The post Understanding Jesus’ Parables appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>
Parables were Jesus’ primary teaching method, alongside metaphor, simile, and dramatic action. According to Prof. Kenneth E. Bailey, Western theology is grounded in logic and intellect, whereas Jesus told folktales for fishermen and farmers.
Mark’s gospel tells us that during his public ministry, Jesus never taught without using parables. Why? What was and is their purpose, and how can we best understand them?
Matthew notes that Jesus’ use of parables fulfilled an ancient prophecy: I will open my mouth with a parable; I will utter hidden things, things from of old. Jesus’ teaching unveiled mysteries. The New Testament writers carry on His legacy. In fact, whenever the word mystery appears in the epistles, it refers to something that has been revealed and explained.
Stories help us understand concepts by taking us from the known to the unknown. Jesus’ parables draw on the life experience of His audience — farmers, fishermen, housewives, businesspeople, and investors. His hearers would identify with His parables — what is known — and Jesus would take them on a journey into the unknown.
The kingdom of God (unknown) is like a mustard seed (known). It starts small but, given the right conditions, it grows. The kingdom of God is like yeast in flour. The yeast works quietly through the dough, and the whole batch rises.
The Norwegian playwright Henrik Ibsen famously said, “A picture paints a thousand words.” Jesus painted pictures with words, telling stories that resonated with his people’s culture. The reader is invited to observe life through the story.
But there appears to be a flipside to revelation, as Scripture also implies that Jesus used parables to conceal truth from those who weren’t ready to receive it. Read Matthew 13:10-17 for Jesus’ insights on this.
One day the disciples came and asked Jesus why He spoke to the people in parables. Jesus replied, “Because the knowledge of the secrets of the kingdom of heaven has been given to you, but not to them.” So the parables are meant to reveal truth to some people while hiding it from others, depending on whether a person is ready for it.
On another occasion, Jesus was teaching the crowd using many parables. Then he left the crowd and went into the house. His disciples came to him and said, “Explain to us the parable of the weeds in the field.” — and Jesus did. John records the disciples saying, “See, now You are speaking plainly and without figures of speech.”
Over my many years of teaching scripture and leading people, I have found that wisdom and discernment are vital for determining whether someone is ready to engage in teaching or discussion on a particular topic. Some are; others are not. For those who aren’t, the truth needs to be concealed until they are ready. Some people may never be ready.
I believe humans are the result of divine creation rather than random chance. The psalmist thanked God for making him so wonderfully complex! Your workmanship is marvellous—how well I know it.
He who made us knows best how to communicate with us. Jesus knew that stories light up the entire human brain. That’s why He told them. We feel this engagement when we hear or read a story. We can drift off when a preacher outlines a theological concept, but as soon as they start a story, our brain wakes up.
When a speaker tells a story or shares an idea, their 85 billion brain neurons fire in specific sequences. As the listener comprehends the message, their brain patterns mirror the speaker’s activity in corresponding regions. This mirroring, known as neural coupling, helps individuals connect emotionally, making listeners feel as though they are experiencing the events themselves. Psychology Today has an excellent article on the topic.
Ultimately, parables are about identification. When our daughters were younger, we had a weekly movie night. As the movie started, the girls would discuss (read: “argue”) who they wanted to be. “You can’t be her; I want to be her.” “Well, you can’t be. I said it first.” “Dad, that’s not fair.” You get the picture. As the only male in our household, I had no competition, so I was always the handsome prince or the good-looking male lead—naturally!
We need to bring this concept into our reading of the parables. Who or what am I in this story? The answer may change when we read the same parable at different times. For example, in the parable of the soils, seed is sown, and some falls on a pathway, while other seeds are sown in shallow soil, amongst thorns, and on good ground. When we read this parable, we ask ourselves, “What kind of soil do I identify with at the present time?” Answer honestly so we can prayerfully act if we find we’ve become hard and cynical, or choked by the worries of this life and the deceitfulness of wealth.
To conclude, here are two cautions:
Be careful not to restrict a parable’s meaning, as each story does not necessarily have just one point. For example, the Prodigal Son conveys multiple truths about human nature, religious self-righteousness, and God’s character.
But we must also be cautious not to push metaphors too far. An allegorical reading of Scripture was popular in the Middle Ages, as people sought hidden spiritual meanings in biblical texts beyond the literal words. For example, the fattened calf’s death is a type of Jesus’ death for us. Needless to say, that’s a lot of bull.
The purpose of parables is not merely to teach more pleasantly than a lecture would. It is to teach in a way only narrative can: by bypassing the listener’s defences, compressing an insight into a memorable and portable form, and leaving enough space in the telling for the listener to do some of the work of understanding themselves. A parable does not hand you the truth. It builds you a room, furnishes it with characters and consequences, and waits for you to notice that you already live there. I hope this inspires you as you delve afresh into Jesus’ amazing stories.
The post Understanding Jesus’ Parables appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post Why ‘Jesus’ Became a Swear Word appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>But it made me question why. Why did I use those names as swear words, even when I didn’t believe in God or Jesus? And why do people still use them today? I mean, our movies and TV shows are littered with them.
The use of Jesus, Jesus Christ, and God as swear words is nothing new. It’s been happening since the mid-1800s. Up to that time, people would utter short prayers like “Oh Jesus, help me” or “Jesus protect us.” In moments of sudden shock or fear, these were eventually shortened to just his name. Once-pious pleas and solemn religious oaths became profane, casual expressions of surprise, frustration, or pain.
The word profanity derives from the Latin profanus, meaning “outside the temple.” Profanity is the stripping of words or sacred terms of their holy context and dragging them into mundane, everyday frustrations. Over time, invoking a saviour during moments of trial or pain became an automatic, habitual grunt of surprise or anger, divorced from its original meaning.
Using “Jesus Christ” as a swear word stems from taboo violation. Because His name is historically considered the most sacred in Western culture, using it in frustration or anger became the ultimate way to express extreme shock, pain, or rebellion, and it eventually became embedded in everyday secular language as an expletive.
Thinking back, that was probably the reason, albeit unconsciously, I used God and Jesus in my exclamations. I didn’t like Christians and viewed the church as boring and irrelevant, so maybe my language reflected my disdain. It was my way of breaking the rules and venting my pent-up frustration.
According to the English Stack Exchange, religion is a taboo subject. We expect it to be discussed only in certain ways and contexts. Breaching that convention results in varying degrees of shock, and that potential gives expressions like ‘Christ!’ and ‘God!’ their power. Other taboo subjects include sex, bodily functions and ethnic groups, and swear words related to them operate in the same way.
Common English is strewn with religious expletives, often used without much thought. For example:
Other languages, such as French and Italian, have similar expressions.
The word blasphemy appears six times in the Bible, and only in the New Testament—the Gospels, to be precise. Five of the six instances are used by the Pharisees as an accusation against Jesus and a reason to crucify him. The other is Jesus’ reference to the blasphemy against the Spirit.
The Greek word blasphémia appears eighteen times in the New Testament and is sometimes translated as slander. The word literally means to switch right for wrong or wrong for right. That is, it calls what God disapproves of right, or vice versa.
The Third Commandment—You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name—is often called blasphemy. Misusing God’s name means profaning His character and turning the covenant relationship into empty formality. I’ve met plenty of churchgoers who do that!
It’s easy for Christians to become angry when they hear Jesus’ name used as a curse. I’ve met people who feel they have to say something, push back, and defend God and Jesus—as if they need our defence. I believe there’s a better response.
I think back to my younger years, when I used Jesus as a swear word. When I was first introduced to Jesus by some Christians in Sydney, there was not a single moment when I felt condemned by God. There was no divine voice of judgement suggesting I needed to clean up my life, get my act together, or account for my blasphemous language. What I experienced was unconditional love and acceptance. From that moment, God’s Spirit lived in me, and I wanted to lead a life that pleased him. My language changed, and God began a transformation in my character—a work that continues.
Christians are called to offer the same unconditional love and acceptance to others rather than telling them off with words of judgement.
Every careless use of His name reminds us that people still know who Jesus is—even if only vaguely. The challenge is to help them discover the person behind the name. Who is Jesus? Why has His name endured for twenty centuries? Why has He inspired hospitals, universities, charities, great works of art, and millions of transformed lives? Why do billions still worship Him today? Those questions matter far more than the profanity itself.
Many people use Jesus’ name in moments of anger, frustration or surprise without pausing to ask who He is. Yet the Bible says His name means “The Lord saves.” His name speaks not of condemnation but of rescue. Not of shame but of forgiveness. Not of hatred but of love.
Perhaps the next time you hear someone use Jesus’ name as a swear word, rather than simply feeling offended, let it remind you of the extraordinary influence of the man from Nazareth. After all, two thousand years after His death and resurrection, people are still speaking His name. The real question is whether they know the One they are talking about.
The post Why ‘Jesus’ Became a Swear Word appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post Am I a Liberal Universalist? appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>During the conversation, he told me he’d heard I’d embraced liberal theology. That was news to me, so I asked what he meant. He said he’d heard I’d become a universalist. His statement didn’t surprise me, as I’d heard it before, but it was good to have the chance to set the record straight. That’s why I’m writing this blog.
Liberal theology has nothing to do with affiliation to a particular political party. I just wanted to clear that up. This theological approach was popular in the 19th and 20th centuries and sought to harmonise faith with modern knowledge and science. It also tends to approach the Bible metaphorically, viewing supernatural events through a naturalist lens.
Universalism (also known as universal reconciliation or universal salvation) is the doctrine that all people, because of divine love and mercy, will ultimately be reconciled with God. Universalists reject the notion of eternal damnation.
I have never considered myself a liberal, though I certainly don’t see any conflict between my faith and science. I don’t believe the miracles in scripture are metaphorical; I believe they are real. I believe we need to be careful not to reason the supernatural elements out of the Bible. So, no, I do not subscribe to every aspect of liberal theology.
Since becoming a Christian as a young adult, I have been firmly grounded in the fundamentals of the Christian faith. I believe in a God who became the flesh-and-blood human being known as Jesus. I believe that Jesus lived, died, and rose again. I don’t believe that Jesus’ resurrection is a parable; as a liberal pastor told me a while ago, I believe it was an actual event. I fully subscribe to the statements in the Apostles’ and Nicene Creeds. My beliefs are generally highly orthodox.
And no, I am not a universalist. I believe God has given everyone the freedom to choose. What if someone doesn’t want to be saved, for instance?
But I do believe that the gospel is universal in extent, and I have taught on this over the past few years at Bayside Church, in blogs, and on the Digging Deeper podcast.
In 2021, several episodes of Digging Deeper were produced to address questions about hell, eternal conscious torment, universalism, and the scope of salvation. At the time, the film Come Sunday was released, about internationally renowned pastor Carlton Pearson, who risks his church, family, and future when he questions church doctrine and is branded a heretic. In short, Pearson became a Universalist. I addressed Carlton Pearson in this episode of Digging Deeper.
After this episode, other questions arose, and I spent the next few podcasts addressing them. I discussed the universal nature of salvation—the fact that Jesus’ death and resurrection provided salvation and reconciliation for all people at all times. The New Testament is brimming with scriptures that speak of “all” and “everyone”. Jesus said, “And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.”
We accept that “all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God,” but struggle with the next verse, “all are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.” All means all on all occasions.
I believe that God wants all people to be saved and to come to a full knowledge of the truth (1 Tim. 2:4), but I do not believe that all people are automatically “saved”. The Bible teaches that everyone is responsible for repenting of acts that lead to death and for placing faith in God (Hebrews 6:1).
Paul wrote, ‘Whoever calls on the name of the Lord shall be saved.’ He also stated that the living God … is the Saviour of all people, especially of those who believe.
Throughout the New Testament, writers, including Jesus, emphasise personal responsibility in responding to the good news. I did so as a young adult and have faithfully followed Jesus ever since. I am neither a universalist nor a liberal. If you hear these accusations, please refer others to this blog and remind them to avoid gossip!
There are an estimated 47,000+ Christian denominations globally. I imagine most of these will emphasise the core beliefs of the Christian faith as articulated in the creeds. But they differ on a whole raft of topics where the Bible isn’t clear or presents multiple voices.
In my blogs and podcasts, I have answered questions, explored topics we wouldn’t usually cover on a Sunday morning, and discovered what Christians believe on a number of subjects—doctrines we should be able to discuss with curiosity and grace, listening to others, examining the scriptures, and learning, growing and being transformed.
Most Christians are taught only one view on each topic—the one their church or denomination considers correct. When they hear an alternative view, they dismiss it as heresy. Yet people who love Jesus hold different views on many matters, and that’s okay. I don’t have all the answers. I’m a lifelong learner, and I encourage people to ask questions and stay curious. As Olivia Benson said in a recent episode of Law and Order SVU: “A good leader welcomes questions. A bad one demands loyalty.”
Let’s remain committed to questioning, learning, and engaging with our faith and scriptures together—that’s an important part of Bayside Church’s DNA and should be part of every healthy Christian’s DNA too.
The post Am I a Liberal Universalist? appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post The Prodigal Son & Penal Atonement appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>Part of my reflection has focused on how this relates to—and contrasts sharply with—one of the theories I once held about the atonement: Penal Substitution. I’ve spoken and written about this before, but not directly compared its logic with that of the Prodigal parable.
Let’s begin with a definition. Penal Substitutionary Atonement, which gained prominence during the Reformation, holds that God’s justice required Jesus’ death so that He could forgive people’s sins.
God loves us, yet He is angry at our sin. Because He is holy, forgiveness requires His justice to be satisfied. Therefore, out of love, He punished His Son in our place. Jesus’ death appeased God’s wrath. Accept this, and you are free from it; reject it, and you face God’s anger. In summary, God killed Jesus for our benefit.
I once believed—and taught—this theory, convinced Jesus’ death satisfied God’s wrath. A few years ago, that belief was challenged, and I began to notice its flaws.
One challenge was the Parable of the Prodigal Son. Tax collectors and sinners gathered to hear Jesus, while Pharisees and teachers of the law complained, “This man welcomes sinners and eats with them.” In that culture, sharing a meal signified full acceptance.
In response to their criticism, Jesus told three parables about loss: the lost sheep, the lost coin and the lost son. Each story is intended to defend Jesus’ associations with these people and to defend the people themselves.
Jesus told of a man with two sons. The younger son asked for his inheritance early, then left for a distant country, where he squandered everything in reckless living. After a famine struck, he grew desperate and took a job feeding pigs.
Realising his condition, he returned home to ask to be made a servant, believing he was no longer worthy to be a son. But the father felt differently. As he was still far away, his father saw him, ran to him, and embraced and kissed him.
The son confessed his sin, but the father ordered his servants to bring the best robe, a ring, and sandals, and to prepare a feast. “This son of mine was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found.”
I love this story because it captures God’s heart and Jesus’ gospel message—seeking and saving the lost. But if we reimagined the parable through the lens of Penal Substitutionary Atonement, everything would change upon the son’s return:
Coming to his senses, he decided to return home and ask his father to make him a servant, saying he was no longer worthy to be called his son. But while he was still far off, his father saw him and ran to him. The father was about to embrace and kiss the young man, but then remembered how angry he was with his son for wasting his inheritance—never mind the drunken parties and sex outside marriage.
“Wait,” said the father. “I want to forgive you, but I need to deal with my anger first. Now, who can I direct my anger at?” The father thought about it and finally settled on his firstborn son. He ordered his servants to bring his other son, then to whip, beat, mock, and crucify him.
Once his son was dead, the father said, “That’s better. My sense of justice is fully satisfied. Now, my dear boy, here are the best robe, a ring, and sandals. Let’s prepare a feast to celebrate. Welcome home.”
Somehow, I don’t think this version of the story would resonate as strongly as the original—yet that’s the point. We know no loving parent would ever act this way, so why do we ascribe this behaviour to God?
In his sermon on the Mount, Jesus acknowledged the goodness of earthly parents but said our Father in heaven is far better. I’m a good dad, and I love my kids. I would never punish one of my daughters for her sister’s wrongdoing. That’s not justice; that’s ridiculous.
The point is this: love drives the message of the cross, in direct contrast to the wrath-driven logic of Penal Substitutionary Atonement. But God demonstrates his own love for us in this: while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son. Suggesting that God’s wrath was satisfied by his son’s death diminishes both God’s loving nature and Christ’s sacrifice, unlike the father’s loving welcome in the parable.
To clarify, I affirm Substitutionary Atonement, but not in a penal sense. Paul writes: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, that we might become God’s righteousness. Paul uses accounting language—like exchanging currency. If you’ve travelled, you’ll know the experience of visiting a money exchange to swap your dollars for local cash.
Because of the Cross, our sin has been exchanged for God’s righteousness. That’s an amazing trade. Our sin is placed on Jesus; his righteousness is placed on us, and it’s all rooted in divine love, not anger.
And that remains true today. God is not angry with you; he loves you, and nothing can separate you from his love. This is the heart of the good news: you are deeply and unconditionally loved. Let that truth shape your journey today and every day.
The post The Prodigal Son & Penal Atonement appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post Cretans, Liars, Evil Brutes, Lazy Gluttons (Titus 1:12) appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>In his opening remarks, Paul seems troubled and lets loose an honest, heartfelt rant to his dear friend—have you ever needed to do that? I know I have. Sometimes, sharing our frustrations with someone we trust can lighten our hearts. Paul is unsettled by some Jewish teachers, the circumcision group, who visited the churches after he left. While they accepted Jesus as the Messiah, they also taught that faith in Jesus alone wasn’t enough; you had to follow the law and be circumcised, too. Paul’s concern stems from a deep love for these new communities.
Because of these challenges, Paul writes to Titus with gentle urgency, encouraging him to stand firm for God’s churches. To illustrate his point, Paul quotes “One of Crete’s own prophets” (the Greek word can mean prophet, poet, philosopher, or inspired speaker), inviting Titus—and us—to consider the cultural context carefully.
This prophet was Epimenides, who lived in the sixth century BC, though much myth surrounds him. One well-known story says he fell asleep in a cave and woke up 57 years later, still looking like a young bloke. Others believed he lived to 157 or possibly even 299 years.
Despite the myths, Epimenides was a real person, and Paul was quite a fan, quoting him to Titus and in his sermon to the Athenians on Mars Hill. On both occasions, Paul cites Epimenides’ work, Cretica, which reads, “They fashioned a tomb for thee, O holy and high one. The Cretans, always liars, evil beasts, idle bellies! But thou art not dead: thou livest and abidest forever, for in thee we live and move and have our being.” In Acts 17, Paul quotes the poet to introduce the Greeks to the death and resurrection of Jesus and to God’s omnipresence.
In the sixth century BC, Epimenides wrote about Zeus, criticising the Cretans for claiming to possess his birthplace and grave. He argued that Zeus was immortal and therefore could not be buried. Zeus is alive and eternal and will never need a tomb. His conclusion? “Cretans are always liars, evil brutes, lazy gluttons.” Paul agrees that this saying is true.
Consider this: since Epimenides was a Cretan, his statement that “Cretans are always liars” would include himself. That would mean he always lies, making his statement a bit of a puzzle! Was Epimenides lying or telling the truth? Or maybe there’s something else at play? Let’s think this through together.
Epimenides and Paul both use hyperbole—exaggeration to make a point. We all do this, as when we say things like ‘I’ve told you a million times,’ ‘I have a ton of homework,’ ‘I’m so hungry I could eat a horse,’ or ‘I’ll be there in two seconds.’ These statements aren’t literally true, but they serve to drive home a point.
What might Epimenides and Paul really be highlighting? I believe both men are gently pointing out a distinctive cultural quirk among the Cretan people, not intending offence but inviting honest reflection. In the first century, “To cretise” even became slang for lying. Let’s approach this curiously and graciously, rather than critically.
Cretans also had other well-known cultural quirks—such as arrogance, treachery, greed, and gluttony—which is where the references to evil brutes and lazy gluttons come from. These aren’t meant to condemn but to kindly highlight areas for growth, just as we do within our own cultures.
With this cultural context in mind, Paul highlights these shortcomings in his letter to help Titus lead effectively. This brings us to my main argument: understanding our culture’s strengths and weaknesses is essential to our growth, both individually and within our communities.
I’m a British Australian. My family emigrated from the UK to Perth when I was twelve. Today, I feel Aussie, but what does that mean? In many ways, I am Australian, yet I cannot deny my British heritage. For example, I’m still very drawn to British crime dramas. The Poms make great telly. My humour is still very British. In Australia, I invariably get groans when I tell a joke, whereas when I’m back in Britain, people find me genuinely funny. I know, it’s hard to believe!
A well-known British stereotype is the ‘whinging Poms’ trope. Do all Poms whinge? Of course not! But there’s some truth to it.
Generalisations about other cultures are common, too. For example, people sometimes say, “All Americans are direct or demanding.” While not every one of the 347 million Americans fits this mould, encountering someone who does may reinforce the stereotype. Such impressions might even be shaped by the abundance of choices in the US, which can seem demanding when Americans travel. Each experience shapes how we see others.
By quoting Epimenides, Paul offers a thoughtful perspective: leaders should recognise cultural tendencies, such as untruthfulness or lack of motivation, within their communities. My main invitation is this: when we lovingly acknowledge these patterns, as Paul advised Titus, we can gradually grow together.
I invite you to consider both the beautiful and the challenging aspects of your culture. What are your strengths and areas for growth? Every culture has something wonderful to offer. All people are made in the image of God, shining that image through their unique cultures. Think of the delicious foods from different nations, the vibrant dress and lively celebrations. Revelation 21:24 describes the nations bringing their splendour into God’s city—what a beautiful scene to visualise.
Of course, every culture has its rough edges—places where we could all use a little grace and renewal. None of us is exempt, and that’s the invitation to grow together with kindness.
I’ll wrap this up by posing a couple of questions for you to ponder:
First, what can we learn about ourselves and one another by sharing our cultural backgrounds? We each live in a bubble shaped by ethnicity, upbringing, stage of life, gender, and sexuality. By engaging with people who are different to us, our hearts and minds can open in wonderful ways. Our eyes are enlightened (Eph. 1:18), helping us see more clearly together.
Second, how can our cultural background be lovingly redeemed so we reflect kingdom values? As citizens of heaven, we’re invited to embody goodness, righteousness, love, grace, mercy, forgiveness, and service to others.
Heaven’s values shine through in the beautiful prayer Jesus taught us:
Our Father in heaven,
Hallowed be Your name.
Your kingdom come.
Your will be done
On earth as it is in heaven.
Give us this day our daily bread.
And forgive us our debts,
As we forgive our debtors.
And do not lead us into temptation,
But deliver us from evil.
For Yours is the kingdom and the power and the glory forever. Amen.
The post Cretans, Liars, Evil Brutes, Lazy Gluttons (Titus 1:12) appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post John Piper and Kirk Cameron Go Woke appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>Yes, that John Piper. And that Kirk Cameron.
Piper is a Reformed Baptist theologian, retired pastor, and founder of Desiring God. Cameron, best known as the cheeky Mike Seaver from the 1980s sitcom Growing Pains, is now a vocal Christian activist and evangelist. Both are recognised as conservative voices in evangelical Christianity.
Why do people think they’ve “gone woke”? The answer reveals more about the strange moment the church currently faces than about Piper or Cameron. More on that soon.
On 26 February, John Piper posted a Bible verse on his X account: “You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.” Leviticus 19:34. Christians know the miserable bondage we were all in.
As for Kirk Cameron, he debated long-held beliefs in a chat with his son, James, discussing if the Bible teaches ‘eternal conscious torment’ or ‘annihilation’ of the soul—a controversy dubbed ‘Hellgate.’
Both men were accused of going woke.
Originally, “woke” meant staying alert to racial injustice in African American communities. Over time, it came to encourage supporting society’s marginalised.
Today, in some circles, “woke” has become shorthand for anything perceived as progressive, inclusive, or socially justice-oriented.
Within Christianity, “woke” has its own meaning. Pastors discussing racial reconciliation or poverty are seen as woke. Urging care for refugees, the environment, or injustice? Woke!
Sadly, a word that captures much of Jesus’ and Scripture’s teaching has been turned into an insult.
I feel for John Piper because all he did was post a bible verse, but the response from some Christians was harsh, equating him to a woke pietistic leftist. I made the same “mistake” on Facebook on 17 November, 2024. I posted a few Bible verses about our responsibility to care for foreigners, widows, and orphans and was accused of twisting scripture.
I responded, “Maybe I need to be more careful about which Bible verses I post. In future, should I stick to ones that don’t rattle cages, biases, and preconceived ideas?” I wonder if John Piper felt the same. I wrote this blog in response to the heated discussion.
I also relate to Kirk Cameron, who admits he was caught off guard after his recent theological roundtable on the nature of hell sparked a wave of criticism—not from atheists, but from fellow believers. He says, “I really caught hell for this one, and I didn’t expect to get torched the way I did by guys on my own team.” He argued that if the church refuses to engage with these difficult topics, young people will turn to ‘Siri, Google, Grok, and ChatGPT’ for answers. ‘We would be foolish to think our children don’t have questions,’ he noted, calling on parents and leaders to provide a safe space for biblical inquiry.
I agree. Christians must get better at questioning beliefs, so long as core beliefs remain sacred. Eternal hell isn’t a core doctrine; Christians have debated the afterlife for centuries. Discussing these views isn’t heresy; it’s history.
Along with fostering spaces for questions and healthy discussion, we Christians could benefit from offering more encouragement, especially on social media. I sometimes feel discouraged when I see fellow Jesus people using harsh language with one another. The fruit of the Holy Spirit includes qualities like kindness, gentleness, and self-control. Let’s strive for these even during disagreements.
We also need to recognise that sincere Christians hold different views on many topics and have done so since Jesus established the faith in the first century. For example, the early church fathers held varying perspectives on the afterlife, including eternal conscious torment (Tertullian, Augustine, Cyprian), conditional immortality (Ignatius, Irenaeus), and universalism (Origen, Gregory).
Christians have different views on creation, Revelation, the Lord’s supper, baptism, the cross (atonement theories), and many other doctrines. It’s helpful to read broadly, discuss with those who differ, and stay open to changing your mind. Reflecting Christ’s character is more important than winning arguments.
And now, back to the strange moment the church currently faces, where respected figures like John Piper and Kirk Cameron are accused of being woke simply for quoting scripture or examining a Bible doctrine—and they’re not alone.
An American pastor faced criticism for preaching on the Beatitudes. Some of his parishioners labelled him as “weak” and “too liberal.” Yet, those statements are directly from Jesus and fundamental to our faith. Being meek, merciful, and loving enemies isn’t woke—it’s Christlike.
The challenge for Christians is to maintain conviction while showing compassion, to speak truth with humility, and to engage with culture without being shaped by it.
Whether you’re a theologian like John Piper, a public figure like Kirk Cameron, or just a believer trying to follow Christ in daily life, that tension is unavoidable.
And perhaps that’s exactly where the gospel does its best work. Because when Christians refuse to be defined by the loudest labels of the moment, they create space for something much more powerful: a faith grounded not in trends, but in truth.
The post John Piper and Kirk Cameron Go Woke appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post Some Thoughts on the Iran War appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>I’ve been watching these events and wanted to share reflections on the difficulties of the Iran war and the tensions it raises.
The Islamic Republic of Iran has long maintained strict control over political opposition, restricted freedom of speech and religion, and enforced rigorous social codes. Many Iranians—especially women, ethnic and religious minorities, journalists, LGBTQ+ individuals and political dissidents—have endured harsh policies. The courage shown by ordinary Iranians protesting for basic freedoms in recent years reminds us that a nation’s people are not the same as their rulers.
Many Bayside Church members have direct experience with this because several Iranian refugees have been part of our community. In fact, we had two of them on staff a few years ago. We heard their stories of how they escaped their homeland. Because they had converted from Islam to Christianity, their lives were at risk. If they ever returned, they would face torture, imprisonment, or execution.
For these individuals, the bombings evoke both relief at the possible end of oppression and deep anxiety for loved ones still in Iran.
Iran’s backing of proxy groups such as Hezbollah and Hamas has created instability across the region. These groups are heavily involved in armed conflicts and are recognised by many nations as terrorist organisations.
The Iranian government’s financial support for the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas helped fund the October 7th attacks against Israel. In this way, the Iranian government maintains cycles of violence that go well beyond its borders. Any serious discussion about regional peace must acknowledge this fact.
Still, hostility towards the regime should not spill over to Iran’s diverse people. War blurs the line between governments and citizens; over 700 civilians have already died.
One of the most destabilising factors in the region has been the rhetoric from Iranian leaders calling for the elimination of Israel. Imagine living next door to a government that openly questions your right to exist. Israel’s security concerns are not hypothetical; they are driven by decades of serious threats.
From Israel’s perspective, rhetoric that questions its legitimacy and supports aggressive proxy groups fosters ongoing insecurity. No nation can endure constant threats to its existence. Peace cannot be achieved by denying a people’s right to exist.
Recognising this still permits criticism of Israeli policy.
America’s record with regime change is mixed at best and disastrous at worst. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, justified by claims of weapons of mass destruction that were never found, destabilised the entire region, caused widespread loss of life, and helped fuel the rise of ISIS.
The twenty-year war in Afghanistan was fought to eliminate the terrorist group Al-Qaeda when the Taliban refused to hand over Osama bin Laden. We all know how that turned out. US support for the 1953 coup in Iran has left deep scars in Iranian political memory.
These episodes have generated scepticism about American intentions whenever conflict appears. Even if strategic concerns are valid, trust remains fragile. The lesson from history is not that the United States should never act, but that military intervention is a blunt tool with unpredictable results. Regime change often seems easier in theory than in practice.
Escalating war must be weighed against history’s record of unintended consequences.
Despite the complexities, one issue stands out as a widespread concern: Iran’s development of a nuclear weapon. A nuclear-equipped Iran would markedly shift the strategic balance in the Middle East. It could spark a regional arms race, embolden hard-line factions, and increase the risk of disastrous miscalculation.
Even critics of intervention acknowledge that nuclear proliferation in such a volatile region is dangerous. Diplomacy, sanctions, inspections, and military action all have had mixed results.
Iran must not obtain nuclear weapons, but lasting solutions are difficult. Preventive wars rarely end as planned.
In times of conflict, political motives are scrutinised closely. This is true of President Donald Trump, with some claiming that the military action is intended to distract from domestic controversies, such as investigations or scandals.
Is the conflict in Iran a distraction from the numerous references to Trump in the Epstein files? Or, as I read yesterday, is it that he aims to demonstrate leverage over China when he meets President Xi Jinping at a crucial summit next month, especially by controlling oil? That was clearly the reason behind the abduction of Venezuela’s Nicolás Maduro in January.
Allegations deserve scrutiny: scepticism is valuable, but baseless cynicism weakens trust. Geopolitical crises defy simple explanations.
Perhaps one of the more worrying aspects of any Middle East conflict is the open enthusiasm among some Christians who see wars in the region as signs of the end times.
We need to recognise that much of what evangelical and Pentecostal believers today believe about the end times is based on the Left Behind novels from the nineties rather than a careful study of the scriptures.
The Left Behind books and movies are based on teachings developed in the 18th century by John Nelson Darby, a member of the Plymouth Brethren. Darby went on to establish the Exclusive Brethren sect after George Mueller and other Brethren challenged him about some of his unbiblical doctrines. Charles Spurgeon also asserted that these teachings were false. And yet modern believers have swallowed them hook, line, and sinker. Why? Because they are dramatic and exciting—but also wrong.
Excitement about war in prophetic terms raises moral issues. Jesus’ call to peacemaking opposes a celebratory stance toward conflict. All wars mean real human suffering; Christian ethics should prioritise justice, mercy, and life.
It is possible to hold a robust theology of the last days while still grieving war and praying fervently for peace. Indeed, that posture may be more consistent with the heart of the gospel.
And so, to summarise:
War rarely goes as expected. Leaders must act responsibly. People should think critically about information and motives. Believers should pray not for escalation, but for a peace rooted in justice. These are essential points to remember while the situation unfolds—that wars are easy to start and hard to finish.
The stakes in the Iran conflict are enormous—not just for governments, but for millions of ordinary people who want to live safely and carry on with their lives. That reality should influence our tone and strengthen our commitment to find solutions that save lives whenever possible.
The post Some Thoughts on the Iran War appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post It’s Healthy to Question Your Faith appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>I say “permission” because questions are not always welcomed in church circles. In the past, I’ve been told by church leaders NOT to ask questions. So, I write this blog to encourage you to question. Here are some reasons why you should.
For some Christians, the word questioning feels risky. It can seem like doubt, rebellion, or the first step towards walking away from God. Many of us were raised with the unspoken message that strong faith means having fewer questions—and that mature believers should already have everything sorted out.
Yet when we turn to the Bible itself, we find something surprising: Scripture is full of faithful people who questioned, wrestled, argued, and sought clarity. Far from condemning them, God often met them in those questions. Biblical faith is not fragile; it is robust enough to be examined, challenged, refined, and strengthened.
Healthy Christianity does not silence questions—it brings them into the presence of God.
One of the biggest misconceptions in Christian circles is that faith and questioning are opposites. Biblically, the opposite of faith is not questioning; it is unbelief—a refusal to trust God at all. Questioning, by contrast, often arises because we care deeply about truth.
The father who brings his suffering child to Jesus prays one of the most honest prayers in the Gospels: “I believe; help my unbelief!” (Mark 9:24)
Jesus does not rebuke him for his mixed faith. He heals his son. This moment reveals something essential: faith can coexist with uncertainty. God is not threatened by honest confession or unresolved tension. In fact, this man’s prayer shows real faith—he brings his doubts to Jesus rather than letting them drive him away.
From beginning to end, Scripture gives us permission to ask “why,” “how long,” and “what does this mean?” The Psalms are especially bold. David asks God, “How long, O Lord? Will you forget me forever?” (Psalm 13:1)
Elsewhere, he cries, “Why, Lord, do you stand far off? Why do you hide yourself in times of trouble?” (Psalm 10:1). These are not the prayers of a rebel. They are the pleas of a worshipper who trusts God enough to be honest. Questioning, in the Psalms, is an act of relationship. Silence would signal distance; questions reveal engagement.
Even the prophet Habakkuk opens his book by questioning God’s justice: “How long, Lord, must I call for help, but you do not listen?” (Habakkuk 1:2). God does not shut him down. Instead, He responds, invites further conversation, and ultimately leads Habakkuk to a deeper confession of trust.
Jesus consistently welcomed seekers who asked sincere questions. He did not demand blind acceptance; He invited reflection, investigation, and discernment. Jesus says, “Ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you” (Matthew 7:7). These verbs assume curiosity and persistence. Seeking implies that we do not yet fully know—and that is okay.
When Jesus encountered the religious leaders, His strongest criticisms were not aimed at people with questions, but at those who claimed certainty while resisting truth. By contrast, He often engaged those who wrestled honestly.
After Jesus’ resurrection, Thomas famously doubts. Rather than rejecting him, Jesus invites him to examine the evidence: “Put your finger here; see my hands… Stop doubting and believe” (John 20:27). Thomas’s questioning does not disqualify him. It becomes the doorway to one of the strongest confessions in the New Testament: “My Lord and my God!” (John 20:28).
The New Testament consistently encourages believers to carefully consider their beliefs. Paul urges the Thessalonian church, “Test everything; hold fast to what is good” (1 Thessalonians 5:21). Testing involves examination. Faith that has never been tested is often fragile; faith that has been examined is resilient.
Similarly, the Bereans are praised not for blindly accepting, but for thorough investigation: “They received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true” (Acts 17:11). Their willingness to question—even an apostle—was considered noble. The Bible does not fear scrutiny; it invites it.
Childlike faith is beautiful, but childish faith is not. Paul acknowledges that growth involves leaving simplistic understandings behind: “When I was a child, I talked like a child… when I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me” (1 Corinthians 13:11).
Mature faith often develops through times of re-evaluation. Questions about suffering, Scripture, hell, or God’s character may feel unsettling—but they often lead to a deeper, more nuanced trust.
James even reframes doubt within the context of growth, urging believers to turn to God for wisdom when they lack understanding (James 1:5). God’s response to our questions is not anger, but generosity.
Genuine faith is not a fragile structure that collapses under pressure, but rather a living relationship that can withstand honest struggle. Jacob wrestles with God and emerges changed—and blessed (Genesis 32:24–30). Israel itself is named after that struggle: “one who wrestles with God.” My Jewish friends are excellent at grappling with scripture.
To question is not to abandon faith. Often, it is to take faith seriously enough to seek truth, clarity, and integrity. In a complex world, Christians do not honour God by pretending everything is simple. We honour Him by bringing our whole selves—our convictions, confusions, fears, and hopes—into His presence.
Questioning becomes unhealthy when it is fuelled by cynicism or pride. But when questions are rooted in humility and a desire for truth, they can lead us closer to God rather than further away.
Faith that never asks may never grow. Faith that dares to ask, seek, and knock often finds itself rooted more deeply in the grace and truth of God. I pray that it is your continuing experience.
The post It’s Healthy to Question Your Faith appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post The Value of Vision appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>
Vision is one of life’s great gifts, offering us the ability to see, appreciate beauty, stay safe, discover new things, and achieve goals. More importantly, vision shapes the direction we take in life and influences our outcomes.
An organisation, whether a church or a business, needs vision to remain dynamic and succeed. That’s why every year our church hosts Vision Weekend, introducing achievable initiatives for our faith community. This Sunday—1 February 2026—we’ll reveal Bayside Church’s 2026 Initiatives. We write the vision clearly so people can read and act on it.
After Christie and I married, she gave me a day at an Advanced Driving School. I hope she didn’t think I was a poor driver! It was a practical, enjoyable gift with invaluable lessons.
One challenge was an obstacle course: drive fast, brake hard, and avoid obstacles while skidding. The first time, we all hit the barriers.
Afterwards, the instructor asked what we were looking at while skidding. We all said the obstacles. That was the problem, he said—you must look for the gap. Your car follows your focus. We tried again, and no one hit anything. It was amazing. The lesson: where you look is where you go.
Psychology calls this target fixation: focusing so much on an object (a target or hazard) that you increase your chances of hitting it. Ask any surfer or motorbike rider.
One of my favourite scenes from a movie is Harry the fly from the film A Bug’s Life. Harry is flying towards the fly zapper, and his mate yells, “No, Harry, no. Don’t look at the lights.” Harry replies, “I can’t help it, they’re so beautiful.” Harry then gets zapped. Where you look is where you go.
This is an important truth for us Christians to embrace. In life, where is your focus? Are you looking at your sins, or concentrating on the righteousness that is yours because of Jesus?
In my early years as a Christian, I was part of a wonderful church—many remain friends. But much of the church’s teaching focused on our sinful nature. I felt I never measured up to God’s perfection. “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect” was a favourite scripture.
At Bible College, I learned I was already holy and righteous because of Jesus. I began focusing on being blameless—Jesus had taken away the world’s sin, including mine and yours. If that’s true, why focus on it?
I’m not suggesting we take sin lightly. When we sin, we need to deal with it, confess it, and move on with forgiveness and grace. But remember, focusing on sin keeps you stuck, while focusing on what’s true about you in Christ sets you free—where you look, is where you go. To help with this, I’ve included some scripture verses at the end of this blog.
Righteousness refers to relationships and approval—being fully accepted by God and having divine approval.
The apostle Paul wrote to the Corinthians: God made him who had no sin to be sin for us, so that in him we might become the righteousness of God. The Greek language here suggests a process of dismantling and rebuilding. The old, sinful self has been demolished, and a new, better version has been assembled—all made possible by Jesus’ work.
Another image: two bank accounts. Mine had sin; Jesus was full of righteousness. On the cross, he transferred my sin to his account and credited his righteousness to mine. This is the language Paul uses about Abraham, who believed God and was credited with righteousness.
I encourage you to let this wonderful truth sink in and choose to think of yourself this way. You could start to confess these truths about your life:
This is The Value of Vision: where you look is where you go. Because we are made righteous, we are empowered and motivated to live righteously—with integrity, goodness, purity of life, and uprightness in our thoughts, feelings, and actions. Choosing to focus on our new identity leads us to live it out.
Where you look is where you go.
Scriptures on Overcoming Sin
1 John 1:9, “If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just and will forgive us our sins and purify us from all unrighteousness.”
Psalm 32:5, “Then I acknowledged my sin to you and did not cover up my iniquity. I said, “I will confess my transgressions to the Lord.” And you forgave the guilt of my sin.”
Psalm 51:2, “Wash away all my iniquity and cleanse me from my sin” (and all of Psalm 51)
Proverbs 28:13, “Whoever conceals their sins does not prosper, but the one who confesses and renounces them finds mercy.”
Isaiah 55:6-7, “Seek the Lord while he may be found; call on him while he is near. Let the wicked forsake their ways and the unrighteous their thoughts. Let them turn to the Lord, and he will have mercy on them, and to our God, for he will freely pardon.”
Ezekiel 18:30-32, “Repent! Turn away from all your offences; then sin will not be your downfall. Rid yourselves of all the offences you have committed, and get a new heart and a new spirit. Why will you die, people of Israel? For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord. Repent and live!
Psalm 103:2-3, 12, “Praise the Lord, my soul, and forget not all his benefits – who forgives all your sins…as far as the east is from the west, so far has he removed our transgressions from us.”
Micah 7:18-19, “Where is another God like you, who pardons guilt, overlooking the sins of his special people? You will not stay angry with your people forever, because you delight in showing unfailing love. Once again, you will have compassion on us. You will trample our sins under your feet and throw them into the depths of the ocean!”
Romans 4:7-8, “Blessed are those whose transgressions are forgiven, whose sins are covered. Blessed is the one whose sin the Lord will never count against them.”
James 5:16, “Therefore, confess your sins to each other and pray for each other so that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous person is powerful and effective.”
If trapped in habitual sin, seek one or two trusted friends for support and confession as you regain victory.
The post The Value of Vision appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>The post The Inspiring Story of O Holy Night appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>A priest who recognised Placide’s writing talent asked him to compose a poem for Christmas mass, so he started thinking about the birth of Jesus. Inspired by that, he wrote “Cantique de Noel.” Placide was so pleased with the poem that he decided it should be set to music. And so, he asked a friend, Adolphe Adam, to do the honours.
Adam was a renowned classical musician and opera singer who composed numerous works worldwide, but he agreed to write music to accompany the beautiful words. The song was performed a few weeks later at a Midnight Mass on Christmas Eve.
Over the years, “Cantique de Noel” became popular in France and was sung at many Christmas services. However, when Placide Cappeau completely left the church to join a socialist movement, and it was revealed that Adolphe Adam was a Jew, the French Catholic church leaders decided that “Cantique de Noel” was unsuitable for church services because of its “total absence of the spirit of religion.”
Even though the church no longer allowed the song in its services, the French people continued to sing it.
A decade later, an American writer and minister, John Sullivan Dwight, recognised something in the song that moved him beyond the story of Christ’s birth. Dwight was an abolitionist who fought for an end to slavery in America, and he strongly connected with the lines of the third verse.
Truly, he taught us to love one another;
His law is love, and his gospel is peace.
Chains shall he break, for the slave is our brother;
And in his name all oppression shall cease.
This verse reflected Dwight’s view of slavery in the South. He published his English translation of “O Holy Night” in his magazine, and the song quickly gained popularity in America, especially in the North during the Civil War.
Back in France, the song stayed banned by the church for nearly twenty years.
Legend has it that on Christmas Eve 1871, amidst fierce fighting between the armies of Germany and France during the Franco-Prussian War, a French soldier suddenly leapt out of his muddy trench. Both sides stared at the seemingly crazed man who lifted his eyes to the skies and began singing ‘O Holy Night’. Then a German soldier stepped into the open and responded to the Frenchman’s song with Martin Luther’s “From Heaven Above to Earth I Come.”
The story goes that the fighting stopped for the next twenty-four hours while the men on both sides observed a temporary peace in honour of Christmas Day. Perhaps this story had a part in the French church once again embracing ‘O Holy Night’ in Christmas services.
But the story behind the song went on. Years later, on Christmas Eve 1906, Reginald Fessenden—a 33-year-old Canadian scientist and former chief chemist for Thomas Edison—did something long thought impossible. Using a new type of generator, Fessenden spoke into a microphone, and for the first time in history, a human voice was broadcast over the airwaves.
Fessenden, a pastor’s son, read the Christmas story from Luke’s gospel: “Do not be afraid. I bring you good news that will cause great joy for all the people. Today in the town of David, a Saviour has been born to you; he is the Messiah, the Lord. This will be a sign to you: You will find a baby wrapped in cloths and lying in a manger.”
Suddenly, a great company of the heavenly host appeared with the angel, praising God and saying, “Glory to God in the highest heaven, and on earth peace to those on whom his favour rests.”
I find it remarkable that the first words ever broadcast came from the Bible.
Shocked radio operators on ships and amazed wireless owners at newspapers were astounded as their usual, coded signals, heard through tiny speakers, were interrupted by a professor reading the Christmas story. To those who caught this broadcast, it must have seemed like a miracle to hear a voice somehow transmitted to those far away.
Fessenden was probably unaware of the impact he was having on ships and in offices; he couldn’t have realised that people were rushing to their wireless units to catch this Christmas Eve miracle. After finishing his recitation of the birth of Christ, Fessenden picked up his violin and played ‘O Holy Night,’ the first song ever sent through the air via radio waves.
Since ‘O Holy Night’ was first sung at a small Christmas mass in 1847, the song has been sung millions of times in churches across the globe. And since the moment a handful of people first heard it on the radio, the carol has become one of the most recorded and performed spiritual songs.
This remarkable piece, commissioned by a forgotten parish priest, composed by a poet of questionable faith, given soaring music by a Jewish composer who did not celebrate Jesus’ birth, and introduced to Americans as both a reminder of the sinful nature of slavery and the story of the birth of a Saviour, has become one of the most beautiful, inspiring pieces of music ever created.
The Lord can work in amazing ways to see His truth proclaimed. I hope this truth inspires you as well.
The post The Inspiring Story of O Holy Night appeared first on Bayside Church.
]]>