Funny article in the Conversation this week (a lot of them are right?): Peter Ellerton, of the Rationalist Society, who lectures at the University of Queensland, decries the removal of evolution from science curricula in: 4 Reasons not teaching evolution in schools is IMMORAL. Here’s a … Continue reading The Sacred Cow of the Science Classroom
I hear the echoes of this passage when thinking about the coronation tonight:
“And all the people shouted with a great shout when they praised the Lord, because the foundation of the house of the Lord was laid. But many of the priests and Levites and heads of fathers’ houses, old men who had seen the first house, wept with a loud voice when they saw the foundation of this house being laid, though many shouted aloud for joy, so that the people could not distinguish the sound of the joyful shout from the sound of the people’s weeping, for the people shouted with a great shout, and the sound was heard far away.” (Ezra 3:11b-13 ESV)
A coronation is a momentous occasion for any generation and is meant to be festive and celebratory. But the acclamation of a new monarch is inseparable from the loss of the last sovereign (indeed, this is why our late Majesty never felt comfortable with celebrating the anniversary of her becoming Queen, as it was also the anniversary of her father’s death).
I am grateful that we can witness the crowning of the new King of Australia (and his other realms), but I fear that anyone who has beheld footage of the coronation of Elizabeth II, will feel similar to the Jewish elders in Ezra’s day when they see this one. This will be a diminished coronation and, likely the inauguration of a diminished monarchy.
It has been suggested that the old men in Ezra 3 wept because they recognised that the new temple would lack the grandeur of the one they had seen in their youth. There was gratitude and jubilation at the laying of the new foundation, but there was also grief over what had been lost and what they would likely never see again in their lifetimes.
I still feel grief over the Queen’s death that easily exceeds any enthusiastic feelings about the coronation. I recognise that while the institution of the Crown endures, King Charles will never be all that Queen Elizabeth was to me and so many others around the world.
The significance of the monarchy differs from the significance of the temple in a number of important ways. But both have had a vital place in the focus and identity of their respective nations. A rebuilt temple was better for the state of the nation than the alternative – but it wasn’t up to the standard of its predecessor. Likewise a renewed monarchy is better than the alternative, but the king and crown we’re getting is not of the same calibre as what we remember.
The grief of the Jewish elders was only consoled by the promise that God would bring about something more glorious – a Temple that far surpasses the grandeur of Solomon’s (Haggai 2:3, 7-9). Knowing that Charles cannot even match what will always be my model for a gracious, dignified and majestic earthly sovereign, I too must look for consolation in the hope of the glorious King of Kings. I must rejoice in the One who not only surpasses my current king in every way, but who is better than the paragon of human monarchy I admired for my entire life.
I am grateful to have seen the peak of the monarchy, but henceforth I have a fresh need to gaze upon the majesty of the King who rules from the mountain that cannot be shaken.
God save the King and Maranatha!
One of the stories about religion in Australia that hasn’t really been told (in the wake of Census data being released last week) relates to what we might call the major non-Christian religions (MNCRs) in our society.
While the growth of Islam, Hinduism and Buddhism has been observed over the last few census periods, would it surprise you to learn that none of these faith communities are the largest non-Christian religious group throughout Australia’s states and territories?
That’s because the non-Christian religion with the most adherents is not the same in each state. For instance, in NSW and Victoria, Muslims are the largest group, followed by Hindus and then Buddhists. But in Queensland, the numbers are completely reversed, with Buddhism being the largest MNCR and Islam having less adherents than Hinduism. In Tasmania, the ACT and Northern Territory, Hindus are the largest MNCR.
I raise this because I think the religious narratives in the mainstream media probably influence the thinking of evangelical Christians too much when it comes to mission and evangelism. The story you’re hearing is that Christianity is in decline and “no religion” is increasingly the chosen self-descriptor for Australians – particularly amongst the younger generations. Aside from the issue that many Christians will likely feel their place in society is increasingly under threat and adopt something of a defensive posture in the face of rising secularism – much of our evangelistic focus is likely to be hitched to our apologetic endeavours and be geared towards reaching post-Christian atheists, agnostics and apatheists.
If there is any movement among our churches about training people to understand other religions, with a view to evangelising our MNCR-adherent neighbours, it has typically been limited to Islam. As far as I’m aware, voices heralding the need to prepare believers to effectively reach out to Buddhists and Hindus have been scarce (not even to mention other religions in our community).*
I’m concerned that our limited focus on Islam in the past is probably symptomatic of a systemically reactive (vs proactive) approach to particular groups within the community. My suspicion is that Islam became the default MNCR in the evangelical mind, not necessarily because of greater need or numbers, but rather based on narrative.
In the years following the September 11 terrorist attacks, Muslims in Australia have often felt vulnerable and victimised as a result of fear, anger and suspicion in the community in response to the violence done in the name of Islam. Sometimes Christians shared, or even exceeded these community sentiments in their attitudes towards Muslims. So it was perhaps a natural and needed corrective to emphasise that Muslims in our community were lost neighbours in need of the gospel.
But this highlighting of one religious group’s need for sensitivity, love and evangelisation does not seem to have moved us to consider how we might better equip the saints to reach neighbours, friends and colleagues who are Buddhist, Hindu or members of a smaller religious community. While our instinct to reach out to the vulnerable is positive, it is worth taking a step back to consider whether our chosen focus leads us to neglect other groups whose need may not be as visible. (This would apply to our thinking around engagement with sexual minorities as well; along with racial issues such as the US evangelical response to the Black Lives Matter movement at the potential expense of focused engagement with other groups. But these topics are too big to address separately here).
While the evangelical desire to demonstrate the gospel’s relevance by addressing the issues of the day is often helpful, this should never be reduced to our responses to the narrative of mainstream culture. Sometimes being relevant is about being proactive, filling in gaps, highlighting blindspots and even being prepared to be a bit subversive in relation to the mainstream.
What the census data shows us is that while Islam remains the largest MNCR in several jurisdictions, there are areas around Australia which have more Hindus or Buddhists than Muslims.
To my thinking, this necessitates greater urgency in how Christians engage all 3 of these MNCRs. The best possible outcome would be for churches to seek to equip their people to better understand all three MNCRs and to learn from those with experience in reaching people from these religions with the gospel.
But if the resources are not there to accomplish this in churches across Australia, I would hope that at the very least we can explore ways to ensure that believers in our congregations are equipped to witness effectively to members of the largest MNCR in their state, city or town.
This negates any one-size-fits-all national evangelisation strategies when it comes to engaging MNCR adherents. Training and missional priorities in Sydney/Melbourne may need to look quite different to those of a local church in Queensland or Tasmania – because of the demographic differences.
The Melbourne School of Theology has a Centre for Islamic Studies (from a Christian perspective) which can provide expertise and break new ground when it comes to developing ways to reach Muslims. There is currently no dedicated ministry or centre of a similar kind in Australia for Hinduism or Buddhism.
Wouldn’t it be great to see initiatives of this type launching in a major city like Brisbane or Sydney before another census rolls around?
*Here are some notable exceptions:
My Valiant attempt to reach Hindus during Diwali (2019)
Are We Ready for India? (2022)
Crossing Spiritual Barriers to Buddhists (2018)
Telling Buddhists about Jesus (2000) (older, but relevant as the author is now the Anglican Archbishop of Sydney!)
In my previous post on the 2022 Australian Federal Election, I discussed some of the proposed approaches by Christian and conservative leaders in response to our present voting options. Today, I want to look at both the Queensland Senate options and the candidates in several electorates around me (i. e. where my friends and readers are likely to reside and vote) and suggest that in many cases, a Government MP/Senator may be your best option to vote for if you’re a social conservative – even if you’re sick of the Coalition on the whole.
A great electoral tragedy would occur if the “majors last”/”incumbent last”/”freedom first” strategies resulted in less conservative MPs and senators being returned to Parliament. Imagine if the quest to “send the Liberals (and/or Labor) a message” and bring them back to better policies and principles actually led to there being less conservative voices in our legislative chambers when the next round of social controversies are being voted on?
Massive shifts in voting patterns have had this side effect before. For example, in 2012 Queensland saw a massive electoral swing from Labor to the LNP – reducing the former government to a humiliating seven seats in a parliament of 89 and giving the LNP the largest majority in state history.
Among the dozens of Labor MPs to lose their seats were some of the party’s more conservative-leaning, solidly Christian members, including Michael Choi and Margaret Keech. They never returned to parliament. So when Labor did return to government – much earlier than expected – it came with a much more left-leaning flavour and without members of Choi or Keech’s calibre to impact the party’s course. One can only speculate as to how their presence in the party room might have affected Queensland Labor’s horrifying social agenda over the past few years.
I would like to see both the Coalition and Labor purged of many of the so-called “progressives” and “moderates” that are – frankly – ruining this country. But if we adopt the wrong strategy in pursuit of that goal, we are likely to end up worse off than we presently are. We must keep those whose social outlook is informed by a Christian conscience and conservative principles in Parliament – whatever the political expense.
To that end, I want to propose that in many cases it will be better to vote to re-elect a solid member of the present government, than vote for a minor party out of spite, if we want our values represented in parliament. I’m not at all against voting for minor parties or independents – and I think in fact that the best candidate should get your first preference – irrespective of who they’re running for.
What I’m saying is twofold: 1) DON’T vote for a minor party/independent candidate that isn’t solidly conservative just because you want to slap the government/majors. 2) You CAN legitimately vote for a government MP or senator, even if you’re fed up with the performance of the Morrison government.
So who?
I live in South East Queensland and so my main area of focus, commentary and whatever limited influence I might have relates to the Queensland Senate spots and the following electorates:
Bonner Forde Moreton
Oxley Rankin Ryan
Wright
Having already given a brief comment on how I perceive several of the parties in serious contention to pick up seats in the previous post, I will confine myself to the question of how genuinely conservative the relevant Government Senators/Members/Candidates are and whether any of them warrant our support.
The ‘Abetz Test’
In order to test whether a candidate is solidly conservative with a moral conscience informed by classic Christian social teaching, it is important to examine how they have voted on key issues (if already a parliamentarian) – especially when they have participated in a ‘conscience vote.’
Conscience votes are a rare parliamentary phenomenon, where politicians are not required to vote in line with the instructions of their party leadership, but are allowed to express their view freely on a contentious moral issue. Usually these are matters of life and death, but they can also be matters of sexuality, religion or anything where their may be deeply held convictions that do not fall neatly into partisan categories.
To figure out an existing Government MP or Senator’s conservative credentials, I’ve used publicly available data to establish how they voted on:
A) key right to life issues;
B) the legalization of same-sex marriage;
C) religious freedom and also
D) how they voted within their own party when it came to the election of a leader (i. e. did they consistently vote for the more conservative candidate?).
For want of a better name, I call this the ‘Abetz Test’ after long-serving Tasmanian senator, Eric Abetz. Senator Abetz is a conservative stalwart in the Liberal Party (a relic from the Howard era, his detractors might say) who consistently votes in a way that reflects his deep conservative values on these issues. He is a Reformed Christian and is not afraid to speak up for important issues and speak out again the latest wokus-pocus.
And so, while the following criteria have been selected based on principles, they also happen to reflect the voting patterns of one of the government’s most consistent and vocal conservative figures.
CRITERIA
A. Consistently Pro-Life (voted for key amendments to ‘Maeve’s Law’)
Earlier this year, federal parliament voted to legalise mitochondrial replacement therapy (MRT), which aims to help avoid a woman passing on mitochondrial diseases to her children. While the technicalities of the research and procedures are too complex to discuss here, the conscience issue at stake here was whether – as part of the MRT process – human embryos could be created for the sole purpose of enhancing the genetics of another embryo, before being destroyed. Those who are consistently pro-life viewed this as an artificial creation and destruction of a human being and voted for amendments to the bill that would stop this from occurring.
B. Voted consistently for amendments to same-sex marriage legislation
When same-sex marriage was being legalized by parliament in 2017, conservative MPs attempted to amend the proposed legislation to ensure that people’s genuinely held religious beliefs and practices were not impacted by the change to the definition of marriage. A range of amendments were proposed and supported by genuine conservatives, but they were defeated by the pro-SSM majority.
C. Supported religious freedom in Australia
I’ve already noted that the Liberals failed to deliver in this department. But some of their members have been more consistent in supporting and voting for religious freedom than others.
D. Consistently voted for more conservative candidate in party leadership spills
The leadership of the party can make a huge difference to its policy agenda. A solid conservative would naturally look to back another solid conservative in a leadership spill if given the option. I’ve asked whether each candidate supported Tony Abbott and Peter Dutton in their respective leadership contests against Malcolm Turnbull (Scott Morrison vs Dutton is not included, as it’s debatable as to who is more conservative).
Applying the Test
Government MPs in select SE Queensland seats
| Electorate | MP | A | B | C | D |
| Bonner | Ross Vasta | X* | ✔ | ✔ | X |
| Forde | Bert van Manen | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | X |
| Ryan | Julian Simmonds | X | O | ✔ | O |
| Wright | Scott Buchholz | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ |
Government Senators from Queensland seeking re-election
| Senator | A | B | C | D |
| James McGrath | X | ✔ | ✔ | X |
| Matt Canavan | ✔ | ✔ | ✔ | N/A |
| Amanda Stoker | ✔ | O | ✔ | O |
Bonus: How the PM and Opposition Leader compare
| MP | A | B | C | D | |
| PM | Scott Morrison | X | ✔ | ✔ | X |
| OpL | Anthony Albanese | X | X | X | N/A |
Interpreting the results
From the above, it is clear that not all Government MPs are equally conservative on these key issues. For instance, if you live in the electorate of Wright – even if you dislike the overall flavour of the government – you would be hard-pressed to find a more solid conservative candidate to vote for than Scott Buchholz. Similarly, although Bert van Manen made a questionable choice for a conservative MP in voting for Malcolm Turnbull in his 2015 leadership challenge against Tony Abbott, the sitting member for Forde is by-and-large a pretty solid candidate across the board.
MP for Bonner, Ross Vasta is mostly conservative, but as displayed in the table is not as consistent in his voting as a socially conservative voter might hope. And MP for Ryan, Julian Simmonds has not been in parliament for long enough for his record to be clear (however his 2016 support of a Brisbane City Council motion to promote same-sex marriage would suggest that he is not a bona fide conservative).
With regards to the Queensland Senate spots, the three lead candidates on the LNP ticket are all socially-conservative to an extent, however my strong opinion is that Senators Stoker and Canavan are far more consistently and outspokenly conservative than James McGrath and more visibly driven by a Christian social conscience when it comes to voting on controversial issues. From my perspective it is a travesty that Amanda Stoker is not number 1 on the government’s senate ticket for QLD. If the issues of life, family, gender, sexuality and religious freedom are important to you at this election, can I strongly encourage you not to vote for the LNP ticket above the line, but to number 12 candidates below the line in order of your preference, placing both Senator Stoker and Senator Canavan above the rest of the government candidates.
Stoker and Canavan would be worthy of consideration for your 1st and 2nd preference on the Senate ballot. But if out of principle you don’t wish to give the government your first preference, by all means place another conservative candidate above them. But please give strong consideration to placing them above all the other electable candidates [i.e. James McGrath (LNP); Labor; the Greens; Pauline Hanson/One Nation; Campbell Newman (LDP) and Clive Palmer (UAP)] when numbering your options. This will increase the chance of proven conservative voices being present in the next parliament.
A word on opposition held seats
The remaining seats I mentioned above as falling within the scope of this post (i. e. Moreton; Oxley and Rankin) are held by Opposition MPs rather than Government MPs. This means while we can examine their track record (which is overwhelmingly bad for each of them with respect to the kinds of issues we’re examining), it is more difficult to do this for their challengers – many of whom have scant bios provided by their parties or campaigns.
How do we approach our electoral options when there’s no one with a clear track record of standing up for the things we’re deeply concerned about?
In such cases, looking at candidates’ websites etc; is worthwhile, as is contacting them for comment if where they stand remains unclear. If you’re still going to the ballot box unsure of whether you have a genuine conservative option to give your first preference, you may need to 1) rely on party policy platforms to guide you as to their most likely priorities 2) vote in reverse order of preferences (i.e. number the worst candidate last and work your way up.
Take an imaginary SEQ ballot below:
▢ Animal Justice Party
▢ Australian Greens
▢ Australian Labor Party
▢ Liberal Democrats
▢ Pauline Hanson’s One Nation
▢ United Australia Party
▢ Liberal National Party
▢ Australian Federation Party
I’ve placed them in descending order from worst to least bad, if the party platform and track record is all you have to go on.
The top three candidates belong to parties which I consider to be the worst options for voters seeking to see conservative voices in parliament. There is zero chance of an AJP or Greens MP being socially conservative on any issue.
While a Labor MP might personally have some socially conservative convictions and express them in the event of a conscience vote, the problem is that they have agreed to support a party platform that is irredeemably pro-abortion and infected by rainbow gender/sexuality ideology. They will also vote in line with their caucus on any issues relating to religious freedom – which would stifle any objections they might personally have.
The middle three are candidates for the so-called “freedom parties.” In the event that I was unable to ascertain anything meaningful about the particular candidates, I would probably preference UAP over One Nation and both over the LDP, based on what the parties have stood for in the past.
Finally, I have the Liberal National Party and the Australian Federation Party (an option only available in Moreton and Ryan, out of the seats we’ve looked at in this post). In a Labor held seat where I didn’t know the personal positions of the LNP candidate, I would still probably vote for them above the previously mentioned options (If a Liberal MP/Candidate was particularly “progressive” or held known, problematic views, it would be all the more important to see if any of the other candidates running were a better option, irrespective of their party). The Australian Federation Party has a good policy platform and has clearly laid out where it stand on key social issues. So if you live in a seat where they’re running a candidate, they might be a great alternative to the LNP for your number 1 preference if the government candidate isn’t a solid conservative (or you’re just really wanting to not give the Liberals your first preference).
Conclusion
There is much more that could be said about how to approach your options at this month’s federal election. I will include some resources below for your consideration if you wish to continue reading and processing this important decision. Whoever wins government on the 21st May, it is vital for the health of our society that solid, consistent and courageous conservative voices with a Christian social conscience remain in Federal Parliament for years to come. Please keep this in mind as you head to the polling booth.
The post above is intended as a piece of personal opinion and political commentary. However, in light of the fact that it seeks to inform and influence how people vote in the federal election, I provide the following authorisation, so as not to run afoul of any electoral laws.
Authorised Y. Johnston, Algester QLD.
Additional Resources
Australian Christian Values Checklist: Federal Election 2022
Cherish Life: How to Vote Pro-Life
Martyn Iles, Australian Christian Lobby: Christian Candidates on Your Ballot
They Vote for You: Tracking how Australian MPs and Senators vote in Parliament
In two and a half weeks, Australians will vote to elect the next parliament and government of our nation. As we gradually emerge from the Covid-chaos of the past two years and look to the future, many are finding it difficult to think through who to support with their vote. My goal in writing this post is to help Australian Christian voters in particular to think through some of the relevant issues that might help you make a wise decision in the polling booth on 21st May.
If you’re keen to dive a bit deeper into this topic, I have previously written about the need for a ‘political triage’ of values in an article entitled: “How do Christians decide who to vote for? (A political triage proposal).” At the time of the last federal election (2019) I wrote an article entitled “Scomo or Bust – the Stark Choice we face at this Election.” While much of what I said then remains valid for this election, I’ll briefly discuss below why there is less reason to have confidence in Scott Morrison’s leadership after the past term of government. Finally, I wrote a piece at the time of the 2016 election, dealing with the issue of life and how we should respond to parties or candidates that support abortion. This also remains relevant to our consideration for this election.
The Present State of Affairs
Going into this election we have a nine-year-old Liberal-National Government led by Scott Morrison (previously led by Tony Abbott and then Malcolm Turnbull) vying for re-election, against a Labor Opposition led by former Deputy Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese. At times the government has appeared moribund, yet at others it seems to still possess considerable vitality in areas that have traditionally been its forte. The Labor Opposition is certainly competitive and while Albanese’s campaign has been a rocky road, it would still appear that the election is his to lose.
Many Christians and conservative voters alike have grown jaded with the Morrison government over the past year or so. Its failure to prevent the erosion of civil liberties by state governments during the pandemic and inability to legislate protections for religious freedom are big reasons for this loss of confidence. Many former Liberal supporters have been concerned by the heavy-spending budgets and enormous debt that has emerged from the pandemic period. Mr Morrison’s failure to take a firm stand for free speech or against “woke” ideology in our institutions is another frequently cited grievance against the government.
Labor was chastised by their 2019 loss under Bill Shorten (who, as I wrote then, would have been a disastrous leader). Anthony Albanese presents as a more decent person and authentic leader, but the problem is that he is genuinely committed to many of the ideological views that are the most problematic features of the 21st century Labor Party. Shorten supported same-sex marriage because he lacks firm social values and it was in his self-interest to do so. Albanese has supported progressive sexual and gender issues for as long as anyone can remember. Certainly an Albanese government is not very palatable to Australians with traditional or socially conservative views about family, sexuality and gender. But at least he is consistent and upfront in what he promotes.
The proposed responses to our electoral options
The failures of both major parties to reflect the values and policies that many Christians hold dear has led to a range of responses gaining traction. There is a popular “Put the Majors Last” movement – which urges voters to place Liberal, Labor and Green candidates at the bottom of the ballot order and number all other minor parties above them. There have been similar calls by conservative Christian commentators to vote for “freedom loving parties” above the majors – by which they typically mean the Liberal Democrats, the United Australia Party and One Nation.
Aside from disenchantment with the major parties, one factor that explains the swing to these particular minor parties is the lack of a solid, conservative/Christian alternative. An intriguing, but sorrowful, development between the last election cycle and the present one has been the disintegration of the minor parties which traditionally filled this space. The Australian Conservatives, led by former Liberal Senator, Cory Bernardi, crumbled after a disappointing performance at the 2019 election. While under Malcolm Turnbull everything seemed ripe for a massive harvest of disgruntled conservative votes, the elevation of Scott Morrison to the top job made it a much harder sell for Bernardi & co. Because the Conservatives had previously merged with Family First around Australia, the demise of this party left a considerable void in the political space it had occupied.
More recently, the Christian Democratic Party (largely NSW based) has been de-registered after a long period of ugly, irreconcilable in-fighting. The once formidable Democratic Labour Party has met the same fate, after the Electoral Commission claimed it did not have sufficient membership numbers to be registered as a party.
Around the country, only the Katter Australian Party in Queensland, the Australian Christians in WA and the Australian Family Party (Group E on the Senate Ballot) in SA provide socially conservative voting options rooted in a Christian worldview. [UPDATE: I would add the Australian Federation Party to this list, having reviewed their statement in response to questions from the ACL] And while residents of those states can vote for those respective parties in the Senate, a very limited number of electors will have the opportunity to vote for them as their Representative in the Lower House.
That brings me to the final voting approach I’m seeing advocated by conservative Christian commentators in recent weeks: vote for people nor for parties. While the “freedom vote” approach above is designed to kick the Liberal government where it hurts to send them a strong message about their failures during the pandemic, the “people not parties” approach objects that this (and the “put the majors last” approach) will result in good, conservative MPs and senators in the government struggling to get re-elected and may result in some less-than-ideal minor party candidates getting into parliament.
I share this concern and so, while I’m very disappointed in several aspects of the Liberal-National Government’s performance and would encourage people to vote for a better candidate/party if they have that option, I think it’s important to support good, incumbent members of parliament if they happen to be our representative or state senator. Putting this into practice would mean in some cases voting for a candidate who is part of the government and sometimes not – depending on which electorate you’re in and what other options you have on the ballot.
I recognize my limited influence and, as a result, will make no effort to suggest who people living in any given electorate should vote for. But in the seats around south-east Queensland where most of my friends and contacts reside I would like to take a look at incumbent Government MPs and examine whether they may in fact be the best candidate to vote for – even if you’re sick of the government. I will do this next week in a follow-up post.
But before we get there, let me finish with some brief observations about the political parties contesting the election – as I believe giving my thoughts on some of them will help provide context that will ensure the next post makes sense.
Liberals/Scott Morrison
I still believe that the Liberals are the least bad out of two poor options to form the next government. They have been a big disappointment in failing to protect religious freedom in Australia. This and many other issues they could have made progress on were largely derailed by the all-consuming response to Covid-19.
But as we emerge from the crisis, we need to see that they can tackle the many issues that this country faces – and it’s difficult for them to convince us that they’re up to it. On economics and national security/defense they would seem to possess an edge over the Opposition – but even these are questionable as qualitative differences. They are dismally divided and ineffectual when it comes to dealing with “culture war” type controversies and are only superior to Labor in this regard insofar as they do not vigourously pursue radical change. But they certainly fail to prevent it. Recent revelations that the PM is not pro-life have underscored the feeling that many of us have had that he isn’t the solid, conservative leader we’d hoped he would be.
Some people think that a term or two in the wilderness would force the Liberals to recalibrate and return to sensible conservative principles. But the trouble is that Morrison would be replaced by either Josh Frydenberg or Peter Dutton as new Opposition Leader and neither of these men are more conservative than the PM on social issues. Things will likely get worse before they get better.
Labor/Anthony Albanese
Much the same as at the last election, a Labor government would be terrible because of what it would do regarding abortion, sexuality and gender and religious freedom (including how they’d be likely to treat Christian schools and other institutions who don’t agree with their worldview). While Albanese seems a better person than Shorten, Labor could easily do better or worse than him when the time comes to replace him. Should Labor lose the election, we can hope that there would be enough shockwaves through the ranks for members to reconsider some of their more radical posturing and seek to win government from the centre with new policies and a centre-right leader like Jim Chalmers, Tony Burke or Chris Bowen. Alternatively, they could fail to learn these lessons after a loss and elect Tanya Plibersek as leader, who would almost certainly become the next PM and be a worse option that Albanese.
Nationals/Barnaby Joyce
It’s tempting to forget that the Government is a Coalition between the Liberal and National parties and that the Leader of the Nationals is Australia’s default Deputy Prime Minister/Deputy Opposition Leader. The Nationals were for a long time the best of the four majors, but the perverse moral corruption of the NSW branch, which was on display in the last few years, raises serious questions about the overall health of the broader party. Barnaby Joyce’s affair with a parliamentary staffer (now his wife) has diminished his standing as a leader. While he is still an effective political operator that stands by-and-large for conservative and common sense principles, he doesn’t have the same cut through or authority that he once did.
Greens/Adam Bandt
The Greens remain the most dangerous, progressive regressive and anti-Christian party with significant parliamentary representation. In their pursuit of further sexual activism they intend to:
▲ Appoint a Minister for Equality and an LGBTIQA+ Human Rights Commissioner to make achieving equality a priority across government
▲ Tighten anti-discrimination laws and introduce a Charter of Rights to protect LGBTIQA+ rights in law
▲ Make schools safer by removing exemptions from anti-discrimination laws, funding inclusion training for teachers and redirecting funding from chaplains to inclusive secular programs.
All of these things would be weaponized against those who don’t share the Greens’ radical re-interpretation of human sexuality and gender identity.
Furthermore, their primary policy for women’s health in Australia is:
▲ Make access to abortion safe, accessible, legal and affordable across the country
The Minor “Freedom” Parties
Finally, let me comment on the so-called “freedom-loving” parties, which have been proposed as an alternative to voting for the Coalition by multiple conservative commentators. Certainly in Queensland they represent the biggest threat to the majors in the Senate race, with former premier Campbell Newman standing for the Liberal Democrats; billionaire founder of the United Australia Party Clive Palmer heading their ticket; and Senator Pauline Hanson seeking re-election under her One Nation Party banner. In the Lower House, the UAP and ONP will contest almost every seat around the country, while the LDP is targeting more urbanized electorates.
I’m not inclined to vote for candidates from any of these parties. Here’s why…
The Liberal Democrats represent a strange amalgam of concepts associated with the broad banner of liberty. This includes general support for leftist liberalization of things like abortion and marriage laws and right-wing liberalization of things like guns and smoking. A strange beast indeed. Campbell Newman is definitely not a social conservative (whether he is even a libertarian given his track record on civil liberties is someone else’s bone to pick!) and it puzzles me that Christians or conservatives would vote for him when there are far better options on offer.
A big issue with Clive Palmer and Pauline Hanson is that while they have been effective at getting people elected under their banner in the past, both of them are incapable of holding a parliamentary team together. If you’re voting for one of their candidates, you’re likely voting for a kooky splinter party that will emerge when they have a disagreement with their patron.
I can’t bring myself to support Pauline Hanson herself, due to her unrepentant racism, which is inconsistent not only with my faith, but my extensive connections to people of East-Asian descent who she has deeply hurt in the past.
Palmer is less problematic in my view, but I have always found him to be more bluster than substance and I don’t really like the idea of a billionaire mining baron representing me in the Senate. A lot of the UAP’s policies are decent, it’s more a question of credibility and capability when it comes to anyone elected under this banner delivering on those policies.
So, in summary, I don’t believe that voting for the “freedom parties” is the answer to the nation’s current problems. As to where this leads us and how I would encourage people to consider voting, I will make some more concrete suggestions next time.
Continued from Part 1
The godly Christian’s character displayed in their relations with others
[The right Christian] is one that is holy at home as well as abroad, and walks in the midst of his house with a perfect heart. His house is a little church, consecrated to the dearest Redeemer, wherein his God is praised and worshipped, and a true though small resemblance of the highest heavens. ‘Holiness to the Lord’ is written on all the vessels, rooms, and, in his desire and endeavour, on all the inhabitants in it. It is the grief of his soul to have a cursed Ham, or scoffing Ishmael, or profane Esau in his family; and oh, how his heart aches for fear any should drop out of his house into hell! He is a priest to pray for them, a prophet to instruct them, and a king to govern them according to the word of God. He is especially watchful to set them a good pattern, knowing that he, like the admiral in a navy, carries the light for all the rest, and they are prone to imitate his practices, whether right or wrong.
He manifests religion in every relation, and fills them up with suitable conversation. He is not like the earth, light in one part, and always dark at the same time in others, but as the heavens, at all times, and in all parts light. As he is a parent, he does not, like Aesop’s ape, hug his child to death with fondness, nor bring up his children to bring down his family, but brings them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord. He desires more to see them gracious than to see them great, and takes more thoughts for their immortal spirits than for their fading flesh. He provides for their bodies, and gives them such education as may make them serviceable to men; but he prefers their souls, and is mainly solicitous about that breeding which may make them serviceable to the blessed God.
As he is a son, he labours to approve himself the most dutiful child in the country. He honours his parents, both inwardly and outwardly, in his language and carriage, and submits to them in all things in the Lord. He yields obedience to his earthly parents out of conscience to his heavenly Father, and pays his duty both to God and man in the same action. If he be rebuked for his faults, he is not only patient to submit, but also pious to reform, and kisses the rod for teaching him his lesson. Though his parents be wicked and careless of his weal, yet he is tender of their welfare. He dares not discover their nakedness, nor disobey their lawful precepts, because they themselves are profane, but he serves them with the more care to win them to Christ; and is so affectionate towards them that he does not only to his power supply (if need be) their poverty, but would lay down his natural life to prevent their eternal death.
If he be a husband, in his behaviour towards his wife he imitates his head in his carriage towards his body: he nourishes and cherishes her as the Lord the church. She is in his eye the fairest of women, and in his judgment the fittest for him of any in the world. He chose her more for her weight in grace than in gold, and he values her not according to her estate in the earth, but in the covenant. Whatsoever she be, either for person, or portion, or parts, or parentage, he esteems and affects her more for her piety, and because of God’s ordinance, than for any or all of them. If she err, he seeks to draw her home with the cords of love; if she continue in the faith, he seeks to confirm her with the bands of kindness. Love is his whetstone to provoke her to obey him; and love is his loadstone to allure her to obey God. His love is one ingredient in all compositions; and his love is her cordial in her sick and sad conditions. He loves her outward man above all his means, and affords it what her necessity and conveniency require, and what his estate will allow; but he is exceeding tender of her inward man, praying with her, and for her, instructing her, and using all helps that Christ may be her husband, and heaven her jointure.
If she be a wife, she is subject to her husband, as the church is to Christ. She does not question his place nor quarrel with his power, but in obedience to God’s ordinance honour his person, and obey his lawful pleasure. Though he commands what is below her, or painful to her, if not sinful, she does not complain of, but comply with his commands. Her clothing is the satin of sanctity, the purple of purity, the white linen of innocence, and the ornament of a meek and quiet spirit, which is, in the sight of God, of great price. Her meat and drink is to do the will (under God and in subordination to him) of her husband. If he be satisfied, and her God not disobeyed, whoever be displeased, she is contented. She reverences him as her head, and loves him as her heart; and as she is one with him in name and condition, so she endeavours, as much as may be, to be one with him in nature and disposition. She is faithful to his eternal, as well as his temporal estate, and more careful to have him rich towards God than rich in this world. She is mindful of her household, as well as her husband, and is a meet help to him, not only in his personal, but also in his domestic concerns.
The heart of her husband safely trusts in her, so that he shall have no need of spoil. She will do him good and not evil all the days of her life. She seeks wool and flax, and works willingly with her hands. She is like the merchant’s ship, she brings her food from far. She rises while it is yet night, and gives meat to her household, and a portion to her maidens. She considers a field and buys it ; with the fruit of her hands she plants a vineyard; she girds her loins with strength, and strengthens her arms. She perceives that her merchandise is good, her candle goes not out by night; she lays her hands to the spindle, and her hands hold the distaff; she stretches out her hands to the poor, yea, she stretches out her hands to the needy. She opens her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness; she looks well to the ways of her household, and eats not the bread of idleness. Many daughters have done virtuously, but she excels them all.’
If he be a master, he carries himself towards his servants as one that has a Master in heaven. He knows that his servants are made of the same mould, and may be heirs of the same happiness with himself; that though there be a civil, yet there is no natural or spiritual distinction, and he treats them answerably in all his actions. He commands them, as Abraham his household, to keep the way of the Lord; is more careful that they mind God’s worship than his own work, and is more sorrowful when God is disobeyed than when his own affairs are neglected; he uses his servants, but dares not abuse them by overworking or under-keeping them; he gives to them what is just and equal, both in their work and reward ; but he is more diligent to teach them, and more desirous they should learn, the trade of Christianity, than his own calling.
If he be a servant he lives like the Lord’s freeman, walking at liberty and seeking God’s precepts. He denies sinful subjection to any, but he yields civil subjection to all whom his God hath set over him. Though his master be froward and crabbed, he serves him with fear and conscience, as persuaded that his respect and obedience is due not to man’s nature, but to God’s order and ordinance. If his master be holy, he does not slight him because a brother, but counts him worthy of double honour. He honours him for his relation as his master, and for his religion as his Christian master. He is diligent in his duty whether his master be present or absent, knowing that the eye of his God is ever on him, and as having the fear of his God ever in him. Whether his master be good or bad, courteous or churlish, he is faithful in his calling, does his work as to the Lord, hoping that of the Lord he shall receive his reward. He serves his Maker in serving his master, and doth all in singleness of heart as unto Christ, looking at last for the inheritance of a son.
A godly man for all seasons
He is one that is holy in every condition, as well as in every relation, and walks in all weathers in the way of God’s commandments. In prosperity he gives God praise, in adversity he is patient, in both pious. He suits his carriage not according to his company, but according to his condition. He sees by experience that as fat bodies are most liable to diseases, and the best meat to be blown with flies, so prosperous men are most prone to profaneness; therefore though his mountain be never so strong, he is not secure; but the more wealth he has, the more watchful he is lest it should be a provocation to wickedness. His heart is not the more lifted up for the greatness of his heaps, but in a high wind he keeps a low sail, because that is most safe. His substance is not the object of his confidence, for he sees it is a sandy foundation; he trusts not in uncertain riches, but in the living God, who gives him all things richly to enjoy. He is sensible of others’ sufferings, notwithstanding his own safety; and though his own drink be wine, yet it is purl-royal in which he tastes his brethren’s wormwood.
He values himself not by the confluence of creatures, but by the unsearchable riches that are in Christ, for he believes no other wealth will be current in the other world. He beholds many to be high whose lives speak them to be now under God’s hatred, and in the road to hell; and therefore he rates himself not by his houses, or lands, or temporal possessions, but by his right to the Father’s house, the inheritance of the saints in light, and his eternal portion. He gives God the praise of all his plenty, believing that not his own diligence, so much as God’s gracious providence, is the original of his prosperity. He is therefore chiefly glad of power, and riches, and outward mercies, because he may get his God the more glory and honour, and has opportunity thereby of being the richer in good works.
He, like the industrious bee, works hard in this summer of prosperity, and lay in provision, that he may have some honey of comfort to feed upon in a winter of scarcity and misery. He is not afraid of the snow when it comes, being prepared for it with double clothing. In the hard weather of adversity he keeps his spiritual health, nay, he increases it, and is made thereby partaker of God’s holiness. He dares not murmur at instruments, much less quarrel at the efficient; but he sees God’s hand at the bottom of the warrant for his correction, and that keeps the king’s peace in his breast.
He knows that though second causes may intend evil, yet the first cause, whose will must stand, intends his good; and so he patiently submits to his punishment, because it tends to his profit. He justifies God when he condemns him ; and though God kill him, yet he will love him and trust in him. He rejoices in the tree of his comforts, the God of all consolation, when the fruit is fallen off; and though the fig-tree doth not blossom, nor the vine yield her fruit, yet he rejoices in the Lord, and is glad in the rock of his salvation. When he is scourged he feels the strokes, yet not to fret at the rod, but to find out the root whence it grew — his sin, that he may amend what he hath done amiss. Indeed, as soon as the disease reveals itself, he inquires into the cause ; as soon as the messenger appears, he asks his errand, and despatches that as suddenly as he may, to hasten his departure.
He is not only religious in his duties to God, but also righteous in his dealings with men. Though he be married to religion, yet in this she is not like his wife, she is not a keeper at home ; but wherever he goes she bears him company. He is not like a hypocrite, tender of the first table and careless of the second; nor like a heathen, who will not wrong his neighbour of the least mite, but robs God of millions; but he exercises himself to keep a conscience void of offence towards God and towards all men. He trafficks for grace when he is trading about his goods, and labours that therein he may do good both to himself and others. Every place he is called to is a temple, all his works are worship, and every man he deals with is a monitor to remember him to offer sacrifice to his God.
When he is alone he is at leisure to be serious with his own soul, and to inquire into its case and condition. In his greatest company he is alone to himself, and in his greatest secrecy in company with his God. The truth is, he is never alone, for the Father is always with him; and he thinks what a holy man (Dr Sibbes) was wont to say, My God and I are good company. Yet he often sequesters himself from the crowd, that he may enjoy the sweetest kisses from Jesus Christ. He can tell how to be solitary as well as how to be sociable, and has many a time found the golden and silver mines in solitary places where were no inhabitants. He has had many a good turn in his garden or private chamber, when he has walked unseen, and Christ has been his fellow-traveller. No bread has been more sweet than that which he has eaten in secret, when Christ has been his fellow-commoner. He is for company as well as for privacy, but he is for good fellowship ; he delights only in them that are true Christians. He chooses rather to travel alone than with thieves, wicked men, that will conspire to rob him of his precious grace, at least of his precious time.
He is a companion of all that fear God and keep his statutes ; he chooses to converse with saints, though he uses sometimes, as his occasions and relations call him, to converse with sinners. He does not, like the chameleon, turn himself into the colour of his company; nor, like liquid things, take his form from that place in which he is; but as a solid body, keeps his figure wherever he be; nay, he endeavours, as those that carry strong scents about them, to perfume all persons and places in which he comes. If he be among the good he watches their words, their works, that he may receive some good from them, and do some good to them. He hopes that his heart, as cold as it is will get some heat by being so near such glowing coals; and he provokes them, to his power, and in his place, to love and to good works. The communion of saints is a great comfort to him in his pilgrimage, and an article both of his creed and his practice. If he be among the bad, his work is to make them better; and he is watchful that they do not make him worse. Though he cannot avoid the company of sinners, yet he is careful to avoid the contagion of their sins. He knows that it is hard for sheep to be in the midst of such thorns and to lose no part of their fleece therefore when he sees he can do no good, he hastens away, lest he should receive some evil.
Godliness is his business, not only amongst all persons, but also in all seasons. He does not put on religion, as some their best clothes, on some high or some holiday only, but it is his ordinary and his constant attire. Every week-day is with him a Lord’s-day, for he lives in the fear of the Lord all the day long. When he opens his eyes in the morning, he lifts them up to his Maker, both with praise for the last night’s protection, and in prayer for the ensuing day’s providence. He sets out for the other world before he undertakes his worldly works, and expects no blessing on them till he have first begged it. He dares not venture abroad fasting, for fear of infection from those many ill fumes and vapours which he is sure to encounter. He spends the greatest part of the day in his particular vocation, but so that in it he is limited and directed by religion. He buys as one that possesses not, sells as one that has a soul to save, uses the world as not abusing it, because the fashion of this world passes away.
His prudence guides him, and his piety sways him so to follow his shop as not to neglect his closet, and so to take care of the bodies, as one that must give an account of all the souls, in his family. He is tender of his time all the day long, to redeem it from needless talk and vain company, and very unwilling to cut such a precious commodity to waste. He watches his heart through the whole day, knowing how treacherous an inmate it is, and that he walketh constantly amongst enemies, which are neither few nor asleep. He usually calleth his soul to a reckoning at night how it hath behaved itself in the day, and so makes his factor faithful, by accounting with him frequently. As God is the Alpha, the beginning, so he is the Omega, the ending of the day; for he doth not commit his body to his bed before he has asked his Father’s blessing, and commended his soul into the hands of his Redeemer. When he has washed off the dirt that his soul hath contracted by touching and meddling with worldly things, in the blood of his Saviour, and bewailed them before the Lord, then he can lie down with comfort, and God giveth his beloved sleep.
Concern for the souls of others in their frailty and mortality
He is one that visits the sick rather out of conscience than out of courtesy, and more to inquire of their spiritual than of their bodily welfare. If ever men be serious and come to themselves, it is when in their own thoughts they are dying and going from all others; therefore he will by no means neglect such a price, but improve it to the utmost for their eternal peace. He will for the time become a physician, and so wisely considers the spiritual state of his patient, and accordingly orders his prescription. If the patient be a scandalous person, one whose disease seems to be desperate, he giveth the stronger physic. He dares not be so unfaithful as scarce to touch his festered wounds for fear of putting him to pain, but endeavours to search them to the bottom.
He sets before the soul the heinous evil and horrid end of sin, the unspeakable madness and unconceivable misery of sinners, and the certainty of all this under the hand of God himself. He uses the law’s hammer to break the heart if possible, thereby to prevent hell. He dares not give the least cordial till he hath found his former physic to have had some considerable operation. If the person be one of a moral civil life, yet one whom he fears in a natural estate, he commends civility, but discovers its defects, and prefers sanctity in all his discourse. The substance of his speech is concerning the nature and necessity of regeneration, as the only means appointed by the God that cannot lie for the obtaining of salvation. He speaks so affectionately, with so much love to his dying friends, that you may perceive the working of his heart in the motion of his lips.
He labours for life to save poor souls from eternal death. Oh how eager and earnest is he to persuade his sick friends to be holy and happy! If he meet with a patient that is pious, yet perplexed with doubts and fears, he hath his cordial juleps, the gospel promises, to preserve such a soul from fainting. He looks for some savoury expression from this dying Christian, that may stick upon him whilst he hath a being. When he hears a dying sinner cry out of the world’s falseness to him in this his extremity, though he had been a faithful drudge to it all his time, he lays up that saying in his heart, and hopes he shall love the world the less whilst he lives. When he hears the dying saint commend the faithfulness of his God in owning him, now all the world leaves him ; when he hears him tell how fast a friend, how choice a good, how vast a portion the blessed God is, how sweet his ways are, and bless the time that he spent in praying and reading, and examining his own heart ; he thinks, there is somewhat for me ; and when he goes home, he begs that he may set the greater price upon his God, and take the more pains in holy duties till he comes to that hour.
The right Christian is one whose conversation is in heaven, though his habitation be on earth; he dwells here below, but he lives above; religion is his mistress, to whom he hath surrendered the keys of his heart. He is not one who pays lip service to her, but is a real servant. The world may be in the suburbs, but God reigns in the city. He uses the creatures, yet enjoys none but Jesus Christ.
Heaven is the centre to which all the lines of his life tend, and in which they meet and end. Holiness is his highway, in which he daily walks, and he thinks that day lost in which he makes not some progress towards his journey’s end, eternal life. He travels in company with many civil and natural affairs, but he is especially watchful that they keep their distance all the way.
He is one that makes, not his own nor any other’s, but God’s will, the rule of his worship. He is careful to pay his God his due to the utmost of his power, though to do it he is forced sometimes to compound with his family or particular calling, and to pay them short – yet he dares not pay his piety to God in counterfeit pieces, or in any coin but such as has a divine stamp, the King of heaven’s image and superscription on it. He gives religion the right hand of fellowship in his daily conversation, causing his servants’ bodily and worldly business to wait till his Master, the blessed God, be served.
He does not mind godliness by the by, or when he has nothing else to do, but prefers it in his practices, as well as his principles, before all other things. He has more manners than to let the Lord of glory wait his leisure; and more wisdom, when he is going to speak to the King of kings about matters of life and death, than to let the trifles of this world delay him by the way.
He minds his business when he is about it, and dares not do his holy work by halves; whether he pray, or hear, or read, or meditate, or whatsoever sacred performance he sets upon, he serves his God with all his heart and with all his might. He so considers the weight and consequence of his religious duties, the worthiness and holiness of God with whom he has to do, that he believes no labour to be great enough, no carriage to be gracious enough, for the manner of his worship; no love to be hot enough, no honour to be high enough for the object of his worship; nay, and his very all to be too little for him.
He is not only diligent in, but also constant at, this heavenly calling; when he is walking with men, he walks with God; all the while he lives in the flesh, he lives after the spirit; religion is his daily and hourly companion; at his table, it is his sauce, which makes his meat savoury; in his shop, it is his scales, which makes his wares weighty; in his chamber, it is the hand that makes his bed easy; all his colours are laid in this oil of grace. His whole life, though it may have now and then a comma and a parenthesis in it, is but one continued and entire speech of prayer and praise to his Lord. He labours whilst he lives, and neither desires nor expects rest till the night of death bring him a writ of ease.
He is one that is persuaded religion to be the end of his creation, and of all the mercies that he enjoys and so his God’s end is ever in his eye, and he minds the message about which his God sent him into the world, whatsoever he omits. He is more rational than to conceive his heaven-born soul to be given him that he might live a brute, to eat and drink, and sport and sleep; and more religious than to prefer his meat before his message, or himself before his Master.
He often admonishes himself, ‘Soul, soul, remember for what end you came here’; and is a fellow-commoner with angels in obeying the precepts, and feeding on those pleasures which flow from the fountain of his being and happiness. He cannot think of the day wherein his Master will call him to an account, how he hath done the work about which he is set, and discharged the errand about which he is sent, without fear, and therefore dares not be false or unfaithful. He sets out in earnest for the undefiled inheritance, as knowing that it cannot be attained without violence. He believes that the gate of life is strait, and none can enter in unless they strive; that he must conquer if he will be crowned, and win the weight of glory if he will wear it. Therefore he overlooks all discouragements, overleaps all impediments, puts forth all his strength, and works in this, that he may rest in the other world.
He judges the matters of his God, of his soul, and of eternity, to be infinitely more ponderous and weighty, more excellent and worthy, than the affairs of his family and of his body, which last but for a few days, and from these he is provoked and persuaded to give them the precedency in all his actions, to pursue them with industry against all opposition, and to persevere in them with constancy to his dissolution.
He is one that doth not only use diligence himself, but also bemoans the negligence of others; his soul weeps for others’ wickedness in their eager pursuit of lying vanities, and careless neglect of real and saving mercies. When he beholds worldlings toying with mean trifles, and playing like children — only this difference, with greater baubles — take such pains to dig into the mines of the earth for gold, and then to find nothing but their own graves; when he beholds the greatest and wisest of the world, like Augustus, to play with nuts, or Alexander Severus with dogs, or Lucian’s Jupiter, to spend their time in painting the wings of butterflies — to be so busy about nothing — he does not, like Democritus, laugh at the ridiculousness of their lives, but with Heraclitus, mourn for their madness and misery.
When he observes amongst professors so much science, and so little conscience; so many Christians without Christ ; so much talking of God’s word, and so little walking in God’s way; so many who, like trees, seem to aspire to heaven, and yet are rooted in the earth, contending vehemently, like fishes for a few crumbs that are thrown into the waters; like some sluggish old horses, when good provender is before them, to pick at straws that lie under their feet; to ride, and run, and watch, and work for a thing of nought, for a few poor scraps that comes from the creature’s table, when the flesh of Christ, which is meat indeed, and the blood of Christ, which is drink indeed, and all the dainties of the gospel are before them and offered to them, — he both wonders at and bewails their folly and frenzy.
He is one whose pious pulse is ever beating, and whose religious soul is ever breathing after his God and Saviour. His holiness, like the fire on the altar, comes down from heaven: and though it may sometimes abate, sometimes increase in its heat, yet it never goes out day nor night. He is holy, as his God is holy, in all manner of conversation. Though his godliness, like a simple of a predominant quality, gives a tincture to all the mixtures of his natural and civil actions, yet it gives the greatest relish and savour to his spiritual compositions, which belong to the sanctuary. He is always circumspect in his carriage, because he is ever in the view of God’s eye; but he is most pious when he comes solemnly into God’s presence, knowing that great princes are more curious of their near attendants than of those that are at a further distance.
He considers that holiness becomes God’s house, that dead duties are no way suitable to a living God, that the ordinances of his God are edged tools, and not in the least to be jested with, that his soul and eternal estate are at stake in every performance, and therefore, as David, he dances before the ark with all his might ; he prays, he hears, he sings, he communicates, he does all with heat and heartiness, with love and liveliness, as for his life, as for his soul, as for his everlasting salvation.
The vessel of his soul moves steadily, and sails swiftly on the waters of the sanctuary, being ballasted with a holy fear, and furnished with the sails of a living faith. He goes to duty, not for duty, but to give glory to his God in them, and to receive grace from his God through them, that he might by them be made partaker of the divine nature.
He prays with reverence, as to a God, and with confidence, as to a father, and gets his whole living by this trade of begging. He believes his prayer to be answered when his petition is denied, and never goes from the beautiful gate of God’s temple without some alms. As in the presence of the Lord, he gives audience to his word, and is known to be one of Christ’s sheep by his ear-mark, of hearing his voice and following him. He lays up the jewel of the word in the cabinet of his heart, and lays it out as occasion serves in his conversation.
He goes to the sacramental board as to his dying bed, and thinks no preparation great enough for the reception of the Lord of glory. His first question at the table, is, with the church, ‘Have you seen him whom my soul loves?’ and with the Greek to Philip, ‘Sir, I wish to see Jesus’ – and if Christ be absent, whoever or whatever be present, the cup, though it be gold, has no worth, no wine in it, for he goes from the table more hungry and unsatisfied than he came to it. He goes to ordinances, as Zaccheus to his sycamore tree, to have a sight of his Saviour, and as Moses to the mount, to commune with his God, and only then is he at ease, when he can accomplish his end.
He counts that prayer the best prayer wherein he enjoys most of his Saviour; that sermon the best sermon that gives the deepest wounds to his sins, and those elements the only sacrament that are a taste and seal of this eternal salvation.
He is one that of all seasons has the highest respect for the Lord’s day, having discovered through experience that it is the day of his greatest spiritual feasts. He needs no priest, as the Jews had to sound a trumpet the day before, and give notice of the ensuing Sabbath, for he longs for it more than lovers for the day of their wedding, and the whole week to him is but a preparation for the heavenly works of that honourable day.
He empties his heart overnight of those ill humours which may be contracted by the world’s coarse fare, that he may have the better appetite to those dainties which shall be set before him on that day. In it he cheerfully meditates on God’s works, and carefully attends on God’s word. He works the work of him that sent him into the world all the day long, and wishes the day longer for the duty’s sake. He esteems every part of this golden season precious, and gathers up the fragments of it, that nothing be lost. At the night of this market-day for his soul, he calls himself to a reckoning what he has got, how much he has gained, and counts it an ill day if he be not more informed in his judgment, or reformed in his affections, and more conformed in his conversation to his Lord Jesus Christ.
He is one that frames his kitchen, his natural actions, as well as his chapel, his spiritual, according to the rule and square of religion. He does not feed without fear, but eat his bread before the Lord, as knowing that it does not nourish by its own power, but by divine providence, and that it is the means of preserving his life, not the end of his living. He feeds his flesh, but does not pamper it, as fearing that God, who allows him what is sufficient for his need, but not provision for his lust. He keeps a strict hand on this unruly horse, his appetite, lest, if the reins lay on its own shoulders, it should run on and wander to his ruin; yet, because his body is his soul’s beast, on which it depends very much in its motions, he rules over it with reason, not with rashness; uses it as a servant, not as a slave, and allows it convenient refreshment and rest. But his recreation, is not his occupation, only his sauce, which he uses sparingly, to make his meat, his work, relish the better, and go down the pleasanter.
He is one that minds his general calling in his particular, and trades with his temporal stock for the true riches. His care is to make the maid to know her place and wait on religion; and his fear lest at any time she should usurp authority over her mistress.
If the world smile on him, he dares not trust it, but endeavours, when its possessions flow in upon him, that his affections may not flow out upon it. When he abounds in goods, he abounds in thankfulness to the giver, and desires more to improve his wealth aright, than to increase it. If the world frown upon him, and he decreases in the means of the earth, he labours to decrease in earthly-mindedness, and rejoices at the taking away of the fuel, when he finds thereby the fire to go out. Howsoever the wise God throw him, he falls like a dice upon a square, having learned in all conditions to be contented, how to abound and how to be abased.
Next time: the Christian’s character in their relationships with others!
A life of pleasure brings on a strange deadness and infatuation upon the soul, partly as sensuality engrosses the time, and causes us to waste those precious hours in which we should make provision for eternity; to eat, drink, and be merry, and knit one … Continue reading Puritan Prime Cuts: Thomas Manton on Carnal Pleasures
Q: If you ask me, then, what fear is lawful?
A: It must be a mixed fear, partly because of his majesty and holiness; and partly, because of his justice while we are in the present state, not wholly exempt from the strokes of God’s justice; and this is the fear that is in the children of God, and is usually called by the name of filial fear; whereas the other in wicked men is called by the name of servile and slavish fear.
The distinction is grounded on scripture, and the two kinds of fear are called ‘filial’ and ‘servile’ as an allusion to the fear of children and servants: children fear their loving parents; servants fear their hard and cruel masters. The grounds of this distinction are famously known — the spirit of bondage and the spirit of adoption: ‘You have not received the spirit of bondage again to fear, but you have received the Spirit of adoption, whereby we cry, Abba, Father,’ (Rom. 8:15). The spirit of bondage is the root and ground of servile fear, and the spirit of adoption is the ground of filial fear.
Now, though there may be some servile fear in the children of God, yet it is more and more driven out the more we increase in the apprehension of God’s love: ‘Perfect love casts out fear’ (1 John 4:18). I take “love” in this verse to refer to the apprehension of God’s love, not for our love for God.
Now I shall state the differences between these two kinds of fears, servile and filial.
(1.) Filial fear is always coupled with love — for there is a harmony between the graces — but servile fear is coupled with hatred.
Filial fear arises from a humble sense of God’s goodness, and thereby God is made more amiable and lovely to the soul: ‘There is forgiveness with You that You may be feared.’ (Ps. 130:4). They are afraid to displease so good a God as they have found him to be in Christ: ‘And they shall fear the Lord and his goodness.’ (Hosea 3:5). Note, it is not the Lord, and his wrath and his justice, spoken of here, but his goodness. Filial fear is rather because of his past benefits, than because of his judgments to come; but now servile fear arises merely from a sense of this wrath, and so causes hatred of God — they hate God while they fear him.
Wicked men, it is true, stand in dread of God; but they have hard thoughts of God, and they could wish there was no God, or that he were not such a God. Either they wish the destruction of his being or of his glory; either that there were no God, or that he were a weak or powerless God – not such a God, not so holy, just, and powerful. It is a pleasing thought to a carnal heart if there were no God to punish him. Such fear there is in the devils themselves: James 2:19, ‘They believe and tremble;’ they abhor their own thoughts of God, and their bondage is increased with their knowledge. So do wicked men hate those characters of God engraven upon their consciences, they stand in dread of God, but it is a fear that is accompanied with hatred rather than love.
(2.) Filial fear is accompanied with a shyness of sin, but not with a shyness of God’s presence.
Adam, as soon as he had sinned, he displayed this slavish fear; the more he feared, the more he ran away from God: Gen. 3:10, ‘I was afraid, because I was naked, and hid myself.’ His guilt makes him run into the bushes. When men feel God’s wrath they cannot endure the presence of his glory. Before Man fell, there was nothing sweeter to him than familiarity with God; but as soon as he sinned, ‘I was afraid, and hid myself.’ Now when fear makes us to fly from God, it must be held culpable; for the aim of all graces is to preserve a communion and a respect between God and the soul; and therefore the proper use of fear is rather to fly from sin than to fly from God.
In short, there is a fear that keeps us from coming to God, and that is carnal; and there is a fear that keeps us from going away from God, which preserves the soul in a way of holy acquaintance and communion with God, and that is a holy fear: ‘I will put my fear into their hearts, that they shall not depart from me.’ (Jer. 32:40). Fear is the preserving grace, therefore it is mere bondage and horror that sets the soul at a distance from God; yet this is in all wicked men; they think they can never banish God far enough out of their thoughts; they would, if they could, withdraw themselves from his government and get out of his sight; they would fain run away from God; they hate his presence in their consciences, because they carry their hell and their accuser always about them; and it were happy for them, they think, if they should never more see God.
But now a gracious fear makes the heart to cleave the closer to God. A child of God is troubled, because sin is apt to breed a strangeness; and because they cannot more delight in his company, they are never near enough to God. A godly man is afraid of losing God, and a carnal man is afraid of finding him. The voice of slavish fear is, ‘Hide us from the face of him that sits upon the throne, and from the wrath of the Lamb,’ Rev. 6:16. But true fear is afraid lest God should hide himself — afraid lest God should shut up himself in a veil of displeasure. Observe that place: Hosea 3:5, ‘They shall seek the Lord their God, and David their king, and they shall fear the Lord and his goodness.’ That filial fear which arises from the goodness of God makes us seek God and run after him. It is a blessed fear that drives us to seek the face of God, and bring us into his presence.
(3.) Servile fear only regards the loss and punishment, but true fear is mixed.
True fear regards the punishment, but not punishment alone. It regards both offence and punishment; only with this difference, the godly do not fear judgment so much as sin; and in the punishment and judgment itself, to a gracious heart the loss is more horrible than the pain; they are afraid lest there should be a divorce between them and God, lest they should grieve their good God, and cause him to depart from them.
But now wicked men are afraid to burn, but not afraid to sin. When it is merely for the punishment, then it is slavish fear. See how the apostle speaks of the habitual bondage that is in the heart of every wicked man: ‘Through fear of death they are all their lifetime subject to bondage.’ (Heb. 2:15).
Now this kind of fear can never be gracious, partly because there is more torment in it than there is reverence; and so it lacks the chief and formal reason of fear, which is not the creature’s danger, but God’s excellency. A carnal man fears hell more than God, which is an act of guilty and corrupt nature, not of religion. And partly, because it can never produce any genuine piety; for if a wicked man should leave off sin out of this fear, it is not out of hatred to sin, but out of the fear of the punishment, as the bird is kept from the bait by the scarecrow.
And so the sin is not hated, but forborne; they love the sin and fear hell; there is nothing restrained but the act; servile fear restrains the action, but the other mortifies the affection. Godly men do not only forbear sin, but abhor sin, and hate it. A wicked man dares not sin, and a good man would not sin. Or suppose that out of this fear he should practise some duties (as a wicked man may out of the compunction of slavish fear), yet this is but forced from him; and forced fruit is never so kindly as that which is naturally ripened.
All the duties of a wicked man are rather a sin-offering, than a thank-offering; not done out of any respect to God, or from reasons of religion, but to appease conscience. And therefore, upon the whole matter, we see that gracious fear must have another object besides the punishment; we may fear the punishment, but not only. A godly man doth not only fear hell, ‘but fears an oath,’ Eccles. 9:2; that is, to be false to an oath. ‘He fears the commandment,’ Prov. 13:13. His greatest fear is lest he should cast off duty, and commit known sins.
(4.) Servile fear is involuntary.
The wicked do not fear out of a voluntary act and exercise of faith, but a judicial impression. The fear that is in the godly arises naturally out of faith and tenderness of spirit; but in a wicked man, it is out of guilt of conscience; there is bondage impressed and forced upon his heart, which, though it be not always felt, yet it is soon awakened — ‘All their lifetime they are subject to bondage,’ Heb. 2:15; and if God does but touch the conscience, then they are troubled. Belteshazzar seemed to have a brave spirit, and not to be daunted with the forces with which he was besieged; but God takes off the edge of his bravery with a few letters upon the wall — ‘Then his countenance was changed, and his thoughts troubled him; so that the joints of his loins were loosed, and his knees smote one against another,’ Dan. 5:6. God arms wicked men’s thoughts against them, and it is more than if he should bring the greatest terrors from without. At that time he was besieged with the Persian forces; but that one hand upon the wall works upon him more than all the forces with which he was beleaguered.
So too Felix all of a sudden trembled, Acts 24:25. A man would have thought the story should rather have said that Paul trembled; but note, the prisoner makes the judge to tremble, but sore against his will, because he had the advantage of his conscience. Paul was discoursing there of temperance, righteousness, and judgment to come; now Felix was notoriously guilty of bribery and incontinency; Drusilla, though she was used as his wife, was but his minion; he took her from Azizus, king of the Emisenians; and when Paul rubs him up with judgment to come, trembling comes upon him, and he could not withstand it. And such trembling there is in wicked men in the midst of their revelling and bravery; guilty conscience recoils and boggles, and then they are afraid. This fear is involuntary, as will appear, partly because it is not constant, and comes but by fits and starts, and is a trouble to them.
‘Happy is he that fears always,’ (Prov. 28:14). A child of God is under fear, not by fits and pauses, but he bears a constant respect to God, and sees him that is invisible. A godly man looks upon it as a great blessing when he can work up his thoughts to a sight of God, that he may not sin in his presence. But now in wicked men it is not a fear begotten by the exercise of faith; but now and then enforced upon the soul by the evidence of a guilty conscience when it is awakened — a mere effect of the spirit of bondage. And it is plain this is involuntary, partly because wicked men are apt to take all advantages to enlarge themselves. Their desire is not to please God, but to dissolve the bonds of conscience, and to allay their fear; therefore they fly to the next carnal course. How often may we find that the Spirit is quenched, without a metaphor, by the excess of wine and the rays of conviction, when God darts them into the bosom, extinguished by mirth and company. As in Belteshazzar, there was a fit came upon him which sets him trembling, what does he do? He sends to the star-gazers and astrologers, Dan. 5:7. Daniel was famous in the kingdom, and his skill well known in such cases; but anything serves, so we may come out of the stocks of conscience. Felix, when his conscience boggles, seeks to put it off when he cannot put it away, and foolishly dreams of a more convenient time.
(5.) Servile fear is a fear without any temperament of hope and comfort, and so it weakens the certainty of faith, rather than the security of the flesh.
But now the gospel-fear is mixed with hope and joy: Ps. 2:10, ‘Serve the Lord with fear, and rejoice with trembling.’ Because our affections are apt to degenerate, therefore God would have this mixture. Hope is apt to degenerate to presumptuous boldness, and joy to grow into a fond boasting; and therefore God has required that we should allay the excess of one affection by the mixture of another, that so the spirit may be kept in awe, but not servile; and therefore in the children of God there is always such a mixture; their fear it ends in reverence and caution, but not in torment; for it is overmastered by the apprehensions of God’s love: 1 John 4:18, ‘There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear, because fear has torment; he that fears is not made perfect in love.’
The fear of the godly makes them more circumspect, but not a jot less comfortable; the more they fear, the more blessed, the more comfortable — ‘Blessed is he that fears always.’ They are more wary and cautious in their walking with God, more serious in their special converses and conferences with God. But now the issue of slavish fear is not love but torment; it is full of discomfort and dejection, and makes us anxious rather than cautious; and therefore it is good to temperate your fear, that you may be comfortable in the use of holy duties, and your walking with God.
Conclusion
Out of all you see that there is a godly fear, which is the fruit of faith. There is a fear of reverence, proper to heaven; a fear in the church, that is a fear of caution; and a fear in hell, and that is despair, or a fearful looking for of the fiery indignation of the Lord.
There is a threefold goodness in God:
[1st.] His essential goodness, which is the infinite perfection of his nature.
[2ndly.] His moral goodness and holiness, which is the infinite perfection of his will.
[3rdly.] His beneficial goodness, which is the infinite propensity that is in him to do good to the creature. All these are the object of our love.
[1st.] His essential goodness
This should make him amiable to us; partly because the glorious perfections of his nature are the object of our esteem, and esteem is the ground of love — we affect what we prize and value, or else we do not really esteem, prize, and value it; and partly because they are the object of our praise — now we praise God for his excellences, to increase our love to him and delight in him; otherwise our praise is but an empty compliment; and partly because the angels and blessed spirits do admire and adore God for the excellences of his nature, not only for the benefits they have received by him, but as he is an infinite and eternal being, of glorious and incomprehensible majesty; they are represented as crying out, Isa. 6:3, ‘Holy! holy! holy! Lord God of Hosts!’
Now God must in some measure be served on earth as he is in heaven. Surely we should not speak, or think, or worship the infinite eternal God, without some act of love, holy delight, and pleasure: Ps. 147:1, ‘Praise ye the Lord ; for it is good to sing praises to our God, for it is pleasant, and praise is comely;’ so Ps. 95:1, ‘Come let us sing unto the Lord, let us make a joyful noise to the rock of our salvation’ (and all this is the acting of love), ‘ for the Lord is a great God, and a great King above all gods ‘ (there are the motives); Ps. 5:10, ‘Let them that love thy name be joyful in thee.’ So that you see it is a great duty to delight ourselves in God’s essential perfections.
[2ndly.] His moral goodness, or his righteousness and holiness.
Surely this is an amiable thing, and therefore the object of our delectation. I prove it thus — First, If holiness be lovely and pleasant in the creature, why not in God? In the saints’ holiness does attract our love: Ps. 16:3, ‘My delight is in the saints, the excellent ones of the earth;’ and Ps. 15:4, ‘In whose eyes a vile person is contemned; but he honours them that fear the Lord.’ We are to love saints as saints, reduplicative; why not God as holy and righteous? We are to love the law of God as it is pure, Ps. 119:140; therefore we are to love God, a copy of whose holiness the law is; the same reason that enforces the one enforces the other.
Secondly, I argue, We are to imitate his holiness and righteousness, therefore we are to love and delight in it: Eph. 5:1, ‘Be ye followers of God, as dear children;’ and 2 Cor. 3:18, ‘But we all, with open face beholding as in a glass the glory of the Lord, are changed into the same image from glory to glory.’ Now love begets likeness; it is the greatest demonstration of God’s love to us to make us like himself, and the greatest expression of our love to God to desire it, to endeavour after it, to value and prize it as our happiness; see Ps. 17:15, ‘As for me, I will behold thy face in righteousness; I shall be satisfied when I awake with thy likeness.’
[3rdly.] His beneficial goodness or benignity
Ps. 100:5, ‘For the Lord is good; for his mercy is everlasting;’ therefore all his saints should love him. We are first led to the Lord by our own interest, and the benefits we have, or may have, by him: Ps. 86:5, ‘Thou, Lord, art good, ready to forgive, and plenteous in mercy unto all that call upon thee.’ This first attracts the heart of guilty sinners to seek after God, but afterwards we look upon him as a lovely object in himself.
While we look upon benignity as a moral perfection in God, without the fruits which flow thence to us, it is an engaging thing; as it was observed heretofore that Caesar’s virtues were more amiable than Cato’s virtues. Caesar’s virtues were clemency, affability, liberality; Cato’s virtues, rigid justice and fidelity in his dealings: both were amiable, but the one more taking than the other. There is somewhat a like observation, Rom. 5:7, ‘Scarcely for a righteous man would one die, but for a good man one would even dare to die.’ By the righteous man is meant one of a severe and rigid innocency; by a good man, a man bountiful and useful.
To apply it: God’s benignity is a thing amiable, though it be considered but as an attribute in God, not exercised and acted on us. Because this most suits the necessities of the indigent and fallen creature, therefore the scripture does much insist upon it, to move us to return and seek reconciliation with him.
Thomas Manton, “Sermon XXXVIII” Sermons upon Romans 8 in Volume 12 of his Works.
The Lion & Phoenix 
![[1]](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eric_Abetz#/media/File:Senator_Eric_Abetz_crop.jpg){kind=link}