Skip to content

My submission to the expert panel on religious freedom

The Expert Panel on Religious Freedom in Australia is taking submissions until 14 February 2018. Here’s my submission:Freedom

I am writing as a theological scholar, having received my doctorate from Durham University, UK, in 2012, where I studied the intersection of Jewish identity and the New Testament letter to the Romans.

I am concerned with the prospect that in Australia, religious views that are quite mainstream and consistent with the historic confessions of faith on which our religious institutions are founded, through ignorance or apathy, may become marginalised through the rhetoric of progressive scholars or politicians, in such a way that they are no longer considered valid or worthy of protection.

I refer first of all of an instance of this very thing happening in the UK. It is an example of religious marginalisation by a UK government official. A report on this instance with further links may be found here. Amanda Spielman, the head of UK schools inspectorate Ofsted, called for a “muscular liberalism” that “holds no truck for ideologies that want to close minds or narrow opportunity”. She named the Christian Institute as her key example of such an ideology. The Christian Institute, however, is not an extremist institution with such an extreme ideology as she describes; it is simply a conservative Christian group whose beliefs are entirely consistent with the Church of England as expressed in the 39 Articles of Religion and which seeks to advocate for traditional views. For such a high-ranking government official to name this organisation in such a way is a clear threat to freedom of religion. Sadly, I can confirm from my reading and communication with friends in the UK, that this is not an isolated incident but in fact seems to be becoming increasingly common there.

For a possible scenario of how this problem might occur in Australia, I refer to a news article in the ABC that was published during the same-sex marriage survey. The article sought to present a particular progressive and liberal reading of the Bible’s teaching on homosexualty under the heading of “What does the Bible really have to say?” This title of the article suggested (and the article in essence argued) that even conservative Christians, who according to the historic tenets of the Christian faith hold to the Bible as God’s word and have a high view of its authority and applicability, should hold the same view as the author with regard to same sex marriage; and strongly implied that if they hold to a traditional view on same-sex marriage they are simply not consistent and do not understand the Bible nor biblical scholarship. In other words, they are not really being Christian. As a biblical scholar, I responded on the ABC religion and ethics website, showing various scholarly problems with the original article. The point I wish to make here is not that debate should be silenced – of course all scholars should be entitled to publish and express opinions – but rather to demonstrate how easy it is for a traditional religious view (in this case a view on marriage) to be marginalised and presented as inconsistent with the Christian faith, even with the flimsiest of evidence and argumentation. If we are not careful in Australia, this kind of opinion-shaping might in the future lead to those in positions of power regarding religious views that were once mainstream and entirely consistent with historic tenets of faith as being inconsistent with those very tenets of faith, and thus disregarding them in any decisions about protecting religious freedom.

In other words, I am deeply concerned that we should be protecting the religious freedoms of all. Our legislators and decision makers should never assume that a particular religious faith can be defined simply by looking at the most vocal opinion-shapers within that faith. And because it is so easy for this to occur, legislation should be put in place to protect against it occurring. It is already demonstrably happening the UK, and I urge the Expert Panel to make recommendations that ensure that this does not happen in our own nation.

Published inGeneralMinistryRomans

Publications by Lionel Windsor:

  • Lift Your Eyes: Reflections on Ephesians

Recent blog posts

  • The Shambles, York, UKBuilt together (Ephesians 2:20–22)
    Is every church on its own? How are Christian believers connected with other believers with whom we don’t meet regularly: in our region, nation, and world?
  • “Do not weep for me, weep for yourselves…” (Luke 23:28)
    Why do Christians lament? Sometimes we lament out of sympathy, but sometimes we weep for ourselves. This is the kind of lament that Jesus calls for here.
  • Busts in Vatican Museum, RomeNo second-class Christians (Ephesians 2:19)
    Even if we don’t say it out loud, we can often act as if there are different classes of Christians. But the gospel teaches us there are no second-class Christians.
  • Photo by Larm Rmah on UnsplashChrist the missionary (Ephesians 2:17–18)
    Christ is a missionary. Christ does stranger evangelism. Christ preaches to the choir. Christ crosses cultures. Christ brings peace. So says the Apostle Paul. What does he mean?
  • Fragment of the Berlin WallChrist the wall breaker (Ephesians 2:14–16)
    In this broken and rebellious world, our healthy boundaries often become hostile walls. But the cross of Christ breaks down walls and brings reconciliation.
  • Photo by John Tyson on UnsplashThe blood that brings us close (Ephesians 2:11–13)
    Despite our best desires and efforts, we humans are not very good at living up close with others. This has become devastatingly obvious in the recent Christchurch shootings. Yet in his letter to the Ephesians, Paul talks about a conflict that really was healed. This passage is about a real closeness that all believers in Christ must remember: a closeness that is fundamental to our identity.
  • Photo by foundinbklyn on Flickr (CC BY 2.0)Good works and salvation: What’s the connection? (Ephesians 2:8–10)
    A joke letter from an Australian church offering its financial donors priority access to heaven raises questions for all of us. Do our good deeds give us access to heaven? Or are our good deeds irrelevant? Where do our good deeds fit when it comes to salvation?
  • Security Threat. Photo by Andrew Neel on UnsplashA question of security (Ephesians 2:6–7)
    As I write this, New Zealand is shocked and grieving. My own nation Australia is shocked and grieving too, along with them. But news stories about terror attacks and shootings in our world are far too common, aren’t they? And whenever we hear of them, they bring to mind all sorts of questions. One of them is the question of security. As we grieve for the victims, we also think a little about ourselves. We wonder whether some day we too might be in the wrong place at the wrong time when a seemingly random attack happens. It’s unsettling. It’s not just a matter of national security; it’s also a matter of our own personal security. Paul is talking in Ephesians 2:6–7 about a security that belongs to everyone who believes in Jesus Christ. It’s not a guarantee of perfect national security or job security or financial security or security in relationships and health. Nor is it a guarantee that we will always feel perfectly secure. But it is still a real security, more unshakeable and deep-rooted than any other kind of security could be. So what is this security, and where does it come from?
  • Walking past a telephone booth in OxfordThis love (Ephesians 2:4–5)
    “God loves you”: if I say just those three words, you may not hear what I want you to hear. This is because of a communication problem that arises whenever Christians try to talk about biblical concept of God’s “love”. When we say “love” we mean one thing—something wonderful and life-changing. But the word means quite different things to many English speakers. For example, the word “love” often means “strong desire”. So if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God has strong feelings for you”. Another, increasingly common, understanding of “love” is the idea of “unconditional approval”. In this view, the way to “love” somebody is to affirm and approve of everything they do. So if I don’t approve of your actions and actively affirm everything you do, then by definition I’m not “loving” you (in fact, by definition I’m “hating” you). On this common definition of “love”, if I say “God loves you” then it might sound like I’m saying “God affirms everything about you and your actions”. But that’s not what the Bible means by God’s “love” either. Given this communication problem, how can I best explain the idea of God’s “love”? Well, it’s not actually that hard. The best way is to see how the word works when the Bible uses it. In Ephesians 2:4–5, Paul uses the word “love”. But he doesn’t just say “God loves you”. He explains and spells out what that love means. And he helps us to see what God’s love really means, and how amazing it is.
  • Entering a tomb in PompeiiWe too: the offenders (Ephesians 2:3)
    Judgmentalism. It’s a bigger problem than we think. Judgmentalism is certainly a danger for God’s people. That’s because God’s people have God’s word. God’s word helps God’s people to see how wonderful God is, and how terrible humanity is in comparison. But Ephesians 2:3 contains two highly significant, emphatic words: “we too”. We too, says Paul, were the offenders. We, too, were the disobedient. These words aren’t talking about all those horrible people “out there”. They’re talking about God’s people. And it’s something we, too, need to hear. These words tell us something incredibly important—something that we ignore at our peril.

On this site

All content copyright Lionel Windsor