Lines in the Sand

In recent months we have been focusing upon the fact that Christians are involved in a global war. This war, by its very nature, encompasses each of us in every aspect of our lives. That is to say, you cannot escape the impact or consequence of this war even if you choose to be a pacifist – not an option for the Christian (1 Timothy1:18; 1 Timothy 6:12). The war is religious. It is, by necessary consequence, moral and ethical. Therefore, it is cultural.

It is for this reason that you cannot escape this war. Everything around you is impacted, to some degree, by this war. The future of our culture is being shaped by the salvos fired both yesterday and today. Many, unfortunately, do not see this. Think about this for a little while and you will see the truth of the matter. We may describe it in terms of Newton’s Third Law of Motion – every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If a politician makes a law today, that law must have consequences.1 Indeed, at some point down the track, it will have consequences. Those consequences may be minor. It may not amount to much more than a waste of tax-payer dollars and the raising of the blood pressure of some middle level, paper shufflers firmly entrenched in State bureaucracy. On the other hand, the impact could be huge with devastating effects that are seen for generations.

Of recent, our government has seemingly been bent on introducing us to legislation and policies that fit into the last category. Even as I write, there is a draft bill on “Discrimination” that sits waiting in the wings —a Bill laden with Humanistic error and which is aimed at tearing any remnants of the Bible’s God from this nation.

It is time for the Christians of this nation to draw a line in the sand and say, nay shout, “Enough is enough!”

For far too long, we, as Christians, have acquiesced to the government’s demands. Our insipid theology coupled with a desire to be popular, has led us into a dark and dangerous place. We have willingly taken money from the government to build our “Christian Schools”. Then the mean “Piper” wanted to be paid. His money came with strings and restrictions. Was having a new building really worth being made to dance to the Statist’s tune? We have allowed the government to dictate to us what shall be taught as “religious instruction” in State schools. I ask, “How do we, with a good conscience, teach a Christless gospel?” “What do we believe we are achieving by acquiescing to these false standards?” Yes, I will be criticised. Many good Christians teach RE, however, I have not meet one yet who has told me that they are free to open their Bible and say, “Thus says the Lord God!” To a man, they have all commented that they need to, in some degree, ‘be careful’ and move within the set curriculum. Some are very inventive in navigating this minefield. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that there is a minefield in need of being navigated!  Two points must be grasped. First, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is chained! Second, these are the good teachers! How many RE teachers come from Liberal and other false backgrounds and simply spew out the State approved pabulum?

Please understand, these points are merely illustrative of the way in which Christians have, to one degree or another, modified their belief system in order to please their Statist masters. Many other illustrations could be given. In the final analysis, we must ask, “What has been the outcome of this compromise?” Has the Church finally shown that it is open and tolerant enough to be trusted by the State? Has the State been convinced by our actions that we really are trying to “fit in” and join the “brotherhood of man”? Not at all. This is a war, remember! It is winner takes all. Compromise has only weakened Christianity. The opposite effect is that it has emboldened the State to continue on with its agenda of subjugation of people to its will. Therefore, it is time that Christians drew a line in the sand.

The State continues to demand allegiance to its core beliefs. It continues to pass legislation that enforces those beliefs. All dissenters are forced, in one way or another, to capitulate to the State’s demands. The more that is gained, the more the State hungers for total control. Do you believe this? Do you see this?

We started by noting the cultural war and its impact upon you and me. Let me give some examples of this war and how the State operates to subjugate.

Case 1. Some years ago, the local council made some funding available to local community groups under the heading “Game On.” The money was to encourage local community groups to celebrate the Commonwealth Games. Our homeschool group expressed interest. We met with the artist in charge. As leader of the group, I asserted from the outset that, as a Christians group, we would like to have a text of Scripture so that the artwork reflected our identity. The artist could see no problem with this. As a group, we chose the following words: “let us run with endurance the race set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, … so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.” This text was a modified form of Hebrews 12:1-3. It was chosen both to fit the theme and reflect our Christian perspective.

All was well for months. The children went on with their art work. Then came the news that there was a problem with the artwork and some of it would need to be remade. This was at first put forward under the guise that the artwork had been damaged. We met with the artist to begin work on the parts that we could use. At that meeting, she announced that the name of “Jesus” had to go!

First, condemnation belongs to the council for their decision but also for their utter cowardice. They did not have the intestinal fortitude to turn up and speak to us in person. When we finally arranged a meeting, we were stone-walled. The decision was made; no correspondence would be entered in to. They launched a war on Jesus and then hid in their bunker.

Second, note the war on Jesus. It is reminiscent of what the early Apostles endured – “let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name” (Acts 4:17). We could have substituted Jesus name for something nebulous, such as creator, Supreme Being or God. In other words, we could have only that which was interpretable and which would be open to the majority of peoples and beliefs.

Third, and I believe in my heart that this was the greatest tragedy, I was the only one there that day that walked away from the project. All the others were willing to give up the name of Jesus to appease the Statist master and ultimately to ‘slip beneath the radar’. Please do not read this as a pat on the back for self. It is not. It is a heartfelt cry that Christians, of various denominations, would so easily give up the name of Jesus for peace — and we are talking a name on a table! What then are the Christians going to do when confronted with the barrel of a gun, deprivation, or incarceration?

Case 2. Foolishly, after the above incident, I went to work for said council. Never have I worked in such a godless place, but that is another topic. During my time, Big Brother invited me, against my will, to attend a seminar on Human Rights. What I learnt at that seminar was that the government has no respect for so called “Human Rights”. I objected to going to this meeting, but I was informed that it was compulsory. The State Government had amended legislation making it compulsory for all Local Government workers to be ‘brainwashed’ into believing the Humanistic nonsense entitled “Human Rights”.

At that time, my big boss, belonged to the Congregation of Rome. So I appealed to him. ‘This is nonsense. It cuts across what you and I believe. So why should we have to go?’ Answer: I do not want to go either, but it is compulsory!

The lesson should be obvious. We mentioned above that there is a certain rewrite of “Discrimination” legislation waiting in the wings. How is it that the same government that is out to quash discrimination, actively discriminates? How is it that the government pushing “Human Rights”, can trample all over my rights to establish theirs?

Having read parts of this draft legislation, it makes me laugh – muffled because it is serious. Have a guess at who is exempt from prosecution under this legislation? The Crown! So the Crown can discriminate without fear whilst telling others they are not to discriminate. (1:15 – The Crown is bound by the legislation but cannot be prosecuted for an offence.) You would probably also enjoy 2:21, “Special measures to achieve equality are not discrimination”. Now, it may be just me and my paranoia, but that sounds suspiciously like ‘enforced group therapy to bring about homogenous “line towing”’ is not to be considered as discrimination. Could this explain why I was compulsorily invited to attend a Human Rights seminar?

Case 3. Recently, I had a chat with a friend regarding the name of an author. I asked if he knew this person. He responded by saying, “Yes. It is me!” (Forgive the vagueness, but I wish to protect him.) Naturally, I sought an explanation for the nom de plume. It was fairly succinct. He had obtained a job in a department that wants its employees to ‘be seen to be neutral’. So it was suggested that any forays into the public arena, particularly with strongly held – and I am guessing, running contrary to the party line – opinions, were best expressed under an assumed name.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that my friend was the only one who received this advice. I am merely highlighting the fact that “he did” receive this advice.

The real point is this: Do you think that this department is governed by existing anti-discrimination legislation? I would think so. Therefore, regardless of who the employee is, such advice should not be given, it is, in fact, illegal to put forward such a suggestion, especially by a department of this type.

Again, we focus on the State’s utter hypocrisy. The State busies itself preparing legislation that is meant to bring about equality and the freedom of the individual, but then tells individuals that they cannot express certain sentiments or, if they do, they should do it under another name. It is this second aspect that is important.

The State’s anti-discrimination legislation is nothing less than a postmodern denial of truth. The theory posits that there are no absolutes, especially when it comes to epistemology. Consequently, it is asserted that the subjective opinion of each and every man is equally valid. This is what anti-discrimination legislation seeks to protect. In itself this legislation is a philosophic oxymoron, for this legislation seeks to make an absolute for governing the subjective and in so doing proposes something contradictory to its own presupposition, namely that absolutes do not exist! It is therefore a logical fallacy. However, I digress.

Having asserted that every opinion is valid, the government then legislates to force everyone to accept their nonsense position. In order to be seen to operate within the bounds of their own laws, the government does not forbid, in most cases, its employees to speak in the public square. Hence, the second piece of advice – change your name if you do! It would be obvious to all that the government was being inconsistent if it forbade people to speak, to express their subjective non-absolutes on a particular topic. However, having adopted the untenable position that they have, the last thing the government wants is people pulling their straw man apart; especially people on their payroll who can be traced back to the inner sanctum.

What is all important here is the guise! You see the government would prefer you not to be a Christian – because those odd people who believe in absolutes and objective truth are a darn spanner in the works! However, their plan “B” is to manipulate people into appearing and acting as though all operate on the same basis. It is akin to Mrs Bucket in “Keeping up Appearances.” You smooth the pronunciation of “bucket” with a French touch so that it sounds more like “bouquet” and you sit beside the phone waiting for the Queen to phone. Yet all the time you are just a commoner whose name is “bucket”. In other words, whilst the State would be happy for you to abandon your Christian belief, and this is their ultimate goal, they will settle, in the short term, for your acquiescence to their ideals (playing by their rules) and a desertion of any overt statements on your part. Therefore, hand-in-hand with their anti-discrimination legislation comes legislation that makes it illegal for you to express your supposed subjective opinions anywhere outside of your house or place of worship.

Case 4. Harking back to my foolishness in going to work for the local council, I must confess that I nearly did not. After going through the interview process and being offered the position, I received my employment contract. In that contract was a clause that stated that whilst employed by Council I could make no negative comments in the media concerning Council. I could understand the clause that said that I was not authorised to speak to the media on behalf of Council. However, this clause was different. It took away my right as a citizen to express my views in the public square, at least on certain issues. Remember, this is the same organisation that made me go to a “Human Rights” seminar whilst trampling on my supposed ‘rights’ multiple times.

Conclusion:

Having meandered through a few topics, it is time to pull them all together.

We are in a cultural war. That war is reality because of our government’s insistence on continued rebellion against God. Romans 13 clearly shows that government is a minister of God and that it is to be a righteous instrument in His hand. However, like man, it is fallen. It will be used rightly by righteous people or it will be used wrongly by those who are evil and misguided. At present, government, nationwide, is under the management of usurpers and God haters. Even where Christians exist, they seem reluctant to make a stand or incapable of putting forward solid arguments for change.

Therefore, we are constantly bombarded with legislation, policy, and directives that push us further from God’s grace and unto His wrath and judgement.

Much of this has happened because of the Christians acquiescence, for one reason or another, to the Statist’s demands. In saying this, I do not stand on the moral high ground. I have used my own poor example of how easily we can be lured into compromise. It is also worth noting that some of this is subtle. I applied for a job as a “garbo”. I simply did not expect the employment contract to contain some of the things it did. To me they were relevant because I write on social issues. To most, it would have been irrelevant. The point is, nonetheless, that it was there and people, of all beliefs, signed up to it. This Council employed over 300 people. That means that over 300 people agreed to be silent on certain issues. It means that 300 people decided “not to bite the hand that feeds” no matter what errors they encountered.

You see my friends, this is how the Statist master forces, coerces, and deceives. None of us took on a position because we were desperate to be gagged. Yet, that is essentially what happened. Despite all the various types of legislation that exist; despite all the militant lawyers looking for the big win and headlines, clauses like this are written in to contracts all the time and people, wittingly or otherwise, sign up to them.

I mentioned earlier that policies like these have a total cultural impact. Some may query this. Let’s follow this example. 300 odd people signed up to employment on the basis of not speaking against Council. This meant that, in essence, 300 inside and informed perspectives were denied to the wider community. Equally, those same 300 people were “made” to attend a “Human Rights” seminar. Thus, these 300 were abused over and over. Having been employed by Local Government, they became the government’s drones. They were denied the right to speak. They were forced to attend seminars that denied them basic rights – after all, a child can be exempt from religious instruction on the request of a parent, but we were denied that option.

Then think about those 300 people. Most had families. How did all these policies influence those wider families? Is it possible that dad does not be a proper dad now because he is trying to respect the “rights and dignity” of his 3 year old as defined by Humanism? Does mum no longer abide her place as her husband’s helpmeet because she has “rights” and is entitled to express them?

Then we must ask, “What of all the other Local Governments whose employees were also forced into these seminars?” How many do they number? The answer to that is hidden in the fact that there are over 70 Councils in Victoria all of whose employees would have been required to attend seminars similar to the one mentioned. If we allow an average of 100 employees per council, we arrive at a number of around 7000.

Then we can think of the other levels of Government. How many employees in State and Federal governments are subjected to this tyranny? Well, according to the world of Wiki, there were over 160,000 people employed under the Public Service Act 1999 for the 09-10 financial year. That figure really only accounts for the Federal Government. We could go on, but I believe that you understand my point. Thousands of people across this nation are being constrained to attend propaganda seminars run by our governments to reinforce their agenda. These operations must have an impact on our culture. Even if only 10% of these people leave those meetings convinced, it is 10% fewer that have to be convinced. It is 10% that will now operate according to and regurgitate the State’s position.

In order to drive this point home, I would like to raise two illustrations. The first is more relevant to the more mature – the polite term for aged. Those of us who were around before the “wall” fell will remember the horror with which the former Russia was described. We would revile in an instant when we were confronted with the forced indoctrination of the Soviet peoples. We saw a culture disintegrate before our eyes because the Socialist monster had denied generations the right to think or express anything but that which the State had approved. Jails were filled with people whose only crime was to speak out against the establishment or to hold an opinion that was deemed contrary to the State. I ask you, “Can you not see the parallels between the Russia of old and what is being realised before your eyes in your own country?”

The second illustration came from a mission organisation. They showed a film on Christians in Egypt. It explained how these Christians were free to worship God in Jesus and to teach their religion, but only within the bounds of the Church building. These people could not move outside their church building and say anything. To do so would bring swift condemnation. In watching this, the tragedy was that so many Christians immediately felt sympathy for these people; they were incensed at the injustice; yet it did not seem to gel with them that we are experiencing these very same laws here in Australia. It is already illegal in some parts of this country to make statements on certain topics outside of the church building. How long will these exemptions apply? How long will it be before our sermons and worship need to be approved by the State censor?

Many will scorn in answering these questions. Labels will be appended, and so on. However, none of that alters the evidence. Name calling does not dismiss the proof that is before our eyes.

These actions on the part of the government will only be stopped when Christians draw the line in the sand. We, for the most part, are the only ones who can see clearly in order to understand and repudiate the false claims of the State. This is not magic. It is the consequence of a redeemed mind and will (Romans 12:1-2). It is what happens when Jesus claims a life as His and, removing the veil of death and sin, makes a person truly alive (Romans 6:12-14). Consequently, like Ezekiel the watchmen, we must stand on the cultural parapet and cry out to our countrymen (Ezekiel 33:1-9). Sadly, it seems to me, the watchman is asleep.

If the Christians will not draw the line in the sand, who will? If the Christians truly believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and the only way of Salvation, when will they begin to resist all demands both to compromise this message and the way of life by which it is proclaimed? If government, like man and the Church, were made and instituted for the glory of God alone, when will the Christians begin to demand that the government serve God through Jesus Christ (Romans 13-1 & 6)? The line in the sand must be draw.

Let me go one step further. The line in the sand has been draw. It was draw a long time ago. It was drawn by the finger of God. The reason it is no longer visible is because the enemies of God have long transgressed that boundary and God’s warriors, the Church and the Christian, have done little to repel such incursions. Explaining it this way may help the Christians of this nation to see that it is not simply enough to assume God’s authority, draw a new line, and make peace with those that oppose God and His Christ. No. Our job is nothing other than to oust the enemy and push them back to God’s line of demarcation.

I call upon you now to draw a line in the sand and shout “Enough!”, but not in defiance of God or as a usurper of His authority. Rather, the call is in terms of a covenant and a testimony before God that our compromise and sin has been great and that this day, in full repentance, we begin to push back. May this line serve one purpose only; that of being a testimony to our compromise and a constant reminder of our need to push the enemy back to God’s line of demarcation (Joshua 4:1-7). We should look over our shoulder daily to see this new line disappear out of sight. We should look forward every day to see God’s line looming large in our sight.

Brethren, let us draws this line as a sign of our repentance and as a symbol of our dedication to God and His statutes, revealed in Jesus Christ, wriiten down and brought to remembrance through the Holy Spirit. Let us, in the Name of Jesus Christ, show our love and dedication to our God in Trinity and take back our Father’s world.

1. For example, If that law promotes evil; the opposite effect is that it must diminish righteousness. Although we are focussing on government, the same is true of the Church. If the Church preaches error, the opposite reaction is that it diminishes righteousness. If the Church preaches righteousness, the opposit effect is that evil diminishes.