Theology in the Raw - S2 Ep1097: Why Secularism is Good for Christianity: Dr. Michael F Bird

Episode Date: July 27, 2023

Dr. Michael Fn. Bird is deputy principal and Lecturer in Theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia, and has authored more than 30 books. Mike is a world renown New Testament scholar and theologian, and he's recently engaged modern questions surrounding politics and Christian identity, which has been captured in his more recent book Religious Freedom in a Secular Age, which forms the backdrop to our current podcast conversation. In this dialogue, we talk about evangelicals and politics, Christian Nationalism, Secularism (and why Christians should celebrate it), transgender ideologies and the public sphere, and many other politically related topics. If you would like to support Theology in the Raw, please visit patreon.com/theologyintheraw for more information!

Hello, friends. Welcome back to another episode of Theology in a Row. My guest today is my friend, the one and only Dr. Michael Byrd. Mike Byrd is Deputy Principal and Lecturer in Theology at Ridley College in Melbourne, Australia. He's also a world-renowned biblical scholar and theologian, the author of over 30 books, including the recently released book, Religious Freedom in a Secular Age, a Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government. He also is the author of the forthcoming book, A Bird's Eye View of Luke Axe. And we talk about a lot of stuff related to politics, what it even means to be living in a secular age. And he even kind of helps correct our

understanding of what secular age even means. And then we kind of go back and forth on evangelicals and their involvement in politics and what that should look like. We end by talking about how certain issues related to the trans conversation is woven into the fabric of a lot of our political discourse and how Christians should think through that. So please welcome back to the show, the one and only Dr. Michael Byrne. Michael, it's so good to have you back on the podcast. I do have to say our relationship goes way back to when I was a PhD student in Scotland. You were a new professor at Highland Theological College.

I think it was what it was called. Is it still called that? Yeah. It still is. It's still there. It's a wonderful college nestled in the very summit of the Highlands, just outside Inverness. Which is right off of Loch Ness. So you were a few miles away from Nessie.

Did you ever see Nessie? No, no. But I drove past Loch Ness many, many a times, and I did wonder if I threw a fishing line in there with a big chunk of meat on it, what would I get? I just went there recently, last year, and did a little more research on the myth, whatever you want to call it, and I didn't realize how many reported sightings there have been,

like hundreds a year or something. People report seeing Nessie. Some pretty wild stories. Anyway, we're not here to talk about that, Mike. We're here to talk about your latest book. Well, we'll start with your latest book, Religious Freedom in a Secular Age, A Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government. So, I mean, you are, as I said in the intro, you're primarily a biblical scholar. That's what your degree is in. You've written like 700 books in biblical studies and theology. Why this book? Where did this book come from?

How long have you been thinking about this idea of religious freedom? I've been thinking about it since 2016 when Australia started having debates about same-sex marriage. And we have now passed same-sex marriage as legal in Australia, there was a whole bunch of issues going on, and people were wondering about the implications for religious freedom. Would ministers of religion be compelled to officiate at same-sex ceremonies and the like, and what's just going to happen? And we were told, look, there's not going to be any problems. There'll be no sort of issues coming up. But there was a Catholic bishop in Tasmania, which is like a little island at the bottom of Australia. And he wrote a little pamphlet explaining very pastorally, very cordially,

the Catholic Church's opposition to same-sex marriage. He was defending what was at the time the current law of the land. And this was a book to be given to every parent who had a child at a Catholic school. And just a basic Catholic account of what we think marriage is and is not. As a result of publishing that pamphlet, a complaint was made by an activist. and the Tasmanian Human Rights Commissioner said that the archbishop had a case to answer. And you had a situation where a Catholic bishop was going to be hauled before a government tribunal because he did, apparently with heinousness and malice of forethought,

conspired to teach Catholic beliefs about marriage to Catholics. And that was the point for me. I went like, what? That can't be right. That can't be right. And that had me looking, but we have religious freedom. And I looked at our constitution. And the Australian constitution is what I would describe as a British appropriation of the American model.

So our constitution, basically if some Brits said, let's imitate what the Americans are doing, it's kind of like that. And so we have a kind of free exercise clause and a non-establishment clause in our own kind of way, but it only applies to the federal government. It doesn't apply to the states. The states are free to develop their own relationship with religious bodies and religious communities. So there's something of a lacuna, a gap, in our religious freedom protections,

and that's really what's causing a lot of the debates we've been having in Australia. And it was kind of like going down into that rabbit hole that led me to think, well, what do we do for religious freedom in Australia? Because we've just assumed it where Christianity has been hegemonic and we also have a strong sense of secularity. And then I started investigating secularism. And that blew my head away because I was always used to thinking of secularism as the equivalent of Darth Vader or Voldemort. You know, secularism and secularists are the people who are out to get me.

And I discovered a number of things. First of all, secularism is not one thing. It's about 20 different things. There are different ways of being secular. The secularism of France is different to the secularism of Turkey, which is different to the secularism of Australia or the secularism of Japan. And, yeah, so secularism is not one thing. It's a bunch of different things. The other thing is secularism was an to the 12th century, you know, reformatio in the medieval church,

but really reach a high point after the wars over religion when, you know, people in Europe decided, you know, this whole thing about Catholics and Protestants cutting each other's heads off or blowing each other's castles up, we've got to stop doing that, okay? So we've got to find some sort of place, some sort of way of managing religious differences. And we've decided these are the areas where religion is not allowed to matter, like in

government. And these are the areas where religion will be immune from government coercion. And that obviously, Reeves, gets very concrete expression in the American Republic, where you've got Thomas Jefferson's wall of separation between church and state. So, I mean, it was interesting learning about all these things, varieties of secularism, the Christian roots of secularism, and why secularism is a good thing, because it stops us on the one hand being a theocracy, but on the other hand, it also means the government doesn't tell you how to do religion or take punitive actions against you because of your religion. So that in a nutshell is really what the book is about. How do we have religious

freedom with all these different issues floating about government, church, state, LGBT rights, how do we balance them with religious bodies wanting to maintain their identity, and how can we make secularism work for people of all faith and none? So are you saying secularism, by definition, already implies religious freedom? That the very idea of secularism assumes that there will be religious freedom, or is that pushing it too far? Yes and no. Secularism in its best and benign sense definitely is about protecting religious

freedom. Secularism says, you know, the government cannot tell me how to do my religion and the government cannot punish me, discriminate against me because of my religion. That's the good side of secularism. But we all know there's other species of secularism that can be more militant, can be coercive. So that's ranging from North Korea, the Soviet Union, China, and other places around the world today. So there are definitely bad varieties of secularism. But let me make a really interesting

contrast between the secularism, say, of America and the United Kingdom. So America is, in effect, I would argue, a Christian country. It's definitely founded as a secular Christian country where it was kind of assumed Christianity would in some sense would be hegemonic, but no single brand of Christianity would be allowed to predominate. Okay. And there are different varieties of secularism. The secularity of Massachusetts is very different to the secularity of Texas because the brand of secularity in America is often determined by local contexts. So you can have different sort of subspecies in that. But America is a place where you do have a resurgent kind of Christian nationalism in some ways.

And, yeah, I mean, it creates a republic of a variety of freedoms, freedom of religion in general. But consider this, in the United Kingdom right now, they have a Christian king, a Hindu prime minister, an atheist opposition leader, a Buddhist home secretary, and a Muslim mayor of London, and they have an established church with the Church of England. So, you know, because it's the crown through various committees, actually appoints bishops in key positions in the Church of England. So, you know, because it's the crown through various committees, actually appoints bishops in key positions in the Church of England. And I would argue that

the Church of England, even with an established church, is probably more pluralistic and participationist than the somewhat Christianized American Republic. Ah, that's interesting. So, secular, I mean, two questions. What's the root meaning of the word secular? I mean, I'm sure you know the Latin backwards and forwards or whatever. What does the word actually mean? And then I often, maybe I won't anymore, use the word secular kind of as in contrast to religious. You have religious and then you have secular. You have Christian and secular. And we have our, you have religious and then you have secular, you have Christian and secular. And we have our Christian culture inside the church and you have secular

culture kind of outside the church. And I don't use that to mean it's all a bunch of devils running around on pitchforks, but it's just not religious. So I'm probably not using the term correctly then when I use it in that kind of contrasting way. Is that correct? Well, I mean, you can use it in a few different ways. Seculum, the Latin seculum just means pertaining to this age okay that's what it

means remember you know the romans had remember the secular games which was like these games they put on every 110 years or so or something like that because it meant people would see games that no one else had saw so it was the games of this age or this generation or something like that. So that's what secular means at the Latin level. Now, again, there are militant and nasty varieties of secularism, people saying we want to reduce the visibility of religion and reduce the influence of religion. So you can get those nasty, pernicious varieties of secularism. But the intention behind a secularity was about creating a fair playing field. Because I'm sure, Preston, you would not like me, the elected governor of Idaho,

and saying from this day forth, all parents shall present their children for baptism on the seventh day after being born. The only worship to be tolerated will be that using the Book of Common Prayer. I will tell you what theology of the Eucharist you're allowed to have, which means Francis Chan will be locked up if he ever steps foot in the state of Idaho. No one wants the government doing that, um you know i mean no one wants the government doing that you know demanding everyone be anglican or a certain type of presbyterian or a methodist so the government's not going to tell you how to do your religion or punish you for your own religious proclivities that um that are out of sync with the majority i mean secularism should protect minorities against a majority.

Oh, that's interesting. Okay. Yeah. So do you think it's largely misunderstood in Christian context when people talk about our secular culture? They do mean it in this kind of more narrow kind of militant, not just non-Christian, but anti-Christian kind of spirit. Is that what you encounter? And are you trying to maybe correct or maybe expand people's understanding of secularism? Is that part of the goal of the book? It's both. I think there is, we talk about a religious illiteracy. People don't understand religion, but there's also a secular illiteracy and that's on both sides. That's on the Christian side and it's on the non-Christian side. so for christians we tend to think of secularism as the boogeyman you know the secularists are out to get us or i would say no actually secularism is what

protects you from you know radical progressive governments secularism is what protects you from christian nationalism okay so secularism in those senses are good things. But I do meet some progressives who have their own ideas of secularism. Like in people say to me in Australia, like, but Australia is a secular country. So just keep your religion in some sort of cave until you die off. And my response to them is Australia is not a secular country. We are a multicultural country with a secular government. What enables Australia to be a very successful multicultural and multi-faith country is the secularity of government. The government is secular. The country is not. You mentioned Christian nationalism a few times. I knew we would go here eventually. Maybe we can

just dive in now. How do you—so many questions here—do you address Christian nationalism a few times. I knew we would go here eventually. Maybe we can just dive in now. How do you, so many questions here. Do you address Christian nationalism in the book? Do you see Christian nationalism in Australia in a similar way that exists in America? And are there similarities, differences? And I guess another question, you can pick whichever one you want to start with. Do you see this as a major threat to society and the church or kind of a fringe thing that maybe is getting more airtime than it should, if that makes sense? Yeah, well, I mean, I don't want to pass judgment on my American friends, Preston. You know me. I'm very circumspect with my opinions, and I don't like saying things that are necessary and inflammatory. Yeah, yeah.

That's my point. I think Christian nationalism certainly is a thing in America. And I don't think – and it's not a good thing. It's not a good thing. It's one thing to say Christianity is – Real quick, real quick, real quick. Why don't you define it? Because I do feel like – you ask seven people and they get eight different definitions of

what Christian nationalism is. Christian nationalism says America is a Christian country. Christianity should be hegemonic, and we should have Christian leaders in power. That's my understanding of it. Now, I would say America, and in divine providence, has a lot of Christian influences in it, for the better, may I add. It is now a very diverse country with a Christian heritage, and I think a lot of the success of the American Republic is owed to its Christian heritage. This is something I learned from John Stackhouse. What makes American

evangelicals distinct in the world is they think they're supposed to be in charge. Now, that is not something you will get from Christians in Indonesia. Christians in Indonesia don't say, this country belongs to us Christians and these 200 million Muslims have stolen it from us. Or Christians in India don't talk like that way, or China, or even, I think, even in the UK, sort of the real devout Christians, I think have always been a bit of a minority, at least since the Middle Ages, if you like. So I think Christian nationalism tries to translate a lot of civil projects into a religious task, which has the effect of bolstering the political capital of one

particular group. In other words, it simply provides religious credibility to what are some explicitly terrestrial or earthly political projects. So that's why I think Christian nationalism is a bad thing. Or to give another example, Christian nationalism tries to combine political and religious authority. Now, Preston, the Bible has a technical word for someone who tries to combine political and religious authority. And that technical word is antichrist. That is the biblical word for someone who wants to be high priest and king because christian we both know there is only one who is king of kings and the great high priest and that is the lord jesus christ and anyone else who aspires to a similar diumvirate of power

combining the religious and the political uh has become an or the Antichrist. So that's why I'm against Christian nationalism. It's not good for the nation. It's not good for faith. I believe Christians can be involved in politics. I'm not an Anabaptist. I'm not saying we should all be hiding in the catacombs worried that somewhere, somehow someone might elect us to public office.

I do believe we can be involved in political tasks and projects, but the goal can never be hegemony. The idea that we need to have our tribe in charge all the time, otherwise it's the end of the world, or otherwise we're in exile. So our tribe in charge, are you saying, and I do want to push back on something you said earlier at the beginning of your response here. When you say our tribe in power, are you saying we need Christians, specifically Christians in political power, that that's the concern you have, or Christians simply want their party, a member of their favorite political party in charge? Because I do think those are kind of

different things. For instance, and personally, while the numbers are very heavy further on the right, meaning I think the overwhelming majority of Christians, in as much as what you're saying is a problem in America, the problem is very heavy on more right-wing Christianity. Ideologically, I think it's the same thing on left and right. It's just the numbers are a lot fewer. But when maybe for lack of better terms, more progressive Christians, I see the same thing happening just on a much lower scale numbers wise, but they might be so against Donald Trump that they start having messianic visions of not Jesus, but of the Democratic candidate that's going to run against and destroy Donald Trump. And they would freak out and lose their minds if Trump

wins. And I'm like, well, that is a sign I think you're investing, again, too much hope in the opposite side of the spectrum. So again, the question is, is it the problem you see? Is it evangelical Christians wanting specifically a Christian in charge or simply their favorite political candidate, whether or not that person is a confessing Christian or not? I think it can be a bit of both. Sometimes they want a Christian in charge. But, I mean, if it was just a Christian in charge, then why didn't so many people back Jimmy Carter against Reagan? Right. didn't so many people back Jimmy Carter against Reagan right so I mean if because I mean and let's be honest I think I think Carter was probably more explicitly evangelical and Christian and

Baptist than what Reagan was Reagan was very good with the um you know dropping the right sound bites that resonate with people of faith but in terms of real pious devotion I or like you know spiritual disciplines I would have said Carter. So that makes me think it's the latter. I want my party in charge. I would agree. And my party's got just enough amount of Christian wrapping paper on it. Yeah.

I was hoping – I mean, it wasn't a loaded question, but it was kind of a little bit. Because I do – in my experience, that is much more problematic. Like I meet more Christians that would be really wanting Donald Trump, for instance, in charge, or not even that, but like a Republican candidate. And whether that person is visibly living out some semblance of the Christian faith is a distant secondary. It's more this person will serve my political interests. And I think the faith commitment of that candidate is really less important. I think back in the George W. Bush days, maybe there was more excitement over, I think this guy's a Christian or whatever.

As far as I understand, Ronald Reagan did not have any... Fact check me on this, but I didn't think he even pretended to be a... I didn't think he had any kind of public Christian presence at all. But maybe he had the rhetoric. I don't know. I think he did have the right rhetoric. He knew how to read the room.

Yeah. But he did have some religious commitments, but they were, I think, a little bit more eclectic because him and his wife were doing things like visiting astrologers and all sorts of weird stuff. So he was a little bit more eclectic but he certainly reagan definitely believed that um god wanted america to be hegemonic as a bulwark against the godless forces of communism the soviet union right so he he definitely had what you might call a civil religion Christianity. Yes, yes, yes. In some sense. Kind of war between good and evil.

Yeah. Yeah. So, I mean, I like to think that George Bush was a devout Christian. And the few times I've heard people talk about things George W. Bush had said off camera or on the side, I got the impression that he is a person of genuine faith and commitment. I mean, it was part of his journey out of alcoholism in that sense. So I like to think he was sincere and genuinely devoted.

Yeah, yeah. That's interesting. So to where I went, your original phrase, it sounds good, but I do question it. Well, I question the comprehensiveness of it. When you said,

what did you say that evangelicals are the only people who have a, I want to quote you correctly, a divine right to be in charge or something like that. What's the, what's the. Yeah. Evangelicals think that they are supposed to be in charge. Yeah. In charge of the country or just in charge or something like that what's the what's the yeah evangelicals think that they are supposed to be in charge yeah in charge of the country or just in charge in the highest echelons of power i i would say in my anecdotal experience for every one evangelical i meet that

would fit that bill i mean 99 that simply that just don't i don't i don't um and i think i think the ones that do make the headlines and everything so i would just say that that just don't i don't i don't um and i think i think the ones that do make the headlines and everything so i would just say that that just feels yeah i think a lot of evangelicals listening would say who's he talking about that ain't me like and i would agree like there is the anabaptist tradition which has always been wary of political power and wanted the separation of church and state. But, I mean, I'm not an expert on American religion and its interface with politics. But there has always been a theocratic concern. I mean, here's an interesting fact for you.

Here's an interesting fact. fact uh alexander hamilton considered running against jefferson as president on an explicitly christian political party ticket um so i mean the there's a few problems why the reasons why it never happened but he considered you know because jefferson was considered a you know a de facto atheist a francophile with all his French mistresses and the like. And Hamilton thought about running against him as an explicitly Christian candidate. So, I mean, that goes to show you that this sort of debate goes back into the very roots of the American republic. Yeah. How Christianity, politics, freedom of religion all intersects was debated from the very beginning.

Historically, I can't, you know, this is so typical when I engage people outside of America on American politics. You guys know a lot more than I do. I hardly know who Alexander Hamilton is. Is he the dude that got shot by Raymond Burr? Is that the duel? Aaron Burr. Aaron Burr, see, I need? Aaron Burr. Aaron Burr.

See, I need to go to you for my American history. When I go outside America, people are way more interested in America than I think a lot of Americans. We all think we're the 51st state of America. We all live in the Anglophone world. Well, and everybody's affected by it. Yeah. I mean, yeah.

Well, here's the funny thing, Preston. I mean, Australia has around the High Court of Australia, right? We have like the High Court. I could not name a single judge on the High Court of Australia. But I reckon I could easily name two-thirds of the Supreme Court of the United States. I reckon I could nail two-thirds of them just off the top of my head. So – America does – head. America does have imperial... We can even talk about

America as empire maybe later. I think it obviously has a huge influence, for good or for ill, on just globalism in general. Where I would push back is I, like you, travel to lots of different churches and stuff.

Probably in the last four years, I maybe have been at over 100 churches of probably 20 different denominations. None of them are Mennonite. And I honestly can't think of a single Christian leader that I've talked to that I would, and maybe I misread them. And maybe I misread them. Again, I'm just totally anecdotal. That would really fit that phrase, that they would be evangelicals that really think they have a divine right to be in charge. I think the problem is some of the ones that do fit that bill, they're the ones that make the headlines. They're the one out of the 100 that make the headlines. The ones that are just being faithful pastors and leaders

who kind of are sick of politics, who aren't preaching political, they're not making any headlines. They're just, they're too boring, right? They're just doing faithful ministry stuff. And it kind of comes down, I mean, it's kind of related to the whole, like the problem of like abuse and narcissism in the church and all these coverup and stuff. And again, that's obviously a huge problem. I wouldn't even think it may be a growing problem that got out of control. But again, there's way more people doing really faithful ministry that will never, ever, ever make headlines because there's just no reason for them to do that. And I think part of it, I just think there is a bigger problem here of just reporting and news and social media and the things that wire our algorithms and things that get people's attention and stuff i do think that we have a kind of a little bit of a warped

view on reality because we live a lot of our lives online but i'm getting into another another no no i think i think you're right you've got you've got the the reality as it's played out in media and social media and remember the lunatics always get the airtime. That's the left and the right. The lunatics always get the headlines. But I think you're going to see that there's a big shift where, you know, evangelicalism kind of really peaked in the mid-'90s. And, you know, and I think, you know, after the Iraq War, after Trump, I think a lot of Christians have become a little bit more cautious about

playing with political fire. And there is a little bit of a retreat. I think a lot of people have gone all in on someone and realized that either they were a disappointment or I got duped, I got seduced. And I do see a lot more people being a lot more discerning now in where they put their political commitments or not assuming that, well, as a Christian, I obviously have to vote for party A or party B. I think the last five, 10 years have made people a little more politically cautious than they were. But of course, on both sides of the spectrum, you've got the people who just die hard. Being a Christian means you must be X, Y, Z, that type of thing.

I agree. I think it's definitely there. I think it's less pervasive than it used to be. Part of it's a distrust in media. Media's trust is at an all-time low. People have access to fact-check things. I think people in authority and power have shown themselves to be addicted to power and not really addicted to truth-telling, and people are starting to be a little disenchanted with the powers to be. Do you see this as a good thing? You seem to see that as a positive thing. I would

see that as a positive thing, I think. Yeah. Well, I mean, again, I don't want Christians to become apolitical and say, I'm just going to sit over here and think about spiritual things and say the Lord's Prayer three times a day, baptize myself twice a week and write a commentary on the book of Daniel waiting for God to wipe out all the unrighteous. I don't want us to do that, but I don't want us to messianize leaders. So, you know, I don't think, you know, Trump is either the anointed one or the Antichrist or, you know, same for Biden for that matter. We've got to stop messianizing leaders, and everyone to stop saying, this is the most important election of our lifetime,

because people say that at every election, you know, as if, you know, every election is a life and death sort of scenario, because, you know, there's only four-year terms there, and they all end. And we have to see what happens next and see what the next generation of leaders does and what priorities they tackle, and how do we be Christians in the political world we are in at the time. Yeah, yeah. What does healthy political involvement look like to you for a Christian and what is unhealthy political involvement? I guess you're kind of hinting at it already, but just to, I guess, drive it home. Because you said you don't

want Christians to be apolitical, which I hear you saying, yeah, just living out their spiritual lives and basically not being a good citizen of Babylon. You're not engaged. You don't really care about the issues of the day, injustice around you. You're kind of living this almost like quasi or neo-gnostic view that material reality and material harm and damage and injustice is kind of irrelevant, which I would fully agree with that. But what is healthy political involvement and unhealthy political involvement look like to you? I think healthy political involvement is, number one, being good at your job.

So if you are a town councillor, if you are a senator, congressman, congresswoman, or whatever it is, be good at your job. So that's the thing. And serve it, as I think Paul would say, and serve your constituents as unto the Lord. So I think that's the good thing. Secondly, you need to have a holistic and well-rounded view of Christian values you're going to stand up for, which for me,, for me it means not just, you know, I mean some people are like as if abortion is the only number one issue.

Now, again, that's a complex topic we could go into. But there are people who think literally the only Christian issue is, you know, abortion. I mean there's other issues. There's, you know, gun control, environmental care, poverty, racial justice, you know, how do we build strong families? You know, what do we do about immigration? You know, how do we, I'm not a big believer of open, I'm not a big believer in open borders, but how do you have a compassionate response to people claiming refugee status? I mean,

how do you think through these things Christianly? So that's what I think makes a good politician. A bad one is a person who is bad at their job, is only in it for the money, their own self-enrichment or self-aggrandizement. Christianity is just a show, a performance. Christianity is just a show, a performance. You know, if being a Christian were a crime, there would be no evidence to convict them.

And they use a lot of rhetoric like, you know, we need to take this nation back for God. We need to make Christianity great again or stuff like that. And yet where Christianity is simply a prop for a wider socio-political project, I think that is a bad way of doing religion, whether you're Democrat, Republican, or Independent. Anything where you're just doing a kind of performance and it's just rhetoric, whether it's out of own personal piety and devotion and you're not really

involved in the church and you've got a couple of mistresses on the side or something i mean yeah or boyfriends on the side or whatever yeah so yeah that's what i think is that it's really fake religion so you're talking about though like christian politicians who happen to be christian what about just the christian who's not a politician or whatever just the average church goer like what is political involvement healthy like? And what is unhealthy involvement look like? Look, if there is a candidate who you believe is worth supporting, you know, by all means, you know, support them, you know, canvas for them, door knock for them, handout brochures for them, you know, stand up for causes that you believe in i mean in my case my my sort of two pet

causes in australia are opposing the gambling lobby uh in australia you guys have like the nra and planned parenthood in australia we have like the gambling lobby which is basically i described as a cross between the nra and a mexican drug cart. These people are just so – the gambling lobby in Australia is just so incredibly powerful like you can't believe. So I'm always – The gambling – wait, they're lobbying to make gambling legal? I'm sorry, I don't understand what – It's already legal, but they – I mean, our advertising is saturated

in gambling ads. They want minimal tax things so that the gambling lobby in Australia is like, like is more powerful than the NRA. They make donations to political parties. When politicians leave politics, they get jobs as consultants and lobbyists for the gambling lobby. And we have some of the highest rates of gambling addiction in the world. Australia loses more money on gambling per capita than any other country in the world. So it's a little bit like, you know, imagine if you had a country with the same gambling ethos as Las Vegas or something like that. And none of the politicians, none of them want to do gambling reform.

And the ones that do can never get away with it because the gambling billionaires will just throw huge money against anyone who stands up to them. And we're gradually getting a few small reforms in Australia. But man, they are just a power. So one of my little, my sort of hobby horse is to standing up to the gambling lobby and also standing up for religious freedom, because that's becoming a little bit more contested and complex in Australia. This episode is sponsored by HelloFresh. HelloFresh provides you with farm fresh, healthy meals delivered right to your doorstep. Okay, so my family and I, we love to eat healthy. We cook most of our meals at home. But even for us, there are several times throughout the week where we just need like a quick and easy meal. And if I can confess to you, yes, we do keep boxes of like frozen taquitos and orange chicken in the freezer to cook when we're in a rush.

But this stuff is super unhealthy. This is why I'm so excited to learn about HelloFresh. Okay, so HelloFresh features high quality proteins, fresh produce and plans for many different lifestyles. It's no wonder why HelloFresh is America's number one meal kit. When you need dinner fast, don't just call for delivery and don't just go eat out, okay? It's fine once in a while, but it's super expensive and very unhealthy. HelloFresh gives you fast and fresh recipes that are ready in just 15 minutes or less. And honestly, it's super easy to order. My wife and I were in the car the other day

and she literally ordered a meal in just a few seconds. And HelloFresh is 25% cheaper than takeout. So for the sake of your health, your time, and your wallet, go to HelloFresh.com forward slash T-I-T-R 50. Don't forget that 50. That's HelloFresh.com forward slash T-I-T-R 50 and use the code TITR50. Okay, that's the code TITR50 for 50% off your first order plus free shipping.

Is that surrounding? You mentioned in passing questions around sexuality and gender. Is that just as much of a lightning rod in australia as it is here or do you see what are the what are the what are the similarities and differences between lgbtq related questions on the secular level and yeah here's the problem we have a lot of faith-based schools so we have a lot of christian schools in australia and they make up about 15 of the education sector. So 15% of people have their kids in a private Christian, Catholic, or Muslim school. Really?

So that's one thing. But here's the thing. The private schools in Australia do receive government funding. Okay? So can you see where there might be a problem here? Yeah. And so can a Christian school refuse to hire a teacher who is gay or married to another man or married to another woman if they're a woman? How do schools maintain their

religious identity and have a non-discrimination policy towards faculty, staff and students. And that's the big debate we're having at the moment. And you do get a case where a school will expel a student for being gay or something or some teacher stands up and says, I now support this cause over here, and that teacher is then, their employment is terminated. You've got all these sorts of issues going on. But I mean, if I can give you three examples of the problems of religious freedom in Australia, I think this

will elucidate it nicely. There was a guy called Andrew Thorburn, who was a former CEO of one of the largest banks in Australia. He left the banking sector, became the CEO of a football club, Essendon Football Club. So this is like AFL, which is a type of football in Australia. He was also a member of an Acts 29 church, and he was on the board of the church. He was in the job for one day when the media found out he was also served on the board of his own church. The media made a big fuss about it because this was Acts 29 church. They've got particular views about abortion, sexual activity, homosexuality. And so the media made a big fuss about this based on sermons that were preached at this church before Andrew even rocked up, before he was even a member of the church.

The club gave him an ultimatum, resign from your church board or resign from your position. He was given an ultimatum. Now, he had said nothing wrong. He had done nothing wrong. Simply based on his membership in this church, he was given an ultimatum. Now, there's a whole bunch of other things. So he resigned, but the club was eventually forced to make an apology. But I mean, this was guilt by association. And there was a debate, did Essendon Football Club do anything illegal? Can you terminate someone's employment because of what

religious organization they belong to? Now, I would like to think you can't, but the premier of our state, most of the media said, no, we think you should be able to terminate someone's employment if they belong to a religion that doesn't represent your values. So, I mean, that's if they belong to a religion that doesn't represent your values. So, I mean, that's one example of it. Second one is trying to resolve this sort of LGBT rights and religious schools. We had a thing called the Australian Law Reform Commission produce a report about how to balance it,

and it was a terrible report because it recognises that there's an international standard of religious freedom called the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, Article 18, which includes things like religious freedom in education and in community with others. And the whole report was just trying to get around it. So our government produced a report about religious freedom and education, of which its main purpose was to get around having to adhere to international standards of human rights and religious freedom. And I'll give you one final example. We have what's called a territorial government, kind of like Washington DC, how it's its own little government. They passed a law so they could compulsory seize a Catholic hospital. They did it because this Catholic hospital would not do

abortions or euthanasia. And they did not like that. So they quickly passed a law so they could acquire the hospital. The legislation included the police being able to use reasonable force to seize the hospital if the Catholics resisted. And they took over the hospital despite protests from the Catholic Church. And the first thing they did, and they did it on a Sunday, was they took the cross off the hospital. I mean, they went in, they took it over. And then on a Sunday, and you've got to pay construction workers a lot of money to work on Sunday in Australia, it's called penalty rates, and they wanted to take it off. And this was a government taking punitive actions against a religious faith-based hospital

because they would not kill babies in utero and they would not kill dying people. And so those three points, the Andrew Thorburn affair, guilt by association, Australia Law Reform Commission trying to get around international standards of human rights and religious freedom, and a territory government taking punitive actions against Catholics, that's the somewhat contested nature of religious freedom in Australia. Are those more fringe examples, this are they becoming pretty common because that's that's pretty eerie right and is that like is that normal is that typical are these like no it's not it's not normal this is all in the last 12 months oh wow okay so things are getting worse

you would say yeah and this is and this is this is why um all the stuff I warned about in my book, Religious Freedom in a Secular Age in 2020, all the stuff I warned about is happening in 2023. So I'm not saying I'm a prophet, Preston. I'm just saying the stuff I said was going to happen is happening. That's the definition of a prophet. having a more adversarial relationship with government actors, particularly with progressive governments who are running roughshod on religious freedom, freedom of conscience, freedom of association. And again, for me, the solution is a healthy dose of secularism. You can't sack someone because of what church, mosque, or synagogue they're part of. because of what church, mosque or synagogue they're part of.

Religious schools have the right to maintain their identity, even though a non-discrimination principle certainly should be the norm. And government does not take punitive actions against hospitals because they won't kill on behalf of the state. This is what, as a Christian leader, I see myself fighting for. And I need to do that. I need to have some level of political involvement. And I need to do that. I need to have some level of political involvement. So I need to bring this to awareness of politicians. I need to tell them about a campaign canvas and saying, this is happening on your watch. And this is not going

to help us be a multicultural liberal democracy. Forget making Christianity great again. I just want to make liberal democracy great again, where people have the right to be different without fear of reprisal. So you would see it as an expression of your Christian faith to push back against what you would see as a violation of religious, I guess not just religious freedom, but would you say a violation of the Australian constitution? Like they're going against what their own documents say they should be doing? Would that be an accurate statement? Yeah, I see myself fighting for a liberal democracy. You know, and again, you know, democracies, it's not an electoral mob.

It's not like we can vote and we don't like the Jews, we don't like the Muslims, we don't like the atheists, we don't like the gays, and then vote laws against them. We are a constitutional democracy, and the purpose of a constitution is to protect minorities against a majority. I mean, that's the purpose of things like a Bill of Rights. That's the purpose of international standards of human rights law. So I see myself standing for a liberal democracy over and against Christian nationalism, over and against, shall we say, illiberal progressive politicians who think Christians or Jews or Muslims are effectively somewhere between begrudgingly tolerated and enemies of the state. Are the ones who are concerned about this just the Christians, which is a small population, right?

I mean, committed public evangelical or just Christians in Australia, or are there other people that aren't even religious that would say, man, that's not right for the government to be overreaching like this? Yeah. I mean, on the Calvary Hospital seizure that happened in Canberra, and that did get a lot of media attention, both from left-wing and right-wing media. And I think people did get the impression like, this is a pretty disproportionate response to what they're doing. You understand the government doesn't like Catholic hospitals because they won't do abortions or things like that. And what I wrote to the chief minister of that thing, I said, just think what you've normalized. The minute you say it's okay to start taking punitive actions

against a religious community, what happens if next time we get a right-wing government who wants to start seizing a mosque, we've decided where your mosque is, we're going to build a playground. I mean, nothing personal. We've decided where your mosque is. We're going to build a playground. I mean, nothing personal. We just like playgrounds more than Muslims. Or what happens if a guy says, look, you can't defeat capitalism unless you defeat the Jews, so we're going to ban Jews from operating in the CBD, the downtown business area.

I mean, you're going to a dark place. That's why I think we need to put the liberal, I mean, the best sense of liberal in liberal democracy, you know, where people have basic rights and freedoms. And we need to go back to that age, you know, where people would say things like, you know, I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it. Yes, yes, yes. I want to go back to those days because those days seem long gone. Now we get people on both sides saying, I disagree with what you say, and I want to see you cancelled, punished, destroyed for saying it. I want my tribe, progressive or conservative, to be hegemonic and all-powerful. I want a one- party state with a thin veneer of democracy,

but where the other side never has a chance of electoral victory. I mean, that's not going to end well, left wing or right wing, that's not going to end well. And that's what I see myself fighting for. That's good. That's interesting.

Where is Australia at with, just to bring up a controversy, with a lot of the trans stuff, specifically with youth and puberty blockers and all that? Australia at with, just to bring up a controversy with, with a lot of the trans stuff, specifically with, with youth and puberty blockers and all that. Cause I know like in a lot of European countries, I mean, Finland, um, I believe is not Holland. Um, I think Norway and more recently the UK, like they, they got so kind of into like a, uh, an affirmative like an affirmative position on care for trans youth especially. And now they're realizing, well, we went way too far.

And now they're pulling back a lot. Like with the whole – the scandal with like Tavistock and all that blew up with that recent report. And they're even behind on some of the European countries. And these are countries that are more progressive than US and Australia combined. So I'm wondering, and US is still very all affirmative care. And in my prediction, we're going to follow those countries as well. I think give it two to five years, and there's going to be a lot of lawsuits, rethinking things.

I think. I just can't keep going the way it is. But where does Australia fit with? Yeah, it's mixed. It's mixed. So sort of the trans-affirming thing has captured big chunks of the media, a lot of the corporate world, and also law. In Victoria, we have what's called the gender suppression law

that you can't force someone, you can't pray for someone to change their sexuality or gender identity. Literally, it's the only jurisdiction in the world I know where they ban certain types of prayer. Oh, you can't pray like out loud or to yourself? Well, I mean, well, look, you can't, you can't. I mean, what they want to stop is like,

I pray for my friend Timmy that he would stop being gay. You know, you can't, that's illegal to pray that in public, you know, but also, but it's also ambiguous because if I say, well, look, I pray for my friend Timmy that, you know, although he's gay, he'll, you know, walk and walk towards the Lord and holiness, even that could be technically illegal because if holiness requires some degree of suppression or restraint of your sexual desire or identity, that can be problematic. But let me give you an example of a bad problem. I went to a government seminar about these gender suppression laws, like things you can and can't say.

gender suppression laws, like things you can and can't say. And I said to this government person, can a medical practitioner, like a psychiatrist, a GP, a nurse, can they treat an adolescent with gender dysphoria in such a way as they will desist in their symptoms and the the the government person um explained it to me and said no they can't do that you would they would be breaking the law so anything other than complete affirmation is illegal in the state of victoria wow so if i if a kid says you know i've been watching some tiktok videos and i want some puberty blockers, doctors do not have the right of saying no, according to this government public servant who led a seminar on this topic. So I thought that was very concerning. But on the other hand, I think the tide is turning.

The Australian Association of Practicing Psychiatrists recently said that they don't support giving puberty blockers to children unless it's part of a clinical trial. And in Australia, I think recently, there is, and this is very interesting, this is interesting, a medical insurer of doctors has recently said they will no longer insure doctors who prescribe puberty blockers to children. So if a doctor prescribes that they will not be able to get medical insurance for any defamation cases against them. Now, I do think the tide is turning on this, but I think we have to accept that the trans movement has become a quasi-religious movement. You know, did you see that image of Drew Barrymore, you know,

kneeling before Dylan McElvenny begging for forgiveness? No. Yeah, I'm not joking. Yeah, you get Drew joking. Yeah. You get Drew Baringmore kneeling before Dylan McElvenny begging for forgiveness. If that is not a religious right, then I don't know what is. And I think the trans movement does have a kind of really weird religious spiritual quality to it. weird um religious spiritual quality to it yeah and and and so yeah i think a lot of people are beginning to question it like i mean the whole the addition of the you know the 2sl at the front of it yeah you know the 2s you know it's not just lgbt it's 2s oh 2s yeah yeah too i mean once you

start adding like my two spirits to the LGBT thing, we know what religion is. We know the grammar of spirituality. Once you're saying that is a political identity and even a biological reality, you know, you're entering into a world of religious devotion, but it's being treated as if it also demands public worship. So I do think that the trans movement has become a quasi-religious phenomena where you can have a, I mean, I think

identity has become a secular version of the soul. You know, ask people to describe what identity is, and it's kind of like plato describing the soul it's the real true me that is can even be different from my body now i mean you probably know more about this than me press this is kind of your jam well that's there's i mean everything you're saying is very debated among well see almost it's secular how How about very left of center, non-religious clinicians, medical practitioners? You could throw in some radical feminists, which Australia has produced not a small number of those. So this isn't like a conservative liberal kind of debate. There's lots of disagreement concern within even traditional liberal non-religious circles.

even traditional liberal non-religious circles. Yeah, so all that to say, there has been a concern about the concept of gender identity among secular non-religious thinkers because it sounds very religious. And some of the pushback is, you guys sound like Christians talking about this invisible mythological soul and talking about this thing mythological soul and talking about this thing called gender identity, which you can't, you know, especially people that are

strong materialists, which, you know, they're kind of hardcore, hard scientists and just want to see the only thing that exists is material reality. They have concerns over the concept of gender identity. Yeah, the two-spirit thing that that's largely kind of a native american um or first nations concept so it's more prevalent i think in the states i'm i'm curious if it's being adopted in canada canada and once you go down that route you've just given the game away that this is a religious phenomena now you know yeah i got no problem with religion, but religion, biology, and sociology are not all the same thing. Right.

Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. That's the state of the play in Australia. So you've got, on the one hand, a state government telling medical practitioners that they must be affirmative on every aspect. You can't treat a kid with gender dysphoria in such a way as they would desist in their symptoms.

But then you've also got these other phenomena going on where I think people are definitely walking aback from the complete affirmation sort of a thing. So, again, yeah, it is a very big thing here. Gender-critical activists do not get treated very well by the media or by most of the media. Okay. So, yeah, again, it is a big debate here in Australia as well,

just as it is in the UK and USA. I'm surprised. I mean, if you pay more than five minutes of attention to what's gone on in, again, the Norwegian countries or especially in the UK with the report that was released and the testimony of the clinicians there. I just don't know how you can know about that and not rethink. So again, not even like become full on like Christian in your worldview, but just to these

questions, some of the affirmative only medical intervention with teens expressing some kind of dysphoria over their biological sex. Like, I just thought the Tavistock thing that blew up was kind of like, how can you? On Tavistock, I'll tell you something important. We have a major news broadcaster in Australia called the ABC, the Australian Broadcast Corporation. They have never reported anything on the Tavistock Clinic.

Oh, wow. They have, like, blackbanded. They won't report anything about the Tavistock Clinic. Oh, wow. They have like black banded. They won't report anything about the clinic. Now, so other like right-wing news outlets are talking about it, like the News Corp, but the ABC has explicitly avoided all of the negative reporting about the Tavistock Clinic in the USA because of how captured the ABC is to this sort of ideology. And people have said, how come you people don't talk

about the Tavistock Clinic? And I say, well, it's about England and we're in Australia, you know, so we don't report stuff in England. You know, the only thing we talk about in England is, like, who the Prime Minister is in Australia versus England in the ashes, which is a load of nonsense because they'll report anything. I mean, some guy, you know, slips on a meat pie in England and they'll report it. But again, it's agenda driven because they don't want to discredit the total affirmation movement so a leading broadcaster will not go anywhere near reporting what is very reportable news about a thousand families who are suing the tavistock clinic for premature or

negligent um transitioning and particularly with the classic case of um of kira bell well and you have i mean there's a recent podcast by bar Weiss who she interviewed the head researcher on the one who did the independent evaluation of Tavistock and was part of kind of just, again, not like a criminal, not like a invest, just kind of reporting on. What's that? Government inquiry. Yeah, yeah, yeah. But just saying here's what even the leader has said and loads of people on the inside saying, gosh, feeling bad. Like I feel like we've done harm. I mean I think well-intended, but like we need to really rethink this.

So I – I mean it's not just like – at least in America, it's not – it's primarily classical liberals like Barry Weiss or other people like that that are kind of drawing attention to this. So I, yeah. And just to be clear with our audience, I mean, if they're just tuning in right now, I think a lot of this stuff going on in the public political sphere, and even when we talk about activists or trans ideologies or whatever, going back to my 99 and 1, I mean, for every one activist type that I might encounter, I might meet 99 that just are just trying to live their life and they're not. I mean, I, you know, of the dozen trans people that I would consider friends off the top of my head, I don't think a

single one would even be like zealous for a lot of the ideologies that are, you know, kind of advertised among mainstream activists. Granted, you know, a lot of the onesologies that are you know kind of advertised in mainstream among mainstream activists granted you know a lot of the ones i'm interacting with or have some kind of religious faith on some level um but and i think what will lead to better treatment for adolescents with gender dysphoria and i mean and you know because there are those who you know don't desist in their symptoms who do go on so i mean i think what everyone should want is not to be affirmation or anti-trans what we want at the end of the day is what are the best treatments yes for adolescents with gender dysphoria and what we want is an evidence-based approach to give you know so we can give the best support for kids. Because we

know psychology is complex, biology is complex, and the interface between both is very complex, and all sorts of things can go wrong and get messed up. So what we want is an evidence-based approach rather than some angry person on the left or the right determining what is the best medical care for these kids in a difficult state. Yeah, absolutely. Absolutely. Well, we have opened up many different cans of worms here, Mike. In the last couple of minutes, can you bring us back to something a little less volatile? You are coming out with a book on Luke Axe. Do you want to give us a quick, well, quick bird's eye view of the book? I know it's called

something like that. It is. Well, it's called A Bird's Eye View of Luke Axe. Luke Axe is a big part of the New Testament. Did you know, Preston, that Paul's epistles make up 24% of the New Testament, but Luke Axe makes up 28% of the New Testament? I did. I knew it was a huge chunk. Yeah, yeah, that's crazy. Yes, Luke Acts is the single biggest corpus of the New Testament. And it's basically a New Testament in miniature because you get Jesus and the story of the apostles. Okay, so it's basically a New Testament in miniature. And it's got some of the most famous stories of the New Testament. You know, you've got, you know, Mary's Magnificat,

which basically makes Mary sound like a Marxist. She's always talking about the rich being sent away hungry and God vindicating the poor and that kind of a thing. You know, you've got some of Paul's great sermons, like the one in the Areopagus. You've got Peter's great sermon in Acts chapter 2. You've got the parable of the Good Samaritan, the parable of the prodigal son. So it's one of the most important pieces of Christian literature. And what I try to do in this book is explain where it comes from, what it's about. I mean, what are the things that people debate about? Is Luke really a feminist or

is it just a smokescreen? I mean, how pro-women is Luke? Because I mean, some people say, well, he's pro-women to a point, but he's still a man in a man's world. And I try to go through some of those issues. What does Luke think about the Jews? Because, I mean, Acts ends with a quote from Isaiah 6 that they'll be always seeing but never perceiving, always hearing but never understanding, lest they turn and be forgiven. So what's Luke's view of the Jews? What does Luke think of the Roman Empire? Because, you know, is he defending

the Roman Empire? I mean, besides Pilate, they're not that bad. You know, I mean, I try to go through all those, you know, the kind of difficult or thorny issues that Luke raises in his gospel and Acts and ask, what's the takeaway for us today? What can we learn for Luke, Acts, in our own context, our own world, and our own place? So the main book we've been talking about is Religious Freedom in a Secular Age, A Christian Case for Liberty, Equality, and Secular Government. It came out last year. And then when will your bird's eye view of Luke, Acts come out? Is that coming out at the end of 2023?

No, that's coming out the end of 2023 in November. It'll be ready for Christmas, makes a perfect Christmas gift, or even a gift to your pastor or Bible study group. But if you want to get into the largest corpus of the New Testament, if you want to know about Jesus and the apostles, I think Luke Acts is the place to be. And this will give you a literal bird's eye view of Luke and Axe. Thanks, Mike, for coming on the podcast. Really appreciate you, bro.

Preston, it is always a pleasure to hang out with you. And we need to do a house swap again. We need to do a house swap. We should. I need to get your house smelling like Budweiser and Old Spice again. I can't believe you tweeted. You literally tweeted that. Preston Sprinkle stayed at my house for five weeks and now it smells like Budweiser and Old Spice

I might have drank some Fosters there but I certainly didn't drink any Budweiser that's right man and I'll get out to Idaho and hang out with the potato farms I look forward to that I do like my potatoes. I do like my potatoes.

We got some good ones out here. One day. One day. All right. See you, Mike. This show is part of the Converge Podcast Network.