the street when he falls in a hole. The walls are so steep he can’t get out.

“A doctor passes by and the guy shouts up, ‘Hey you. Can you help me out?’ The doctor writes a prescription, throws it down in the hole and moves on.

“Then a priest comes along and the guy shouts up, ‘Father, I’m down in this hole can you help me out?’ The priest writes out a prayer, throws it down in the hole and moves on

“Then a friend walks by, ‘Hey, Joe, it’s me can you help me out?’ And the friend jumps in the hole. Our guy says, ‘Are you stupid? Now we’re both down here.’ The friend says, ‘Yeah, but I’ve been down here before and I know the way out.'”

Christians must not be and cannot be those who see someone down a hole and walk on by, or who throw a stone or hurl insults. If we have been justified in the sight of God it is solely on account of God’s grace and love. Having known this wonderful justifying grace, how can we look down on people around us? We can’t walk away, instead we climb down and sit with whoever it is down there, and we point them not to ourselves, but to Jesus.

3. A greater and more fulfilling identity.

A third issue with Simon’s presentation is that he has bought into a popular view of sexuality, one that alleges, “There is nothing that goes to the heart of human identity as much as our sexuality.”

This is of course not the case. I am not diminishing the role of sexuality in a person’s life, but the Gospel pushes back on the idolising of human sexuality, which leaves many single people feeling as though they are lacking, and it leaves many same sex attracted men and women sensing that celibacy is a barrier to true self realisation.

Sam Allberry is a minister in the Church of England. Speaking as a Christian who is same sex attracted, he writes,

“We in the West find ourselves amid a culture that increasingly encourages us to seek ultimate human meaning in sexual fulfilment. Our core human identity is found in our sexuality, which in turn is defined by our desires and attractions. Yet this is an appallingly inadequate way to account for a human being.”

Responding to an author who was advocating ‘Christian’ same sex relationships, Allberry contends,

“this is not a biblical understanding of what it means to be human. My sexuality is not to be found in my feelings but in God having created me male; it is not primarily psychological but bodily. So I am not to read my core identity off my sexual desires, but to receive the sexual identity God has already granted me as a male as a good gift to be lived out and enjoyed. My sexual desires are part of what I feel, but they are not who I am.

This is incredibly significant. If my sexual feelings are who I am at my core, then they must be fulfilled in order for me to even begin to feel complete and whole as a human. My sense of fulfilment is cast upon my sexual fortunes, and everything seems to depend on it. But being a Christian gives me a different perspective. My sexual desires are not insignificant; they are deeply personal. But they are not defining or central, and so fulfilling them is not the key to fullness of life. I suspect our culture’s near-hysterical insistence that your sexuality is your identity has far more to do with the prevalence of torment, self-loathing, and destruction than we have begun to realize.”

 

I have no doubt that Simon will receive much public adulation today, after all a Christian minister has laid aside the Bible and accepted the cultural milieu. Everyone loves a Pastor who repeats the popular mantras of the day. Sometimes though love requires something more, a harder path. As unpopular as it is right now, perhaps following Jesus and trusting his word is the best way to love people.