May 7, 2002

Halifax-Portal Lecture
The Role of the Churches in Australia Today
Lecture I

‘Speaking the Truth in Love’

Archbishop Peter Jensen

My thesis is simple: the role of the Christian churches in Australia today is to speak the truth in love. This is what we have failed to do effectively. But on this depends the future of the church and the good health of our society. To fail here is to fail everywhere; to succeed here is to lay the foundation for all that we need to do in God’s name and for his glory and for the good of people. The words of the Apostle Paul challenge us still: ‘the church of the living God…’ he wrote, is ‘a pillar and buttress of truth’ (1 Tim 3:15).

I am aware that this may seem to be a daring and even provocative thesis; indeed there would surely be few who would agree with it. For a number of people outside the Christian community, the church has no role; it would not matter if all churches disappeared. Indeed, the churches are regarded as nothing more than sad remnants of a day when the wowsers ruled this world and it was a grey and gloomy place. Other would be more charitable; the churches are best seen as religious clubs; entitled to exist as do clubs for the study of stamps or steam engines, but of no great significance, except when they try to use their ancient customs to interfere with our lives. Then they must be resisted.

But there would be those who are far closer to the churches, and indeed those who are members of the churches who would regard my thesis with deep concern. To their minds it suggests a retreat from our true responsibilities in the community, and a retreat all too suspiciously like pietism. For them the churches’ role in the community is to stand witness to the moral, social and political imperatives which may flow from the Christian faith. In fact, it is to do more than stand witness; it is to become actively involved in the political processes which will preserve such values as human rights and the renewal of the environment. More than that, it is to get involved in the lives of people in works of compassion; it is to feed the hungry, care for the sick, and visit the prisoners.

We could say more. Driving such imperatives is often the recognition of Christian failure, not least, for example in mid-twentieth century Germany. Too often Christians were involved in abuses of civil rights and much worse; too often Christians were passive bystanders to atrocities. There were of course, glorious exceptions, brave souls who dared that others may live. But they were notable as the exceptions; if others had been as brave and as committed, more could have been achieved. Perhaps the atrocities could have been averted altogether. Many Christians are rightly driven by the desire not to fail in our own generation.

And yet, my thesis is: the role of the Christian churches in Australia today is to speak the truth in love. This is as frighteningly narrow as you may already suspect me of being, because I am going to say that the truth of which I speak is not merely truth in the sense of genuine communication, or conformity to reality, or even prophetic criticism of the government; it is first and foremost to be defined as the truth, the truth of God’s word, that Jesus Christ came into the world to save sinners. That’s the truth; that’s God’s truth; and that is the truth – in one sense the only truth – which it is the role of the churches to witness to in this country, here and now.

I am going to claim this so baldly because the need is desperate; we can no longer afford to assume the truth, or to modify the truth to suit our hearers; we must speak the truth or perish and leave our beloved nation to the gods of this world. If that is all we can do, then that is what we must do; when all else that we may do - when all our works of mercy and our political initiatives - are beyond our strength and wisdom, God’s truth must still be our passion. If in some horrible circumstance we were forced to choose between feeding the body with bread or feeding the soul with Christ we must not hesitate; truth matters more than bread. Urgency at this point is laid upon me, and to speak otherwise, or to be agreeable because I want to be well-received in the churches or the wider community, would be to fail a sacred trust.

I will explore this topic by means of four connected essays.

On Being Domesticated

One of the most notable features of the Christian churches in Australia today is our almost total lack of intellectual significance. The churches exist as sociological entities, as organisations achieving certain goals of a social and educational nature; as making provision for a largely attenuated religious expression. There are individual Christian academics who make distinguished contributions in their fields and sometimes those fields have religious connections and connotations. There are certainly significant Christian poets, novelists and artists. But no one in their wildest imaginings would say that the churches are in the forefront of intellectual endeavour; that the theologians are worth consulting on matters of great significance; that there is in each of our great cities at least one powerful and persuasive pulpit voice able to command attention; that there is a powerful and persuasive Christian world view being promoted, even as an alternative. You don’t find Christian books in secular bookshops, unless they are notorious.

It is not that we lack intellectuals. No doubt there are clever people and even intellectuals in the churches. What is lacking is a comprehensive and profound and recognisable theology able to be explored and used in order to challenge, enlighten and guide the thinking of the churches; able also to intersect with and challenge and illumine the thinking of the world. To take some examples: The resurrection of Jesus Christ is an immediate challenge to the powerful naturalistic mindset of our contemporaries; the universal sinfulness of humanity throws light on the our understanding of human nature and hence education, politics, medical ethics and a hundred other community concerns; the judgement of the world at the end of history speaks directly to issues of conscience, of accountability, of right and wrong; the atoning death of Jesus Christ is the basis for a true understanding of such daily necessities as forgiveness and repentance.

The churches talk about medical ethics; we talk about accountability; we talk about forgiveness; we talk about authority – but we have ceased to talk about the theological foundations of all these things, since we are frightened of not being relevant and persuasive. We sing our songs to the world’s tunes. As a result the memory of the faith is attenuated, and we sound like those who have lost confidence in the truth for which we stand. This is a major intellectual and spiritual crisis for the churches, since if we continue thus the faith itself will disappear. Then we will have no contribution to make to Australian society that is our own.

What is truly alarming is that we are not alarmed. We have accepted the secular world’s verdict that we have nothing of importance to say, and we have adjusted ourselves to this reality. We have become domesticated. It has all the sadness of seeing a great cat of Christian theology turned into a house pet. We have become just the sort of Christian movement which you would want to have if you never wanted to be troubled by it, if you wanted to control it. The surrender of our intellectual capital was achieved with hardly a shot being fired in the 1960s, but it was because we had allowed it to atrophy well before that. We were confused and demoralised.

The terrorist attack on the US last year frightened the secular mind and threw up spectres of religious wars. This drew forth an extraordinary edition of the Sydney Morning Herald on Christmas eve, one of the church’s greatest festivals. There have been occasions when the Herald editorials have been fairly solidly Christian and theological. On this occasion, the Herald referred to the words of the herald-angels who sang about ‘peace on earth, and goodwill toward men.’ For the newspaper, this is in truth the message of Christmas. Religious fanaticism is marked by the ‘claim to possess an absolute truth denied to everyone else’; but ‘In essence, all the great religions deliver a similar message: the presence of God – or as some would express it, the attainment of enlightenment – makes both possible and imperative to the love of one’s neighbour, the welcoming of strangers, the realisation of the interconnectedness of all living things. Universal peace should follow.’

Under these circumstances, what is required is, of course, dialogue, respect, understanding. Such dialogue can ‘force each participant in the dialogue to purge their theology and their practices of those things which have become obstacles to manifesting the original intention of their faith’. What may have to go in such a purge may be judged by another astonishing article published on the same day, Christmas Eve.

The headline is promising: ‘The love that crosses the great divide’; the subject matter is a description of how Muslims view Jesus. ‘The Muslim Jesus is not divine, but a humble servant of God. He is not crucified – Islam insists that the story of the killing of Jesus is false. He is, as it were, Jesus as he might have been without St Paul or St Augustine or the Council of Nicea. He is not the cold figure of English Unitarianism, and he is less grand than the exalted human of the Arians. As you read these (Muslim) stories what comes across most powerfully is that the Muslim Jesus is intensely loved. There is an element of St Francis of Assissi about him. The Muslim Jesus, shorn of all claims of divinity, could be more easily held on to by my agnostic friend than the Second Person of the Holy Trinity.’ (SMH, 24/12/2001).

Here indeed is a Jesus for modern people, for people who can believe the simplistic argument that enlightenment and peace is the fundamental message of all religions. The article is only claiming that the Muslim Jesus may also suit the contemporary agnostic, who cannot believe in Jesus , but cannot escape from him either. But the reference to the Jesus of Paul, Augustine and Nicea is sufficient to show that the author believes that we have arrived at a more authentic Jesus, shorn of his divinity. But the problem is always going to be our estimate of Jesus, and the question ‘who is the true Jesus?’ Of course, the Christian faith and all faiths can be turned into the same brand of enlightenment leading to world peace, if we give up the claim to the divinity of Jesus. But why, then, be Christian? I want to say that the loss of Nicene and Augustinian Christianity would be a cultural disaster.

For this, the Herald is not to blame. We ourselves in the churches have domesticated the Christian religion well enough. Instead of explaining and defending the gospel, we have sought the path of relevance. Our aim has been to demonstrate our usefulness to the community by pointing to our good works; the end result is that we are seen by many and see ourselves often enough to be merely charitable organisations. Furthermore we have put our hands out to government and to the business community for aid in doing these charitable works, further divorcing the gospel from the activities of the church. Often enough we have followed the well-documented path of starting schools, hospitals, charities, missions, only to see them fall into secular hands and cease from doing their work explicitly in the name of Christ. The first generation believes; the second generation assumes; the third generation loses. What we have assumed, rather than explained, defended, expounded and applied – that we are in imminent danger of losing.

Where our response to the world has been intellectual, it is the more liberal Christians who have made the running. One of the most famous contemporary Christians, and probably the best selling one, is Bishop Spong. But the version of Christianity which he has to purvey is far, far removed from Nicene Christianity. Furthermore, the Christian apologists and educationists seem unwilling to advance and teach a doctrinal christianity. Not surprisingly, when the opportunity comes to speak on matters such as divorce and remarriage, or euthanasia, there is no attempt to ground our approach in the teaching of scripture; our spokespersons seem to feel that all they must do is present a plausible case to the modern mind.

On the Need for Truth

My thesis is that the role of the churches in Australia today is to speak the truth in love. It will be evident by now that I mean by the truth the gospel of Jesus Christ as enshrined in the inspired Bible, the word of God. What is the importance of this truth? Let me make three observations.

First, please notice that no one else is going to speak it. The message of Jesus is the message of the church, not the world. We cannot expect that the world will be at all interested in propagating this message, or supporting its proclamation. Indeed we know that the world is very dismissive of missionaries, and will only justify their activities if they can be shown to have some connection with development projects. The silence of the church about its own message is inexcusable. The inevitable impression is that we do not believe it ourselves.

Second, we must notice the tragic absence of truth in public discourse. Of course there is the general sense in our community that the organs of communication, especially the mass media cannot be relied on. Fair or not, (and it is by no means always fair), many people will say that when they have anything to do with the media on a personal nature, the story is wrong, twisted or inadequately told. The general criticisms of those in public life are the same; time does not permit the telling of how the advertising and selling worlds are viewed. In short, we are taught through experience not to trust, but to be cynical.

What we don’t realise is how much is lost by this cynicism. Human relationships depend upon truthful communications. You cannot trust a liar; for a time you may love a liar, but you cannot really live with one. And yet, without trust, human relationships are doomed. Cynicism is the death of satisfying communion between people; a culture that breeds cynicism is a culture in love with loneliness and unhappiness. The present response to this is to make reading and listening subjective exercises, to make meaning depend upon the recipient rather than on the giver or the actual words said.

But God is the master of his own meaning. The Christian gospel is the insertion of the truth into the untrustworthy discourse of the world. It re-establishes and area of trust, and calls upon us to speak the truth. We identify God in the first instance because his promises may be trusted; you may rely upon his words. He made certain promises to the patriarchs, promises which only God could fulfil, promises which are fulfilled in Jesus Christ. We find that we may trust these promises, that we may trust him. He gives his law, that the human conscience recognises as true and wise. In particular he promises through Jesus Christ eternal life and the forgiveness of sins and we are invited to trust him for his mercies in this life and the next.

Third, and most important of all, the truth of the gospel is the means by which people become Christians and so receive forgiveness, come to know God, and receive the gift of eternal life. These are the things which really matter in the human life. How do people become Christians according to the witness of the New Testament? It is through the preaching of the word of God. The word of God tells us about Jesus Christ and the promises of God associated with his coming into the world. The word of God is neither domestic or bland; it is ‘sharper than a two edged sword’ (Heb 4:12). The truth is like that; it is a narrow line; error is the broad path that leads to destruction.

This word of God is about Jesus Christ. When the first Christians preached the gospel, they were accused of preaching another king, Jesus. Although they were misunderstood to be preaching a political message, their real purpose was far more revolutionary than that. They were pitting Christ against the Emperor who demanded worship; that is true. But they were pitting him against every power, every authority, every lord and every god. That was the essence of the Christian challenge from the beginning. Without such an absolute they did not speak the truth about Christ, and hence the truth about the universe. That is why if we were to abandon the absolutist edge of Christianity, or even accept the Herald’s humanistic Christology, with Christ shorn of his divinity, we would entirely lose the truth and the gospel. And yet by our own unwillingness to witness to these truths, we have almost lost them anyhow.

I want to say that to hold to the Nicene Christ, and the doctrine of the Trinity, with all that this implies, is the best way in which we can serve our community. It says to all of us that Jesus Christ is Lord, and it therefore call on all of us to serve him with single hearts. It is this message which has unparalleled power to transform human lives, to save people, to provide an authentic pattern for human life, to liberate people to live lives of sacrificial and community-blessing love. It is no accident that the Red Cross was founded by a convinced and dedicated Christian man. The churches in our community have a magnificent record of blessing the community through loving and caring social work. But the starting point, the dynamic, is the truth of the gospel. It is through trusting in the promises of God and being ruled by Jesus Christ that we are set free to love others. In other words, the dynamic of the Christian life is the truth of the gospel, and to abandon, or re-write or even assume the gospel, is to commit spiritual suicide.

On Speaking the Truth in Love

These striking words occur in Ephesians 4: 15. The Apostle Paul is telling us about the unity of the church which is the body of Christ. He sees the ministry of the word of God as being that which when working properly will help the whole body to grow into maturity, namely, into its likeness to Christ. Immaturity will be marked by the body being ‘tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine’; to counteract this, the members of the body must be involved in ‘speaking the truth in love,’ with the result that, ‘we are to grow up in every way into him who is the head, into Christ…’ That we are constantly being ‘tossed to and fro by every wind of doctrine’ can scarcely be denied. We desperately need the antidote: ‘speaking the truth in love’.

‘Speaking the truth in love’, notice. The Bible knows nothing of the various divisions that the modern world is afflicted with; the division between facts and values, for example; or the division between the pastor and the teacher. Truth and love are held together here, without embarrassment. Truth is absolutely vital if the body of Christ is to grow and prosper; and yet the way of speech must be that which builds up, which blesses, which edifies.

It is here that we have so often failed. Some of want to be so kind, so loving that we will not speak the truth. The therapeutic model of pastoral care has been perverted into mere affirmations of human behaviour. Our love is no love, for it refuses this great test: will it speak boldly, frankly, truthfully? ‘Love is patient and kind; love does not envy or boast; it is not arrogant or rude. It does not insist on its own way; it is not irritable or resentful; it does not rejoice at wrongdoing, but rejoices with the truth.’ (1 Cor 13:4-6).

Let me apply this very directly. We all know that one of the great failings of the church has been sectarianism, the ugly rivalry and jealousy which has soured relations and borne such a bad witness to the world. And yet we also ought to know that there remain profound differences between us, differences which cannot be overlooked. It is all too easy for those who do not care about truth to criticise those who do; and yet the truth is vital for the salvation of men and women and the good health of the churches. Thus in my view the differences between Catholic and Anglican remain of enormous significance, and I am in duty bound to point them out and try to convince my Catholic brothers of ‘my’ truth. The clue is not in ceasing from this responsibility, which doubtless they share with me in reverse, but in fulfilling it in love. It is not truth which marks sectarianism and renders it so ugly; it is lack of love. If I differ, let me do so in such a way that all involved can see the love with which I speak.

On Being Crucified with Christ

At the very beginning of this lecture I acknowledged that there would be many in the churches who would be dismayed and even horrified at my thesis: that the role of the churches in Australia today is to speak the truth in love. One reason for that dismay is that they will see in it a re-assertion of a failed pietism, and a declaration of no intent to have anything to do at a meaningful level with Australian society. It is the fulfilment of ‘little flock theology’ the withdrawal of the church from its human responsibilities to speak against injustice, to suffer with the poor, to visit the prisoner, to care for the refugee.

It is perfectly true that I regard the main locus of the church as the local congregation rather than the denomination. It is perfectly true, therefore that I regard the real fulfilment of the topic to be worked out in the suburban churches of our nation rather than in denominational head offices. It is perfectly true, furthermore, that I have my doubts and hesitations about the usefulness and the truthfulness of much that passes for political social and economic commentary by ecclesiastics. But I hope it is clear by now that my priority lies with the word of God as our chief and enduring obligation for two main reasons: first, because that is in fact the perennial duty of the churches and not one that we can pass on to anyone else; second, because it is in fact the indispensable source of all the good that we may do in the community. It is the gospel of Jesus which makes the Christians who will do the good works that will glorify God and prove to be a blessing to this nation. But to promote the gospel of Jesus requires that we speak the truth in love. And here we come to a final secret of God’s kingdom.

To speak the truth, even in love, is to court crucifixion. It may not be literal, though Christian martyrdom is a frequent occurrence in some parts of the world. One of the chief reasons why we have ceased to speak the truth is that we are fearful of the reaction of those around us. We have courted popularity; we have not been prepared to suffer the scorn of those who can use the pages of the newspaper to pillory us. Even when we have adopted a profoundly Christian stance on some issue, we have not explained how it is an application of the teachings of the word of God. We have even fallen into the trap of justifying our moral stances by a secularist theory of ethics. We have contributed towards the gagging of God, perhaps because we are frightened of suffering.

It is time for us to learn again the meaning of St Paul’s words, that we shall be the heirs of God, ‘provided that we suffer with him in order that we may also be glorified with him’ (Rom 8:17). Time and time again, it is the church which suffers which is the church which does good. For this reason I say once more that there is one fundamental task to which we must be committed come whatever may: ‘Speak the truth in love.’