This week, Soul Revival Church started a new preaching series on 1 Peter entitled ‘Living Well On The Way Home’. Over the next six weeks, we will be reading 1 Peter together and asking what it looks like to live as Christians in this world as we await the return of King Jesus and our life in New Creation together. One question I am particularly interested in is ‘How to raise children in the Christian faith during this particular cultural moment?’ which I hope to pick up in future writing projects.
This post is the text of my sermon from Sunday 12th October, introducing the series, and focusing particularly on what it means to be “elect exiles” in Sydney, in 2025.
What do you expect the Christian life to be like between here and eternity?
This question is the question that Peter is writing to his original audience to answer. Peter’s original audience are finding it tough to live in the ancient world as Christians, and they’ve got questions.
Is this normal? Is this what we should expect? Why, if Jesus is King, are we experiencing hardship now? Will things ever change? And, importantly, How can I keep believing that God is faithful if I don’t experience his goodness now?
Today, I am going to do a brief intro to Peter’s opening paragraph, in order to set the scene and begin to answer this question. As we continue to study 1 Peter over the next 6 weeks, we’ll get more and more detailed answers to what to expect in this life, and how we ought to live because of that truth.
Here’s how Peter begins his letter:
Peter, an apostle of Jesus Christ,
To God’s elect, exiles, scattered throughout the provinces of Pontus, Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bithynia, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood.
1 Peter 1:1-2
There are two important words in this first sentence that ground the whole letter. And they do so by grounding our identity. We know what to expect as Christians in this life, once we recognise exactly who we are.
The first identity marker is that Christians are God’s ELECT. They have been CHOSEN by God. And in this choosing the whole gospel experience for the Christian is explained.
Chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father;
Sanctified, made holy and set apart, through the work of the Spirit;
Now, called to obedience to Jesus Christ because we’ve been sprinkled by his blood, a symbol that represents cleansing and purification.
The Gospel story, that you’ve been chosen by God, redeemed by the blood of Jesus, made holy by the Spirit and therefore, now live in obedience to Christ. That’s the gospel story in a nut-shell.
So the question is, if this is who we are, and what we are to do, the next question I have is, “what does obedience to Christ look like?”
Obedient to Jesus Christ
Jesus is clear in his teachings that obedience is part of faith, it is an essential part of what it means to be a Christian.
“Love God, Love Others” (Matthew 22:37-40)
Sermon on the Mount (Matthew 5-7)
Fruits of the Spirit (Galatians 5:22-26)
These are some of the characteristic teachings of Jesus and the New Testament writers. And, according to Peter, this is what we as Christians have been chosen by God the Father and sanctified by the Holy Spirit, to do: to be obedient to Jesus Christ.
When we ask, “what do we expect the Christian life to be between here and eternity?” This is the Christian life we are asking about. This is what it means to be a “good Christian”, to live the life we have been called into and saved by the blood of Jesus to live. A life in obedience to Jesus Christ.
However, Peter’s first audience lived in the Roman Empire. And the ethics of Rome and being a “good Roman” were vastly different from the ethics of the Kingdom of God and therefore being a “good Christian”. The “good Christian” and the “good Roman” lived in overlapping worlds, but the ethical life described by the Empire of Rome contrasted radically with the ethical life described by the King of the Jews.
This difference is why Peter describes his audience, not just as elect, but also as exiles.
This identity as exiles is going to be central to our understanding of how the book of First Peter defines the Christian life and answers our big question, “What do we expect the Christian life to be like between now and eternity?”
The word exile means that you are not at home in the culture that you are living in, it’s not your native land. It’s like the idea of strangers, or foreigners, terms that Peter will use later in the book to describe his audience. Now there are nice ways to ‘not be at home’ in the culture you’re living in. You might be a tourist, you might be on a study visa or a work placement, you might be an expat living abroad. But an exile is not a nice way of being ‘not at home’ in culture. There’s a negative connotation of being stuck, being an unwilling stranger, you don’t have the freedom to travel “home”, wherever it is that “home” may be. Being an exile is more like being a refugee, someone who is displaced, and unable to change their circumstances.
But Peter’s audience are not exiles because of nationality, or migration, or refugee status. They are exiles because of their faith, because of their identity as Christians. They are exiles, according to the foreknowledge of God the Father; they are exiles through the sanctifying work of the Spirit; they are exiles who are to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood.
They are exiles because they are Christians.
One writer puts it this way:
“The followers of Jesus Christ are strangers in their own homeland. To be born again into a living hope is to become a foreigner in the land of one’s birth.”
These Christians were exiles in a majority Roman context, because of their faith, because of their election, because of their commitment to Christ Jesus.
So what was it that made them so distinctive? What made them “strangers without status”? Why was their so little overlap between being a “good Christian” who lived in obedience to Jesus and the ethic of the Kingdom, versus being a “good Roman” who lived in obedience to Caesar and the ethic of the Empire?
Let’s have a look at a few ethical categories where the Christians, living in obedience to King Jesus, were radically different to their Roman neighbours.
Attitudes toward the vulnerable
The Roman world generally accepted infanticide and the exposure of unwanted infants, particularly for babies with birth defects or daughters in poor families. Christians said no, viewing all human life as sacred. Christians were known for actively seeking out children who had been abandoned and raising them as their own. Christians also extended unusual care to the sick, poor, widows, and orphans—other groups that had limited social value in Roman society.
Sexual ethics
Roman culture was relatively permissive about sexuality outside marriage. It was socially acceptable, especially for men, and especially those of his social status to sleep with whoever they wanted, whenever they wanted. But, the ethics of the Kingdom demanded sexual restraint for both men and women. Obeying Christ Jesus meant limiting sexual activity to marriage and insisting on mutual faithfulness. This equal standard for both sexes was revolutionary.
Social hierarchy and slavery
In the community of the church, there was a radical levelling of social status amongst Christians. Paul writes to the Galatians saying that in Christ “there is neither Jew nor Gentile, neither slave nor free, nor is there male and female” (Gal. 3:28), in other words, that any social standing that comes from ethnicity, class, or gender are irrelevant for those living in the Kingdom of God. Christian gatherings included slaves and masters, women and men, rich and poor, all worshiping and eating together as equals—which Romans found bizarre and potentially subversive.
Violence and entertainment
Romans flocked to gladiatorial games where men fought to death for entertainment. Christians refused to attend these spectacles, viewing them as murder. In many cases, they also rejected military service because of the requirement of allegiance to the Empire and because of the violence that would have to be handed out to the State’s enemies. They also opposed revenge, instead teaching forgiveness and loving one’s enemies.
Exclusive loyalty
All of this stemmed from the Christian’s exclusive loyalty to King Jesus, not the Emperor and the State. Christians refused to participate in civic religious rituals or offer even token worship to the emperor. The Emperor was not ‘Lord’, Jesus was ‘Lord’. Only Jesus deserves our ultimate allegiance and therefore alone deserves our worship. This wasn’t just a theological point—it was seen as anti-social, unpatriotic, and dangerous to the community’s welfare. Their exclusive devotion to God the Father, God the Son, God the Holy Spirit, and not the gods and emperors of Rome, made them appear atheistic and disloyal.
You can see the lack of overlap can’t you?!
Therefore, if we come back to out big question and ask, “For Peter’s first audience, what should they expect the Christian life to be like between here and eternity?”, the answer is firmly down the “mostly hard” end of the spectrum.
These characteristic differences between the ethics of the Kingdom and the ethics of the Empire put a lot of pressure on the Christian exiles. It caused them strife, trials and suffering.
Here is a non-comprehensive list of Peter’s recognition of his audience’s suffering:
“…now for a little while you may have had to suffer grief in all kinds of trials…” (1:9)
“…it is commendable is someone bears up under the pain of unjust suffering because they are conscious of God…” (2:19)
“…if you suffer for doing good… this is commendable before God…” (1:20)
“…even if you suffer for what is right, you are blessed…” (3:14)
“… do not be surprised at the painful trial you are suffering…” (4:12)
“…if you suffer as a Christian, do not be ashamed…” (4:16)
“… those who suffer according to God’s will…” (4:19)
“… the family of believers throughout the world is undergoing the same kind of suffering…” (5:9)
Life is tough for the Christian in first-century Rome, because they were committed to living lives of obedience to King Jesus, not by the values of the community around them.
Following King Jesus, living in obedience to Christ and living out the ethics of the Kingdom, in a world where there is very little overlap between being a “good Christian” and being a “good citizen of the culture” is one that will make you feel strange, alien, like an exile, and often times, lead to suffering and trials.
So, that was Peter’s first audience. But what about us as twenty-first-century Australians? What should we expect the Christian life to be like between here and eternity?
Needless to say, we live in a very different time and place than first-century Rome. And something really significant happened in world history and particularly the Roman Empire. Life for the Christian in the Roman empire continued to be one of alienation and suffering, until the time of Constantine the Great. Constantine was the Roman emperor from 306-337 AD, but most significantly for our purposes, he became a Christian in 312 AD.
For the first time since Jesus death and resurrection, the Roman Emperor, instead of persecuting Christians, was a Christian. Which meant two things, he put a stop to the persecution of Christians AND he elevated the status of Christianity in the Empire.
No longer were Christians religious exiles, aliens, and strangers. Christianity became the official religion and the Christian ethic became more and more adopted as the norm. The overlap between being a “good Christian” and being a “good Roman” got greater and greater, until in many ways, the ethical difference became largely indistinguishable.
The ethic of the Kingdom, by and large, became the assumed ethic of the Empire.
This was not always the case; there were still important distinctions, and there were radical edges of the Christian community who rebelled against the blurring of these two worlds. There is a good case to make that when Christianity became the religion of the empire, it actually distorted the Christian faith, but that’s a sermon for another time.
The point for today is to notice that as time went on, even after the fall of the Roman Empire, the middle ages, the Reformation, Enlightenment, etc., this overlap between being a “good Christian” and being a “good Westerner” continued. Since the colonisation of Australia by the British, the overlap between being a “good Christian” and being a “good Australian” continued and therefore, the strangeness of being a Christian in the West lost a lot of its strangeness.
By and large, both Christian and non-Christian Australians generally agree that caring for the vulnerable is a good thing and we expect that our healthcare system and welfare system will support all Australians. Both generally expect faithfulness in romantic and sexual relationships, especially their own, but also in the lives of our public figures. Both Christian and non-Christian Australians are generally sceptical of strong social hierarchies and find the thought of slavery abhorrent. Both find violence abhorrent and rightly rally against violence in the household, in society, in politics.
And so, when we come back to this question, “What do you expect the Christian life to be like between here and eternity?”, perhaps the answer for us as 21st Century Australians is closer to the “mostly easy” side of the scale.
Because of the history of Europe and the West, where Christianity has been the default religion for almost 1700 years, it is not as strange or as alienating to be a Christian. Our life as elect exiles may not bring about as much suffering and trials as it did for Peter’s original audience.
And yet… what I think many of us are noticing, particularly those of us who have lived a little longer than others, is that Australia (and the West generally) is changing.
A Changing Australia
Today, it feels like the overlap between being a good Christian and being a good Australian is pulling apart.
What it means to “care for the vulnerable”, especially at the start and end of life, looks radically different. A Christian’s attitude towards abortion and euthanasia appears to be vastly different than what has been permissible in the Australian legal system and generally accepted by our society.
A Christian sexual ethic of exclusive faithfulness in marriage continues to be increasingly strange in a world of sexual exploration, cohabitation, the normalisation of online pornography, OnlyFans celebrities, AI relationships and robots.
A radical approach to social hierarchy, which levels out all social distinctives still has resonance in our egalitarian society, but Christian communities who have high-wealth individuals, corporate CEOs, and bitcoin billionaires sitting at the same table and eating the same meal as asylum seekers, unemployed migrants, and welfare recipients is an anomaly.
Christians who avoid violence or sexuality in entertainment, and as a consequence are purposefully and intentionally not “up to date” with the latest streaming show or cultural meme, who cancel their subscriptions, and delete their social media accounts may be ostracised, isolated and shamed.
And in a world where everything is “political”, the Christian whose exclusive loyalty is to King Jesus, his Church and his family, will be alienated and out of place in their social world because they don’t let partisan politics, cancel culture, or the points of view of their information eco-system stop them from sitting in church and worshipping Christ the King alongside brothers and sisters who’s view on everything from energy and climate policy to the Israel-Palestine conflict is different to their own.
If this is the world we are living in, we come back to our question again. What do you expect the Christian life to be like between here and eternity, particularly in an Australia where the ethics of Christianity are pulling away from the ethics of our neighbours and communities?
It will be mixed, won’t it. We still live in a world which is “Christ-haunted”. There are still enough resonances with the Christian world that living in obedience to King Jesus will not always be in complete rejection of the values of Australia. BUT, Australia is not the Kingdom. And, as things stand at the moment, the ethics of Jesus and the ethics of Australia appear to be coming further and further apart. And so, I would expect that we as Christians will continue to stand out more and more. We will be increasingly noticed as elect exiles.
Impossible Applications
I want to finish with a couple of wrong applications, and thereby highlighting the one positive application as we look forward to the rest of the series in 1 Peter.
Suffering is not the goal.
We are not pursuing suffering for suffering’s sake. Suffering is not, by itself, evidence that we are living Christianly. Sometimes people suffer because they are following King Jesus. Sometimes people suffer because they are insufferable1. We’ll see this later when Peter writes, “How is it to your credit if you receive a beating for doing wrong?” (1 Peter 2:20). No, suffering is not the goal. Obedience to Christ is the goal, and suffering may be the consequence of that.
Being a good Australian is not the goal.
The opposite conclusion may be that since there is still a high degree of overlap between being a good Christian and being a good Australian, perhaps I can continue to pursue the Australian dream without thinking too deeply about my commitment to Jesus. But this would be misguided as well.
Because of our election, because of our sanctification, we are to be pursuing obedience to Christ. Australia is lovely, but it’s not the Kingdom of God. Therefore, pursuing Christ above all else, having exclusive loyalty to him, will come into conflict with what your neighbours are doing. There is nothing more Australian than “keeping up with the Joneses”. And there may be nothing more cancerous to your soul than pursuing the same lifestyle as those around you. We must be critical of the vision of being a “good Australian” and instead, put Jesus first every time.
Warring against culture is not the goal.
There is a response to the changes happening in Western society generally, and Australia specifically, that wants to fight back against secularisation and reclaim culture for Jesus. And there is something admirable and understandable about that. In a democracy like ours, we can use all the power given to us as voting members of the population for agitating for change in our society. The ethics of the Kingdom have social implications, and to the extent that we have a voice and a vote, we can absolutely use those in prayerful expectation that God’s will be done on earth as it is in heaven.
But one of the things we will continue to notice about Peter’s letter to the elect exiles is that his focus is on how they live as Christians in a hostile world, not on the hostile world itself.
Webster again writes, “Peter’s focus is not on the badness of culture but on the goodness of the Christian even when confronted by social hostility.”
We’re not pursuing suffering, though suffering may likely come.
We’re not pursuing the Australian dream, because the Kingdom calls us to a different reality.
We’re not pursuing culture war, because we are pursuing the good life, found in obedience to King Jesus.
Here is my prayer for us at Soul Revival Church as we study 1 Peter together over the coming month and a half.
To God’s elect, exiles, scattered throughout the suburbs of Cronulla, Kirrawee, Miranda, Yarrawarrah and Ryde, who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, to be obedient to Jesus Christ and sprinkled with his blood:
May grace and peace be ours in abundance.
I stole this great line from Graham Stanton’s paper at House Conference 2025, “The Beauty and Ugliness of Sacrifice”.