From the Dean | 18th September 2009

Public holidays are a strange battlefield of belief.  But of recent time there have been considerable complaint about the Government of NSW upholding our traditional Easter and Christmas holidays.

An International Hindu organization has complained that other religions do not have their holidays recognized.  Keysar Trad the local Muslim spokesman has also complained.  He wants two Muslim holidays to be recognized as public holidays as well.  The retailers are not happy that shops must be shut.  And of course the secularists are unhappy that religion has any part in public life. 

It is not just NSW that is having this debate.  In the UK there is pressure to have a standard ‘Spring’ holiday rather than the continually moving Easter holiday. 

Furthermore, settling dates for holidays is not a new controversy.  The disagreement over the date of Easter was one of the great divides between Eastern and Western Christianity in Europe.

The debate raises thorny issues of State and Church.  Is Australia a Christian Nation?  Is that even possible?

The Bible does not promote a theocratic nation – where God rules the state.  In the Old Covenant Israel, it was a theocratic state that God chose to rule.  But in the New Covenant he chose individuals from every nation, tribe and people to be citizens of the Kingdom of Heaven. Entry into God’s kingdom is not by race or geography but by the persuasion of the truth and the inner working of the Spirit of God in the heart of the recipient.

This does not mean that Christians will have nothing to do with human governments.  God has appointed them to administer justice for the benefit of humanity (Romans 13).  We are to honour, obey and pay taxes to even evil and incompetent governments (1 Peter 2:13-17).  Nor does it mean that we will not influence nations and governments. We cannot lovingly live amongst people without seeking their welfare. The wisdom of God taught in his word is the clearest expression of justice available to humanity – inevitably we would want the nation in which we live to gain its benefit (Genesis18:17-19). 

So why should we make a fuss about this matter?  The selection of public holidays is just a presenting issue for an underlying struggle.  It is not too dramatic to call it a battle for the soul of our nation.

Over time many nations, tribes and societies have come to embrace Christianity as the basis for their constitutions or rule of law.  These are Christian nations.  Their morality and sense of justice, their organisation of family life and their cultural habits to varying degrees reflect Christian values.  They are not theocratic states (though some have mistakenly, disastrously and unchristianly tried to become so - to the shame of our name and reputation).

Thus Christian nations look different to nations, which have an Islamic, Buddhist or Marxist framework.  Christian nations do not seek to impose Christianity upon people by force of arms.  We welcome strangers and protect people of different beliefs, cultures and practices.  We have developed what is called tolerance.  By which we mean “a willingness to allow things that we do not necessarily agree with or even like without interference”.  Tolerance does not mean relativism – “the acceptance that all views are equally valid” – nor does it mean abandonment of your own position in favour of others.  Rather it is the refusal to impose your beliefs on other people as necessary for membership in society.

Public holidays are good for society.  As Christians we should oppose the rapacious greedy materialism that drives the retailers and traders to be open for business every day of the year and ignore the social wellbeing of workers and their families.  This is the end result of the individualism and social sterility of secular atheism where there are no holy days but just the continued monotony of work.

Public holidays are a time for celebration and commemoration of important cultural markers that have defined the historical making of a nation.  By them we are reminded of the history that has produced our distinctive national culture and are critical to maintain as the community develops.

As Christians we should not really be committed to dates and seasons (Colossians 2:16-17).  We should never have fought over that dating system of Easter.  And if it were set down for the same day of the year every year (like Christmas), it would not really matter.  Yet it is good for society’s self-awareness to be reminded of our Christian foundation through public holidays that celebrate the central concerns of Christianity, namely Easter and Christmas.

It is part of our tolerant society that not everybody has to observe or like public holidays.  We are not dragooned out for compulsory celebrations.  People can stay in bed or go fishing.  They can even complain about it.  Not everybody likes to celebrate our involvement in war on Anzac day, nor the European invasion on Australia day.  But these events were foundational to who we are as a nation.  In the same way there are Australians who do not like Christianity, but celebrating Easter and Christmas is an appropriate and Australian way to commemorate the foundational role that Christianity plays in our culture and nation.

From the Dean | 11th September 2009

In the midst of last Sunday’s celebrations of Father’s Day, I was told a depressing story of the rejection of fatherhood. 

A woman complained to us about a minister constructing a new liturgy that intentionally omitted any reference to God as Father.  Doing this around Father’s Day is more than a mixed message about fathers.  Rejecting the fatherhood of God is an assault on the very nature of Christianity.

In a sinful world it is undoubtedly true that there have been some dreadful fathers. It is also true that all fathers will from time to time fail in their duties and responsibilities.  Christians should weep with those who weep and defend the rights of the downtrodden.  So it is understandable that a Christian conscience will side with the victims of bad fathers.

The intimacy of family living makes children very vulnerable to sinful fathers.  Statistically the worst fathers are more often ‘stepfathers’ in de-facto relationships with the child’s mother.  Yet sometimes it is the natural father who is dreadful, while some stepfathers are wonderful examples of God’s fatherly love and kindness.

What makes the failure of fathers so bad is that they are the very people given the task of caring for their families.  It is one thing when a person fails you, or hurts you by their sinful action but it is so much worse when that person is the God appointed guardian of your welfare. 

The scars that some of us wear as a result of bad fathering are deep and painful.  But it is exactly these deep hurts that testify to the significance of fatherhood.  They do not signify the reason to dispense with fathers or fatherhood rather they signify the importance of the role and our need to raise the standards of fathering. 

The standard is God himself, from whom fatherhood is derived (Ephesians 3:14-15).  It is not that God is likened to human fatherhood, nor is fatherhood a metaphor for God.  God is The Father after whom our fatherhood is modelled.  He is the genuine real father and we are sinfully distorted images of him. 

This is why we are to call no man father except our Father who is in heaven (Matthew 23:9).  He is the real father of his people, and we must be wary of putting humans in his place. 

But God’s fatherhood is more profound still for he is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ (2 Corinthians 1:3, Ephesians 1:3, 1 Peter 1:3).  This is not a temporal activity of God but his eternal relationship with his Son. 

Thus in our prayerful dependence upon God we have been taught by the Lord Jesus to call God “Our Father who is in heaven”.  For every good and perfect gift is from above coming from the Father of lights (James 1:17).  And if our earthly sinful fathers know how to give good gifts to their children how much more will our heavenly Father give good things to those who ask (Matthew 7:11).  In particular our Heavenly Father will give the Holy Spirit to those who ask (Luke 11:13).

The Holy Spirit whom the Father gives is the Spirit of his Son – our Lord Jesus Christ.  Indeed we are told that, “Anyone who does not have the Spirit of Christ does not belong to him” (Romans 8:9).  And it is the Spirit who not only brings us new birth as the sons of God but also teaches us to call God “Father”, as we read in Romans 8:14-17:  “For all who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.  For you did not receive the spirit of slavery to fall back into fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption as sons, by whom we cry, “Abba! Father!”  The Spirit himself bears witness with our spirit that we are children of God, and if children, then heirs—heirs of God and fellow heirs with Christ, provided we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him” (cf Galatians 4:5-6).

Being taught by the Lord Jesus Christ to call God father, and being moved by the Holy Spirit to call God Abba, Father, it is a little difficult to understand how a minister of the gospel could ever purposely devise a liturgy that would avoid calling God “Father”.  Prima facie it appears that he could not have the Spirit of God – for he neither wishes to follow the teaching of Jesus nor is moved by the Holy Spirit to cry out to God as his Father.   

This rejection of fatherhood may be motivated by the sinful failure of human fathers, but it does nothing to help that problem and everything to make it worse.  We need to return to our heavenly Father to find forgiveness for our failures; both receiving forgiveness from him and being forgiving like him.  We need to find in his fatherliness the pattern and model of fatherhood to place before ourselves and the next generation of fathers. 

More importantly still, such a rejection of our heavenly father is not just confusion about fatherhood.  It is a serious assault on the very nature of our relationship with God our Father, through the Spirit of His Son our Lord Jesus Christ.

From the Dean | 4th September 2009

This week has revealed the sad and pathetic story of another political figure forced to resign because of a scandal in his personal life.  It is a story without winners – apart from media ratings.

An ex-premier has defended the man arguing that by his public service he has made significant and important contributions to the welfare of society.

On hearing the news that his adulterous affair with a woman young enough to be his daughter was about to be revealed, he resigned as a minister of the crown.  He publicly acknowledged that he had made “poor personal decisions” and took responsibility for his actions.  He expressed regret for causing ‘‘embarrassment to my colleagues, my friends, my community, my church and my family’‘.  But he denied that this affair directly affected fulfilling his cabinet or parliamentary responsibilities.

This episode has raised concerns about the interface between public and private lives.  How does a person’s private life affect their public service?  How far should the media intrude into the private lives of public figures?  What are the issues that are off-limits?  To what extent does the public have a right to know and to what extent does a person, even a public figure, have a reasonable right to privacy?

It is naïve to think that there should be no exposure of a public figure’s private life.  Democracy cannot work if the voters are kept ignorant about the candidates for whom they are voting.  Most candidates at the time of election are only too keen to show that they are part of a socially well-integrated happy and stable family.  The electorate feels instinctively that a person’s social stability is the hallmark of a responsible citizen and therefore a suitable candidate for government.

Some matters in a person’s private life directly affect their ability to govern.  It is understandable that a “morals campaigner” is open to public criticism if his personal life is inconsistent with his public policy.  It is understandable that a person’s financial mismanagement should be known before they are placed in charge of the treasury.

It is also naïve to think that only Christians are able to govern for the secular welfare of the nation.  To choose between an incompetent Christian and a competent agnostic is not difficult.  The choice is rarely that simple or stark but if a person cannot do a job their religious commitment is an irrelevance.

But what about morality?  Is it only the personally moral who are able to govern?  And which aspect of morality matters?  Will adultery affect a person’s ability to administer the government’s health scheme?

Government is more than managing and administering particular programmes.  It is about community leadership.  If rugby league players are supposed to be role models, how much more should government ministers set a good example?  The decisions that parliamentarians make are more than administrative bureaucracy or even more than one particular portfolio.  They are placed under pressure to make moral decisions daily for the welfare of individuals and the community.  Therefore “character” does matter.  Adultery fundamentally undermines trust.  How can the electorate trust a man who lies to his own family?

Furthermore, modern political life is unbelievably and unnecessarily stressful.  Politicians work long and unrelenting hours - often away from their family and friends who could speak the truth in love with them.  They are placed into continued conflict.  They are forced by the thrust and parry of journalists’ questioning to talk out of both sides of their mouth in that strange language called “media speak”.  They are encouraged by our system of government to be adversarial over everything in order to gain power for their own party.

The signs of stress in the life of this week’s casualty were showing last year in an episode in a restaurant.  But the unnatural and unhelpful life of public politics continues at the unrelenting pressure of busyness and public scrutiny.  Given today’s political pressure, the moral character of candidates matters more than ever.  It will determine if they are going to stand the strain while maintaining the moral compass that governs for public service rather than personal advantage.

The journalist’s attack and defence of the politician’s private life smacks of pharisaic hypocrisy.  A journalist’s private life is kept private, and their morality is never really questioned.  They attack the victim because it is a good story.  But that may mean nothing more than increased circulation and ratings.  They defend the victim’s right to privacy because their competitor broke the story first or because of their own commitment to adultery.

The division between private and public life is difficult to maintain.  It is like trying to differentiate who you are from what you do.  Liars tell lies and people who tell lies are liars.  Yet somehow we wish to make a distinction between our selves and our actions – between our inner self and the accidents of our behaviour – or between who we think we are and what our errors in judgement may suggest we are.

In the end it is not possible to hate the sin and love the sinner for it is the sinner who sins.  It is not the sin but the sinner who is punished.  We keep seriously underestimating how deep is our profound bondage to sin.  It is only by God taking the punishment for our sinfulness upon himself that we see how intractable is our problem with sin.  There is no other way to release us from our bondage – the bondage of our wills – to the all-pervasive power of sin.

It is heart breaking, but not surprising, that another of our leaders has cracked under the strain that we place upon them.  We need to pray for him and his family that they find in this disaster the saving grace of God’s mercy shown in the cross of Jesus.  But we also must keep praying for all whom God has appointed into government that they may be protected from the evil one as they seek to create and maintain justice in our land.

From the Dean | 28th August 2009

We must read the Bible in context.  But what is the context in which we are to read it?  And what is the relationship between context and content?

Last month as I preached through 1 Corinthians 12-14, I was reminded once again of the danger of ‘interpreting’ the Bible by context rather than understanding the content of the Bible.

There are two contexts that are often appealed to – one unconsciously, the other consciously.  The first is the experience of the reader.  The second is the assumed historical background of the original recipients.  Both can dominate the content of the text to enable the readers to find whatever they want.

It is impossible to read without being influenced by our own experiences.  Even the ability to read is an experience that we bring to the text.  The experience of listening to literature read aloud is different to reading silently by oneself.

But there is a common problem of assuming our experiences are the same as the author’s.  For example we experience ‘church’ long before we read about it in the Bible.  It is hard then to leave our experience of church behind and genuinely hear what the Bible writers refer to when they mention ‘church’.  Similarly translators are unhelpful when they retain words like ‘deacon’.  It is not actually a translation but transliteration - turning the Greek letters into an English word.  The Greek word means ‘servant’.  As our churches have office bearers called deacons it is normal for modern readers to wrongly assume that the Bible is talking of these people and their role.

That leads to the second context problem – the historical background.  The Bible was not written in a historical vacuum.  It was written with historical particularity.  God chose to write by human authors addressing particular historical situations that God had brought about to reveal himself.

This gives us the ability to read and understand what God said – for he spoke in human language.  Yet we do not know everything about the historical circumstances in which the Bible was written.  We know enough because there is a common human experience of life and because God created and revealed the context in which to speak.  But we do not know everything and must be wary of guessing what precise situation of life is being addressed, if it is not stated in the text.

It is the combination of unconsciously reading our own context into the Bible and of guessing a particular historical context of the Bible that opens up the real possibility of twisting the Bible to our own destruction.

So in studying 1 Corinthians 12-14 we come across terms like ‘speaking in tongues’ or ‘prophecy’ or commands about the participation of women.  Modern readers are fascinated by this passage precisely because of the practices and controversies of today.  We are tempted to read it in order to find ourselves in the Bible and justify what we are (or are not) doing.  We usually start by defining the terms and establishing the historical circumstance that Paul is addressing.  From these definitions and our best guess at the situation we then ‘interpret’ the text.  But this is ‘interpreting’ the Bible by context rather than understanding the content of the Bible.

The trouble is that Paul assumes that the readers know what these activities are and makes no attempt to define or even describe them.  He does not describe what the women were or were not doing, but simply states what they are and are not to do.  Our attempts to get behind the words of 1 Corinthians do not illuminate God’s meaning but reveal our modern confusion.

It is possible to see from the rest of scripture something of what ‘prophecy’ and ‘speaking in tongues’ may refer to.  The events of the day of Pentecost are described as “speaking in other tongues” (Acts 2:4).  There are a plethora of prophets in the Old Testament, which can give some basic idea of prophecy as ‘claiming to speak God’s word’.  But we do not know precisely what Paul was referring to, as he saw no reason to define the terms in order to make his point.  And we have to hold open the possibility that Paul was writing about something different than the other biblical references.

Guessing what may have been happening is not all bad – it is useful in opening our minds to possibilities.  The evidence in the text discounts some of these guesses.  But even if they cannot be discounted they are only guesses and cannot be used as the basis of knowing what was meant.

Furthermore we must not assume that the present day activities we call ‘speaking in tongues’ and ‘prophecy’ are the same as the New Testament activities.  This is to read our context into the Bible.  We must read from the Bible to our present context and not read our context into the Bible.

Understanding these limitations to our knowledge does not leave us completely in the dark.  The content of God’s message to us is very clear.  By contrasting the effects of two different activities, Paul teaches us about true spirituality in church.  Prophecy aims to edify others while speaking in tongues, unless interpreted, does not edify others.  Spirituality is neither prophecy nor tongue speaking but building the body of Christ.  The whole passage enlightens us as to what to do and not to do in church e.g. “strive to excel in building up the church”, “let all things be done for edification”, “Do not be children in your thinking.  Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature”, “All things should be done decently and in order”.

Our use of gifts must be governed by serving one another in love.  This is the spiritual work of the members of the body of Christ our Lord.  The Bible is the context in which we must read the Bible.  The content of God’s word is clear – the confusion lies in our minds.

From the Dean | 21st August 2009

Have you ever felt powerless?  Have you ever felt weak in the presence of others?  Do you feel overwhelmed by the non-Christian world around you?  Do you feel that your testimony to Christ is too weak and feeble to mention and that the criticisms of Christianity are too loud, vocal and confident to withstand?  Are you afraid that by speaking up for Christ you will lose your job or your friends or the respect of your neighbours or family?

Witnessing is a distressing activity.  Most Christians find it difficult.  We prefer to keep our light hidden under the bushel.  We don’t feel like a city on the hill.  Even when we are with Christians we can feel spiritually inferior.  When we consider mentioning the name of Jesus to unbelievers we can feel tongue tied and afraid.

Witnessing is not always eye-witnessing.  It is the activity of testifying to the truth.  It can be the truth that we have seen with our eyes or it can be to the truth that we know.  Jesus told Pilate that he came “to bear witness to the truth”.

Witnessing is always difficult because it is “testifying to the truth in the face of opposition”.  The only times we are called as witnesses is when there is some doubt or disagreement about the evidence.  It is only over things that are contested that there is any need for a witness to testify.  So witnessing happens in the context of conflict and “trial”.  Christian testimony always confronts the world.

Jesus’ promise of the coming of the Holy Spirit to witness in John 15:26 occurs in the context of persecution.  Jesus predicts his rejection and the coming persecution of the disciples (John 15:18-16:4).  The Spirit’s role in the world, as opposed to his work in the Apostles, is to “convict the world concerning sin and righteousness and judgement” (16:8).  This is not a separate or different work.  It is the work of the Spirit of Truth bearing witness to Jesus.  Each of the Spirit’s convictions of the world (sin, righteousness and judgement) is about Jesus (16:9-10).

It is for this reason that the disciples were assured of the coming of the Holy Spirit.  He is the witness to Jesus.  The apostles are also witnesses because they were with Jesus from the beginning.  The Spirit enables them to witness – to testify to the truth in the face of opposition.  In the gospel of Mark, Jesus warned the disciples of the coming time of persecution and reassured them of the assistance of the Holy Spirit.
“But be on your guard. For they will deliver you over to councils, and you will be beaten in synagogues, and you will stand before governors and kings for my sake, to bear witness before them.  And the gospel must first be proclaimed to all nations. And when they bring you to trial and deliver you over, do not be anxious beforehand what you are to say, but say whatever is given you in that hour, for it is not you who speak, but the Holy Spirit.” (Mark 13:9-11)

This is the background to the promise of the risen Jesus.  The Holy Spirit would empower the apostles not so much to do wonders and signs but to be his witnesses - to testify to him in the face of the world’s opposition.  So in Luke 24 we read “that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.  You are witnesses of these things.  And behold, I am sending the promise of my Father upon you. But stay in the city until you are clothed with power from on high.” (Luke 24:47-48)  And again the promise is given just before Jesus ascends “But you will receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you, and you will be my witnesses in Jerusalem and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth.” (Acts 1:8)

This is the power that enables witnesses to endure the opposition and hostility inevitable to everybody who speaks up for the truth that is in Jesus (2 Timothy 3:10-13).  But it also means that the powerful word of the Gospel comes to the elect with conviction and conversion.  “For we know, brothers loved by God, that he has chosen you, because our gospel came to you not only in word, but also in power and in the Holy Spirit and with full conviction.” (1 Thessalonians 1:4-5 see also 1 Corinthians 1:24, 2:4-5, 2:10-16, 2 Corinthians 10:1-4, 1 Timothy 1:7-8)

This is what enables us to minister the gospel in our weakness.  For when the Apostles were released from gaol they prayed that God would fulfil his promise of Psalm 2 and the place in which they were, was shaken and “they were all filled with the Holy Spirit and continued to speak the word of God with boldness”.  Indeed a few verses later we read “with great power the apostles were giving their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus” (Acts 4:31, 33).

Such is the work of the Holy Spirit in witnessing to Jesus through us, that we are able to minister the gospel in our weakness.  Even Paul came in “weakness and in fear and much trembling” (1 Corinthians 2:3).  Indeed he said that coming like this was good because the gospel is a treasure in clay jars “to show that the surpassing power belongs to God and not to us” (2 Corinthians 4:7).  The power of the evangelist must never obscure the power of the Gospel.

It is dreadful to feel powerless – but we must not follow how we feel.  We must trust Jesus’ promise that the Spirit will empower his witnesses to endure suffering and convict the world of the truth that is in Jesus.  It is why Paul asked people to pray that he may have boldness to speak (Ephesians 6:19).  Rather than feel powerless and do nothing we should pray for boldness and speak up.

From the Dean | 14th August 2009

In 1936 T.C. Hammond published his famous book “In Understanding Be Men.”  Its title came from the King James translation of 1 Corinthians 14:20: “in malice be ye children, but in understanding be men.”  Today it is translated “Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.”

Paul had already contrasted childish and adult ways in the previous chapter: “When I was a child, I spoke like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I gave up childish ways.”  The adult differs from the child in speaking, thinking and reasoning.  Thus in chapter 14 we read the commands to “not be children in your thinking. Be infants in evil, but in your thinking be mature.”

It is usually a sign of childish unspirituality when people accuse some churches of being too cerebral.

It is true that our response to God must not be limited to the mind for we are also to love God with all our heart, soul and strength (Mark 12:30).  It is also true that knowledge has the danger of puffing up in contrast to love, which builds up (1 Corinthians 8:1).  Furthermore Christian understanding can be contrasted to worldly wisdom.

But the New Testament teaches the importance of the mind in the Christian life.  We come into the gospel of truth by being “taught” the word of God (e.g. Ephesians 4:21, Colossians 1:6-7).  One of the major concerns of the Apostle’s prayers and thanksgivings is for Christian understanding (e.g. Ephesians 1:17f,  Philippians 1:9f, Colossians 1:9f).  Furthermore it is one of the concerns of writing to the churches that they not be ignorant but understanding (e.g. 1 Corinthians 11:3, Ephesians 5:17, 2 Timothy 3:1 2 Peter 1:12f).  Even, and especially, in the area of “the spiritual” we are not to be uninformed but must have understanding (1 Corinthians 12:1-3).  It is a false dichotomy to place the spirit over against the mind.

The command to adult thinking in 1 Corinthians 14:20, comes directly after the appeal to speak intelligibly in church rather than speaking in tongues that are not understood.  “Nevertheless, in church I would rather speak five words with my mind in order to instruct others, than ten thousand words in a tongue” (v19).  The activity of building each other and the church requires the adult reasoning and mind and therefore intelligible speech.  Talking like infants does not lovingly serve or edify other people. 

Immediately Paul presents some “mature”, “adults only” thinking from the Old Testament about the place of tongues. As I preached through 1 Corinthians 12-14 in the last five weeks, it was interesting that this section seemed to create the most reaction.  Paul’s argument here is as foreign to 21st century Christian thinking as any part of the three chapters.

Speaking in different tongues is seen in the Old Testament as the judgement of God upon sinful people.  It first arises in the Tower of Babel episode in Genesis 11.  There, in order to judge and disperse the peoples of the world, God confused their tongues (“languages” in most English translations).  On a much later occasion in Babylon there is the classic scene of the announcement of judgement when Belshazzar is told of his impending destruction by a message written in a strange tongue, which needs interpretation/translation by Daniel.

But the passage Paul refers to is Isaiah 28.  There in the context of childish speech and adult understanding, God promises to send his message in a foreign tongue upon unbelieving Israel so that they may hear and not understand. As Paul expresses it in 1 Corinthians 14 “By people of strange tongues and by the lips of foreigners will I speak to this people, and even then they will not listen to me, says the Lord.”

It is a simple observation that victors impose their language on conquered nations.  When your language is no longer spoken in the community, your nation has been defeated. God’s judgement could be heard when Assyrian was the language of the streets and villages of Israel.  Thus speaking strange tongues was a sign to unbelievers of the judgement of God upon them.

It is not a sign of their salvation but of their condemnation.  So when Paul talks of tongues in church being a sign to unbelievers, he does not mean a sign of their salvation but one that will confirm them in their unbelief.  He illustrates this by citing an outsider attending a church when everybody is speaking in tongues.  The outsider will not be saved by such behaviour – just the reverse.  He will leave thinking you are out of your minds.  Only a group of madmen would gather together to speak to each other in tongues that they do not understand!

This is in contrast to the spiritual activity of prophecy.  For whoever prophesies “speaks to people for their upbuilding and encouragement and consolation” (1 Corinthians 14:3). So, even an outsider coming in and hearing your prophesying to one another will be challenged by your activity.  Rather than calling you mad he will declare, “God is really among you”.

The contrast of tongues and prophecy is that tongues condemn the unbeliever while prophecy builds the believer and even can save the unbeliever.

It is therefore something of an unspiritual childishness to insist on speaking in tongues in church, or to make it the hallmark of our spirituality or church life.  That it is not to be forbidden (1 Corinthians 14:39) is hardly a ringing endorsement for its encouragement.  To build a church and its reputation on the Pentecostal/Charismatic experience is an infantile failure to understand the work of the Spirit or the work of Christ in building his church through our loving service of each other.

From the Dean | 7th August 2009

It has been another sad week for the media.  As with the football scandal of a few months ago another high profile media personality has lost his job because of public outcry.

I make no excuse for these men or their behaviour – but they are only scapegoats.  We are not sacrificing them in order to repent and change our ways.  We are sacrificing them so that we can continue our system of self-indulgent sinfulness.  We are addressing an extreme symptom without considering the disease that gives rise to such symptoms.

The system and disease is materialism.  Materialism is the philosophy that our society is choosing to adopt as our lifestyle.  For most people the choice is not made philosophically but economically.  It is made unconsciously as we ride the waves of affluence, subtly shifting in our value system until somebody goes too far and we axe him.  By removing the extremist we can continue on our journey unhindered by questions of what gave rise to his terrible actions.

Materialism is the philosophy that emphasises the material world over the spiritual.  As the Oxford Dictionary puts it: materialism considers “material possessions and physical comforts as more important than spiritual values”.  This is economic materialism.  It is the “love of money” which God warns us is “a root of all kinds of evils.” (1 Timothy 6:10)

Behind this economic materialism lies the philosophical materialism that the dictionary describes as “the doctrine that nothing exists except matter and its movements and modifications”.  This is atheism and secularism.  Few people accept this atheistic view of the world, but many accept its lifestyle of amoral economic materialism.

The amorality of materialism has led to the degeneration of our mass media, which in turn has fed the amoral materialism of our society.  It is a feedback system that is only going to get worse till the system, as a whole, is challenged.  In the hands of private capitalists, who with government assistance have limited the licenses to a few companies, we have the profit motive providing our window into the world.

What we as a community are able to know about - the news and public debates as well as the creative presentations of fiction, art, music and drama - is determined by the economic profit motive.  The key consideration is “will this show bring an audience to the advertiser?”  Whatever it takes to bring the audience to the advertiser is fair game for public consumption.

Given the sinfulness of the human heart – “whatever it takes” – will inevitably be an increasing degeneracy.  Sinful people find immorality titillating.  But this fascination, like all addictions, requires continued escalation to hold its appeal.  What is broadcast or published today was unthinkable only a few years ago. 
What will be published and broadcast in the future is unthinkable today.  Watch (or rather don’t watch) as pornography becomes increasingly mainstream.

Censorship is not the solution.  It requires some social cohesion on a different basis than materialism to determine what standards are going to be enforced.  If it is by Government fiat then dictatorship has arrived.  Political and philosophical censorship does such damage to truth and justice that it must be resisted.  Even a democratically elected government cannot be trusted with the power to censor.  It will easily fall prey to the materialists’ bribes to lower standards or its own desires to “sanitise” political discussion.  Changing brands of economic materialism will not solve anything.  Capitalism lives on greed and Socialism on envy – neither is going to create a better society.  To divide all our political debate on this basis is to commit everybody to materialism.
And yet the issue of public media is a social concern.  “No man is an island entire of itself.”  What I read and watch and listen to affects not only me – but also you who have to live with me.  My children are being raised in company with your children. My teenagers’ choices and behaviour will affect yours as they live through the powerful influence of peer group pressure.

It is materialism that promotes the ideal of individualism – “what I read and watch in the privacy of my own home is of no interest or consequence for anybody else”.  We know that is not true because we ban child pornography.  But turning off the channel does not remove the problem.  I pay at the checkout for the advertising.  I live in the society whose media promotes anti-social behaviour.

Industry self-regulations and complaint bodies do not seem to work.  How can materialists self regulate against the interests of their shareholders?  Complaining does little to stop the trend towards degeneracy.  It only increases publicity and “all publicity is good publicity” when it comes to making money.  Only when there is the likelihood or threat of losing money will the materialist take any action.  It is only the possible loss of an audience for the advertisers that has lead materialists to axe this week’s scapegoat and make us feel morally safe again.

Nothing is going to change until society is established on a higher basis than the profit motive.  It may be a good motive for business but it is a disastrous one for society and the flow of information in public media.

Increased affluence does not increase happiness.  On the contrary it is the non-economic commitments to friendship and family, hobbies and community voluntary endeavours that bring greater satisfaction.  Yet still the materialists pursue materialism as the way to happiness.  Even the fact that we describe much of the most valuable community’s activities as the “not for profit sector” shows the all-pervasive influence of materialistic thinking.  Atheists do not win in the classroom but at the checkout.  Their rationality and their evangelism are not intellectual but economic.

Our society needs a change of heart.  It needs Christians to renounce economic materialism and to prayerfully declare the great news of spiritual rebirth through our risen Lord Jesus Christ.  Only people turning back to God, is what will improve society.

From the Dean | 31st July 2009

This month we have two of the world’s Evangelical leaders visiting our Cathedral.  They will speak at our Spring Convention on Saturday afternoon (15th) and preach at our Sunday gatherings on the following two Sundays (16th and 23rd).  The Spring Convention will address the two questions: “What on Earth is God Doing?” and “What on Earth are We Doing?”

William Taylor is the Rector of St Helen’s, Bishopsgate, in the city of London.  This is the church made famous by the ministry of Dick Lucas.  Sited in the centre of the business district of London, wedged between the two modern icons of the Lloyds building and the Gherkin, St Helen’s has conducted a large and significant lunch time Bible study ministry for about fifty years.  Out of this lunch time ministry has grown three large city ministries to families, students and young professionals.  In addition to this, St Helen’s has sponsored the Evangelical Ministry Assembly, the Proclamation Trust and the Cornhill Training Course, while actively planting churches in London.

William is a great preacher of God’s word - committed not only to Biblical exposition but also to raising the standards of Biblical preaching.  He leads a huge ministry team in a vital and vibrant city ministry.  He is in the forefront of Evangelical Anglican leadership in Britain today.  An ex-army officer, he stands fearlessly for Christian truth in the present troubled times of the Church of England.  A man of great principle and action, he and his staff have refused to be paid by the Church Commissioners, in protest over current policies.

Mark Dever is the senior pastor of Capitol Hill Baptist Church in Washington D.C. – only a few minutes walk from the United States Capitol building.  This famous church had huge membership during much of the twentieth century.  The great Evangelical leader and scholar Carl Henry was one of its Sunday School teachers.  But by the time Mark was called to the church in 1994, the attendance had dropped to about a hundred.  The last fifteen years have witnessed a remarkable turn around as this church has once again grown in size and confidence in God’s word to become one of the leading congregations in Washington and within evangelical church life of North America.  Through Capitol Hill Baptist Church’s “9 Marks Ministries”, a real challenge has been issued to the very nature of church life and its current expressions in America.  By this means Mark Dever has become a leader, not only in his own denomination, but also across the whole Evangelical community.

Mark is a man of great energy and engaging personality.  He is quite the scholar with degrees from Duke University, Gordon-Conwell and Southern Baptist Theological Seminaries and a doctorate from Cambridge.  He has written several books both at the scholarly and public end of the spectrum.  He has ministered both in England and America and this will be his second or third trip to Australia. 

The main reason for their invitation to preach in Sydney is to speak at two clergy conferences conducted by the Diocesan Department of Ministry Training and Development.  The first conference is called “The Ministry Intensive” on the topic of “Ministry Today: New Opportunities”.  It is open to all Christian ministers and will be at the Cathedral on Monday the 17th and Tuesday the 18th August.

Following the conference, there is a residential conference at the Anglican Youthworks property in the National Park, for assistant ministers who are enrolled in our Ministry Development programme.  This gives about 150 of our recently trained ministers the opportunity to hear and engage with Mark and William in a much smaller setting.

Please pray for these men and their ministry to our city.  Thank God for them, their churches and their families.  Pray for our hearts and minds that we will be willing to listen in humility to what God has to say to us from his word through his servants’ teaching.

From the Dean | 24th July 2009

Dear Friends…

Preaching through 1 Corinthians 12-14 raises numerous questions about miracles.

Our modern culture has been dominated by the wonders of machinery since the industrial revolution.  We know the power of explaining everything in terms of cause and effect.  Any apparent interruption in the machinery of creation disturbs our explanation.

Such interruptions set up a disturbance between our belief in the Creator and our belief in the orderliness of creation.  If the Creator is interfering with the creation, then our sense of security in the stability of our world is undermined.  We cannot be sure that tomorrow will be the same as today.  We cannot be sure that the same cause will have the same effect.  Science and technology are built on the basis of this consistent orderliness of the created world.  Miracles seem to be a challenge to our whole way of thinking.

If the Creator creates creation and then leaves it alone like a well-oiled machine to function as it has been created, we can get on with our work of understanding the machinery of creation.  But if God continues to interfere with it, then we are unable to master it, for it has become unpredictable.

Thus for generations, those Christians most influenced by modern thought have been keen to downplay the miracles of the Bible and the possibility of miracles today.  All manner of explanation have been given for the miraculous.  It is said that Jesus did not walk on water but in the shallows; that he shamed the five thousand men into sharing their bread; and that Lazarus was not dead but in a coma.

In reaction to hardcore naturalistic explanations of the world, a more ‘spiritual’ explanation has arisen in our society.  New age bookshops and alternative medicine claim a large and growing market.  There is a new openness to magic, fantasy and science fiction.  For many people it is not fiction.

Those Christians most influenced by this reaction to naturalism emphasize the miracles of the Bible and of today.  “A spiritual war for the soul of humans fought out by demons and spirits” is an attractive alternative explanation to the godless conspiracy theories of fantasy science fiction.  Furthermore there is the reality of what Jesus did and what we can see happening around us today.

But the Bible has a different view of God and the world to that of naturalism and reactionary spiritualism.  The miracles of the Bible are not viewed as a suspension of the fixed laws of cause and effect.  Some of them like the crossing of the Red Sea are even explained in terms of ‘natural’ causes without diminishing for a moment their status as a miracle.  Within the Bible the creation is not a self-sustaining machine but is personally upheld, in all its details, by God.  He, not the creation, is our security and stability.

Within the Bible the miracles point to God, not to prove his existence but to indicate his plans and purposes.  Some are indications of his judgement upon human sinfulness.  Some are to rescue people from the consequences of the fallen world in order to show God’s love and faithfulness.  The important thing about miracles is not their sheer wonder and amazement but their significance.  Little wonder John calls them “signs”.

The miracles of Jesus and the apostles often have particular significance.  John tells us that his reason for choosing to record the signs that he does is “so that you may believe that Jesus is the Christ” (John 20:31). Jesus’ actions revealed that he was the Christ as he displayed his Father’s glory of grace and truth (John 1:14).

More specifically, Jesus’ signs fulfilled the Old Testament expectations of the Christ.  So he replaced the symbolic water of legal cleanliness with the spiritual wine of new life.  He was the prophet like Moses feeding the multitude in the wilderness and walking ahead of them across the sea.  Jesus was glorified in demonstrating he was the resurrection and the life in raising his friend, Lazarus.

Similarly the Apostles’ miracles carry significance beyond the mere fact of God’s power.  These symbols of salvation and inclusion in the kingdom show the lame man entering the temple, the eunuch being baptised, the salvation of the Samaritans and the Gentiles, the miraculous inclusion of pagans in Lystra and the conversion of magicians in Ephesus.

The miracles happened because God is God.  He is the sovereign ruler of the universe for whom nothing is impossible.  They can happen today just as they happened at the time of Jesus.  We must not exclude from God the power and possibility of doing anything consistent with his character and revealed will.

However, miracles show us what God did, not what he will do.  They do not tell us whether he will do the same or similar or even different miracles today.  Only the clear promises of God will tell us what he is planning to do and what we should expect to see.

We know that it is an evil and adulterous generation that seeks signs and so Jesus refused to provide miracles on request or to trust people who believed because of miracles (Matthew 16:1-4, John 2:23-25).  Furthermore to avoid sidetracking his ministry Jesus withdrew from doing miracles (Mark 1:35-39, John 7:1-9).  He even warned us of false prophets and unbelievers who could perform miracles (Mark 13:22, Matthew 7:21-23).  So the performing of miracles, even in the life of Jesus was not continuous and “on demand”.

After all, Jesus did not ultimately come into the world to perform miracles but to save sinners.

From the Dean | 17th July 2009

Words can mean whatever you want them to mean.  But having your own definition limits your ability to communicate with other people.

Names and labels are very useful in communication when there is agreement about their meaning.  They are a short hand way of identifying objects, ideas, movements or even people.

Unfortunately they run the danger of becoming part of political power struggles.  One of the ways to marginalise people is to give them an undesirable name.  One of the ways of growing in power is to adopt a label that carries with it great credibility.

In the 1960’s, every University subject had introductory lectures explaining that it was a science.  As an Arts undergraduate I found this a little confusing.  Why was it so important for History, Economics or Geography to be a science?  I did not appreciate the value of the title deeds contained in the word “Science”.

This danger of power struggles is true of religious and theological labelling as well.  Theological terms usually have a specific historical root defining a particular viewpoint.  Using such labels helps in communication.  But over time, and as they are used for political purposes, confusion instead of communication ensues.

One of the classics in this is the label ‘Fundamentalist’.  Its historical root is at the turn of the 20th century.  In reaction to Modernists, some scholars wrote a series of books calling for a return to the fundamentals.  These scholars argued for the fundamentals of the faith such as the trustworthiness of the Bible, Christ’s virgin birth, miracles, atoning death and bodily resurrection.  Views that most Christians still hold today.  But today the word ‘fundamentalist’ means “red-necked, anti-intellectual, violent fanaticism.”  It is a term of abuse aimed at extremists or fanatics of any view - Christian or not - religious or not.  Now, very few Christians would be happy to be called a fundamentalist.

The value of some labels changes with the company you keep.  In many circles ‘Reformed’ or ‘Calvinist’ are pejorative terms.  And yet among other groupings they are signs of genuine Christianity.  As Calvinists are becoming the flavour of the month in the USA, suddenly all manner of people are claiming to be ‘Reformed’ who previously would eschew the label.

Some confusion arises because not all Christian labelling is the same.  All the labels have a theological perspective and have arisen from a specific historical circumstance.  But some emphasize a common church government (e.g. Presbyterian, Episcopalian, Baptist).  Others emphasize a common experience (Pentecostal, Charismatic).  Others emphasize a common theological perspective (Arminian, Calvinist, Evangelical, Liberal).

Many labels legitimately apply to a variety of viewpoints.  “Protestant” includes different denominations (e.g. Lutherans, Anglicans, Presbyterians) as well as a variety of theologies.  Yet it retains a central meaning of “not Roman Catholic” and the common heritage of the reformation.

Today a number of Christian, even Biblical, terms are bandied about as different groups struggle to gain legitimacy as the mainstream Christian movement.  While anybody is free to claim any name and to change its meaning to suit themselves, it does help communication to remind ourselves where the label came from.  It also helps us to see how the label is being used politically today.

So here is a short glossary of the historical roots of common labels:

“Protestant” as a word comes from the “protest” of the German Princes at the Diet of Speyer in 1529.  It came to stand for all those who accepted the Reformation teachings (e.g. the authority of Scripture, justification by faith alone, the priesthood of all believers) in opposition to the Pope.

“Reformed” is also a 16th century name.  It was used to refer to the Calvinists over against the Lutherans.  Both groups were Protestant and shared much in common.  However, Calvin’s theological system spread more internationally and inter-denominationally than Lutheranism (e.g. our Anglican doctrine of the Lord’s Supper is Reformed rather than Lutheran).  Next Saturday, to celebrate the 500th anniversary of Calvin’s birth we are holding a special conference on “Calvin and The Holy Spirit” at the Cathedral.

“Evangelical” is a word that came from the great evangelistic preaching of the 18th century.  It was a Protestant movement.  So it accepted the great reformation truths such as the authority of the Bible, the finished work of Christ in his sacrificial death for sin, and justification by faith alone.  But the Evangelicals had particular emphasis upon regeneration and personal conversion - upon being born again and repenting.

“Pentecostal” is a word that came into vogue at the commencement of the 20th century.  It started in Kansas and spread around the world from meetings in Azusa St in Los Angeles.  The springboard of this movement was being ‘baptized in the Spirit’ as a second and distinct experience from conversion and evidenced by ‘speaking in tongues’.

“Charismatic” or “Charismatic Renewal” is the preferred term adopted by the 1950-60’s ‘neo-Pentecostal movement’.  Unlike the Pentecostal movement that established its own churches, the Charismatic movement stayed within mainline churches to bring “renewal”.  Charismatics continued the Pentecostal teaching that the Baptism in the Spirit was a separate and distinct experience.  But they were more likely to see the Baptism as a filling with the Spirit or a releasing of the Spirit.  They were less insistent on the necessity of speaking in tongues as evidence of that baptism.  Rather there was a greater emphasis on a whole gamut of gifts being used in church.

“Neo-Charismatic” or the “Third Wave” movement commenced in the 1970-80’s.  It is most easily visible in the teachings emanating from C. Peter Wagner of Fuller Seminary, and initially made popular through John Wimber.  Accepting the Evangelicals’ critique of the Pentecostal view of Baptism in the Spirit the neo-Charismatics emphasize the necessity of varied extraordinary and miraculous “signs and wonders” of power, both in evangelism and church life.  For them, ‘speaking in tongues’ is only one of many phenomena that are indicative of the Spirit at work.

From the Dean | 10th July 2009

Christian freedom is the freedom to be a servant of others.  (Galatians 5:13).  The freedom that is “Christian” is the freedom that enables me to do what I don’t like.

The freedom that allows me to do whatever I want is not Christian freedom - it is license and sometimes licentiousness.

True Christian freedom allows me to do things that are foreign and strange to me so that I may be able to love others and serve them with the Gospel.

When, in the name of Christian liberty, I am free to do what I wanted to do anyway, a deep suspicion enters my mind.  It is not that God wants to deny me any pleasure but that I know my motives are corrupted by sin.

It is similar to my suspicion of guidance by the Holy Spirit.  Many years ago I noticed that whenever the Holy Spirit gave career guidance to people it was always in the same upwardly mobile, well paid, high status direction as the pagan materialists.  A deep suspicion entered my mind about which spirit was giving this guidance.  It did not sound like Christ’s Holy Spirit.  Christ made himself nothing and took the form of a servant and humbled himself (Philippians 2:4-8).  For Christ’s Spirit to guide all his people towards upwardly mobile middle-class affluence seemed questionable at the least.

So when in the name of Christian freedom I wish to conform my life or reform the church to the culture of sinful Sydney, alarm bells ring.  It is supposed to be “cutting edge”, “contextualisation” and “missional”, but it sounds like the failed agenda of theological liberalism - always trying to be relevant but never being Christianly countercultural.

Our message to the world is repentance, not acceptance.  Our aim in church is holiness not conformity.  Repentance and holiness are the opposite of acceptance and conformity.  It is the holiness of God’s people that commends the gospel.  If we are no different to the world around us we have nothing to say to the world.

Yet, Christian freedom is essential to preserve the truth of the Gospel.

We are saved by the grace of God, not by keeping the law.  It is illusory to think that we will ever perfectly keep the law of God.  The law of God does not save us but condemns us.  We can only be saved by the gracious mercy of God found in the death of His Son.

Sadly, religious people not only seek to impose the law of God upon others but sometimes also make up additional rules and regulations.  Even those who know of the death of Jesus tend to add rules to the gospel.  Often these are added with the best possible motives of trying to help Christians to walk in holiness.  But unfortunately they so compromise the grace of God’s mercy that it is harder to join the earthly church than to be accepted into the heavenly assembly!

In reaction to this false emphasis on law some people turn our liberty into license.  They preach that all is grace and Christians are entirely free from any law.  The cry that “All things are lawful for me” is as old as the apostle Paul (1 Corinthians 6:12f), but he knew that he was not “outside the law of God but under the law of Christ” (1 Corinthians 9:21).  It is by God’s grace Christians receive the Spirit of God.  But the Holy Spirit writes God’s law on our hearts and moves us to obey it.  The gospel of grace does not contradict the law (1 Timothy 1:10-11, Galatians 5:4) for Jesus did not come to abolish the law but to fulfil it (Matthew 5:17ff).

However, evangelists are rightly keen not to compromise the gospel by adding rules to it.  The cross-cultural evangelist in particular needs the flexibility of freedom to be “all things to all people, that I may save some” (1 Corinthians 9:22).  Such missionaries must have a firm grasp on Christian freedom in order to be “as a Jew to the Jews” or “to become weak to win the weak”.  It is hard enough to persuade the man in the street that the Gospel is not about morality but pardon and regeneration - without reinforcing his false views of the gospel by Christian legalism.

The Church has a part to play in this also for we must not conduct the church in a way that fits all the false stereotypes about Christianity.  Rather, we want to welcome all manner of people without “quarrels over opinions” (Romans 14:1ff).  Whether our differences are over food or drink or holy days we must remember that: “The kingdom of God is not a matter of eating or drinking but of righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Spirit.” (Romans 14:17).  A church in a developing multi-cultural society will not restrict its behaviour to yesterday’s mono-cultural mainstream.

However it is not the church but the individual, who must exercise freedom in the service of others.  The church seeks to build Christians in holiness, the evangelist to reach non-Christians for their salvation.  Being sensitive to seekers who attend church is not the same as running church for seekers.  The word of God, not the culture of the world, must set the agenda for church.

So when I think of constructing a contextualised church culture I want to ask: “where is the holiness of a Christian culture being developed here?”  And when I do something on the basis of Christian freedom, I want to ask: “Is my freedom one that enables me to do something that I wanted to do anyway, or is it a freedom that is enabling me to serve other people by doing things that are unnatural for me or that I do not really like?

I like to do as I please but sometimes, Christian freedom means wearing an uncomfortable suit and other times enduring some unpalatable modern music.

From the Dean | 3rd July 2009

Should Christian politicians mention religion?  An article in the current Australian Journal of Political Science concludes: “politicians should exercise caution when invoking religion in Australian politics.”

The article expresses a concern that there is a shift in political philosophy from the “liberal consensus” championed by the Harvard philosopher John Rawls (1921-2002) to a “pluralistic model” where religion is allowed in public life.

This shift, it is argued, is a consequence of the attack on the World Towers in 2001 and the resultant “war on terror”.  But it is seen not only in the issues of threatened national security but also in the discussions of the fabric of society.  It has broadened out to become part of public discourse.

The evidence of this shift is seen in the references to “Christ, church, faith, pray, Jesus, Bible, spiritual, God and/or religion” in the speeches of leading politicians.  The writer analysed 2422 speeches and found a marked increase in religious language since 2001.  (It is a remarkable feat that after such reading she was still able to write a coherent article!  Presumably the computer searched and found the religious references.)

This shift is said to be damaging because, basing key elements of the national identity on religion “excludes sections of the population that have different spiritual beliefs and those that have none at all.  In Australia’s pluralistic society a Judeo-Christian national identity fails to embrace citizens who cannot easily, or who (quite reasonably) have no desire to, change their faith.”

The drift of the article is that politicians should leave religion out of public discourse.  But the conclusion is the slightly less censorious imposition of secularist morality: “politicians should exercise caution when invoking religion.”

The real basis for this conclusion is the author’s unfounded belief that “religious arguments are difficult to challenge because their proponent believes in a ‘truth’ that cannot be proven by means other than through faith alone.  In the truest sense, religion requires unquestioning support for divine doctrine.  This is particularly true of evangelical denominations where the adulation of religious feeling over reason is strongly encouraged.”  So the unbeliever, Carmen Lawrence commenting on this article, said: “there is a risk that religious reasoning, not subject to the usual rational challenges, may grow in significance.”  And the National Editor of the Sydney Morning Herald wrote of: “a wider erosion of the traditional view that political decision-making should be based on rational arguments rather than on religious faith or doctrine.”

This incessant contrast of faith and reason displays the unreasonable passion of secularists.  Knowing very little of religious understanding or reasoning they attribute different opinions to their own as “irrational beliefs”.  In the name of multicultural fairness their multiculturalism does not include any culture but their own.  Thus they marginalise, if not completely censor, religious opinions, considerations or reasoning from public discourse.  To them, religion is irrational and irrelevant to public life.  For politicians to even talk of religion is to “preference” people of religious faith (I originally wrote persuasion but secularists would not use such a word as it may imply some activity of the mind).  Even if the politician was speaking the truth that “the Christian and Jewish faiths have played a role in Australian society” there is likelihood of implicitly privileging Christians and Jews.

Amongst other things the secularist understanding of Australia involves:
1 a confusion between secular and secularism – ‘secular’ concerns this world; ‘secularism’ denies any other world. Secular government or education restricts itself to dealing only with this world. Secularist government or education denies and forbids any consideration of other worlds.
2 a confusion between the nation and the government – Australia is more than its government. We have a religious nation with a secular government not a secular nation, nor a secularist government.  That our Government is restricted to secular concerns is not to restrict the nation to being secular let alone restrict the Government or the nation to secularism.
3 an overstatement of the division between church and state – Our constitution is anti-sectarian not pro secularist.  The preamble of the constitution refers to God.  The parliament opens in prayer. For half the life of the nation our National Anthem commenced with the word “God”.  The moral compass and political structure of the society and parliamentary government were derived from a religious viewpoint.
4 an overconfidence that decisions (especially in areas of bio-ethics) can be determined ethically without any reference to religious philosophy.  It is the confidence that atheism is in some way unchallengeably rational, moral and a-religious.  Generally atheists hold to an unproven and irrational confidence in utilitarianism as a basis for social policy.  All the while religious people are reported on the ABC this week to be “healthier, wealthier and wiser”.
5 an imposition of their minority opinion upon the rest of society coming from an arrogant over confidence in the rationality of their own rationality.  One only needs to look at the variety of opinions to recognise that atheists have no monopoly on the truth.  Indeed Carmen Lawrence went so far as to admit that, “As political philosophies have been eroded in favour of a pragmatic market-based materialism, and as the parties look more and more alike, elected representatives are often unable to explain why they make their decisions.”
6 a confidence that a government unanswerable to God exists and will be able to govern justly and fairly for the benefits of all its peoples.  It was the British jurist Lord Denning who said: “without religion there can be no morality: and without morality there can be no law”; and “if religion perishes in the land, truth and justice will also.”

Geoffrey Robinson is no Christian apologist but for those interested in seeing how the forbears of evangelical belief brought rational debate into parliamentary and legal processes I would commend his book: The Tyrannicide Brief: The Story of the Man Who Sent Charles I to the Scaffold.  He, at least, deals with the reality of Christian reasoning rather than the prejudice of today’s atheists who assume that all religion is superstition and to be banished from the public square.

From the Dean | 26th June 2009

Of all the addictions one of the worst is gambling.  Most chemical addictions are stopped by unconsciousness.  But gamblers know no stopping.  There is always one more throw of the dice, one more hand to play - one more person to borrow from.  Their lives are filled with expensive thrills and deep desperation.

Notwithstanding the devastating effects of this addiction, most of our society approves of gambling.  Our governments are deeply dependent upon taxes derived from gambling.  Our casinos are major tourist attractions.  Lotteries and raffles are widely and effectively used to raise money for charities and other socially beneficial activities.

Gambling has been on a steady increase in the last quarter of the 20th century.  We lost twice as much money to gambling at the end of the century as we did in the 1980’s.  In 1999, the citizens of the state of New South Wales lost $963 per head through gambling.  NSW had over 66,000 poker machines yielding $750 per adult in 2007, up from $660 in 2002.

There are many arguments used to defend gambling.  Not all gamblers are addicts.  Many people gamble within their means.  What is so wrong with a quick flutter now and then?  It is a small diversion - an entertainment.  Why should some people be denied the fun of occasional pleasure because there is a small group of problem gamblers?

In fact many people have difficulty in defining gambling - let alone seeing it as an evil.  “After all”, it is said, “all of life is a gamble and a risk.  You cannot take risk out of living.  Every business person is engaged in taking risks.”  The fact that some risks can be predicted by statistical probabilities or by research or by form guides does not remove the element of gambling.  Actuaries do not remove the gambling risk nature of the insurance industry.

So why do Christians oppose gambling?  And aren’t Christians hypocritical when they speak against gambling while living with risk and investing their money in the risks of the market place?

There are many reasons for opposing the current culture of gambling.  Though there is one reason that would make all gambling always unacceptable.

Gambling is an unfair form of voluntary taxation that affects the poor and vulnerable more than the rich and strong.  It is always associated with and often the cause of corruption and criminality.  To have our governments and politicians so dependent upon the gambling industry seriously compromises good governance.

While many people may not be concerned for the problem gamblers and their families, Christians should always be concerned for our fellow citizens, especially the poor and vulnerable.  To enjoy our pleasures at the expense of other peoples’ misery should never sit comfortably with us.

But the deleterious outcomes of the gambling industry are not the fundamental reason for rejecting gambling.  The real problem is the nature of gambling.  For all gambling is unloving covetousness.  Gambling is greed.  This is not only the problem with gambling but also the definition of it.  Gambling is not risk taking.  It involves risk but that is not its essence.  Gambling is covetousness – the desire to gain other people’s possessions.

It is quite different to investment.  Investment lends to people in order that we can be mutually benefitted by the investment.  In gambling I want to take your money and you want to take mine.  The rules of the game we play will determine who wins and who loses.  But we are both trying to win each other’s money.

As such, gambling always teaches and expresses economic materialism.  It communicates the importance of owning.  The game is secondary, the money primary.  It is possible to gamble on anything – proverbially betting on two flies climbing up the wall.  Without the risk of loss and the excitement of winning the game is boring.  People do not buy raffle tickets to generously support good causes.  If they did we could raise the same amount of money by asking for donations.  People buy raffle tickets to win prizes.  The good cause sanitizes and legitimises the greed of wanting to win a prize or money.

The problem that Christians have with gambling is not ‘risk-taking’ but covetousness.  We need to constantly fight against the temptation of greed.  Personally we have to deal with the greed and covetousness in our hearts.  Socially we must oppose all of those activities that are based on or express nothing else but covetousness.  Gambling is just such an activity.
“1 If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. 2 Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. 3For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. 4When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory.  5 Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry.” (Colossians 3:1-5).

From the Dean | 11th June 2009

Affluence is when a treat becomes a habit.

It is a slowly growing pattern of life.  So slow in its development that we do not even notice it happening to us.  We make a thousand little decisions and finish with a way of living that we never planned or meant to happen.

We earn more than we used to and many basic commodities are cheaper than they used to be.  This opens up for us new ways of spending our money as well as a better standard of living than we could previously afford.  It is good for society to be wealthier and we are part of society.

It is not society’s fault.  But the standard of living all around us is rising, and we rise on the tide of normality.  We have not gone out on a limb to be different.  We are not particularly greedy.  It is just the way everybody lives these days.  It is not our fault that washing machines, and refrigerators are bigger and better than they used to be.  It is not our fault that the cost of overseas travel has dramatically declined.  This is just the world we live in today and in which we have to make our myriad of little decisions.

Our missionaries come home every three years or so, and notice how we have changed.  Their arrival functions a little like family photos.  We pull out the pictures from three years ago and see the changes that we did not notice as we lived through them.

With the family photos there is the common pattern of comments.  The children have grown and weren’t the fashions dreadful back then.  (They are dreadful today also but it is not generally recognised until we look back in a few years time at some old photos.)

With the missionaries, the common pattern of comments is about our growth in affluence and materialism - our growing wealth and inability to see or observe the changes.  But the harshest words they have are for the Christian sell-out to society’s materialism.  They left the materialistic key to affluence - their career - in order to bring the gospel to others.  They assume that we also left materialism behind.  Are we not in fellowship with them?  Did we not send them out and do we not support them financially and prayerfully?  But when they return they find that we seem to have denied ourselves nothing.  Our lifestyle is indistinguishable from our neighbours.  Our houses are bigger, our cars are better, our waistlines are thicker, our children are international jetsetters and our toys are more plentiful.

Paralleled to the rise in affluence is the breakdown of families and relationships.  The increase in financial independence matches the increase in people living in the lonely isolation of their independence.  Holiday resorts now offer staff to keep lonely travellers company as they jog to get fit or play sport because they imagine they are still fit.

Even the non-Christian commentators on affluence - or affluenza as some prefer to call it - have come to recognize that more is not better.  Owning more and having more has not produced happier, healthier living.  The increase in misery is matched by the increase in boredom.  It is astonishing how long we believe the promise that the next gadget, the next experience and the next outing will somehow give flavour and zest to life.  The repeated failures of this promise do not seem to dent our gullibility.  “You still must have…you deserve it” is the endlessly successful siren song of the advertising industry.

The great danger of the Western world is not external but internal, not militarism but affluence.  In 1984 the American academic and commentator Neil Postman compared George Orwell’s sinister and bleak image of our future with that of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World.  The horror of Huxley’s future was not of totalitarian government persecution and torture but of a society controlled through the medicated bliss of pursuing pleasure.  Neil Postman sided with Huxley and wrote a best seller about the media called “Amusing Ourselves to Death.”  The seeds of our society’s destruction lie not in our enemies but in ourselves.  Affluent materialists live to worry about wealth and are anaesthetized by pleasures.

For the Christian, affluence is the danger of being “choked by the cares and riches and pleasures of life” (Luke 8:14).  Little by little, the seed of eternal life, the word of God, is choked out of our lives.  The sacrifice that our Saviour made for us, no longer controls our spending patterns or our hearts’ desires.  Like the rest of society we will not give up our personal passions or possessions for the sake of others.  They can spend eternity in hell but we will not be denied our pleasures on earth.  “They are ours, we have worked hard - we deserve them”.

But it all happens millimetre by millimetre - a hundred thousand little decisions.  None of them wrong in themselves - but building a pattern of life that destroys the soul.  The little treats that we so enjoyed as a child - because they were treats - become affordable everyday.  So we indulge ourselves everyday because we can and because we loved those little treats.  And slowly the treat becomes a habit.  And a habit takes away the special joy of the treat.

Affluence is when a treat becomes trite.

From the Dean | 9th June 2009

The ashes are coming.  It’s not bad news - unless you are married to a cricket tragic - or unless you are one.

Once more our nation is united in a titanic David and Goliath like struggle.  The weak and oppressed convict colony is to take on the world empire that has banished us to what they so arrogantly call “the” antipodes.

The war is a representative one - each side sends its representatives to meet on the oval of battle.  We do more than watch - we feel.  Our future exaltation or humiliation hangs on the outcome of these conflicts.  The battles could last for as long as twenty-five days.  The outcome may not be settled till the last missile is thrown in the last minute of the last day.

There is no help for the loser.  There is no United Nation’s rescue package.  Most of the world cannot understand the battle.  They have no empathy for the conflict, no sympathy for the loser and no plaudits for the victor.  “Why does it take so long?” they ask.  “Why are you still using sticks and leather stones in the age of nuclear missiles?”

There are lots of ways to improve this conflict.  It could be better if it were quicker.  Reduce it to a single day or maybe just limit it to fifty or twenty overs.  It could be a better spectacle if the combatants wore different uniforms - colourful ones.  It would be better if it could draw bigger crowds to cheer.

Bigger crowds would also attract advertisers.  Advertisers would pay for the right to televise the battle scenes.  The stop/start nature of this ancient warfare would suit the mindless mantras of materialism.

And the advertising revenue could help the combatants as well.  They could be handsomely rewarded for their gladiatorial duties.  They could become the representatives of their sponsor - appearing each day on our breakfast table - pictured on packaging.  They would become rich and famous.  They would be like entertainers - celebrities whose life outside the pitch battles would be as important as their exploits in the midst of conflict.  The symbolic war of the nations could be maintained to make the reality of the advertising dollar flow.  But it does not matter - people know the difference between reality TV and advertising, don’t they?

Eventually it could be possible to create a purely honest entertainment - where teams of international professionals would have short fast battles for nothing but money.  But who needs honesty in entertainment or advertising? Here is the magnificence of the market culture - the bottom line is all that matters.

It gives us the new morality.  Do whatever you like but do not bring discredit on your sponsor.  The Rugby League is learning this.  Sponsors have withdrawn their support because the off-field behaviour of some combatants.  It is bad for business.  No worse statement and condemnation can be uttered than that statement.  That is the capital offence of materialistic morality: “bad for business”.

Sadly, very sadly, one of our cricketers has been sent back to the convict colony.  His off-field behaviour is unacceptable.  He is one of the greats, a man of renown.  Previously in the heat of battle he has swung the whole outcome in a few moments of breathtaking athleticism and courage.

But his alcohol drinking is an embarrassment to a team sponsored by and advocating the drinking of alcohol.
So the sad announcement is made in our newspapers, by his captain duly photographed wearing a cap with the beer sponsors logo front and centre.

Here is the morality of the materialist: punish the victim if need be, but protect the bottom line.

This week the consensus of 21 studies of the drinking habits of 9500 people with bowel cancer, was published.  Those who drink more than one alcoholic drink a day have a 60 percent increased risk of bowel cancer.  Apart from the myriad of social tragedies that alcohol abuse has created - alcohol consumption is linked to cancer in breast, mouth, esophagus, pharynx and larynx, not to mention damaging the brain development of teenagers and young adults.

Question: when will our politicians put our national interests ahead of the alcohol industry’s interests and ban alcohol advertising - especially in sport?  Answer: probably when they are no longer elected by alcohol sponsorship.

The morality of materialism is just not cricket and it’s not just cricket that has been prostituted by materialism.

From the Dean | 29th May 2009

Water is the symbol of life and death. 

Some symbols are hard to understand, some are arbitrary but this symbol has immediate and obvious impact - especially to a dry continent like Australia.  It works as a symbol because it creates the reality that it symbolises. 

Without water our country slowly dies in drought.  And yet when the rains come, the rivers swell and the lakes turn from saltpans into inland seas.  In next to no time the desert springs to life with luscious green vegetation, the lakes team with fish and the birds come from seemingly nowhere to nest in huge numbers.

But it is more than the countryside that needs water.  We humans depend upon it for our very lives.  We drink it to live.  It is a constituent of all that we drink.  Without it our thirst is painful and killing.  With it we slake our thirst and revive our body.

Water is the symbol not only of life but also of cleanliness.  For it is in water that we wash the grime of life off our bodies.  So when we need to purify the defilement of our lives - water is again an obvious symbol to turn to.  Just as it removes dirt from the body so it also symbolises washing dirt from our lives. 

For the Bible writers, who knew that sin brings death, water is an obvious symbol of both cleansing and life.  It is as we are washed clean from our sin that we are brought to new life.  So John called on the people to a baptism of repentance for the forgiveness of sins (Mark 1:4).  And Jesus offered the living water that would permanently satisfy as it springs up within a person to overflow in rivers of eternal life (John 4:14, 7:38).

But there is a dark side to water.  It is the symbol not only of life but also of death.  Not just in the absence of water but more specifically in the presence of too much water.  For the water we drink to live can also be the water we drown in.  The water that safely bore Noah’s ark drowned the rest of humanity.  Many children’s books and play toys have been produced about Noah the patron saint of saving animals - but hardly any are about the judgement of God on a grievous and profoundly intractable evil humanity (Genesis 6:5-7).  The same flood that brought death on all of humanity saved eight people.  It is basically a symbol of judgement and condemnation (2 Peter 3:5-6).  Yet it does have a salvation theme to it (2 Peter 2:9-10), which prefigures baptism (1 Peter 3:21).

Baptism is a gospel symbol because it symbolises both condemnation and salvation - both death and life.  Jesus asked his disciples “Are you able to drink the cup that I drink, or to be baptized with the baptism with which I am baptized?” (Mark 10:38).  And our Apostle asks: “Do you not know that all of us who have been baptized into Christ Jesus were baptized into his death?  We were buried therefore with him by baptism into death, in order that, just as Christ was raised from the dead by the glory of the Father, we too might live in newness of life.” (Romans 6:3-4 cf. Colossians 2:12).  So Peter writes “Baptism…now saves you, not as a removal of dirt from the body but as an appeal to God for a good conscience, through the resurrection of Jesus Christ” (1 Peter 3:21)

In baptism we are united to the death of Jesus that saves us.  It is a powerful symbol of our condemnation and need of repentance.  We are not baptized to testify to our belief, though it is a testimony to the fact that we are believers.  We are baptized in repentance that we may find the forgiveness of God in the death of Jesus on our behalf.  It is not the water that cleanses us - it only removes dirt from the body - but what baptism symbolises, namely the appeal for a good conscience through the resurrection of Jesus, which saves us. 

Christian disagreements about baptism, are usually about the symbol of baptism rather than the reality it symbolises.  Questions of how much water, at what age and who does the baptizing generally miss the point.  Water is the great symbol of cleansing and life though death.  It is the great symbol of the gospel.

From the Dean | 10th August 2003

True Spirituality is the work of the Spirit of Truth - who is the Holy Spirit of God the Father and God the Son.

Removing the Spirit from His relationship with the Father and the Son, many in our society have sought to experience spirituality without the gospel.  Their experience may well be spiritual but it will not be true. 

The “prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience” will gladly deceive any who wish to have spiritual experiences.
Paul reminded the Corinthians of pagan times when they were led astray to mute idols!  He warns the Colossians about being taken captive by false philosophy and empty deceit.

Jesus repeatedly calls the Holy Spirit “the Spirit of truth”.  He it is who leads us into truth.  He it is who inspires the word of truth the scriptures.  Jesus taught this close connection of God spirit and truth to the woman of Samaria “God is spirit and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth”.  Similarly he taught the people of Jerusalem that the devil “has nothing to do with the truth, because there is not truth in him.  When he lies, he speaks out of his own character, for he is a liar and the father of lies.”

It is by Jesus death, resurrection and ascension that the Holy Spirit was poured out upon us in the new age of the Kingdom of God.  The Old Testament Kingdom of God was composed of the nation of Israel.  Only some of them, like the prophets, experienced the work of the Spirit of God.  In the New Testament Kingdom of God is composed of people from every nation.  What unites them is not their natural birth but that each one has been reborn by the Spirit of God.

But how do we know whether the work of the Spirit within our life is that of the Spirit of Truth or the spirit of error and deceit?

One of the errors common amongst Christians as well as non-Christians is to try to judge the spirituality by experiences.  It is the error of so many testimonies.  The personal testimony is the evangelistic method of false spirituality.  To hear of how somebody was moved, overwhelmed, healed, astonished, transported or whatever by some spiritual experience is no guide at all as to whether it is of God or not.  Indeed we were warned by Jesus “False Christs and false prophets will arise and perform signs and wonders, to lead astray, if possible, the elect.”

So how do we “test the spirits to see if they are from God”?  The Spirit of Truth will lead us into the truth of Jesus.  He will confess that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh.  He will move us to listen to the Apostles’ words that He has inspired.  He will move us to acknowledge Jesus as Lord.  He will convict us of sin righteousness and judgement.  He will enable us to call the judge of the entire world “father”.  He will lead us to “put to death the deeds of the body”.

True Spirituality is therefore not the mystic journey into your inner soul, nor the spectacular expression of signs and wonders, nor the overwhelming personal experiences that people testify about. 

True Spirituality is being moved by the Holy Spirit in the ways that the Bible teaches us the Spirit will move us that is: to the truth that Jesus as Lord; to the knowledge of God as our Father; to accept authority of the apostolic words of God; and to renounce the works of evil in our lives.

Beware of ‘experiencing’ the Spirit and then looking in the Bible to find your experience.  Beware of those who testify to their experience of the Spirit and then find it in the Bible. 

Follow the Spirit by reading His word the Bible and from that determine what to expect that the Spirit of Truth and the false spirits will teach.  Then you will understand your experiences by the Bible rather than the Bible by your experiences.  So you will be lead by the Spirit of truth.

From the Dean | 10th August 2003

Each Sunday we pray our diocesan mission prayer.

This prayer is based upon the Diocesan mission: “to Glorify God by proclaiming our Saviour the Lord Jesus Christ, in prayerful dependence on the Holy Spirit, so that everyone will hear his call to repent, trust and serve Christ in love, and be established in the fellowship of his disciples while they await his return.”

In order to put this mission into effect the Synod last October adopted four policies.  The first was a call to prayer and spiritual renewal.  The second was to reinvigorate parish strategy.  The third was to recruit and train more Christians into ministering the gospel.  The fourth was to reform diocesan structures.

Over the coming weeks the Cathedral Courier will spell out some of the details of this mission and its policies.

However this week I want to draw your attention to the third of the policies, as I need your prayerful support for this important work.

During the next two months I will be speaking at six weekend conferences seeking to recruit men and women into paid Christian ministry.  These conferences are called “Club 5”.

On the Friday there is a one-day conference with clergy and other full time Christian workers about how to recruit select and coach candidates for the ministry.  From Friday night to Sunday lunchtime we conduct a series of talks, Bible studies, discussion groups and individual interviews with people interested in ministry.  At the same time we conduct a smaller side conference called “Club 50” for those in their senior years considering a career change.

Club 5 has been operating for about ten years starting from Sydney and spreading to the rest of Australia. This year, conferences are being held interstate in each capital city.  The only interstate one I am speaking at is in Tasmania.  Similarly programmes are now operating internationally.

Several thousand people will be coming to these conferences.  Wonderful young men and women keen to use their lives in the service of our Lord Jesus Christ.  Many are interested in overseas missions.  It is a great privilege to be involved in such an enterprise, and I am inviting our Cathedral congregations to be part of it, at least in prayer.

Paul saw Timothy as his true son in the Lord for he bore the same concern for the affairs of the Lord as he saw the apostle had.  Timothy, like Paul, lived for the service of the Lord Jesus by serving others especially with the gospel.  Paul told Timothy to find other faithful and reliable men to whom he could entrust the gospel ministry.  They were to teach the truth to others as Paul had taught it to Timothy and as Timothy had taught it to them. 

This is the process of Club 5 - looking for the faithful reliable Christians to whom the baton of gospel ministry can be passed - so that in the next generation and the generation after that, the great news of Jesus would be preached throughout the world and here in Sydney - until the Lord returns.

Please pray for this work and for me in particular as your Dean representing you in our commitment to fulfilling this part of the Diocesan Mission.

From the Dean | 3rd August 2003

Unity is one of the highest values in today’s fractured society.

The importance of maintaining the unity of the Anglican Communion at any cost is considered by many people to be self-evident.  Calls for Ecumenical and Interfaith unity are part of the Australian landscape.

Divided and unhappy sporting teams are unlikely to reach grand finals let alone win them.  Political parties that show disunity have a very limited future at the polls on Election Day.

To be divisive or uncooperative is one of the worst criticisms levelled against anybody.  In fact it bears the most damning label of all: it is “un-Australian”.

But that should ring the warning bells for us.  What is it to be “un-Australian”? Who determines what is, or is not, Australian?  For example: is multiculturalism un-Australian or is it Australian?

If multiculturalism is un-Australian then Australia is (or wants to be) mono-cultural.  Such a single culture could be described and defined.  Then certain activities or values would fit the Australian culture and others would be “un-Australian”.

On the other hand if multiculturalism is Australian, and Australia is multicultural, then it is impossible for anything to be ‘un-Australian’.  Anything can be an activity or value of some minority culture in a multicultural nation.

Yet it is often the very people who are keenest to promote multiculturalism that want to ban certain activities as “un-Australian”.  Nobody is so illiberal as a liberal in power. 

This desire and push for unity is reflected in Christian denominationalism.  Unity is often the ultimate goal of denominational activity.  Disunity becomes the greatest sin.  Nobody pushes the issue of unity more fervently than theological liberals in denominational power.

The freedoms that they demanded for themselves when not in power are not to be granted to conservatives when the liberals come to power.

The ‘diversity of viewpoint’ that liberals value does not include the right to believe and practice conservative views.

And the great sin that is held against the conservatives is divisiveness.  “You must get with the programme.”  “You must stay united to us even though we believe and practice completely different things.” 

To gain the high moral ground at this point, theological liberals will often quote the Bible about unity.  But they fail to notice three things: that the Biblical passages are about church (congregational) unity not denominational unity; that the Biblical unity is one of common understanding, of doctrine and of godliness not of tolerant relativism; and thirdly that the Bible that they appeal to is the same Bible that on other subjects they spurn as unimportant.

Those of us who believe the word of God must not be bullied by Bible quoting liberals into maintaining an institutional unity that has nothing to do with the mind of God.

From the Dean | 27th July 2003

We live in abnormal times.  We live in the world of sickness and death, yet we enjoy amazingly good health and prolonged life.  We live in the world of persecution and hostility to the people of God, yet we enjoy an amazingly peaceful and tolerant society. 

These abnormal times are so nice that they seduce us into thinking that health and peace are normal for the people of God in this world.  And we are angry even petulant when God seems to rob us of our rights to such pleasures.

But the consistent expectation and promise of Scripture is hardship suffering and difficulty for those who are to deny themselves take up the cross and follow Jesus their Lord.

Four years ago Word Books published a book by Paul Marshall entitled “Their Blood Cries Out”.  It was a wake up call to Western (especially American) Christians about the normal life of suffering that Christians in more than sixty countries are facing every day.

Since then a slightly different wake up call has come to whole nations: both America on September 11th and Australian in the Bali bombing.  Our nations, which enjoy the privilege of peaceful society, have discovered that there is no peace in our times.

But Christians living outside of the nations that enjoy the Christian heritage have known all along that there is no peace in our times. 

Paul Marshall’s book did not whitewash Christianity or demonise any other group. 

He takes the reader for a tour of a wide diversity of Islamic relationships with their Christian citizens.  But he did expose the horrors of the war in the Sudan, and the discrimination against Christians that is experienced daily in other less violent Islamic countries.

He then recounts the continuing persecution in the remaining Communist countries like China, Vietnam, Cuba and North Korea - as well as recounting the difficulties of Christians in the Buddhist and Hindu Asian sub-continent.

He does not ignore the persecution of Christians in nominally Christian countries where majority denominations get too close to Government and discriminate against minority expressions of Christianity.

All this may look like the secularists are correct in their claim that religion causes wars.  But the great genocides of the twentieth century came from the minds of people like Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot and Stalin who were thoroughly imbued with secularist and atheistic thinking.  So Paul Marshall devotes space to the failure of western secularist.
This is not a happy book to read.  It is not a pleasant topic to write or speak about.  But there is a naÔve and unhelpful ignorance in Western society about the suffering of people who name Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.  Yet their suffering is what the New Testament predicted and expected while our peace and prosperity is unnatural.

One wonders sometimes when we read that “all who desire to live and Godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted” - whether it is our failure to live such a life that has lead to our acceptability in our society.  Could it be that the evil one does not need to persecute us for he has so effectively seduced us.