Progression or Regression?
David Cook writes:
On 1st December 2018, election night in Victoria, the victorious Premier, Daniel Andrews stated that ‘Victoria is the most progressive state in the nation.’
Having spent the month of February, 2020 in Victoria, progression is not the adjective l would have used.
How’s this for a ‘progressive list’:
- Abortions on request up to 24 weeks and on the agreement of two doctors, abortion allowed up to full term. A baby may be abandoned, legally, simply to die in the clinic.
- At the other end of the age spectrum, voluntary euthanasia, legal since July, 2019.
- Withdrawal of funding for Christian Hospital Chaplaincy service.
- Special Religious Instruction only available within strict curriculum guidelines and out of school hours, so not to disturb the secular nature of education.
- The Safe Schools curriculum in State Schools, promoting gender fluidity, and yet Victoria has the lowest rate of public school patronage of any state in Australia.
- Christian correspondence material available in every Australian and South Pacific nation prison, but banned from prisons in the State of Victoria.
- Proposed legislation which will make it illegal to promote gay or transgender conversion therapy.
All this in a State with some of our nation’s finest cultural icons, The MCG, The Rod Laver and Margaret Court Arenas, the finest collection of Australian art in the nation, more theatres per head of population than any other Australian city.
I am preaching in a Church in the central business district of Melbourne where my closest Protestant neighbouring Churches both unashamedly endorse the same sex marriage agenda of the state.
And the Premier, Daniel Andrews, who presides over all this, is a practicing Roman Catholic, one wonders when a Priest or Bishop will have the courage to place him under Christian discipline.
In Romans 1 the apostle Paul makes it clear that ‘the wrath of God is revealed from heaven’, he does not say it will be revealed in the future but it is being revealed now. (Rom 1: 18)
Why? Because humankind has exchanged the glory of God for idolatrous images, (Rom 1: 25) and worships and serves the creature rather than the Creator. (Rom 1: 25)
Idolatry is the lie (Rom 1:25) and God’s wrath is evidenced in that he gives mankind up to the fruit of that exchange.
Paul says, God gave them over
(Rom 1: 24) to uncleanness
(Rom 1: 26) to scrambled sexual expression
(Rom 1: 28) to debased mind
The mind, the attitudes, the worldview of humanity is thus under the judgement of God, the mind is counterfeit and incapable of making proper moral judgements. (Rom 1: 28-32)
Such a mind calls regression, progression!
The only hope is the new life, the new heart, which comes through the Christian gospel by the gift of God.
The moral man, Nicodemus, in John 3 must be converted to see or enter God’s Kingdom and the same opportunity and need is offered to the immoral woman who is offered living water by Jesus in John 4.
Paul makes it clear that due to the mercies of God we are given new minds, from which the judgement of God has been lifted and by the renewing of these minds we are being transformed.
We are people of a new mind, minds which are able to ‘discern what is the will of God, what is good and acceptable and perfect’. (Rom 12: 2)
Pray that Daniel Andrews will experience God’s mercy.
In one of the mid-week services here l preached on John 3, ‘Jesus and Nicodemus’ under the heading, ‘Why Daniel Andrews is wrong’.
Thankfully l am still free to preach in the Commonwealth of Australia if not, it is a quick car trip of 3 hours back to the border, to good old regressive NSW!!
– Rev David Cook 18.02.2020
(David Cook has served as Principal of SMBC and also as Moderator-General of the Presbyterian Church of Australia as well as in parish ministry. Inset photo courtesy St. Helen’s Bishopsgate.)
Frankin Graham Event and the Glasgow Hydro Arena
“The cancellation by the SSE Hydro in Glasgow of the Franklin Graham event is a deeply disturbing decision that is antithetical to freedom of speech, freedom of religion, and to true democratic values. …”
– Members of the West of Scotland Gospel Partnership have signed this letter of support for Franklin Graham, freedom of speech and freedom of religion.
Bishop Rod Thomas’ letter after the Archbishops’ statement following the earlier release of the ‘Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships for Opposite Sex Couples’
The Bishop of Maidstone, Rod Thomas, sent this letter on 31st January, 2020 to incumbents of all evangelical resolution churches:
Dear Partners in Ministry
I thought I should write following the statement that was issued after the conclusion of the College of Bishops yesterday. The statement can be found here.
My understanding at the College was that the statement was needed for two reasons. First, it was felt that the Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships for Opposite Sex Couples which had been released on 22nd January was pastorally insensitive in the way it was framed and released to the press. Secondly, there was concern that as a result, some of the necessary participation in the discussions which will follow the publication of the Living in Love and Faith materials could be jeopardised. Yesterday’s statement therefore apologised for the release of the Pastoral Statement.
However, it was also my clear understanding that nothing in yesterday’s statement should be taken as a retraction of the doctrinal teaching of the Church of England on marriage and sexual relationships. While some of that teaching may well come into question during the discussions about the LLF materials, it remains the current teaching of the Church. The position set out in the Pastoral Statement on Civil Partnerships for Opposite Sex Couples, and which was agreed by the House of Bishops, therefore continues to apply.
While I understand many of the concerns that were expressed at the College, I had the opportunity to say that for many faithful Anglicans the Pastoral Statement of 22nd January came as a great encouragement. I was keen to establish that the apology did not relate to the doctrinal position it articulated.
I am conscious that many of you will remain concerned about these developments. Please be assured that together with other bishops, I will continue to make clear my commitment to the historic, biblical teaching of the Church. I hope most of you know that I don’t take part in social media discussions, but if you want to pursue any of this with me, there will be an opportunity to do so at our forthcoming regional conferences.
With every good wish in Christ
Rod Thomas
Bishop of Maidstone.
(Emphasis added in blue.)
Bishops’ pastoral statement fiasco — An English episcopal fumble
“What a game of Orwellian double-speak the Church of England’s bishops have been playing. Their ‘pastoral statement’ on heterosexual civil partnerships was surely not ‘pastoral’ at all? Surely it was thoroughly political and has now backfired?
After some of their number publicly distanced themselves from the statement their House had issued on January 22nd upholding the Book of Common Prayer’s teaching on marriage, the CofE’s senior pastors last week issued an ‘apology’. …”
– At Anglican Ink, Julian Mann comments on senior bishops who apologise for the teaching of the Bible and the Book of Common Prayer. And he wonders why anyone would want to be associated with them at the Lambeth Conference.
Orwellian nightmare which began when an officer told him ‘I need to check your thinking’
“Until 12 months ago, businessman Harry Miller led a blameless existence. He was running his successful plant and machinery company in Humberside, happily married and watching his four children grow up.
But at 3pm on January 23 last year – a Wednesday he will never forget – he received a call from one of his company’s staff just as he had finished shopping at Tesco. The staff member said a group of police had made an unannounced visit to Harry’s workplace and needed to talk to him. …
The 55-year-old now has an official police record stating he has committed a ‘non-crime’ transphobic hate offence.”
– Story from The Daily Mail. (Link thanks to SydneyAnglicans.net.)
Archbishops apologise for Church of England’s sexual ethics guidelines
“We as Archbishops, alongside the bishops of the Church of England, apologise and take responsibility for releasing a statement last week which we acknowledge has jeopardised trust. We are very sorry and recognise the division and hurt this has caused.”
– Report via Anglican Ink.
The statement for which the apology has been made includes:
“7. It has always been the position of the Church of England that marriage is a creation ordinance, a gift of God in creation and a means of his grace. Marriage, defined as a faithful, committed, permanent and legally sanctioned relationship between a man and a woman making a public commitment to each other, is central to the stability and health of human society. …
10. The introduction of same sex marriage, through the Marriage (Same Sex Couples) Act 2013, has not changed the church’s teaching on marriage or same sex relationships.”
Straw Men in the Religious Discrimination debate
An article in the Sydney Morning Herald (“Religious discrimination bill gives Australians ‘right to be a bigot’”, J Ireland, SMH 30 Jan 2020) sets up a number of “straw man” arguments so that it can knock them down and claim that the proposed Religious Discrimination Bill is harmful. I disagree.
The first paragraph offers some examples of things that the Bill ‘could make it legal’ to say…”
– Neil Foster at Law and Religion Australia looks at the arguments used in an article published in The Sydney Morning Herald. Is it actually “an argument against free speech, and for authoritarianism”?
New concerns over Victoria’s proposed banning of ‘conversion practices’
“As a Victorian, I have a moral obligation to report to authorities personal knowledge of alleged child abuse. As a pastor of a church, I have both a moral and legal duty to report knowledge of or suspicions of child abuse. Mandatory reporting is a social good. Even without the legal requirement, one’s natural concerns for a child’s wellbeing would automate contacting the police.
In Victoria, under new laws being proposed by the Andrews Government, I can be imprisoned for 12-18 months, for speaking up against the psychological and physical trauma inflicted upon children by gender warriors and dangerous medicos who work to change a child’s gender or sex. …”
– Murray Campbell in Melbourne warns of proposed legislation in Victoria.
Submission on Second Draft of Religious Discrimination Bill
Associate Professor Neil Foster writes about the Second Draft of the Religious Discrimination Bill –
“In short, I think this legisation is an important step in improving protection of religious freedom in Australia, and the second draft is an improvement on the first. But I recommend some clarification or change of approach in the following areas:
- Defining Religious Belief – I recommend that the way that the courts should determine whether a claim to religious belief is justified should focus on sincerity rather than courts examining “reasonableness” ; I also think that the bar of “unlawfulness” determining what beliefs cannot be protected at all needs to be raised to mainly cover serious criminal offences;
- Who is protected by the Bill? – I suggest that the Bill ought to protect religious groups as well as individuals; in this context I think that the limits on protection based on the concept of “commercial activity” need to be removed, though I agree that the kind of organisations protected need to be limited in other ways;
- Who is bound by the Bill? – I agree that, as at present, both individuals and groups should be bound not to religiously discriminate; but I think the exemption given to government bodies from the provisions relating to religious free speech outside working hours should be rolled back;
- The limits of protection – I argue that cases where religious freedom can be over-ridden should be limited to those where it is “necessary” in protection of important fundamental rights, as spelled out in the ICCPR art 18(3);
- Protecting religious free speech – I argue that the good initiative protecting statements of religious belief in clause 42 should also be extended to “vilification” claims, so long as they do not contravene the limits set out in the clause itself and defined by the Commonwealth;
- Conscientious objection by health practitioners – I argue that the complicated provisions protecting conscientious objection to certain procedures by health practitioners need to be improved;
- The Religious Freedom Commissioner – I support this new position but argue that the person concerned should be clearly shown to understand the issues facing religious citizens;
- A note on charities – I support the current provision ensuring that advocacy of traditional views on the nature of marriage not disqualify a body from being recognised as a charity, and suggest a further change to make this even clearer.”
Church Society responds to the C of E House of Bishops statement on civil partnerships
“Church Society welcomes the recent pastoral statement from the House of Bishops concerning civil partnerships.
Specifically, we are grateful to the House for reaffirming the traditional and orthodox view of marriage (see paragraphs 7 and 35), and for clarifying that “sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage are regarded as falling short of God’s purposes for human beings” (paragraph 9).
The statement also helpfully points out some of the inherent ambiguity about the place of sexual relationships in civil partnerships …
However it is disappointing to see that once again the clear statement regarding sexual relationships outside heterosexual marriage is not followed through with respect to the sacraments and godly church discipline …”
– Read the full post from Church Society.
Sound an Alarm: Gender Activism is about to silence us
“The Victorian government intends to pass a law very soon that may see ordinary citizens imprisoned if they speak up against the chemical, psychological and physical mutilation of confused adolescents. …”
– Retired Judge of the Federal Circuit Court of Australia Stuart Lindsay, writes this opinion piece in Quadrant.
Douglas Murray interviewed by John Anderson
British author and journalist Douglas Murray is interviewed by John Anderson in the latest in his series of Conversations.
Very helpful for anyone seeking to understand the collapse of western culture. Watch right to the end. 109 minutes.
Opposing same-sex marriage is not “vilification”
“The recent NSW decision of Passas v Comensoli [2019] NSWCATAP 298 (18 December 2019) provides an example of someone who has been penalised for “homosexual vilification” as a result of comments concerning same-sex marriage.
However, it does provide clarification that merely to express disagreement with the introduction of same sex marriage does not amount to such vilification under NSW law.”
– At Law and Religion Australia, Neil Foster’s latest post is worth reading in full.
Losing a job for believing that biological sex is immutable
“An astonishing decision from an Employment Tribunal in the UK has ruled that it is acceptable to dismiss an employee because of their view that sex is biological and immutable (unable to be changed).
In a preliminary ruling in Forstater v CGD Europe (18 Dec 2019; Case No 2200909/2019, Employment Judge Tayler) this view was found to be ‘incompatible with human dignity and [the] fundamental rights of others’ (para [84]), and hence not a protected ‘belief’ for the purposes of a claim of “belief”-based discrimination under the UK Equality Act 2010.
While this case is not based on a religious belief, it brings into sharp focus a number of issues connected with religious beliefs and the workplace. …”
– At Law and Religion Australia, Neil Foster looks at a case which might have been unthinkable a very short time ago.
Conversation between former Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson and Journalist Melanie Phillips removed from YouTube
[Update, Tuesday 17 December: The video appears to have been reinstated.]
Former Australian Deputy Prime Minister John Anderson has been continuing to post his Conversations series on his website, johnanderson.net.au.
There, he explains his motivation. In part, he says:
“Increasingly in Australia our famous commitment to a fair go for all, mateship, and rubbing along with people who have different views, seem to be under threat.
It often seems to me that the old adage, ‘I may disagree with you, but I will defend to the death your right to say it,’ is giving way to a notion which says, ‘if you dare disagree with me I’ll do whatever it takes to silence you.’
The good policy that Australia desperately needs now will not come out of a bad or silenced debate, which is the inevitable outcome of a loss of respect for other people and the views that they hold.“ (emphasis added)
On Friday (13 December), he published his latest Conversation, this one with Melanie Phillips, Journalist, Author and Broadcaster. Today (Monday 16 December), the video of the conversation has been “removed for violating YouTube’s Terms of Service”.
In a message to subscribers, John Anderson says,
“We are currently trying to determine if taking down the video was an honest mistake and are working to have it reinstated as soon as possible. We’ll let you know if and when it is available to view again.
In the meantime you can listen to the discussion on podcast at these links: iTunes, Spotify.“
What we believe
The message at the heart of Christianity is really quite simple…