Christian speech

Australian Catholic University speech causes mass walk out

/ MurrayCampbell

The media is having a field day over a story that erupted at a graduation ceremony yesterday for the Australian Catholic University (ACU). 

Former Union chief, Joe de Bruyn, was awarded an honorary doctorate and delivered a speech to the newly graduating students. What followed led to 90% of students, staff, and family members walking out in disgust. 

I know very little about de Bruyn and I’m not making a judgment about where his heart is, but his speech may well go down in the annals of ‘how not to present a Christian viewpoint’ (if indeed this can be classified as Christian).

In his 15-minute address (which ACU heads knew about in advance), de Bruyn offered a critique of all that is evil in Australian society. He hit at 3 subjects in particular: abortion, IVF, and same-sex marriage. 

Unpopular opinion: it is possible to agree with the substance of his concerns (or agree in part) and also think de Bruyn’s speech is counterproductive and even unChristian.

First of all, I believe abortion is a terrible practice for society to accept. Taking the lives of the unborn isn’t a sign of cultural maturity and success; quite the opposite. Second, I accept Jesus’ understanding of marriage, and how marriage is between one man and one woman, intended for life. Third, I disagree with de Bruyn’s cancellation of IVF. IVF, like so many technological developments, presents us with ethical dilemmas that require much wisdom. For instance, a Christian couple may proceed with IVF along with agreed conditions, thus using the technology but with a much narrower moral parameter than what is set by law. More importantly, framing all these issues without the Gospel of Jesus Christ, will in fact distort each one and therefore misrepresent how we ought to speak of these issues in both church and society.

Second, why do I suggest that the speech was unwarranted and unhelpful?

There are 3 key components that work together and de Bruyn failed in 2 ½ of these:

i. What he said…

ii. How he said it…

iii. The occasion in which he said it…

Let’s start with the occasion. This was a graduation ceremony at a university, albeit a Catholic one. Being Catholic, I imagine this provides more latitude for Christian language and ideas to be present than if it was a secular institution. Even with this, is a graduation service the appropriate time to list all the evils in Australia and to vent all one’s personal axes and anxes onto the students and their families? I would be stunned if such a speech was delivered at a Christian theological college, let alone a mainstream university.

Second, I’m reminded of how often the Bible tells us that how we speak is as crucial as what we speak. 

Proverbs 15:1 says, “A gentle answer turns away wrath, but a harsh word stirs up anger.”

The Apostle Peter exhorts, 

“But in your hearts revere Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect” (1 Peter 3:15)

Paul writes, 

Therefore, as God’s chosen people, holy and dearly loved, clothe yourselves with compassion, kindness, humility, gentleness and patience.  (Colossians 3:12)

Speech that is void of love is like a cymbal repeatedly clashing in your ears; it’s jarring and we do your hearing no favours. As the Apostle says,

“If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal” (1 Corinthians 13:1)

Of course, truth can and often does offend, even when spoken with the gentleness, patience, and kindness of Christ. Look at how society responded to Jesus when he taught and showed the grace of God! Nonetheless, this doesn’t legitimise aggression or slander and a host of accompaniments that betray the Christian message. It may also be worth pointing out that when anger is expressed by God, Jesus, or the Apostles, it is often aimed at religious people for their hypocrisy and their failure to live out the faith they claim to have.

Why I am writing about Joe de Byun’s ACU speech? A reason for making a comment is because this address is symptomatic of a theme that is becoming far too common and accepted today in ‘Christian’ circles. It’s as though angry words mean faithful words. No, it doesn’t. Yesterday’s incident is all the more bewildering given that he was invited to speak, knowing his track record, and with some knowledge of what he was planning to say. 

Too often we are seeing angry Christians throw around words in the public space as though they are faithfully representing Jesus. Don’t get me wrong, anger has a place, but it shouldn’t be a regular go-to in public discourse. Are we trying to win applause from vocal supporters or are we trying to persuade people of a Gospel vision for life?

Hundreds of people walked away, a few staunch supporters remained, while others sat uncomfortably and embarrassed and required to continue with their duties. Did anyone leave with a better understanding of the Christian Gospel or of a life-affirming view of God?

Thankfully there were other words spoken at yesterday’s ACU Graduation. These words aren’t being reported in the newspapers but they were shared and how much more befitting,

 “As you take you next step, remember our mission. 

First, Act in truth and love. These words are from Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. Paul was writing to a community of Christians struggling with persecution and division. The love Paul talked about here doesn’t translate perfectly into English. He wasn’t talking about romantic love or the love between friends. He certainly was not talking about an emotion or anything sentimental. Paul was talking about a decision – an act of will – to live in ways that serve, and meet the needs of other people, especially when doing so is hard, and costly.

Second, Pursue knowledge. Knowledge founded in truth, and communicated with grace and compassion. We see every day the ugliness of discourse as it exists on social media. I encourage you to make the decision to mediate the knowledge you gained through your study at ACU by acting with gentleness and kindness.

Third, remember that all people are valuable. As you grow in confidence in your professional lives, don’t forget what it was to be unsure, vulnerable or unpopular. 

Finally work for the Common Good. My hope for you is that your professional lives promote the wellbeing of the peoples you encounter in your communities and in the wider world.   

… I’d entreat you though to remember that the real test before you as you enter the next stage of your lives as teachers, knowledge professionals, pastoral workers and business leaders is how you work for the good of others when you get no thanks or acknowledgement, when those ‘others’ are very different from you, when they challenge your patience, when they are hurtful and when your differences seem irreconcilable. As an institution inspired by its Christian ethos our mission would have us love the unlovable and reconcile the irreconcilable. 

Commit to this as you step through life and I am sure you will leave your piece of the world transformed for the better.    

Once again, my congratulations to you all and I wish you the very best in all you aspire to achieve”

How we speak does matter

/ MurrayCampbell / 1 Comment

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. 2 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. 3 When we put bits into the mouths of horses to make them obey us, we can turn the whole animal. 4 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. 5 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. 6 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. 

The Religious Version of Godwin’s Law: the latest attack on Bible believing Churches

/ MurrayCampbell

I’ve just read what is a pretty ordinary piece of opinion writing The Age. The approach isn’t uncommon, but it’s not particularly helpful. It is another attempt to deride Anglicans who wish to hold onto Anglican beliefs. Let’s remember, the beliefs in question (human sexuality), aren’t particular to Anglicans but are shared by Christians Churches globally and ever since Jesus inaugurated the church. 

Dr Kate Milner writes about some of her experiences growing up in churches, including an inner city Anglican Church in Melbourne. As the headline states, As a woman, I am glad to be free of the Anglican Church, Dr Milner is ‘relieved’ to be no longer part of the Anglican Church. Why?

She explains,

“When I read about schisms within the Anglican church and anger about the breakaway Diocese of the Southern Cross, which does not support same-sex marriage, I feel both sadness and relief. I feel sad that it has taken so long for the fundamentalist, ultra-orthodoxy of this emergent network and their extreme values to be called-out. While I lived it every day for decades, in the midst of it I was never able to find words for the bigotry of what has been described as a “network of ultra-conservative, fundamentalist, patriarchal, schismatic Anglicans who, predictably, claim to be the only truly orthodox Anglican Church.”“

Dr Milner doesn’t engage with the theological convictions that have given rise to the Southern Cross Diocese. She doesn’t offer any alternative other than a passing reference to a few Bible words, although with no consideration for their Bible meaning. Instead, she mounts a verbal attack on her previous church and any like it (which apparently includes the newly formed Southern Cross Diocese).  Dr Milner’s approach is simple and effective in a superficial sense. She unloads a barrage of insults. It doesn’t matter whether the words are true of these churches or not. It doesn’t matter whether she has even understood the meaning of her chosen words. Just throwing them at churches is sufficient. Obviously, someone thinks her tactic succeed, after all, it made the opinion page of a national newspaper!

I get how today’s rhetorical bamboozling works. Words are power and power brings influence and change. And so if I look inside the garbage bin of words and find the right ones to bring emotional charge to an issue, then that’s what I’ll use. The thing is, when one takes a look at Milner’s chosen language, one quickly realises that she’s firing blanks: loud but empty. 

Fundamentalist? No

Patriarchal? No.

Ultra Conservative? No.

Bigotry? No. 

Kate Milner may not like the fact (and it is a fact), but churches associated with GAFCON (and now with Southern Cross) hold to mainstream normal orthodox Christianity. There is nothing outrageous or ‘ultra’ anything about what these churches believe and practice. Indeed, the belief that men and women are men and women, and that marriage is reserved for one man and one woman, is as normal as it comes. These Anglican Churches affirm the same Christianity that is growing around the world today and which conforms to the faith once for all delivered to the saints. It’s the same Christianity preached by the Apostles and which comes from the lips and life of Jesus. 

By the sounds of it, Dr Milner prefers to align with a religion that is not those things, but (mis)using words because they come from the bag marked ‘terrible religious words’ and because it garners the ‘right’ kind of angry allies, is far from cultivating reasonable and important conversation. Therein lies a problem. If critics (and yes, there are also a few Anglican bishops who belong to this cheer squad) rely on spurious insults and slander to push for the downfall of orthodox Christianity, then their cause is already faulty.

I’m not privy to Dr Milner’s story beyond what she has written but I hope and pray that with time she changes her mind, because Christianity is good news. It’s the greatest message we can ever embrace. Sure, Christianity doesn’t swing along with the ever changing sexual revolution and all its latest iterations; Jesus offers a better story, a more secure hope.  

I’ve read a lot of nonsense recently with people attacking Churches for doing the very thing churches are meant to do: believe and live out the Bible. But there is also danger here for Christians. Yes, we grieve when people defame the name of Jesus and insult our churches, but we must also guard our own hearts and tongues. We mustn’t copy those who oppose us and resort to their patterns of speech. When we fail, we ought to repent and ask for forgiveness. It’s easy to respond when you’re angry or hurt with the same low level verbal artillery, but we mustn’t. 

Sometimes the wise decision is to say nothing in response; you cop the flack and ask God to sort it out.  I’ve had to repeatedly learn that important lesson over the years. At other times it is prudent to speak and correct the allegations. It’s the Proverbs 26 dilemma:

“Do not answer a fool according to his folly,

    or you yourself will be just like him.

Answer a fool according to his folly,

    or he will be wise in his own eyes.”

There is also a time and place for strong words. After all, Jesus cursed the Pharisees and the Apostle Paul could say of the false teaches infiltrating the Galatian churches,

“If anybody is preaching to you a gospel other than what you accepted, let them be under God’s curse”

Such language however should never be used lightly or inappropriately. Too often even Christians begin at 9 and dial up the rhetoric from there. The problem is, public discourse doesn’t encourage meekness and reasonableness and patience. We desperately need such approaches, but today’s world of white noise gives little attention to careful, fair, and important argument. Outrage and derogatory superlatives is the staple diet. If you want to be heard, use bigger meaner words.  As it happens, words like ‘fundamentalist’ and ‘bigot’ have become the religious version of Godwin’s law. They’re lazy and often untrue insults, but use them and the Colosseum crowd will lap it up.

My advice is this, avoid the mud and don’t forget the long game. If responding to every misrepresentation endangers us of jumping into the Colosseum and swinging our sharpest rhetorical swords, it is probably better to practice patience and joyfully take the hit. Other times, for example, when my neighbour is being slandered, speaking on their behalf may be a loving action. When ecclesial leaders promote a gospel that is no gospel at all, and there is an opportunity for us to speak with the manner of Jesus, then faithful church leaders ought to speak up so that God’s good news isn’t muddied. If we are looking for examples to follow at this present time, of how to speak truth with grace and clarity, look no further than to how evangelical bishops have conducted themselves in the public space over the past month, including Kanishka Raffal and Richard Condie.

“When they hurled their insults at him, he did not retaliate; when he suffered, he made no threats. Instead, he entrusted himself to him who judges justly.” (1 Peter 2:23)

“Do not repay evil with evil or insult with insult. On the contrary, repay evil with blessing, because to this you were called so that you may inherit a blessing.” (1 Peter 2:29)

“If you are insulted because of the name of Christ, you are blessed, for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you.” (1 Peter 4:14).

Let’s keep learning to respond and engage in a Christ like way.