human sexuality

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)

VCAT Given New Powers to Investigate Christians for Praying

/ MurrayCampbell

Which society is the following report depicting?

“human rights commission intends to use the full range of its new powers to investigate church groups and other organisations engaged in gay conversion practices, including seizing documents and pursuing them in court if they do not comply with orders.

The Andrews government gave the commission wide-ranging powers as part of its ban on gay conversion practices earlier this month, and Ms Hilton said the commission would not be shy about using them….”

“…Under the reforms, anyone can make a report to the commission about change and suppression practices from any member of the community.

“The commission can then investigate that complaint, but it also has significant power to conduct “own-motion” investigations where there is indication of serious or systemic problems.

This could involve forcing a person or organisation to take, or refrain from taking, certain actions to comply with the Equal Opportunity Act. Such undertakings and notices will be enforceable at VCAT. The commission will also have the power to compel documents and other information, and will educate the community to prevent such practices from occurring.”

If I had removed references to Victoria and Daniel Andrews, one could be forgiven for thinking the report was describing an authoritarian State like China or Iran. Surely this story in The Age  isn’t talking about a free and democratic society where the people have the right to discuss, debate, persuade, and even to help one another; sadly, this is Victoria. 

Sinicization is not only an agenda being forced upon the Chinese people by an authoritarian regime. We now have our own version here in Victoria as the State now subjects its citizens to new invasive and extreme laws that will strip people of basic freedoms of conscience, speech and association. Perhaps we should call it, Victorianization.  

The Victorian Parliament last month passed the Change or Suppression (Conversion) Practices Prohibition Bill 2020. 

Under this Act, criminal charges can be laid and convicted persons may face up to 10 years imprisonment and fines of $200,000. There is also a civil avenue for people wishing to make complaints against fellow Victorians, and it’s these new powers given to VCAT that are the focus of The Age’s story. 

An anonymous complaint is a sufficient reason for VCAT to open an investigation, compel you to produce personal documents and information, and force you to attend reeducation programs that will teach you what to believe about sexuality and gender. 

Dishonesty and misinformation have sadly controlled much of the recent debate. First of all, Government reports glaringly avoided the historical reality of how conversion therapy came from mainstream psychology and not from religious groups. For example, it wasn’t that long ago that aversion therapies were taught at a university here in Melbourne and practiced by doctors. Second, contrary to rhetoric offered by the Government and activist groups, conversion practices (ie aversion therapy) were always rare and unusual in religious settings. These are groups who blindly followed what was considered mainstream science at the time.

However, instead of  limiting legislation to banning an archaic practice that everyone agrees is wrong, the Parliament has outlawed praying and even talking with another person about sexuality and gender. People are free to discuss, pray, and counsel so long as their view of sexuality and gender conforms to the current set of theories being preached by activists. One problem is that these theories are so fluid, that even activists can’t keep up with the latest moral rights and wrongs.  It is worth highlighting that gays and lesbians and feminists have all expressed concerned that these new laws will prevent people from seeking the care and support that they have every right to find. 

What would Jesus do? How were early Christians encouraged to respond to questions about sexuality? Certainly with grace and kindness, to love and serve others, and to affirm the pattern given by God in Scripture. Indeed, all these factors belong together.

For example, on one occasion Jesus was asked a question about marriage and divorce. Jesus engaged in a discussion and responded to the questioner by affirming how marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus says all other sexual activity is immoral.

“Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’?So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”

… Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.” (Matthew 19)

The Apostle Paul wrote a personal letter to a group of people. He cited their sexual behaviour and called for change.

“Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with mennor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.” 

Flee from sexual immorality. All other sins a person commits are outside the body, but whoever sins sexually, sins against their own body.Do you not know that your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own;you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your bodies”. (1 Corinthians 6:10-11, 18-19)

One of the assumptions attached to today’s sexual ethics is that orientation ought to be expressed sexually. If you feel a certain way, it ought to be affirmed and lived. For Christians, the Bible suggests an alternative choice and a more fulfilling identity. The Bible describes Jesus Christ as the most complete human being to ever live and he never had sex with anyone. To encourage a person to follow Jesus’ example is now anathema and yes, even illegal in Victoria. 

Should people be free to talk about sexuality and gender, even encouraging a Christian view, without fear of the State hauling them before a tribunal?

Should churches have the freedom to encourage their members to live in accord with Christian beliefs on marriage, sex, and gender? 

In case readers assume that these laws are only targeting clergy, anyone can be investigated and anyone charged.

The Government told The Age that they are willing to have one discussion with the faith community. Victorian Equal Opportunity and Human Rights Commissioner Kristen Hilton holds out an olive branch (poison ivy, to be accurate), 

“We’ll be working with survivor groups but will also be working with faith leaders because it’s an opportunity to create an understanding…”

“Kristen Hilton told The Age her office also wanted to educate faith leaders and the broader community about the harm caused to LGBTI people by suggesting there is something wrong with homosexuality.”

The State, with all its spiritual insight and theological astuteness, is going to educate Churches about what we can and cannot say and pray? I don’t think so. Can we not coexist as good neighbours despite holding onto a different worldview? The State is not God, the Premier is not Archbishop, and VCAT is not the board of Elders. Let the reader understand, we are not talking about the law prohibiting invasive and harmful treatments that doctors were once trained to deliver, we are talking about banning consensual conversations and praying with people who are wanting to engage.

Activists have lobbied for Victorian society to be radically rewired and the Government has done their bidding. The average Victorian ought to be familiar with this imposition and overreach. Religious Victorians are now faced with a decision, will we obey Caesar or will follow God? This is not a choice that should ever be forced on people’s but it is the position in which many Victorians now find themselves.