Meet Bruce

Meet Bruce

A kitchen tap had dripped for some time and my wife suggested that I fix it. (Prov 27:15 certainly did not apply!) I had previously tried a repair without lasting success and was not keen to attempt it again. Eventually my wife’s words goaded me into action. Water gushed freely into the air after my attempts to shut off the main household water supply reputured a key pipe. That gush stopped the kitchen drip, but also meant turning off all water into the house. My wife was gentle with her words.

It’s hard to find a plumber between Christmas and western new year in Australia, but along came Bruce. Bruce is my age and we chatted merrily about life experiences and family as he started the repair. 90 mins later Bruce had repaired the burst water pipe, ended the kitchen drip and agreed with my wife on some further repairs that he would do in the next week or two. I cannot imagine the time that I would need to do that, if indeed it was within my reach.

Bruce left school aged 15 and his speech showed a lack of schooling (not to be confused with a lack of education). As I paid the bill he admitted to not being strong on paperwork (which I had already deduced from the filing system consisting of documents strewn on his truck floor). I imagine that he would be quite lost in my world. As the above tale of my attempted repair shows, I am certainly lost in his world.

A few thoughts arise from this tale of Bruce.

Knowing how and knowing who. A few days before this incident I talked with a family member whose skills are similar to mine. We agreed that another family member was very handy with his hands and superb at problem solving. He knows ‘how’, just like Bruce. Others are good at knowing ‘who’ – they network and build relationships such that they can identify and recruit those like Bruce who know ‘how’. Each to his own.

Education. Australia’s education system is increasingly titled towards economic goals with an emphasis on higher-order vocational applications. At a secondary level, it is dominated by preparation of students for university entrance. It arguably fails the Bruces of the world for whom an early exit from schooling into vocational training is apt. Where are the classes that will give Bruce basic linguistic and numerical literacy coupled with small business management skills? Such classes would provide a useful scaffolding to support Bruce’s high practical intelligence, can-do problem solving and handiness with his hands.

Church. Bruce appeared to have no church links, but I wonder what would happen if he strayed into a church. Churches in my circles value activities such as sitting in chairs for 90 minutes, singing songs that are musically complex, reading and discussing Bible text, praying aloud. Most of this is just not Bruce and it’s no wonder that he and his kind are rare in churches that are rich in doctors, lawyers, IT workers, managers and the like. What does a Bruce-friendly church look like?

Ministry. What Bruce could do in 90 minutes would be impossible for me. It was far more sensible that I pay Bruce $200 to use his skills to solve my drip than to attempt it myself. In the language of the Bible, Bruce is one of the parts of the body that seem less useful and which are generally treated less honourably. (1 Cor 12:22f). Yet, as the same passage says, such parts are indispensable – as Bruce certainly was. Church generally honours those with on-stage gifts with music and word, while a myriad of other gifts go largely unrecognised. How can we better identify, develop, use and appreciate the Bruces in our congregations?

Thanks Bruce for making my day, ending my drip and teaching me some lessons.

My take - The Australian same sex marriage poll result

--> -->

My take – the Australian same sex marriage poll result

WARNING This post contains material upholding a traditional view of marriage. It is long, because the issues and the Australian context are complex. It is also a personal view.

The immediate context

Christians may prefer to talk about other things, but we cannot avoid same sex marriage (SSM) for it is a hot topic. A Christianity that is silent on the issues of its day is about as useful as a quill pen in a digital age.

Australia recently had a national postal poll on whether SSM should be allowed by law. The poll was unduly divisive and prolonged in my view. It happened because of a messy political compromise within the governing political coalition. The poll process has not been a great moment in the history of the nation.

Participation was high (79.5%) and the result (announced on 15^th November 2017) was a vote of 61.6% (of those who voted) in favour of legalising SSM.

Yet to come is a legislative and political process. I expect the legalisation of SSM sooner or later as both major political parties seem ready to wave it through.

In this post, I summarise the immediate context and give a response under the headings indicated below. 

What’s my angle?

I write as an Australian by birth and citizenship. I am Christian by identity and heterosexual by orientation. I am interested in Australian affairs but have a love / hate relationship with the nation. Like the prophet Jeremiah or the Apostle Paul, I feel pain for the nation of which I am part (eg Jer 8:18 – 9:1; 14: 19–22; Rom 9;1-3; 10:1), even though the citizenship that matters is elsewhere (eg Phil 3:20). I could easily live in another country and my sense of home in Australia is temporal and weak. I feel a stranger and exile.

What follows is my take on the prospective legalisation of SSM in Australia, within a broader canvas of issues.

Same sex attraction and activity

As a Christian believer who tries to take the Bible seriously, I cannot endorse same sex activity or SSM.

We were designed for opposite-sex attraction and activity. This is to pair off as male and female couples (Gen 2:18-25) in committed and lifelong relationships of love, delight and wonder (eg, Song of Songs). Same sex attraction is fundamentally against this creational design. Like heterosexual attraction, same-sex attraction can become a strong pull and temptation to sinful sexual activity. Any sexual relationship outside of God’s design is sinful, whether heterosexual or homosexual. It draws God’s judgement, along with theft, greed, drunkenness, extortion and such like (1 Cor 6:9-10). Sexual sins (again, whether homo or hetero) are in the most serious category of sin (eg 1 Cor 6:18) because of the role of sex in human identity. The good news is that all sexual sin can be repented of and forgiven (1 Cor 6:11), along with greed, drunkenness, theft and the like.

Some clarification of emphasis is important.

I acknowledge the reality of same sex attraction and that same sex relationships can display high levels of altruistic love and commitment. Same sex attraction does not have to result in same sex activity (any more that opposite sex attraction must result in sexual activity). I know of same-sex people in settled, loving, supportive domestic partnerships that may involve sharing a residence, but without sexual activity. There is something winsome about that – just as with opposite sex people who have similar partnerships. Such people can give each other a warm companionship that meets the truth that it is not good for a person to be alone (Gen 2:18). I am not naïve about the possibility of these companionships sliding into sexualised relationships (whether hetero or homosexual) and the need to guard against it in ways appropriate to each those involved,. However, and again, the fact of same sex attraction and a relationship of loving companionship is different to sexualised activity.

Secondly, most sexual sin in Australia is heterosexual and should receive proportionate attention. There’s a certain double standard in opposing same sex relationships with high attention while being silent about heterosexual activity outside of God’s creational design. I ‘get it’ that because SSM is on the present agenda, there is more attention to same sex relationships. However, the point remains that most sexual sin is not homosexual.

Same sex marriage

All the above means that, as a Christian who follows the Bible I cannot endorse SSM. It is the institutionalising of a relationship that is against the creational design summarised above.

Consequently, I will not participate in, or attend a SSM marriage, even if involving dear friends or family members, for whom I want happiness. I cannot do anything that could be read as approving of or endorsing their wedding. The same would apply if a Christian friend or family member wanted to marry against God’s design in a heterosexual marriage (but that is a topic outside of this post).

At a practical level I can and will, treat same sex couples as a household unit, but I cannot endorse their relationship. I will doubtless be clumsy in expressing this and apologise in advance. I don’t want to be judgemental towards such couples, but from love of God and people, I cannot endorse what is against God’s design and against their human flourishing.

SSM – the questions

The above is my take on same sex attraction and marriage in Christian perspective. However, the question of legal recognition of SSM in Australia and how Christians relate to that, is a quite different matter. The distinction between those questions has not always been clear in the recent Australian debate and that is not helpful.

So, let’s think about the Australian context and then about how Australian Christians relate to it both more generally and with respect to the prospect of SSM being legalised.

SSM marriage – the Australian religious context

Christianity was not our first religion and is now not the only one.

So far as we know, the first peoples of Australia are the various Aboriginal tribes that have inhabited the land for a long time. After various fringe contacts with European explorers, their land was claimed and then colonised by Great Britain in 1770 and 1778. Aboriginal culture was deeply spiritual, with a vivid sense of relationship to spirits, to departed ancestors and to the land.

The British settlers brought the nation’s second religion. Their Christianity was a by-product of Britain’s long Christian heritage as immediately impacted by the eighteenth century evangelical revival. An Anglican chaplain arrived with the first fleet and set the scene for the early ascendency of Protestant Christianity. This was soon challenged by the arrival of Irish Roman Catholics and then by migration of people of various world religions. Increasing numbers of Australians came to identify as of no religion.

The 2016 census gives a snapshot. (www.abs.gov.au/websitedbs/censushome.nsf/home/2016).

·       Christianity – 52%

·       No religion – 30%

·       Islam – 2.6%

·       Buddhism – 2.4%

The “no religion” category is rapidly increasing (eg, it was 19% in 2006) and is especially prominent among the young. Australia is fast becoming a secular country.

Of those identifying as Christian, the number who are active Christians is much less. An active Christian positively and personally holds to the core elements of something like the Apostles Creed, regularly attends worship, engages in some form of personal devotion and seeks to live life under the saving kingship of Jesus Christ. My guess is that only about 5% of the population fit that description.

The Constitution of Australia says: The Commonwealth shall not make any law for establishing any religion, or for imposing any religious observance, or for prohibiting the free exercise of any religion, and no religious test shall be required as a qualification for any office or public trust under the Commonwealth (Section 116). That seems to separate church and state.

Despite this, Christian churches have a significant place in Australian public life. The Federal Parliament opens its session by the mandated recitation of Christian prayer. Church buildings are physically prominent. Churches have privileged position with respect to taxation. Clergy often appear at events such as ANZAC Day. In some states, churches have generous access to public schools for religious education. In my view these are vestige veneers that mark increasing secularisation that will fade away. They hint at a Christendom view of how Christians relate to society which I doubt is ever appropriate and certainly not one that fits with contemporary Australia.

My point here is that Australia is not a Christian country now and probably has never been one. In this respect, I think that Roy Williams overstates his case (see his 2015 book, Post God Nation). Australian history and culture have certainly been heavily influenced by Christianity by circumstances of British settlement and that will always be part of the national legacy. However, that is very different to the assertion of a Christian identity, in the sense of Britain as a Christian country or that of ancient Israel as a nation of covenant Judaism.

Contemporary Australia is a religiously diverse country and one in which secularism has a rising cultural impact that probably exceeds its locked-in adherents. We are a multi-everything society. How does that relate to the possibility of legislation permitting SSM? To what extent is it a Christian agenda to advocate for legislation embodying specifically Christian values?

SSM - enacting Christian legislation

Legislation embodies moral values. For example, legislation to raise taxes to provide for pensions for the needy assumes a collective social responsibility to care for needy people. Legislation against theft, assumes a moral right to private property and its protection.

This is a topic for others, but I see a difference between legislation reflecting broader moral values (that may arise from a religion) and legislation specifically privileging and embodying distinctly religious values.

For example, when the Roman Emperor Constantine professed to become Christian in the early fourth century, he enacted legislation design to embody Christian values as well as legislation privileging the Catholic Church. His laws relating to infanticide and manumission of slaves laws reflected broader Christian values as distinct from his legislation to privilege the Catholic Church and its clergy.

Reflection of broader Christian values has continued in the western legislative tradition in Europe, Britain and the associated colonies. Much of that western tradition is now being dismantled under growing secularisation in multi-everything societies.

Should Australian Christians push to protect, or even to extend, the Christian elements in Australian law in matters like SSM?

Behind that there lies a broader question of Christ and culture. (Richard Niebuhr’s 1951 book by that name continues to frame the debate). Historically, western Protestant Christians have been located somewhere between Christ over culture and Christ transforming culture. In a post-Christian Australia, it’s a moot point as to whether Christ against culture is appropriate. This is also a time when some wonder whether an exile theology which is inspired by 1 Pet 1:1 and patterned after Joseph in Egypt, along with Daniel and Esther in Babylon is appropriate. That also is a wide and complex question and beyond this paper.

Christians living as minorities in countries that have never had a significant Christian presence experience a different life. They have always lived as strangers and exiles. They have always faced the calling of the Biblical Joseph, Daniel and Esther – to live in a way that blesses the city and to flourish where God has planted them, even when that city embodies a God-defying and God-denying identity. I write these words from a conference where many attendees live with the reality of state-sanctioned persecution, just because they live under a different master to the ruling ideology. They are strangers and exiles to a strong degree. To these people, Australia is a quaint curiosity and they wonder what all the fuss is about. I have a faint taste of their experience from several years living in a country where other religions supplied the dominant world view.

Christians can live as exiles by acting differently to others around them and still be positive members of their society, just like Joseph, Daniel and Esther. Right now, Australian Christians have much to learn from the majority Christian world where there has never been a cosy cocoon of Christian legislative.

Responding to legalisation of SSM

Australian Christians voted in different ways in the recent plebiscite on SSM. Some did not vote – in part, seeing it as a matter of essential indifference to Christians as to what the wider population did. Others voted yes to SSM, either from a liberal theological ethic or for similar reasons to the non-voters. Others voted no.

I voted no from love of God and people. Those loves include a view that human and societal flourishing happens best when life is lived within God’s design and from a concern for children and the possible re-norming of cultural values under SSM. I respect the liberty of consenting adults to do what they want to do in their bedrooms (even if disagreeing with it), but am concerned that the impacts of their actions go far beyond the bedroom.

How do we respond to legislation legalising SSM if, and when, it comes? I expect and hope for Christian representation to help ensure maximum protection for freedom of conscience, expression and action for those dissenting from SSM marriage. This needs to happen at the stage of drafting parliamentary Bills.

At a church level, there will be debate about continuance as a recognised denomination under the Marriage Act. Some propose withdrawal and the establishment of church-based marriage register (with provision for church divorce courts). I disagree with that. I favour church withdrawal as a recognised denomination under the Marriage Act, the de-recognition of clergy as marriage celebrants and a situation where churches conduct a service of wedding blessing after civil registration. This is a common pattern in Europe and elsewhere and separates the legal institution of marriage from the Christian one.

A sense of perspective is important. SSM is a moral and spiritual issue of major significance and I cannot agree with those Christians who are indifferent about it. However, it is not a catastrophic issue and not the only, or even the major, issue on the national moral landscape. The continuing easy access to abortion in Australia is a life and death issue, as is the prospect of legalised euthanasia. There are significant moral issues in our treatment of asylum seekers, climate policy, income distribution and care of indigenous persons. Our moral landscape is littered with challenges to Christian values.

My point here is that legalisation of SSM is not the end of the moral world in Australia. If a Bill passes, I expect a tsunami of rainbow jubilation. I expect a flurry of SSM marriages with high publicity. I expect some test cases as to the bounds of religious exemptions. And then an ongoing process with some social re-norming and a gradual adjustment of behaviours. Somewhere in all that, SSM married couples will start having troubles and heading for divorce courts. Life will settle down in a changed landscape. But marriage will not be the same.

Nor is SSM the most significant Christian issue for Australia. I frame the issue through Rom 1:18-32. Homosexual activity is mentioned there as something that draws God’s judgement (Rom 1:26-27), but it is not the root issue.  Rather it is part of a chain of events that goes back to a rejection of the creator himself (Rom 1:18-23) and which results in a cascading series of events where God gives us over to our darker side, one part of which is homosexual activity. Whether the manifestation of our rejection of God is debased sexuality (whether homo or hetero), or greed, of physical idolatry, or heart idolatry, the result is the same. We are all fallen short of God, all under judgement, all equally in need of salvation, and can all equally be forgiven and restored if we repent and believe in Jesus (Rom 3:9-26). Debased sexuality is just one fruit of the Fall and example of human sin.

Australian Christians must talk about SSM at present because that is the issue of the day. We cannot ignore it. But let’s talk about it and act on it in a way that is faithful to what God says about human sexuality and with a sense of proportion about the issue. The great need of Australians is to avert God’s judgement through faith in Jesus Christ. Getting our sexuality in order, including on SSM, flows and follows from that.

Finally

Thanks for reading this long personal post on a tough topic. I welcome conversation, so please hit the ‘reply’ button and let’s talk.

                                                             

---

Lessons in leadership

Lessons in leadership

I am no fan of books on leadership. Indeed, it’s quite the opposite. However, I like observing leaders and reading accounts of them.

And so, to Winston Churchill. On a friend’s recommendation, I read Churchill: a Life by Martin Gilbert (Holt, 1991). At 1066 pages it’s a big read and a great bedtime page turner. The book tells of Churchill’s background (significant), school days (indifferent), early career (somewhat indifferent) and then the man who was made by his times and who was made for the times (magnificent).

Churchill is best remembered (and deservedly so) for his leadership of Britain in WWII, although his leadership roles in WWI and in peacetime Britain should not be overlooked. He faced opposition in most of these roles, and not just from Hitler. Much of the opposition came from the members of his own various political parties and from his foreign allies in the Russian, American and French national leaders.

Here’s a summary of what I observe about leadership in Churchill:

-         Courage before overwhelming odds

-         Persist irrespective

-         Take advice from others, but don’t be captive to it or them

-         Indefatigable energy and ceaseless work at personal cost

-         Find, and use, means to relax

-         The importance of having some close people who nurture

-         Ignore medical opinion

Of course, Churchill’s style of leadership will not be suitable for all leaders and all contexts, as his own career suggests. He flourished in crisis and before challenges, but times of peace suited him less well. As was the hour, so was the man.

Aristotle’s (Christian) worship

Aristotle’s (Christian) worship

I go to plenty of Christian worship services. That’s the (usually) weekly gathering of God’s people as an expression of and preparation for the whole of life worship that Scripture commends as the acceptable respond to God’s mercy in Christ (Rom 12:1-2). It’s also an anticipation of life as part of the crowd in the throne room of God’s new creation.

That’s an opportunity to think about the essence of gathered worship – especially as I have just marked a bunch of student papers discussing services of worship and attended my first charismatic service last Sunday as part of celebrating the conversion of a Singapore nephew.

Aristotle has a useful distinction between substance and accident. The substance of a thing is its “stuff’ that must be there for the thing to be the thing that it is. The accident is the outward form of the substance. Substance is definitional and ontological. Accident is contextual and variable.

Here’s some accidental expressions of my recent worship experience:

·       The nephew’s church that was pitched at a young audience through the hipsters on stage, a mesmerising moving display on screen through most of the service, almost constant drum beat and four-note keyboard offerings;

·       The very traditional service that I often attend with vast pipe organ, robed choir, collared clergy, sung Lord’s Prayer and set “free” liturgy;

·       A friend’s church at which I recently preached in jeans and open necked shirt and where people raised hands, called out etc.

I respect the first because its where a nephew was found by grace. I love the second because it resonates with something in me – the music in that church touches me like no other. I love the third for its energy and life-connection – this otherwise fatigued preacher was energised.

Back to the student papers. They typically identified the following elements as core to gathered worship:

·       It’s about God, not the worshippers;

·       Worship should be first vertical (directed to God);

·       Worship should also be horizontal (foster fellowship);

·       Worship should edify God’s people (in all the senses of that word);

·       What we do should be Word-regulated and gospel-shaped;

·       Gathered worship is significant in itself and as preparation for life worship;

·       Essentials are:

o   Reading and preaching Scripture,

o   Prayer on multiple horizons (eg, Adoration, Confession, Thanks, Supplication)

o   Sacraments,

o   Singing

How do substance and accident relate?

Substance is easy ... it must be there for it to be called worship.

Accident is tougher, because it varies. Those variations will be a product of times and circumstances. Who is gathering? What is their sense of space and time? Do they privilege order and predictability or spontaneity and flexibility? And so, the questions roll.

How are these questions to be answered? Some different answers may be: let’s do as we’ve always done; let’s do as we’ve not always done; let’s do what I like; let’s do what most of the people like.

Here’s another way of answering those questions by asking some further questions. It fits with what some older Christians called the “general rules of the word”:

·       What will most glorify God? (1 Cor 10:31)

·       What will most build others up? (1 Cor 14:26)

·       What will least give needless offense to others? (1 Cor 10:32)

·       What is decent and in good order? (1 Cor 14:40)

We can add a biggy to these worthy questions:

·       What will most point people to Jesus and help them grow into him and in him? (Col 1:28; Eph 4:13-15)

A final observation: none of this is about me. It’s all about serving God and others. And that’s why the charismatic service that doesn’t “fit” to my style, the traditional service that I cherish and the service that energises me are not the point. The point is to ask what celebrates God and points people to his grace in Jesus. That’s no accident, Aristotelean or otherwise.

Being Larry - thoughts on missionary identity

-->

Being Larry – thoughts on missionary identity

I recently spent time with a missionary in a majority country. Let’s call him Larry. (He was assigned as the ‘go-to’ for myself and a colleague who were teaching an intensive course to local church leaders.)

Larry was just into his second year on the field. It is a challenging context physically and spiritually. He had faced the disappointment of a forced move from his initial assignment and was in a holding role while awaiting a new assignment on the same field.

Larry had an identity issue. Who was he, when there was presently no assigned mission role? Back home Larry was an active member of his own church and involved in its various programs of outreach and discipleship.

Larry was a nurse and, like most nurses, a grounded person who deal with ‘what is’ rather than ‘what could be”. As he talked through the identity issue, he concluded that his calling was to be who he was at home. And so, he was an active member of the church he belonged to on the mission field and involved in its various programs of outreach and discipleship. He was also a nurse, and was about to commence a role in the local nursing service where he could help upskill nationals in nursing skills.

As a missionary Larry was being himself – the same person at home and on the field. It would, of course, look a little different but was essentially the same. Larry was being Larry.

That’s not a bad sense of Christian identity whether on the mission field or anywhere. All of us are called to be followers of Jesus whether at home, work, play or the market place.

That’s’ faithfulness in a life worthy of the Lord.

In your face theology

In your face theology

There are times where vigorous and even heated debate is right. The core truths of the Christian faith are the teaching about the who, the what and the so what of Jesus (Rom 1:1-7; 1 Cor 15:1-6). The denial of these is the “another gospel” that Paul refers to (Gal 1:8-9) and which led Paul to rebuke publicly his “senior”, the Apostle Peter.

However, notice how the rebuke was given. It was face-to-face (Gel 2:11-14). What a moment of high drama and we can imagine the reaction of onlookers. The- face-to-face is important. Paul didn’t leave an anonymous note for Peter to ‘find”. Nor did he leave a message for all to see, but which denied Peter and easy reply. He spoke face-to-face.

All that brings us to the modern phenomena of Christians disagreeing on social media such as Facebook. All too easily we let our fingers do the talking and hurl insults and reflections on character to the world through cyberspace.

In recent times, my Facebook circles have included several rounds of strongly worded debate between Christians on this or that issue. In at least one case, this has been noticed by enemies of the gospel and used to disadvantage the cause of Christ.

Here’s a few reasons to think before we hit “post” and maybe either delete the comment or arrange to make it face to face.

·      We fellow Christians may understand the context and why this issue is important. However, what about non-Christians who overhear the conversation through being friends of a friend. Will they understand the issues and comments or will they think that we are out of our collective minds? 1 Cor 14:29)

·      Does a vigorous Facebook argument about theology help a non-believer trust in Jesus or does it put up a scandal or stumbling block? (1 Cor 8:9)

·      Do the limitations of Facebook posts allow us to discuss theological issues with the care and depth that they deserve, or do the push us to combative salvos of theological soundbites?

·      Is God glorified and his people built up by such exchanges? (1 Cor 10:23, 32)

So maybe it’s time to get off Facebook and get in one another’s faces to have the debates in a setting where we can see body language, have opportunity for questions and talk truth in love without the potential for digital destruction. As John says, there things best left unwritten and left face to face (2 Jn 12; 3 Jn 13-14). This is even more so when the things written are there for the world at large to see.