Counterblaste: Tax-exemptions for religious institutions should stay

Opinion pieces abound in today’s media world. Some outlets attempt at least a modicum of diversity in opinion, while other media brands are more one-sided than a rugby match involving the All Blacks. I often find myself disagreeing with the way Christianity is portrayed by certain pundits and how many opinionists who are hostile to the Christian worldview approach various issues. “Counterblaste” is my vent-shaft for presenting a different opinion to those I frequently encounter.

A family member recently shared a post on Facebook by actor John Barrowman (Doctor Who fans will know who I’m talking about), which featured the picture below:


chalkboard

This kind of sentiment has been building over the past few years and is at the heart of a couple of recent attacks-in-print on religious tax-exempt status by a member of the “Rationalist Society of Australia” – Hugh Harris.

Harris argued in a piece for ABC’s the Drum this week that the tide of public opinion in Australia against special tax concessions for religious institutions has become so significant, that governments will soon have to listen to overwhelming public sentiment and act.

In a previous piece in January for New Matilda, Harris also argued for abolishing any tax-privileges for religious groups that exist solely or primarily for the promotion of religion and not as social welfare agencies. He contended that religion doesn’t serve the public good; most people aren’t interested in it and the revenue the government foregoes by not taxing churches and similar institutions could be spent on many important things if it were gathered through taxation.

Let me respond to these issues (and others raised along the way) with a few points.

1. From a New Testament perspective, it would be difficult to argue that civil governments don’t have legitimate power to tax churches if they so wish.

For because of this you also pay taxes, for the authorities are ministers of God,  attending to this very thing. Pay to all what is owed to them: taxes to whom taxes are owed, revenue to whom revenue is owed, respect to whom respect is owed, honour to whom honour is owed.
(Rom 13:6-7, ESV).

 While these verses are normally applied to Christian individuals, I cannot think of a good reason that they do not apply to Christian communities corporately. If the government imposes taxes upon churches, I think we’re obliged to pay.

2. A society that promotes freedom of religion as an essential value, should see tax concessions for religious institutions as positive for the public good. 

Allowing generous concessions to all religious groups is one way the government can promote the freedom to easily practice one’s religious beliefs – a freedom available to all citizens. If the government only privileged Christian churches with tax-exempt status, allegations of privilege would be valid. But by allowing all genuine religious institutions the same benefits, the government can hardly be accused of promoting any one religion. The current tax arrangements simply make it easier for people in a pluralistic society to form communities around their sincerely held beliefs. The problem with Harris and his Rationalist Society is that they regard all religious beliefs as invalid and unworthy of promotion. The federal government shouldn’t bow to pressure from the anti-religious of Australia and change the tax system to make it more difficult for everyone from the big three churches (Catholic, Anglican & Uniting) to the much smaller religious minority communities to easily practice their beliefs in functional organisational contexts.

3. It is inconsistent to insist on the separation of church and state with respect to political matters on one hand, while exacting taxes from religious institutions on the other.

Time and time again secularists use the separation of church and state as an argument against religious influence in the political sphere. Many want religion, particularly organised religion, kept out of government, education, health and even community planning. But in reality, any government who chooses to tax religious institutions in the way Harris is proposing, abrogates the principle of separation between church and state, by involving the state more in matters of how its citizenry practice their freedom of religion.

The separation of church and state is a civil doctrine that recognises that civil governments and religious institutions should not attempt to control one another’s affairs nor interfere unduly with the other’s respective sphere. By opting not to extract taxes from religious institutions (which are non-for-profit organisations), charge GST on the provision of religious services, or require ministers of religion to pay typical amounts of income tax, the federal government is rightly distancing itself from religious affairs (not subsidising or promoting religion(s) as Harris suggests). To change the policy and begin taxing churches and similar groups is to abandon the necessary component of the separation, which grants churches independence and freedom from government involvement in their affairs.

4. Removing tax concessions or tax-exempt status for religious institutions would have detrimental effects on society that Harris does not allow for.

 Harris argues that faith-based charities, humanitarian and educational organisations etc; should automatically keep their tax benefits – as they do contribute to public good. The Rationalist Society supports a ‘public benefit test’ for any group in Australia receiving tax concessions. Under their definitions, churches, mosques, temples and probably theological colleges, would lose their current tax status.

Harris fails to recognise that “basic religious organisations” and the ministers of religion and other staff they employ frequently provide benefits to their local communities in addition to their primary role of representing and promoting their religious beliefs. Should a church that runs a program in local schools which provides breakfast for students from lower socioeconomic backgrounds lose all of its tax benefits because that is not its primary activity?

Should pastors who provide crisis counselling free of charge to community members lose their tax benefits because they spend the majority of their working week caring for the needs of church members?

Weakening the communities that provide these services and potentially causing financial hardship for religious workers who invest their time in such worthy causes, in addition to their pastoral duties, will have an effect on the provision of these services in Australian communities.

At best, Harris is ignorant about the mechanics of how churches and other religious groups might operate when providing these services to the community. At worst, his prejudice against “supernatural beliefs” may mean he is intentionally disregarding the negative social impacts, in order to promote his more important agenda of diminishing the social status of religion.

5. In light of the previous three points, neither a majority in an opinion poll, nor the abuses of particular groups should result in the government making blanket changes to the tax status of religious institutions in Australia.

Australians who oppose the retention of special tax status for religious institutions need better information about why the government has historically allowed them to enjoy such a status and what it would look like in practice for all of them to endure a massive, overnight shake-up to their relationship with the tax system. If they were to understand the real blow to freedom of religion and community services that would come about, I doubt so many would be found supporting it.

While the same sex marriage debate runs hot and horror stories of child sexual abuse fill the news weekly – I’m not surprised that many Australians favour churches in particular being brought down to size. When Harris paints his picture of groups he deems unworthy of any special tax status there is undoubted resonance – even for me. I’m concerned about the attitude towards wealth in the Catholic Church and in certain megachurches; the fraudulent activities of Scientology and the harmful manipulation of cultic groups.

But taking away the tax status of all religious groups due to the questionable behaviour of certain groups is not unlike targeting all members of one race or religion based on the crimes of a minority element from within that group. Every system will have downsides and loopholes. Scientology is undoubtedly one of the downsides to accepting freedom of religion as a core tenet. But I for one would rather live in a society where every citizen is free to choose their own form of religious expression (including the really bad ones), rather than one where the government dictates particular creedal requirements for a religious institution to be recognised as such.

Leaving all such groups free to operate without tax burdens is one way to promote a better kind of society.

Advertisements

From Death to Life

For the last few years, I’ve usually tried to pen one or more reflective poems during the Paschal season and share them with friends on Facebook. This year I found myself with little time to compose anything, as I spent the long weekend at an Easter Convention with Helen, where we shared with brothers and sisters from a range of church backgrounds about our plans to serve in Japan as missionaries.

However, only a few days after we commemorated Christ’s death and celebrated His resurrection, I found myself turning to poetry to express my feelings in the cruel face of death. The week following Easter, we lost a close family member suddenly and unexpectedly. It was a shocking intrusion into our lives and was a very surreal experience to have, when the glories of the resurrection were so freshly in our hearts and minds. It will be a long and hard journey forward for us from this time on, but we have been helped greatly by the Spirit of God at work through God’s people – reminding us of the truths we need to hold onto during this dark time.

It’s the second time in less than 12 months that death has taken away one of our close relatives. This time around I am thankful that on this occasion I have more solid grounds for confidence that this particular harsh assault of death will soon be undone by the power of Christ’s resurrection. And so this poem, though less specific to the events of Christ’s death, burial and resurrection than usual, has become my out-of-time reflection on death and resurrection life for this year.

FROM DEATH TO LIFE

When the darkness covers light
When the day is lost to night
When all the world’s cruelty seems to unite
Where may we find some deep respite?

When joy is sudd’nly gone
When life is brut’lly torn
When all have stopped to weep and mourn
Shall midnight ever yield to dawn?

When a beloved one is taken
When our world is pierced and shaken
When we hold onto the vain hope that we still might be mistaken
How can we know we’re not forsaken?

When we’ve blackest grief to bear
When gloom clouds the very air
When we offer each and every feeble prayer
Will you let us know that you are there?

When we face the road ahead
When it’s harder now to tread
When we may wish it was another person walking it instead
Can we look to one who’s risen from the dead?

Yes! When flowers bloom again
When there’s no more tears and pain
When the star of life grows bright until it ne’er more shall wane
Then we’ll see we haven’t hoped in vain

When the dead in Christ shall rise
When they fill azure skies
When an endless, glorious joy our King supplies
We’ll see her smile, through brand new eyes

Atonement and the Japanese (Pt. 2)

[Please start with part 1 here]

In the previous post, I made some introductory remarks about the doctrine of atonement, the importance of getting it right and the difficulties in communicating the vital biblical truths about atonement to those who come from a very different cultural background to us. I would like to elaborate further in this post and go into some further detail.

The way we express atonement in Western evangelicalism along with the way we talk about sin (and the relationship between the two) seems heavily shaped by a Western legal framework we’ve inherited from Roman culture and Roman Christianity. Penal Substitutionary Atonement addresses the common notion of sins as a legal transgressions: offences against God’s law; crimes which must be punished. We break the law, disobey God’s commands and commit unrighteous actions and each one adds to the list of indictments that will lead to our eternal condemnation for our sins. Jesus perfectly obeyed the Law, embodied what it meant to be righteous in God’s sight and died in our place “the just for the unjust” (1 Pet 3:18). He “cancel[ed] the record of debt that stood against us with its legal demands. This he set aside, nailing it to the cross.” (Col 2:14). And the Scriptures clearly testify that Christ’s death directly addressed the issue of our trespasses and transgressions against God and His commands (see for instance, Isaiah 53, Rom 4:25, Eph 1:7, Col 2:13,  Heb 9:15). There is no denying that this emphasis is biblical and vital to our understanding of atonement.  However, the proclivity some of us evangelicals have for focusing almost exclusively on the legal aspects of the atonement is probably still linked to Protestantism’s emergence out of the legal Roman cultural and religious traditions.

Crucifixión_1

There is some evidence from church history that suggests this might be the case. In Eastern Orthodoxy, which had a different cultural milieu to Western Christianity and was less influenced by Roman culture, sin is thought of more as “falling short” of one’s divinely-intended human potential (suggested by the Greek hamartia, translated as sin in English, which was originally an archery term) and therefore the work of Christ was largely understood to be a restoring of humanity to their full potential (namely theosis, or participation in the divine nature). The Eastern omission of the penal element of atonement makes their view grossly defective from the perspective of an evangelical like myself, however it allows us to see how different aspects of sin and atonement might be emphasised in non-Western forms of Christianity.

Picture 077

In expressing the atonement in a non-Christian religious climate and non-Western cultural environment like Japan, evangelicals should never be satisfied by an understanding like that of Eastern Orthodoxy that omits essential truths we know to be biblical. However, we should also not be satisfied by expressing Christ’s work in terms that are more apt at addressing a Catholic religious context or a Western cultural mindset. This means that while it is never acceptable to downplay or omit the legal aspect of the atonement, it may be necessary to appreciate other aspects of the atonement more deeply in a complementary way, in order to communicate the biblical truths effectively to people of different cultures.

In the Japanese evangelistic context, the word most commonly used to translate sin/hamartia is tsume. This has long caused difficulties for foreign evangelists and Japanese Christians when sharing the gospel, as the word is most commonly used for criminal acts and many Japanese are conscientious citizens who find it difficult to accept the notion that they have committed a “crime” against a God they have never known. While I believe that Japanese must accept the truth that they have violated God’s standards of righteousness (and acknowledge that many people in other societies find the notion that they are “sinners” or “transgressors” offensive!) – I have come to wonder if we must help them get to that point by presenting aspects of the atonement that are more relatable to the Japanese mindset as the first point of contact.

wa

Missiologists, along with other students of Japanese culture, have identified the concept of wa  (和) as essential to Japanese culture. Wa is difficult to translate precisely, but it is in many ways analogous to harmony. Social conformity is a highly valued virtue in Japanese society, because it preserves the wa between people within small groups and the nation. Participation in community religious festivals is also largely driven by a commitment to social harmony, but naturally a sense of harmony with nature and the Shinto gods is also a feature of Japanese society and religion.

Relevant questions to ask at this point are: “Does the biblical presentation of Christ’s atoning work have something to say to the core Japanese values system?” and “Does the Japanese emphasis on wa have potential as an idea Christians can engage with in a biblically faithful way that will help Japanese understand the gospel?”

While I don’t think I’ve arrived at a fully-formed perspective on these questions, after some early thinking, my tentative answer is yes to both. In the remainder of this post, I’ll give a brief explanation as to why.

I suspect the biblical worldview and the Japanese worldview can intersect if the transgression of Adam and Eve is explained (at least partially) as a violation or disruption of the perfect harmony that existed in Creation prior to the fall. The everything of creation that God saw and declared to be good included the reality that absolute wa existed between Creator and his creatures. This understanding of creation is closely related to the biblical ideas of shalom as the peace available under God’s perfect rule and the Kingship of God over His creation (as presented, for example, as the starting point of the 2 Ways to Live gospel presentation). When humanity chose to “go their own way”, we became the original destroyers of divine harmony; we dishonoured God instead of giving Him the honour He deserved as our Great King and although we have attempted to create our own societies and live together independently of God – our wa is always a broken one, our peace always fragile and we are unable to restore the divine harmony we breached.

Death, disease, destruction, despair, frustration, fragility, fear and fighting are all reminders that we are not at harmony with the divine, that God’s anger is directed towards us due to the way we have dishonoured His name and rejected His rule. Hell is a place of eternal disharmony and discord, where God consigns us to feel the weight of our rejection of Him, our inability to repair the dishonour we have done Him and to experience an everlasting existence without hope of seeing our lives restored to a harmonious relationship with our Creator.

When Christ’s work of salvation is understood through the grand lenses of atonement (i.e. “at-one-ment” as described earlier) and reconciliation, I believe the reality of our severe disharmony with God is powerfully addressed at the cross. For in him all the fullness of God was pleased to dwell, and through him to reconcile to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross. (Col 1:19-20, ESV)

In him we have redemption through his blood, the forgiveness of our trespasses, according to the riches of his grace, which he lavished upon us, in all wisdom and insight making known to us the mystery of his will, according to his purpose, which he set forth in Christ as a plan for the fullness of time, to unite all things in him, things in heaven and things on earth. (Eph 1:7-10, ESV)

Christ’s incarnation, death, resurrection, ascension and second coming all work together to reconcile corrupt humanity and the fallen universe to God, His perfect rule, order, plan and blessing. The harmony that Japanese culture extols as the greatest value can only be realised in Christ. And the attempts of the Japanese to form harmonious societies independently of God and irrespective of the broken relationship between humanity and their rightful king, is part of their rebellion. Because I don’t think the death of Jesus can be explained without delving into issues of guilt and culpability, penalties and consequences, at this stage I think I would try to demonstrate how our violation of God’s created harmony is simultaneously disobedience to His rule and commands that made such a peace possible. The notion of sin as treason may work well in communicating this.

While I still have a fair bit of fine tuning to do (which I anticipate will come through further interaction with Japanese Christians, Japanese non-Christians and missionaries serving in Japan), I expect a gospel presentation like 2 Ways to Live can work quite well as a tool for communicating the good news to Jesus, so long as the wa aspect is adequately communicated throughout the presentation.

Do you have any experience communicating the truths of the gospel and Christ’s atoning work to people from non-Western cultures that lack a Catholic/Christian heritage? What have you found helpful or challenging as you seek to be faithful to the unchanging gospel, whilst being understandable to your audience?

Atonement and the Japanese (Pt. 1)

If you’ve done some exploring regarding the work of Christ on the cross, you’ll likely have come across several different “theories” of how to understand what we call the atonement. What you believe about the atonement; the words and images you use to describe it; and how you think it affects our relationship with God usually says a lot about where you sit on the theological spectrum. Correct views about Christ’s work of redemption are crucial to healthy Christian thought and spiritual development, while erroneous teachings about the atonement may be significant cause for concern about the biblical faithfulness of a person’s views on Christianity.

11552628565_89f3ba644c_okilobox.mobi

5862827861_28e4299524_z                                                                                                                                                 [2]

The understanding of atonement that I hold and consider to be vital to Christian understanding of the cross is commonly referred to as penal substitutionary atonement. “Penal” refers to Christ bearing the penalty of our sin upon the cross, the way a criminal might bear the just punishment for their crimes. It is inseparable from the idea that the wrath of God against human sin was poured out upon the crucified Christ and that this was necessary for sinners to be reconciled to God. “Substitutionary” communicates the idea that everything Christ endured on the cross was done for us and for our salvation: in other words, Jesus died in our place, the sinless Saviour representing sinners – as God executed judgement upon His Son as though it were us on the cross receiving our due for rebelling against Him. Atonement itself was said to have been invented by English Bible Translator William Tyndale to communicate in English the idea of God and humanity being “at one” again, as a result of the person and work of Christ.

Penal Substitutionary Atonement is fiercely defended in many evangelical circles and many theologians, pastors and church leaders are greatly troubled when differing aspects of the atonement are elevated to a position that takes precedence over the above understanding of Christ’s work. Some of the other proposed atonement paradigms include: Christus Victor (the atonement is about Christ’s triumph over the evil spiritual forces of the world); Moral Influence theory (Christ died as an example to humanity of what love and ethics we should strive for); and Ransom to Satan (Christ’s death was payment to Satan to “buy back” sinful humans, rather than a sacrifice that dealt with sin in the sight of God). I find the latter view completely unacceptable and regard the essence of the other two views as aspects of Christ’s death that need to be appreciated as elements of His work that are subordinate in importance to the penal substitutionary aspect.

15057004190_0bf1761ce8_k[3]

A problem arises though when it comes to maintaining faithfulness to what one sincerely believes that the Scriptures teach and emphasise, and contextualising the gospel so that people from diverse backgrounds understand what Jesus did for them in ways that address the fundamental concerns of their culture and beliefs. I simultaneously recognise one particular view of the atonement as valid above all the other proposed models, yet at the same time I can see how our articulation of it predominantly addresses the Western mindset we’ve inherited from Roman civilisation and Roman Catholicism. In nations like Australia, the UK and the USA, the way I am used to expressing the atonement over and against the inherent legalism of Roman culture and Roman Christianity and the modernist heresies of liberal Christian groups is, I believe, the necessary way to communicate the biblical truths concerning Christ’s work on the Cross to Christians and non-Christians alike (whether its in the context of discipleship or evangelism).

But in thinking about how to communicate these truths in a very different culture, specifically Japanese culture, I’ve been forced to think carefully about how I can emphasise what the Bible emphasises and not concoct “new truths” to share with the Japanese, whilst at the same time not falling into the trap of delivering a pre-packaged, Westernised presentation of the gospel to people who have a very different cultural and religious starting point to the once Christianised societies of the Western world.

Statue_of_Staint_Francis_Xavier[4]
Francis Xavier – bringer of Catholicism to Japan

Let me spell out some of the obvious differences. The Greco-Roman cultural and philosophical values that have always been part of the Western mindset are not the same as the Far-Eastern, Confucian values that characterise societies like Japan. Despite coming to Japan via Jesuit missions in the 1600s, Roman Catholicism has never been the dominant religious force in Japanese society and in fact it was outlawed and brutally oppressed for many years – severely limiting its impact upon national life. As a natural result, while Protestantism “naturally” arose in European countries like Germany, Switzerland, Holland, Scotland and England, when people turned to Scripture as a higher authority than the papacy and the Church – Protestantism in Japan has never arisen as a response to Catholic teaching, cultural dominance and abuses of power. It has come from other parts of the world as a pre-packaged response to somewhere else’s ecclesiastical problems. And naturally, while Japan has been enormously influenced by the modern West in the last 150 years, it has not directly had cultural movements like the Renaissance and Enlightenment, which were arguably only possible in the Western-Christian context in which they occurred.

On one level, evangelical Protestantism and its understanding and articulation of the gospel is completely valid and even needed in relation to the Japanese context. For one, it’s goal is to be thoroughly biblical and therefore the discoveries it has made from the Word of God in relation to core principles of Christianity are universally applicable. They have something to say to every culture on Earth. Furthermore, they are legitimate because Catholicism is in Japan and chances are that what little the average Japanese man or woman knows about Christianity will come from Catholicism. Since Catholics are committed to promoting Roman dogma to the four corners of the globe, we must be ready to counter it by clarifying what the Bible teaches on a range of issues and our experience in the historical controversies within Western Christianity will offer us many of the tools for doing that. Western cults like JWs and Mormons are also present and promote their own corruptions of orthodox teaching on topics such as the atonement. The resources for dealing with these aberrant movements will also come from the Western experience.

But my concern is that in order to be faithful evangelicals in Japan, we must not simply recycle pre-packaged Western Protestant methods of communicating Jesus and articulating the faith, if they do not take seriously the fact that Japan is less like 16th century Catholic Germany or 21st century post-Christian Australia and perhaps more like the pagan frontiers of non-Roman Europe in the early centuries of the church. Our gospel will be the same, our basic understanding of the atonement will not change. But how we introduce, explain, illustrate and apply this core aspect of the gospel may need to look different to what we’re used to in our Western contexts.

I’ll share more about what I’ve been thinking in regards to this issue in the next post…

[1] Rumble Press “3D_Judges_Gavel” (CC BY 2.0) flickr

[2] Yu Tung Brian Chan “Peace!” (CC BY-NC 2.0) flickr.

[3] György Soponyai “St. Peter’s Basilica, Vatican City” (CC BY-NC 2.0) flickr.

[4] Billertl – “Statue of Saint Francis Xavier, at St. Francis Xavier Catholic Church, in Superior, Wisconsin” CC BY-SA 4.0 wikimedia commons

 

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.

kilobox.mobi

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.

17725432544_ebdd915b64_h[1]

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.

Sincerely,
Yarran