Month: February 2016

Crosstide Reflexions: Propitiation

Theological words can be used as jargon. We all know those times when someone busts out a word with too many syllables and assumes others know what it means. Or even worse, when someone uses an obscure scholastic term or a borrowed Latin phrase that they know others won’t understand to demonstrate their superior intellect. That’s these kind of words at their worst. But at their best, a carefully chosen theological term, if properly explained or widely understood, can be an incredibly effective means of communicating rich, deep and perhaps complex theological truth with a single word.

On that note, I wanted to share a few thoughts on what is probably my favourite single-word theological term: Propitiation. Some of our English Bibles use this word in the following passages:

But now the righteousness of God has been manifested apart from the law, although the Law and the Prophets bear witness to it— the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all who believe. For there is no distinction: for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith. This was to show God’s righteousness, because in his divine forbearance he had passed over former sins. It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.” (Rom 3:21-26, ESV)

My little children, I am writing these things to you so that you may not sin. But if anyone does sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous. He is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only but also for the sins of the whole world. (1 John 2:1-2, ESV)

In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.(1 John 4:9-10, ESV)   

Even just reading the above verses should convey the fact that this is a rich word, with a very special relevance to our understanding of the Cross.

The dictionary definition of propitiate is “to make (someone) favourably inclined; appease; conciliate.” The Greek word used in the NT, which is translated as “propitiation” is ἱλασμός (hilasmos) or ἱλαστήριον (hilastērion), which has the idea of placating or appeasing an offended party or expiating (a term which itself means making atonement or amends for wrongs committed).

Propitiation then is an expression of what was happening at the cross. When Christians say that Jesus’s death on the cross was an “atoning sacrifice” (as indeed the NIV chooses to translate the above Greek words in Rom 3:25, 1 John 2:2 and 1 John 4:10), we are saying that his substitutionary death for our sins was both appeasing or placating the divine attitude of wrath towards our rebellion and reconciling us to God so we would instead experience His divine love and favour as children instead of enemies. My way of bringing these two aspects of propitiation together has been to express it as thus: Propitiation is the process by which Christ deals with God’s wrath against our sin (through His death on the cross) and invites divine favour to be shown in place of it.

This kind of idea is actually quite unpopular today, even among some who call themselves evangelical Christians. The substitutionary, wrath-bearing aspect of Christ’s atoning death has been dismissed as “cosmic child abuse” or a troubling placing of divine violence at the centre of our faith – depending on who you read. But propitiation remains central to the historic, biblical understanding of what Jesus did for us and how God Himself was the one who needed to be satisfied when it came to the problem of human sin.

Of course, my definition above could be misconstrued or misunderstood. Propitiation should not communicate the idea that “merciful Jesus” was doing us a favour by dealing with the “angry Father,” nor that God was primarily disposed to show us wrath, but Jesus ensured mercy triumphed instead. A proper, biblical understanding will always promote the truth that the Triune God wished to show mercy to His fallen creatures, in a way that would uphold His perfect righteousness and not lessen His righteous anger against human sin. The very fact that Paul teaches in Romans: “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, and are justified by his grace as a gift, through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus, whom God put forward as a propitiation by his blood, to be received by faith” demonstrates that God did this so that grace and mercy might be shown to many instead of wrath. That God (which we can understand both as referring to the Father representatively or the Trinity generally) sent Jesus to achieve this purpose is clearly reinforced in 1 John 4:10: “In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins.” Mercy to those who believe in Christ was the Father’s goal all along.

And the end of the Romans passage cited above communicates why Christ had to die a death that specifically bore the punishment for our sins, in order for divine grace and mercy to be shown freely to us all: “It was to show his righteousness at the present time, so that he might be just and the justifier of the one who has faith in Jesus.”

God showed his absolute, unmitigated abhorrence for sin by pouring out His wrath on Christ – the willing substitute who voluntarily endured the fullness of divine anger so that it would no longer play a factor in our relationship with God. This showed that He was just – sin would never go unpunished. But it’s great news for you and I, because He also became the justifier of those who have faith in Jesus.

Jesus endures the wrath that you and I could never bear – whether we were to face it now or throughout an eternity of experiencing God’s judgement. We get the favour of a gracious God poured out abundantly on us instead in a new, restored, reconciled relationship. That’s propitiation. And it’s great news.


Crosstide – Reflecting on the Cross of Christ

A couple of years ago, I encouraged members of my church to join me in a season of reflection on the cross in the lead up to Good Friday. I like to call it “Crosstide” – which means “the season of (reflection on) the cross” (compare Christmastide/Yuletide and Eastertide in older English usage). My wife and I have decided to do it again this year, through a special focus in our Bible reading and using specific devotional material that looks at the crucifixion and redemptive work of Christ in more detail. We plan to do this for the 5 weeks or so leading up to Easter.


If, after my recent post that included my personal disinclination towards Lenten observance, this sounds to you like my attempt at an alternative – you wouldn’t be far from the truth. The difference in my mind is that our focus will simply be on the different aspects of the cross revealed in God’s Word and how our understanding of them affects our lives. Like our celebration of the 12 days of Christmas – Crosstide partly arises from our feeling that one day in a year is often not sufficient time to get the most out of deep reflection and celebration of a particular truth of the gospel. We know that some of our brothers and sisters don’t see the value in “special days” at all and we acknowledge and respect the validity of that approach, as per Romans 14:1-6 and Colossian 2:16. But since we will join many Christians around the world in celebrating Good Friday anyway, we feel that an extended period of intentional, specific meditation upon the wonders of the cross will enrich our Paschal (Easter) celebrations.

Rather than any special fasting, rituals or traditions, the whole period will be marked only by what we read and reflect on, along with appropriate personal prayer and perhaps singing or listening to some of the great songs penned about the atoning death of the Son of God, our Saviour. Our plan is to read through Romans, divided up into manageable chunks and read a short chapter each day individually or together from John Piper’s 50 Reasons Why Jesus came to Die. I also hope to revisit a book I worked through during the same period 2 years ago – CJ Mahaney’s Living the Cross Centered Life – a helpful guide to keeping the cross at the forefront of our minds in shaping how we live our daily lives.

50 reasonsLiving the Cross centered life

I will allow this season to shape some of what I post here in the coming weeks and I look forward to sharing some of our reflections on the Cross of Christ with you.

For now I’d love to hear from you – do you do anything special before or during Easter that helps you meaningfully focus on the glorious truths at the centre of the gospel? If you plan on reading anything in the lead up to Easter or over the long weekend that will help you reconnect with the amazingness of the death or resurrection of Christ, I’d also love to hear what’s on your reading list!

[1] Kris Williams ‘Weathering The Storm’ – Llanddwyn Island, Anglesey  (CC BY-NC-ND 2.0)

An Open Letter to Australians who support same-sex marriage

Dear fellow citizens,

I am writing to you to address perhaps the most vexed societal issue in Australia in 2016. That is the question of whether the Australian Marriage Act should be changed to allow two people of the same sex to have their relationship legally and socially recognised as a marriage.

I understand that you may feel strongly about this issue. I also recognise that your support for this cause is probably based on a strong desire to see the values of equality, fairness and non-discrimination prevail in our society.
Furthermore, I acknowledge – not least because of my own views on other important matters of social justice (eg; infanticide) – that it can be difficult to have a civil and respectful discussion about an issue like this with people you perceive to be advocates of oppression, discrimination, bigotry or hatred.

When I see people whose desire is for justice, fairness and dignity in our nation, these are qualities and values I wish to affirm. I too want to live in a land where the law reflects what is good and right, where people do not suffer unfair discrimination and where every human being and citizen is treated with the appropriate respect and courtesy.

While for many of us today, our inclination might be to promote such values by allowing people the freedom to express themselves in whatever way they choose to (so long as it does not have a significantly detrimental impact on the lives of others), when it comes to changing the legal definition of marriage in Australia we’re actually inescapably delving into deeper issues of what we fundamentally regard as right or wrong.

For many Australians, one of the most problematic instances of wrongdoing in our society today is when someone attempts to restrict someone else’s self-expression by suggesting their behaviour is unacceptable or wrong. In some areas of life this simply is not an issue.
For instance we do not tolerate the abusive man’s violence towards his partner and his children as freedom of expression. We vocally condemn the drunken antics of rugby league players as unacceptable and even disgraceful behaviour. We decry broadcasters when they make racially insensitive comments on air. We applaud when people such as these are penalised for their socially unacceptable behaviour. It’s not only fine, but easy to tell them that what they did is morally wrong.

But increasingly, speaking publicly about certain issues – notably those involving human sexuality and relationships – as anything but morally positive or neutral, has become something many regard far more wrong than the matter being called into question.

Every Australian would instinctively know in 2016 that to place the sexual activities of two consenting adults in a similar moral category to any of the above examples would be a grave cause of offence to many people.
That’s because for the most part, our society accepts that violence, drunken public indecency or nuisance and racism are either objectively wrong or at least condemned by societal consensus. Because consensual sexual acts and relationships seem to have limited detrimental impact on third parties, many Australians are willing to adopt an each-to-their own approach. This is why many (perhaps most if certain polling is correct) Australians would reject the idea that a certain variety of sexuality or a loving relationship between two adults can be considered morally wrong to the point that they should be restricted by the law.

However, there are some Australians, myself included, that do believe in an objective standard of right or wrong when it comes to sexual behaviour and a predetermined definition of marriage. The difficulty we find ourselves in when publicly discussing an issue such as same-sex marriage with a passionate advocate for full relational equality (such as yourself) is not so much that people are now unwilling to accept our position that certain consensual expressions of sexuality may be morally problematic and socially undesirable. It’s actually more so the fact that many see it as their moral and social duty to prevent us from expressing the alternative view on sexuality.

Some of us believe it’s wrong to practice and promote homosexual activities. Many of us have stopped saying that publicly, because the tide of public opinion has turned against us. It seems the view that once enjoyed a clear societal consensus has recently become something of a minority report. And so now in the present debate on whether to legally redefine marriage, you’ll hear virtual silence on the morality or desirability of particular sexual lifestyles and more focus on other matters. Certain lobby groups oppose same-sex marriage by appealing to the impact on children, the potential of further redefinitions of marriage or the potential for punitive legal actions against groups who do not openly endorse the LGBT movement’s philosophies and recognise lawfully wedded gay couples as “married.” Because they’re afraid of being labelled homophobic and run out of town by a mob with torches and pitchforks, they remain silent on the actual issue of homosexuality, but instead point out how successive state and federal governments have removed all forms of legal discrimination against gay and lesbian couples.

My friends, I share your noble desire to protect homosexual people from violence, vilification and unnecessary, unfair discrimination. I don’t believe that my beliefs regarding sexuality and marriage automatically promote any of those things. And while you might disagree even on that point, I am nevertheless writing to you to ask you not to support the suppression of people’s voices who believe that this type of sexual expression is wrong and that celebrating it in marriage is unhelpful to all involved.

I ask this because you like me hold the belief that certain expressions of sexuality are indeed wrong. Don’t misunderstand what I’m saying here. I know that LGBT people get very upset when their sexuality and relationships are compared to forms of sexual deviancy that are uniformly condemned by most sections of society. I am not equating homosexual relationships with other acts you and I would agree are grotesque and have no place in society: such as bestiality, incest and paedophilia. I am saying that in a pluralistic society, there needs to be freedom for people to define the rightness and wrongness of human sexuality differently. For you, consensuality and privacy may determine the vindication or condemnation of a sexual act. But surely it is unhelpful to attempt to silence or legally suppress those whose understanding of divine; cultural; or natural laws requires them to use a different criteria in evaluating the legitimacy of a relationship or sexual activity?

I respect your right as a citizen in this country to hold your own personal beliefs about this issue and others and to advocate for what you believe to be the best social outcome for all Australians. But I’m asking first of all that you would not join in the attempts of certain forces in the media and the political arena to prevent those who sincerely believe differently from openly expressing what they belief to be true. It is not helpful for social goodwill and does not promote the freedom of speech that is essential to our society; the freedom of expression that many would cite in support of same-sex marriage; nor the freedom of religion that has been a cornerstone of the best societies for many years.

But I don’t want to write to you about this issue without making it clear why I won’t support any changes to the Marriage Act in Australia as it currently stands. I am a Christian and while I don’t wish to force my views onto others through coercion, revolution or heavy-handed legislation, I find myself in a democratic, pluralistic society where – at least theoretically – my vote, voice and opinions are of equal standing to those of each of the 16.5 million citizens who are eligible to vote in state and federal elections. In cases where a large majority of Australians do not hold my particular views on any given issue, I am content in most instances not to attempt to force radical change on them through legislation that many would find completely unpalatable. However, I will not support any changes to the status quo that I believe would be detrimental or unbeneficial to the health of Australian society.

I have sincerely held views concerning sexuality, which I don’t see as any less valid than many other areas of conviction that are held by voters and people holding public office.
My sincerely held view about homosexual sex is that it does not promote a healthy, natural or commendable view of human sexuality; nor is it beneficial for those involved; nor does it have a positive impact on our society. There is one authentic, natural, God-ordained expression of human sexuality, which takes place in the context of marriage as it is presently defined in Federal law, through sexual intimacy between one man and one woman who are exclusively committed to each other “as long as they both shall live.”

I have no plans to push for the recriminalisation of sodomy or to attempt to make life more difficult for LGBT people. My agenda as a Christian is not to implement policy and legislation in Australia that are based solely on religious convictions. While I believe some sexual acts are sinful and express a rejection of God’s will for human sexuality – I hold the sober belief that each man and woman (straight, gay, lesbian, bisexual, transgendered or other) will have to give a personal account for how they’ve used their bodies to glorify or dishonour God while on earth and to benefit or negatively impact others. Ultimately these questions will be resolved in a higher court than those available within the Australian justice system and evaluated by a higher standard than the laws enacted by our Federal Parliament.

Instead of pouring my energy into some kind of heterosexual activism, I’d much rather my fellow Australians know that heterosexual members of society are just as guilty of rebellion against God as their homosexual neighbours are. Whether it’s how we’ve expressed our sexual desires or how we’ve spoken to others, used our money, respected others’ property, treated the poor or expressed ourselves in relation to the God who graciously gave us life – we’ll all have a case to answer before God when we come before Him in His glory.

The God I strive to honour with my life does not accept me because of some claim I have to sexual purity, superior morality, or ethical perfection. I deserve immediate relegation to the eternal scrap-heap – the place that burns hot with God’s wrath against all kinds of evil – including the evil found deep within my heart. The reason I have something to celebrate today is because God is gracious and provided a way for people who have rebelled against Him to be forgiven. While the good news of Jesus has become increasingly less understood in our society, His death on the cross was a sacrificial act of love and He became a substitute for sinners – willingly enduring our punishment as though He was us, so that we might receive mercy instead of judgement.

Out of my love for God and for my neighbours, I want everyone to hear that message of forgiveness and reconciliation with God through Jesus. I want every Australian to have the opportunity to enjoy God and the eternal life He offers through the good news. And out of love for God and for my neighbours, I cannot promote any kind of sexual expression (whether heterosexual, homosexual or other) that constitutes an act of rebellion against God. An act that Jesus had to die for, in order for people to have any hope of life with God.

I understand that in the sphere of politics, many people would wish I would keep these views to myself. That I would live and let live. I acknowledge that many Christians and non-Christians might feel that the message of Jesus is less attractive when those who promote it also publicly confront issues of sexuality and that this often leads to offense and derision. But love means I must speak – even when the truth is unpopular. And while I refuse to coerce others into accepting my position on sexuality, I feel that love compels me to use my voice and my vote to promote the view of sexuality and marriage I believe is most beneficial to individual people and wider society.

I often hear it said that this issue is all about love. And I have come to understand that you and I probably have different understandings of what love is. For many Australians “love” – defined as affection for another person, that leads to a desire for private intimacy and public expression of permanent commitment – is the main factor that should determine whether consenting adults should be able to have their relationship recognised as a marriage. This affection and consequent desire for intimacy and commitment is real and I don’t deny for a moment that it exists in non-marital and non-heterosexual contexts.

But “love” as I and others like me understand it is not primarily romantic or sexual nor necessarily marital. Love is a genuine concern for the well-being and best interests of others that translates into concrete expressions like how we act, speak and use our time and energy in the pursuit of the welfare of others. Christian love is defined in relation to Jesus’ own sacrificial expression of love and therefore, my expressions of love must be prepared for the possibility of sacrifice or suffering when promoting the good of others.

To believe what I believe about sexuality and affirm same-sex marriage as good, acceptable or even morally neutral would simply be unloving towards everyone involved. I earnestly don’t believe it’s helpful to individual gay and lesbian people to encourage them to think of themselves as married or to believe that homosexual sex is morally innocuous or even healthy and positive. I know that when I say my opposition to this issue is consistent with a view of love that seeks what is best for the people who are the object of that love that LGBT people may find this attitude condescending. That is not my intention. You must make your own decisions about your life and what you promote in seeking the good of others. I have done and will do nothing to restrict your ability to make your own sexual choices and hold your own beliefs about what marriage should be. I simply won’t encourage you to take any course of action I don’t believe will benefit you or others.

On another note, yes there are religious bigots who vilify LGBT out of hatred, rather than seeking their interests in love. Let me take this opportunity to repudiate them and ask that you do not mistake every opponent of same-sex marriage for the worst examples of self-righteous prejudice. I am sorry that people in religious communities, including my own, have made their opposition to homosexuality heard much more loudly than their love for all people created in the image of God – irrespective of sexuality.

So as we head toward a probable plebiscite on this issue in 2017, I want to be encouraging my Christian brothers and sisters to be getting on with our primary business of sharing the love, grace and forgiveness available in Christ with all members of our community. But when I’m asked about issues of marriage and sexuality or there’s a particular time that seems appropriate to say more – I will endeavour to “speak the truth in love” as our Scriptures require and promote what I sincerely believe is the best understanding of these issues.

I’d love it if you’d give consideration to what I’ve said above and what I might say in those future moments. And I want to be willing to listen and participate in civil discussion with you when you share your perspective on these issues with me. Thank you for being willing to read such a long letter – especially one that is written by someone who many suggest you shouldn’t waste any of your time listening to on these issues.


Valentine’s or “Vale Lent Time”?

This post has been revised from 2016, when “Valentine’s Day” and “Evangelical Freedom Day” coincided. We’re revisiting it this year, because in 2018 the 14th of February happens to be the beginning of Lent in the Catholic tradition…

Today is the the peak of “cultural Catholicism” in 2018. For one thing, it will be the most widely observed Saint’s Day in Australia (and the rest of the West): St. Valentine’s Day.

It’s amusing how many people who wouldn’t have a clue when the ancient feast days of the great apostles fall in the liturgical church calendar will get in on the act of celebrating a day commemorating the martyrdom of an obscure Italian bishop. But then Valentinius has an advantage over Peter, Paul and John in the 21st century, since medieval Catholicism did him the favour of venerating him as the patron saint of the part of life that enjoys perhaps even more idealisation today than ever before: romantic love.

St. Valentine

Now of course in 2018, Hallmark and the advertising industry have a lot more clout in shaping how you’re supposed to think about this day and celebrate it than the Vatican does. But nevertheless, I simply want to point out the anomaly of this day – the one time a year that the staunch atheist and decidedly unceremonial “low church” Christians embrace some vestigial martyrology now unrecognisable beneath the garb of cultural commercialism and modern notions of romantic love.

On the other hand, today is the beginning of Lent – observed by Catholics worldwide in the lead-up to Easter and present in the traditions of certain Protestant churches that have retained the Catholic liturgical calendar and some of its ceremonial practices.

Evangelical Christians, particularly those of the non-liturgical, less-ritualistic “low church” variety have often viewed Lent as an extra-biblical (or even unbiblical) season and eschewed the fasting and other observances that go along with this period. But as Christians of this variety grow increasingly open to considering the value of practices and traditions from outside their own denominational background or “camp” – experimenting with Lent appears more common amongst evangelicals than in the past.

But while today might cause a few people angst over whether to fast or indulge in chocolates and champagne – this week I’m looking forward to celebrating “Vale Lent Time” on Sunday, rather than Valentine’s today. This is not just an effort to be snarky towards traditions with Catholic trappings that I dislike. My anti-fasting commemorates one of the most important events in the Protestant Reformation: one which was inseparably linked to questions of Lenten observance.

While many Christians will be aware of the event 500 years ago that is often spoken of as the flashpoint that started the Reformation – Luther’s nailing of his 95 theses to the Wittenberg Door – fewer are aware of the event that escalated tensions between the Catholic church and those who would become the Reformers of Switzerland. In 1522, a few years after Luther’s infamous challenge to Catholic practice, the “Affair of Sausages” caused a storm in Zurich, which led to a chain of events that were pivotal to the Swiss Reformation.

On the first Sunday of Lent, Christoph Froschauer, a Swiss printer, violated the fast from meat that was officially sanctioned by the Church for the period leading up to Easter, by serving his employees and friends sausages for supper. He was subsequently arrested for this act of defiance against the authority of the church’s teachings concerning Lent.


Ulrich Zwingli, the premiere Swiss Reformer was present that evening (as were many of the figures who would later play a significant role in the Swiss Reformation) and defended the breaking of Lenten rules in his subsequent church sermons by appealing to the Scriptures and noting the lack of a biblical warrant for enforcing fasting during this period and the New Testament’s emphasis instead on freedom in the gospel.

What many of us take for granted nearly 500 years later was revolutionary preaching in 1522 in the face of the often unbiblical, artificially constructed religious regulations of the Roman ecclesiastical hierarchy. Evangelical freedom to practice one’s faith according to the clear teaching of Scripture and to follow one’s conscience when the Bible was silent was one of the important emphases recovered during the Reformation and made an enormous difference in the daily lives of Christians and the power of church officials.

Ulrich Zwingli

Zwingli essentially made Lent a matter of conscience or preference. If you wanted to fast you were free to do so. If you didn’t desire to abstain from certain foods in the lead up to Easter, men with ecclesiastical titles did not have the power to compel you to forego the almost absolute freedom to partake of any kind of food granted by the New Testament.

Many of my Christian brothers and sisters will use their freedom in the gospel to observe some form of Lenten fasting or abstaining, or to enjoy the commercial/cultural/Catholic celebration of romantic love with their significant other, But I’ll be endeavouring to celebrate the freedom itself.

There is nothing wrong with fasting (as long as it’s practiced in accordance with Christ’s instructions) or spiritual preparation for reflection on the deeper truths of the gospel. If you find giving something up in the lead up to Easter to be helpful to you spiritual life – nothing and no one (other than the Bible or Jesus Himself) should restrict your freedom to abstain. If you find celebrating February 14th with roses, candlelight dinners and love poems nourishes intimacy within your relationship – again only Scripture should curb the way you express your participation in this cultural celebration of romance.

But as for me, I look forward to celebrating Sunday with a snag or a steak as I rejoice in the liberty God gave me from man-made rules through the gospel of Christ – which was revealed in the New Testament and recovered in the Reformation.

Evangelical Freedom Day anyone?

God and the politicians

Yesterday, the federal parliament of Australia opened for business for the first time in 2016. This was preceded by a customary ecumenical church service (held this year at Canberra’s Wesley Uniting Church), attended by members from both sides of the House. Parliament also recommenced with the Speaker reading the Lord’s Prayer, as is part of convention and procedure.


It is an interesting time to reflect on the role of God and Christianity in our nation’s political life and the life of our leaders. With an election campaign simultaneously taking place in our trans-Pacific “big brother” the USA – a place where God is more frequently invoked in political campaigning – some of that rhetoric (and the heated responses) is sure to also be reported in our media and receive a mixed response.

While infinite ink could be spilled (or pixels generated) on the issues relating to God and political life, I’m interested here in a question that often generates public interest and/or ire. That is, to what extent are our leaders in particular (and parties more generally) influenced and/or motivated by their conception of God and religious ideas, when it comes to their political principles and actions?

Assessing the genuineness of political figures when it comes to their faith is notoriously difficult. Some would suggest we abandon such attempts altogether. This indeed is tempting if we consider how often Machiavelli’s political advice to his prince might be heeded by political players today.

Therefore it is unnecessary for a prince to have all the good qualities I have enumerated, but it is very necessary to appear to have them. And I shall dare to say this also, that to have them and always to observe them is injurious, and that to appear to have them is useful; to appear merciful, faithful, humane, religious, upright, and to be so, but with a mind so framed that should you require not to be so, you may be able and know how to change to the opposite…For this reason a prince ought to take care that he never lets anything slip from his lips that is not replete with the above-named five qualities, that he may appear to him who sees and hears him altogether merciful, faithful, humane, upright, and religious. There is nothing more necessary to appear to have than this last quality, inasmuch as men judge generally more by the eye than by the hand, because it belongs to everybody to see you, to few to come in touch with you. Every one sees what you appear to be, few really know what you are...

Machiavelli [2]

Voters in nations with significant generically Christian populations are constantly serenaded with religious charlatanry and pious posers during electioneering. Sometimes it might be better to get a political leader honest enough not to play the game of pretended faith than one who takes a multitude of spiritually sincere but politically naive voters along for a ride.

Roy Williams has attempted to make the case for a serious, sustained influence of God and Christianity upon nearly all of our nation’s prime ministers from Barton to Gillard (his book came out just before Rudd’s return and Abbott’s election victory). I find some of his conclusions regarding the biographical evidence he cites rather forced, in order to support the thesis of his book (I reviewed the book here). But nevertheless, many of our leaders have at least made a show of religion or Christianity when it suits their purposes.

If Barnaby Joyce succeeds Warren Truss sometime in the next few months (as is widely predicted), the four main political parties in Australian parliament will be led by Catholics of the not-particularly-religious variety. While their politics are quite different on multiple fronts, their religious dispositions seem remarkably similar – and in a way that likely resonates with many “ordinary Australian” voters.

SD and Australia's PM Malcolm Turnbull pose for a photo togetherBill_Shorten_DSC_3004Richard_Di_Natale_Portrait_2010Barnaby_Joyce_Portrait_2010

Turnbull, Shorten and (Greens leader) Richard Di Natale’s views on vexed moral and social issues, such as abortion and same-sex marriage, demonstrate that while they may believe in God in some way, they do not consider the teachings of Scripture or their Church to speak authoritatively for Him when it comes to how they should live and govern. Joyce’s politics are far more consistent with the Bible and his Church, but he would balk at being portrayed as a religiously motivated politician and his views may also have a lot to do with the more socially conservative milieu of rural Australia.

While I wish for something better, I consider the current state of affairs is probably a sign that representative democracy is working in Australian parliament. Many Aussies believe it’s good to have a bit of religion, but not too much. Faith is better expressed in private devotion or religious gatherings – that are neatly confined to a particular building and time of week – than it is in public discourse. And while it seems that well over half of the population still believes in the existence of God, for many of them this is a god of their own conceptualisation – not one revealed authoritatively through Scripture or the Church.

Should Christians respond to the present situation with despair, frustration or  passionate activism? I propose there are three things we can do in response to the way our present leaders interact with God and faith.

  1. Pray that our leaders will humbly acknowledge God’s authority as being over and above their own. And pray that God may even grant them genuine faith to know, love and serve Him with their lives.
  2. Get on with the church’s main business of evangelism and discipleship. Leaders who take God and his Word seriously should come as a by-product of seeing a revival of sincere, biblical Christianity in our nation.Lobbying, manoeuvring, advertising and even legislating has limited and secondary (or even tertiary) value compared to seeing people change the way they think and behave through the power of the gospel.
  3. In the meantime, look for substantial alignment with Christian principles in the policy of political leaders, rather than their religious appearance or affiliation. If a candidate or party pursues bad policy that harms the country and contravenes what God has revealed to us to be good – it doesn’t matter whether a member or leader identifies with Anglicanism, Pentecostalism, Wicca or Pastafarianism.The apostle’s instruction in 1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 may apply primarily to messages we hear from people in the church, but it has some relevance with respect to political messages too (particularly if the candidates cultivate a religious profile to woo Christian voters): “but test everything; hold fast what is good. Abstain from every form of evil.” (ESV).

[1] Gouldy99 “House of Representatives: New Parliament House – Canberra10” CC BY-NC-ND 2.0
[2] Crashworks “Uffizi Statue: Niccolo Machiavelli” CC BY-ND 2.0
[3] DoD photo by U.S. Army Sgt. First Class Clydell Kinchen Malcolm Turnbull, Prime Minister of Australia, visiting the Pentagon on 18 January 2016.CC BY 2.0
[4] Peter Campbell “Bill Shorten MP” CC BY-SA 3.0
[5] Victorian Greens from Melbourne “Richard Di Natale at his farm in the Otway Ranges, Victoria” CC BY 2.0
[6] Bidgee “Barnaby Joyce being interviewed by local media” CC BY-SA 3.0