Antidiscrimination + Equality + Political Correctness = Cultural Insanity

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

A patient lies on a leather studded chesterfield. Confessions fall from his lips. His therapist listens intensely as the patient speaks of “multiple voices” and the fact that these voices are destroying his life. “How so?” asks the therapist. The man, obviously uneasy and completely unsure of himself, musters enough strength for voice and says, “Well doc, these voices communicate different messages concerning the same object. I speak a simple and plain sentence as one voice. Then, all of a sudden, another voice arises, my words are twisted, and the obvious meaning is denied. A third voice joins the fray. It is vociferous in its denunciation. It knows me innocent, yet it freely condemns. Worse still, it accuses me of dreadful motives.” Saddened and exasperated, he exclaims, “Doc, I do not understand! The simplest and most innocent sentence which falls from my lips is thrust back at me as a blade heated by the fire. Torture ensues. I no longer know what to say or how something should be said. These voices, Doc, it is as though they are out to destroy by deliberately misconstruing my every word. It is as though they mean me harm. Even when others understand and respond as I would expect, yet these clamorous voices condemn and threaten!”

The session finished, the patient leaves the comfort of the ‘couch’ and heads to reception. Upon paying for the consultation, a receipt is issued. As the receipt is folded, we glimpse the patient’s name. He is called, Australia.

This may be a tad melodramatic, but methinks it accurate.

In the last couple of days we have seen the Lodge’s “live-in-lover”, Tim Mathieson, in trouble for supposedly inappropriate comments. I dislike the man, his flaunting of marriage and manhood. However, a part of Christian prudence and charity means that we attack the issue at hand and defend people wrongly accused. So, I find it hard to write in defence of this man, but as that is what is required, so shall it be done.

Tim Mathieson gave a speech. It was a speech concerning ‘men’s health’. It was addressed to the cricketing fraternity. His topic was prostate cancer. In his summation, he made the point that the only good way to check this disease was by “digital examination”. In 2013 this needs some explanation. Digital examination does not use electronics, such as a digital camera. The term refers to the wiggly things attached to your palm – your digits or fingers. Thus a “digital examination” is the insertion of a finger / digit into the anus in order to manually check the size of the prostate. As you can guess, it is not a procedure that is welcomed or viewed as overtly comfortable. Consequently, humour is often associated with the concept – it is made light of in order to ease apprehension.

Thus, in typical Australian comedic fashion, Tim ended with a few words of advice: Find yourself “a small, Asian, female doctor.” Here come the voices of derision and the false accusers. The vociferous voices gathered, encircled; and they devoured!

For anyone who saw the clip of this speech, three things were patently obvious:

First, Tim was more uncomfortable than the proverbial cat. He was sweating. He was stumbling over his words. In short, this was a man twice removed from his comfort zone.

Second, when he uttered his so called “offensive” line, what was the crowd’s response? Silence? Derision? Dumbfounded? Aghast? No, they laughed. Tim was being funny and the people laughed. Tim uttered a simple sentence as one voice. It was understood by his audience. Only after its utterance did the other voices come forward to condemn and to misconstrue what was plain and obvious to everyone else.

Third, Tim was not speaking derogatorily against, Asians, Females, or Doctors. His point was simple; if you are going to have someone place digits into your rectum, find someone with small digits! To me, this story resonates. I had a friend, Mr Currie, who spoke of someone he knew, whose job it was to inspect one’s caboose. I remember him looking at me, his eyes bulging as he said, “He had such big hands!”

Here, we arrive at Cultural Insanity. One is no longer judged by the words which fall from your lips or the intent that produced those words. Charity is not shown for difficult situations in which one’s ‘vocabulary draw’ becomes derailed and word choice and grammar flee. If you have spoken in public, you will know this experience.

However, today we live with a culture of hatred. A mate of mine is apt to preface his sentences with, “If this can be taken two ways, I mean it in the best sense.” He finds this necessary precisely because we, as a culture, have been taught to look upon all utterances with suspicion. Culturally, we have been taught to take words in the worst sense and then multiply it several times. Hate crimes really do exist and there is none worse than deliberately misconstruing someone’s words so as to make them the subject of scorn and derision.

Another example of this thinking came across my computer screen today. VW have made an advertisement in which a white man (Can I say that?) arrives at work speaking with a Jamaican accent. He is basically telling everyone to “chill out” and be happy. In the end, after some bad business news, his boss and co-worker go for a spin in his shinny, red, VW and they too catch the bug – of happiness that is, not as in VW beetle! (Darn, PC, now I am on edge.)

As a consequence the “hate speakers” are out in force, decrying this advertisement as “racist!” Really, what do you think of when you think Jamaica? Like me, I presume your first image is of ‘laid back’ and ‘carefree’. Anyway, in the interest of truth and science, I decided to use a ‘control group’. I set the computer screen up to show only the ad and called in my daughters, 11 and 20. I played the advertisement. After the first line, you could see the smiles arrive on their faces. By the end, we had giggles. Then the question, ‘Is this racist?’ The response? Frowns and quizzical looks – and they are from the “hip, PC” generation!

Again, Cultural Insanity! When did happiness become racism?

We have arrived at the point of Cultural Insanity precisely because we have jettisoned the Christian Worldview in favour of rank paganism. As such, we have no basis for happiness, truth, sincerity, honesty, and integrity, to name but a few. Therefore, the government imposes upon us the pernicious evil known as “equality and antidiscrimination” legislation. It is a pernicious evil precisely because it robs and steals. It purports to grant something through the realisation of the utopian dream, which pagan philosophers hold so dear. However, when the dream proves allusive, as it always will, the pagans resort to force. In the use of this force, there are many casualties.

Many things could be said at this point, but for brevity, let us use the examples before us. Humour must go. Humour is based on nuances in language. However, these same nuances can lead to misunderstanding, if they are wilfully exploited. Therefore, a harmless reference to “small hands” using different words becomes a huge problem. Tim should be thankful that the woman with whom he lives has not had her new legislation passed. Under that standard, his offence of “offending” would have made him liable. Oh dear, no more public outings for Tim! Yet, this is just the tip of the proverbial “iceberg”. We would have to abandon humour completely, for the reason mentioned. We would have to abandon the justice system. What right does the court have to make judgements and to cast aspersions? If we are all equal and all actions are also equal, how dare they pass judgement! We would have to change our language. Adjectives and descriptors of all types would have to be removed so that people could not be offended. Hang on! Would that not then discriminate against those who seek to use descriptors? Oh dear! Who will decide for us? Thankfully we have an unbiased government that will see us through!!! Yeah, right!! (Spoken with an accent of derision)

Above all, we will not be entitled to speak the truth! You see, truth uncovers, it lays bare. The truth does discriminate. For example, true justice is based in truth. Therefore, we can understand and apply the concept of right and wrong. When truth evaporates as a mist in the noon-day sun, what standard is left? When the Christian worldview, based in the concrete and absolute, is abandoned, what remains? Mist, shadow, vapour, in a word, the “intangible”!

We have reached Cultural Insanity by imbibing a God-less worldview. Without such a righteous standard all is flux, fleeting, ephemeral, and transient. The god of the new worldview is self – mostly. The new interpretive principle is based in self. In such a system, the words spoken by one person become meaningless. The context in which those words are spoken becomes pointless. The content of the speech is as unfathomable as the depths of space. The reason the words were put forth in the first place, inconsequential. That is until the autonomous-self decides upon meaning, context, content, intent, and the consequence of your speech. That is right, governance of your motive, meaning, and words, is taken from you and placed in the hands of the autonomous-self listening to your words. If they laugh, great! Whew! What a relief. If they frown, call the lawyer and plead lunacy!

What a very dangerous combination. A soul who is bent on twisting and perverting speech. A government who aids them by enshrining nonsense as law. A generation raised on pagan belief. A generation raised to believe that truth does not exist. A generation raised to believe that autonomous-self is the measure of all things. It is akin to a child playing with matches and petrol on a blustery, forty degree day that has been given a “catastrophic” fire rating. Nothing good can come of it.

Cultural Insanity = The place where encouraging men’s health could see you fined and imprisoned. Cultural Insanity = The place where trying to spread happiness and cheer sees you derogatorily branded as a racist. Cultural Insanity = Australia, our home, the place where Julia plans to unleash more madness. Paul Keating called us the Banana Republic. Julia Gillard wants us to become an Insane Asylum!

To abandon God is to: Abandon hope; Abandon purpose; Abandon future; Abandon law; Abandon justice; Abandon truth. To abandon God, therefore, is to embrace insanity, individually and Culturally.

Postscript: For more insanity see Dove; KFC; For ignorance at work, see a commentary on the KFC ad.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 6)

Posted on January 29, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

3. Three Points Regarding the Christian’s Armour.

A. Our Armour is God’s Armour: The first thing to note is that we are clothed in God’s armour. This is not an illusion to the text, but it is an illusion to the text. Confused? Paul tells us to put on the “armour of God”. What we must understand is that this metaphorical usage is not just a metaphor that Paul has dreamt up and applied based on seeing Roman soldiers. Rather, it is a borrowed metaphor and as such has actual Biblical substance. “Borrowed from Whom?” you may ask. Borrowed from none other than God Himself! Most of the references to the individual pieces of armour are taken from Isaiah 59:17, where Yahweh is pictured as going to war:

Now the Lord saw, and it was displeasing in His sight that there was no justice. And He saw that there was no man, and was astonished that there was no one to intercede; Then His own arm brought salvation to Him; And His righteousness upheld Him. And He put on righteousness like a breastplate, and a helmet of salvation on His head; And He put on garments of vengeance for clothing, and wrapped Himself with zeal as a mantle. According to their deeds, so He will repay, Wrath to His adversaries, recompense to His enemies; To the coastlands He will make recompense. So they will fear the name of the Lord from the west and His glory from the rising of the sun, For He will come like a rushing stream, Which the wind of the Lord drives. “And a Redeemer will come to Zion, And to those who turn from transgression in Jacob,” declares the Lord. (Isaiah 59:15a-20)

We are also told in Isaiah 11:5 that the Branch will exhibit some of these attributes:

Also righteousness will be the belt about His loins, And faithfulness the belt about His waist.¹

As a consequence, we need to understand that Paul is not inventing a new metaphor, rather he is picking up and applying previously used metaphoric language. This is important for our understanding of this passage:

First, it reinforces a point made earlier about the unity of Scripture and the warfare portrayed therein. It is not a mosaic. It is panoramic.
Second, we are forced to look to Scripture for understanding and meaning as to what each piece of armour means. Note this point well. Paul only explains two pieces of armour in his list. These are pieces that Paul introduces under inspiration of the Holy Spirit. Paul tells us of the shield and the sword. The former is for the extinguishing of flaming arrows; the latter is identified as the Word of God. Conversely, Paul does not explain or define any of the pieces that are listed directly from Scripture. Interesting? Yes?! Why is this? It is because Paul expects us to know and understand the passages from which he quotes. In using these metaphors, Paul encapsulates wonderful Biblical truths which are pregnant with meaning. Thus, we should not guess or look to the esoteric to understand their significance. We should study God’s word.
Third, this is Yahweh’s armour. Really! When Paul urges us to be clothed in this armour he is pointing to something tangible. God in the fullness of the Trinity is said to be clothed in this panoply. Should we doubt that which is acceptable to our God? Think here of young David. He ventures into the camp of Israel. He finds them afraid of a giant named Goliath. Under God’s hand he goes to fight the giant. What does the king do? Saul clothes David in his armour (1 Samuel 17:38-40). In this instance, the things offered to David were ill fitting and a hindrance to his ability to fight. Question. Did David go into battle without armour? No, he did not! He may not have had sword or helmet, but he was far from exposed. David possessed something far better — Then David said to the Philistine, “You come to me with a sword, a spear, and a javelin, but I come to you in the name of the Lord of hosts, the God of the armies of Israel, whom you have taunted. “This day the Lord will deliver you up into my hands, and I will strike you down and remove your head from you. And I will give the dead bodies of the army of the Philistines this day to the birds of the sky and the wild beasts of the earth, that all the earth may know that there is a God in Israel, and that all this assembly may know that the Lord does not deliver by sword or by spear; for the battle is the Lord’s and He will give you into our hands (1 Samuel 17:45-47). David did not have armour; he had ARMOUR! Consequently, we should have great confidence. We are not left exposed by the ill fitting garments of an earthly king, which need to be discarded. Rather, we are sheathed in the perfect Armour of the Great King of Heaven. Perfect fit. Perfect in power. Perfect for every occasion.

Footnotes:

1. There is also allusion to Isaiah 52:7.

Un-Australian – Ambiguity, Enigma, and Dinkum!

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Today is the Public Holiday associated with Australia Day. Of recent, I have had cause to ponder and question what it means to be Australian. This question takes on greater relevance in light of the propensity with which the phrase, “That’s just un-Australian!” is being cast about.

I am reminded of an incident from my younger days. Growing up, my parents subjected me to the torture of British humour. From “Some Mothers do ‘ave ‘em”; to “Open All Hours”, to “The Two Ronnies”, and last, but not least, “Porridge”, my young mind was pounded with the comical. Being of a family that tended somewhat to enjoy the jocular; phrases from these shows became a staple. Thus, courtesy of Norman Stanley Fletcher, we were frequently apt to reference peoples as “anarchist nerks.”

To a child, the meaning of an expression is irrelevant. The basis for usage is weighed and calculated upon its “coolness” factor. Maybe, it is all about being a mimic. What we can say is that understanding and brain power are absent from the calculation. So, off I go to a Christian youth camp at the invitation of some friends; Out into the wild beyond as one of my first forays into public. All seemed well until I was back in the classroom setting; in detention writing out the lines – ‘I must not use words that I do not understand!’

My crime? Someone had annoyed me, so using the eloquence of Norman Stanley Fletcher, I responded with a well directed, “Naph off, you anarchist nerk!” Upon the hearing thereof, the semi-adolescent (or so I perceived him) in charge of my group asked me if I knew what I had said. “Like dude, totally irrelevant or what? I sounded ‘Cool’ with a capital ‘K’!” Once the rapturous applause had died down inside my head, I mustered a firm, strong, mouse like, No! Then came the repercussions – ‘You must write out …!’ My first thought, of course, was along the lines of confirming that Christians really did not have a sense of humour and therefore simply could not enjoy themselves. The second thought was, “Great, might as well be at school!” The third thought, totally in keeping with fallen human nature, was to blame someone else. This whole situation was, of course, my parent’s fault. If they had not watched these shows, I would not be in this predicament. If they had only taught me of these words – dear papa and mama, why didst thou not impart unto thy son the derivation and meaning of this terminology? If I could have but answered with a hearty “yea” to the adolescent’s question, thy son would have been spared much pain and anguish of soul!

Ah, a misspent youth!

Okay, to the point. Is it un-Australian to call someone and anarchist nerk? No, no, that is not it. I mean, can you see the parallel between the “anarchist nerk” and the “it’s un-Australian” comment? As a child I used a nonsensical phrase and was reprimanded for its use. Today, politicians, activists, ad makers, newspaper columnists, and the like, all speak of certain things as un-Australian, but are they making any more sense than the child at the youth camp? Are these people any more aware of the meaning of this phrase than was the child at the youth camp? It seems to me that the aforementioned should all be in detention writing out, “I must not uses phrases that I do not understand!”

As I have listened to this phrase and its usage, one thing has become apparent. In its context, though often trivialised, the usage is exclusively moral. Take a moment to get back on your chair! Now, we in Australia today are a secular nation. We pride ourselves in having ditched religion and any notion of God. We have had, in the past decades, several open and proud atheists as Prime Minister. So, how is it that I come to such a weird and outlandish conclusion? Very simply, I listen to what people say.

At the heart of this matter is the simple truth that the Australian people realise that we are not what we once were. We have witnessed a hardness in our people. We have witnessed distance in our communities. Sure, when the ‘chips are down’ we can still pull together, but on a daily basis much of the “mateship” we once new, well, it has waned.

Therefore, when we hear the statement that such and such is “un-Australian”, what we are really hearing is a statement to the effect that we miss the morals that once undergirded our society. What was the source of those ethics? It was the Bible. Consequently, when we hear the comment that something is “un-Australian”, what we are really hearing is a plea to return to Biblical ethics.

Is my perspective screwy, as, no doubt, the Humanists would assert? Not at all. Consider the following statement: “The definition of the word [un-Australian] has changed from simply defining something, particularly art or literature, as not Australian in character to a broader, more negative connotation suggesting an activity, behaviour, belief or policy that is seen to be violating Australian cultural norms.” Now, pray tell, what are these beliefs? What are these “Australian cultural norms”?

To the best of my knowledge, one cannot go to the national archives and pull out an ancient, leather-bound addition of, ‘The Cultural Constructs, Mores, and Ethics of Australian Society.” What one can do is look to our history and constitution to see that there was another ancient declaration that informed the founders of our nation. That declaration came from God. We know it by the common term, the Bible. The simple reality is that the laws of Australia were founded on the ethical code of the Bible. People were taught to fear God and to respect man. They did this by obeying God’s Law. Thus, we did not murder, steal, commit adultery, and so forth. We did honour parents, respect property, and look out for our mates.

Today, being so enlightened, we have jettisoned our belief in God. We have declared the Bible to be passé. We have moved on as a culture. The problem is though, that ideas have consequences and those consequences have repercussions. This concept, as a society, we have failed to grasp. Thus, in throwing out God’s law, we have removed the basis for right and wrong and we have destroyed the foundation of “mateship.” So it is that, as our society degenerates, many are left to ask, ‘what is happening?’ When they hear of old ladies being bashed, pensioners being fleeced, marriage being worthless, higher taxes, multiculturalism, the erosion of law and order, and a many things besides, they are heard to say, ‘It’s simply un-Australian’. This expression is a longing to return to a better time. A time of safety. A time when things made sense. A time when people and governments could be trusted. A time when your home was your castle. A time of Christian motoring and not road rage. A time when a young man’s life was not senselessly snuffed out for a thrill. A time when life was not cheap. A time when there was a distinct difference between good and evil. A time when God’s Law ruled our nation.

Here is the crux. Ditching God and throwing out His Law will have consequences and repercussions for our society and culture. That which was formed by our belief in God and His Law will not stand for long once we have removed the foundation. Practice will not continue once the idea behind that practice has been destroyed.

Similarly, the adoption of a new religion and worldview will have consequences for our society and culture. Let me touch on just one new worldview, in order to illustrate. Evolution has become the new religion of many. People believe it because they have been told that it is true and that the adoption of evolution will help remove the concept of God. Let me ask you, “What are the consequences of this idea?” The major tenet of evolution is, “survival of the fittest”, is it not? So let me ask, “How does survival of the fittest mesh with mateship?” Answer! It does not. If your mate falls, you do not help him, you gloat. Why? There is now less competition! “How do you think of others, when the basis of evolution is exploitation?” If there is no absolute by which actions are to be measured and to which one is accountable, then theft and murder mean nothing. Survival of the fittest! If I can wrestle an old lady to the ground and take her possessions, so be it! She is weak. She does not deserve to keep them.

If you spend just a little time thinking of these things, you will see that our culture is changing because we are beginning to manifest the practice of the new religion. Do you like what you see? Really. Be honest.

Our modern society is truly un-Australian because it has destroyed the tenets upon which Australia was built. It is un-Australian because the tenets of the new religion have no way to guide us into the future. It is un-Australian because it seeks only the welfare of self and not selflessly the welfare of our mate. It is un-Australian because the “sauce” is mine and you cannot have a “suck of the sauce bottle” or of the “sav”!

Biblical man thinks of others first. The Australia founded upon God’s word knew that and lived out that ethic. Consequently, we looked after our mates. We had a reason to do so. Now we have no reason to act in a selfless, compassionate, generous, and loving way to our neighbours. Now that is truly Un-Australian!

A Battle Plan (Pt. 5)

Posted on January 25, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

2. Counting the Cost.

The second aspect that is so necessary to Christian Warfare is the preparedness to count the cost. This may seem an odd point to highlight, however, it is extremely necessary.

Let me make a statement that will no doubt offend many:

If you are a Christian living in Australia today and you are not persecuted or do not feel some restriction upon your life, then you are doing an extremely poor job of living as Christ commands!

React as you will to this comment, I would simply ask that you weigh the evidence:

Christians cannot preach openly;
Christians are muzzled. The message of Christ is not free in certain arenas, and the list is growing;
Christians are the ones being constrained by “equality” legislation;
Christians are being attacked for their stand on abortion and homosexuality – when they stand;
The Christian standard of ‘marriage’ is constantly attacked;
Sabbath! Not popular today, but have you been asked to work rather than worship? Think about this, the Biblical view of the work week has been almost obliterated.
Registration for homeschoolers. Not just a Christian issue, but one that impacted many Christians; your children are now livestock to be tagged;
School. Have you had a teacher question you as a parent? Have you had to write a note to a school so that you could take your child somewhere on a school day;
Headship. Men are not free to be head of their homes. To act as head is to be considered draconian and a bigot;
Christmas. Well, really it is just ‘mas’. Christ was removed some time ago. One Council this year going with “Seasons Greetings” rather than “Merry Christmas”. Reasons were given, but one must see that it is nothing but compromise;
Family. How has Big Brother intruded upon your responsibility to raise your children to God’s glory? Discipline? Out! Training? Out! Respect for parental authority? Out! Biblical Training? Out!
Church. What sermons do you like? What sermons do you hear? Have you heard a sermon on Hell lately? Have you heard a sermon on God’s hatred of sin? What about a sermon on complete obedience to Jesus Christ with a detailed explanation of what that entails. Then there is the State encroachment upon what may or may not be said within the church.

This is the reality of Australia in 2013, its godless laws and pluralistic Christianity. As stated, if these godless laws and attitudes have not impacted upon you noticeably, it is because you have begun to think as the world thinks through imbibing the notions and form of a pluralistic Christianity. In this case, Brethren, you are imbued with the world and not with Christ.

Therefore, the question is, “What cost are you willing to pay?” It is pointless to even contemplate heading off to a warzone if you are not prepared to endure the sight of blood; the sound of bullets; the thunder of artillery; or even things as simple as eating tinned beef and squatting over a hole in the ground! “What cost are you prepared to pay?”

The truth of the matter is nothing less than this: It is going to take great sacrifice to turn this country around. Understand well, I do not mean, as a starting point, persecution to death, but I do not rule that out. My initial concern is far simpler. What are you prepared to do without in order to prosper the cause of Christ?

We have become a very luxurious and complacent nation. As a result, we have often put our comforts ahead of obedience to Christ. We have become adept at interpreting our welfare in terms of God’s blessings, no matter what the circumstances. Yes, God blesses richly. Remember well, however, that He only blesses obedience. Thus, if we think we have received a windfall at the hand of God but it is extended to us through disobedience, it is not blessing but curse.

Our situation parallels that of Israel. We have failed to heed God’s warning just as Israel of old did:

Then it shall come about when the Lord your God brings you into the land which He swore to your fathers, Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give you, great and splendid cities which you did not build, and houses full of all good things which you did not fill, and hewn cisterns which you did not dig, vineyards and olive trees which you did not plant, and you shall eat and be satisfied, then watch yourself, lest you forget the Lord who brought you from the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall fear only the Lord your God; and you shall worship Him, and swear by His name. “You shall not follow other gods, any of the gods of the peoples who surround you, for the Lord your God in the midst of you is a jealous God; otherwise the anger of the Lord your God will be kindled against you, and He will wipe you off the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 6:10-15)

We have experienced good in this land. God in times past has blessed us with good things. However, we have been ‘riding on the sheep’s back’ for quite a while. We are beginning to realise and be recompensed for the failures of previous generation. If we continue in the misguided belief that all is well, we will only hasten the shipwreck of our nation and ourselves (Jeremiah 6:13-14; 2 Chronicles 18:6-7).¹ Thus, it is fundamentally important that we ask ourselves the tough questions. What will we sacrifice to bring our nation and its thoughts captive to the obedience of Jesus Christ?

Will we give up a job that pays well, but which prospers evil?
Will we remove our children from a convenient educational system that we may train them Biblically?
Will we sacrifice an hour of TV for prayer?
Will we sacrifice two lattes a week in order to propagate and disseminate the truth?
Will we take a stand at work against worldly and errant policies?
Will we stand with the preacher who proclaims Christ in His fullness?
Will we drive as far to worship or to a good conference as we would for a sporting event?
Will we speak into the silence?
Will we give up our newest favourite sitcom, for a night of Bible study?
Will we stop ‘clock watching’ during worship?
Will we adopt the “Berean Attitude”?

Once more, these are but a few issues. Maybe they do not all apply to you. Maybe, we need to turn them around? Would you, for the sake of brining this nation and its people under the rule of Christ, sacrifice:

$20,000 a year to take a righteous job?
Time, convenience, chats with friends, and your own deficiencies, to Biblically educate your children?
By putting your TV in a cupboard or selling it, so that you could pray more?
A few delicacies, so that you could support a ministry or by books to give away?
Employment in order to expose the corruption of the World?
Freedom, wealth, or friends to stand with a Godly minister?
Your time to worship God truthfully or be taught sound doctrine?
Reputation in order to defend the Biblical?
Recreation to the dominion of Jesus?
Comfort, time, reputation, to demand that the public worship of God be a minimum 3 hours?
Whatever it takes to know God better through the study of His word.

In Luke 14:25-35, Jesus gives very firm instructions to those who followed Him, including His disciples, on the cost of true discipleship. Jesus illustrated His point with two examples. The first was in regard to building a tower. Jesus pointed out that we do not set out to build something without first knowing the cost. If we do not count the cost, the likelihood is that we will run out of money and be left with a half built edifice. We will then, according to Jesus’ instruction, become objects of ridicule.

Jesus’ second example involved that of a king who was threatened by another. The king’s response was not to immediately summon the army to war, but to study his opponent. The king had to know whether he had any chance of victory when opposing an army twice the size of his own. If he did not, it was futile to begin a war that could end in a massacre.

In both these examples, there was a cost based in prudence. Jesus words, directed to me and you, demand that we show similar prudence. If we look at Jesus’ words carefully, we see that there is a logical progression between decision and outcome. With regard to the tower, the right calculations end with a functional building that will result in praise. Miscalculation or non-calculation results in the uncompleted building being a source of shame and ridicule. Similarly, the wise king weighs his ability to win a war against a larger opponent. He takes many things into account – the life of his people; his own prosperity and future; his glory or shame, and so on.

Consequently, we too must count the cost with regard to the end result. When we set out on a task, have we considered the consequences should we fail to complete that task? Importantly, we need to understand the task of which we speak. Our task is linked to the Kingdom. We might even say, ‘Our task is the Kingdom.’ When we talk of the final goal and completion of our task, therefore, we are speaking of nothing less than Heaven and Hell; Jesus Christ as Saviour or Judge; Eternal bliss or eternal damnation; Eternal glory or eternal shame! Consequently, we must ask pointedly, “Have we set out on the Kingdom task having failed to calculate the cost?” Maybe the question needs to be modified slightly. Have we, for selfish gain, embezzled from the project along the way causing a shortfall and thereby compromising the goal? Have we hired poorly qualified contractors who will save dollars but who will give us a dodgy result? Have we hired good builders, but purchased substandard building materials from a “shonky” supplier? All these scenarios, and many beside, corrupt the goal. Each one impacts upon the venture’s final condition.

This “cost counting” is serious stuff. Three verses from the passage cited need to be embraced:

If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.
Whoever does not carry his own cross and come after Me cannot be My disciple.
So therefore, no one of you can be My disciple who does not give up all his own possessions.

Please note the repetition of the phrase, “cannot be My disciple”! As stated, these are serious words and we would do very well to heed them. Jesus does not say that we will be poor disciples if we fail to count the cost. Jesus does not say that the one who compromises will be a mediocre disciple. Jesus does not even say that the double-minded disciple will receive a “P” on a pass / fail grading system. No! Jesus denies such a one the right to be His disciple.

These words are of immense importance. They are grave words. They are sober words. Most of all, at least to me, they are fearful words. If we are warned in such unwavering tones at the outset, what then of the one who compromises along the way? (Illustrated in Jesus’ example of cross bearing.)

My friends, this is why I have placed this category in an article on Christian Warfare. Jesus’ words are as relevant to us today as when He spoke them on earth. They are words that must, not should, but must, accompany us every day of our pilgrimage. They are words that should be at the forefront of our minds daily. Jesus’ words should help us to have clarity of purpose; to remember that we have been bought with a price; transferred to the Kingdom of His beloved Son; and consequently intent on gaining the crown.

Therefore, whenever we speak of Christian Warfare, we need to have a subjective element before us. That element comes in the form of a question: “Have I surrendered all to the Lordship of Jesus Christ?” Then we must ask, “Am I continuing to surrender all to Jesus Christ?” Now, we must answer, not from the subjective, but from the objective. That is to ask, “How do we measure up when bathed in the pure beam of God’s search light?” (Psalm 139:23-24)

Given our cultural decay and our disobedience to God, revival and reform can only come with sacrifice. What are we willing to give up?

Above, we focused on the fact that reform must be accompanied by, better still, preceded by, depravation. At this point, I would like to refine the focus of that statement. Instead of thinking dollars and lattes, let us think belief. What are you prepared to sacrifice in terms of false belief? What beliefs have you adopted because they allow you to be comfortable and to blend into the world? What beliefs have you not adopted that would equip you to perform your task as salt and light?

Whist the former questions ought to be addressed, they will remain unanswered until you make a decision to believe better things – sound doctrine, to feed your mind on better things – give up milk, and to act in accord with these better things – conformity to Jesus (Romans 8:29-30). This is the essence of Paul’s command in Romans 12:1-2. We should not, but often do, retain old ways of thinking once we have come to Christ. (Particularly when there is no challenge from the pulpits because the Church has lost Her way.) We retain old feeding grounds. We retain old desires. All of these inject into our new life an element of compromise or a ‘failure to count the cost’.

Therefore, in sincerity, I ask, “Are you willing to join in the Christian Warfare of Christ’s Kingdom by counting the cost and changing how you think, where you feed, and what you desire?”

Footnotes:

1. An example of this is the way in which many insist on labelling Australia as a Christian nation. I question whether Australia was every, truly, a Christian nation. Regardless of what Australia was or may have been, there is no way that we can consider this country to be Christian today!

Obama the Magician

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

It is indeed interesting, is it not, to sit back and watch the popular Soap Opera – Political Intrigue? Okay, it’s not a real television show. Actually, it is far worse. It is in fact the spectacle of our politicians in action. In this case, the American President.

Not so long back, the President stood on a financial cliff. It made headlines. Palms were sweaty. Buttocks cheeks were clenched. What would happen? Talk about a melodrama. I hoped that America would plunge over the cliff, but, alas, the plot was rewritten by the directors.

Anyway, I digress. The financial cliff. It loomed large. Here is America in financial strife. The President opens the public purse to find naught but moths. Sad, so very sad. However, what we obviously did not understand was that Mr. Obama is a magician.

In the wake of the Sandy Hook incident, the President was magically able to find $500 million for a gun violence package. I wish I had paid more attention because I would have liked to have seen his magic wand, cape, and which particular magic words he used. Maybe you can help me out. Did he give a, “tada!”? Maybe it was the old “abracadabra”? Anyway, off on a tangent again.

I wonder what the American people think. I looked at the American “debt clock” today and noted – apart from the scary numbers – that every American owed $52,000; that is their share of the National debt. I wonder, would the American people prefer to have their debt burden reduced or to have the government waste more money in yet another futile pursuit?

Is it even possible that wasteful government spending and futile solutions actually contribute to certain lamentable incidents like Sandy Hook? On a lesser scale, how many Americans are going to put a gun to their head and pull the trigger because of debt? How many are going to be exasperated by the President’s magic trick, when nothing is being done to relieve the debt burden and the consequent suffering?

A massacre with a gun brings attention and the magic appearance of $500 million. Flip the coin. What of the single, self inflicted gunshot of the exasperated individual weighed down by debt? Maybe the magic millions should be put in the bank to pay off debt and relieve genuine suffering. Methinks the peoples of America would find this action more satisfying.

Of Firearms, Firewalls, and Stonewalls

Posted on January 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting in America, we have once again witnessed the call to ban guns or at least certain types of guns. The gun debate is not new and it will not ultimately be resolved in a useful manner until righteousness is brought to the fore. In fact, the whole debate will end badly and no effectual ground will be made so long as the argument continues based on a Humanistic and unBiblical point of view. No amount of political squabbling, bickering, badgering, or name calling will win the day. It most certainly will not carry us to Utopia, the mystical safe haven of which Humanists and politicians dream!

In order to unpack this topic, we will use our title as a guide.

Firearms: The problem with this debate is that, like a murderer callously and indiscriminately firing rounds from a firearm, so too many politicians, activists and others are apt to ‘shoot their mouths off’ with the same callous disregard. They are as indiscriminate in their reasoning, target choice, and motivation as the supposedly “crazed” gunman.

They are quick to enter the fray, guns ablaze, in order to promote their cause, political position, or worldview. In doing this, these people rarely, if ever, have a moment of clarity in which they sit down and ask if they are in some way responsible for what has transpired.

The point is very simple. The debate is not about guns! It has regard to what motivates a man to action or restrains him from action. It is, in essence, a debate concerning the fact that ideas have consequences.

Therefore, when these politicians and activists support the erosion of the Biblical worldview, are they not in fact inviting mass shootings as but one consequence of their ideas? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact a libertine standard, are they not promoting lawlessness within society? When these politicians and activists argue for a top-down governance of the individual rather than for a self-controlled individual, are they not paving the road to anarchy? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact legislation that, in essence, says ‘there is no truth’, are they not encouraging a constant display of all individual ‘truth systems’ or worldviews with all the attendant consequences?

In this there is utter and absolute hypocrisy on the part of the politician and the activist. On the one hand there is a demand for and acquisition to the very ideas that bring death and tragedy to our cultures. However, in an interesting dance of hypocrisy, when tragedy strikes, it is the very liberals who created the situation that then demand the government take control and do something. Thus, liberality begets tyranny.

We saw this in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting. Thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens were turned into criminals overnight. What was their crime? They owned a certain type of firearm. Like Hitler’s Gestapo rounding up Jews, orders were sent forth demanding that these people surrender their firearms.

Now, if you are not into guns, you may not find this a big deal. If that is your stance, then please be ashamed of yourself. Behind the issue of guns are principles, ethics, and many bigger questions. After Port Arthur, the item focused upon was guns. Many saw this as a victory. The big question is, “A victory for what?” Common sense? A victory for the gun lobby? A victory for a safer society? Did we see the death penalty reintroduced? Did we see a commitment to tougher sentencing for perpetrators of similar crimes? No, what you witnessed was a victory for tyranny at the hands of Big Brother.

What was established by the gun-buy-back was nothing less than the government’s ability to seize property and to compel citizens through random and tyrannical dictates. Even as one opposed to guns, you should at least be concerned that the government, without accountability, played with the Medicare / Tax system to finance the buy-back. Thus, they opened the door for future abuses by other governments.

Again, not into guns and your attitude is, “So what?” Well, the “So what?” is a phenomenal question. So, your children are killed when a car ploughs into them as they walk home (Sadly, based on a real happening). The driver is prosecuted. Okay, to this point. Then the government issues a nationwide ban on the make and model of the car driven by the offender as well on all other vehicles of the same capacity! Are you still okay? So, your children are at a sleepover at a well-to-do friend’s house. In the middle of the night a deranged arsonist attacks. All inside perish. In the wake, the offender is caught and sent off to comfy school – some call it, “prison”. Okay, to this point. Then the investigation concludes that the house was too big. It was a six bedroom house, which made it impossible for fire-fighters to successfully search all rooms in time. Consequently, the government retrospectively outlaws all houses that are above four bedrooms. Excess rooms must be permanently closed off or the whole house confiscated and destroyed. To remain in a house of modified capacity, you now need to be licensed and have the home open to government inspectors. That which was built legally, is now deemed illegal. Home owners, who had done nothing wrong, are now criminals and face significant losses. Are you still okay? These are not silly illustrations. They are applications of the principles enacted after Port Arthur.

You see, what was endorsed was not a stance against guns, as such. Rather, it established the right of governments to outlaw and confiscate any item retrospectively and compel all citizens to pay for it, wanted or not. The pretext is unimportant now. The reality is that this principle has been set to work in our society. It can now be used against anything and anyone.

Therefore, as politicians and activists themselves indiscriminately fire into society with their godless ideas, they cause the deaths, literally, of multitudes and scores; a number that the “crazed” gunman has never come close to approximating. How so? Read on!

Firewall: A firewall is a device that is designed to save and protect. To the modern computer generation, it is a device designed to stop attacks on a computer from the realm of cyberspace. For us old people, it is probably most recognisable in your car. It is that solid panel that extends from your windscreen to your floor pan, located behind your dashboard. Its design is to protect you from the radiant heat generated by your motor and from the reality of flame should your engine catch fire. In buildings a firewall is usually seen as a brick dividing wall that is designed to stop the spread of fire.

In similar manner our governments should act to protect. Using the computer scenario, Government should provide a system that discards the offensive, stops the hostile, allows the beneficial to proceed unhindered, and all this without obvious intrusion upon the citizenry. Do they do this? Absolutely not!

As we have noted, Government is particularly hypocritical. Governments tend to speak of “right” and “wrong”, but of what do they really speak when they have no moral compass? What is right to a Humanist? What is right to an Atheist? What is right to an evolutionist? What is right to a Postmodernist?

An example of the Humanist’s concept of right can be seen in President Obama. In response to the Sandy Hook incident, Barack Obama, gave a stirring speech in which he stated that we, as a generation, would be judged by how we had treated our children. Wonderful, is it not, to see the President of America concerned for the children? What a load of drivel! In the USA, since Roe v Wade, over 50 million babies have been aborted! This year – all under President Obama’s rule – over 70 thousand children have died. This day, the day when President Obama is inaugurated for his second term, the clock is already at about 1700!

What an absolute liar and hypocrite! How dare he, especially as President, stand in public and make any speech regarding the welfare of children when this murderous horror is conducted each and every day against the most vulnerable and by those charged with their care. Not only this, but as a pro-abortionist, the President makes himself guilty of all of these atrocities because he openly fosters the practice. So once more we are faced with the position of the political animal. It is not acceptable to lose 20 children to gunfire, but it is acceptable to lose hundreds–of–times this many children to the surgeon’s hatchet! (My apologies to the real surgeons who save lives.)

Here then is the predicament. The Atheist, Evolutionist, Postmodernist, and Humanist have no standard of right and wrong. They only have a subjective concept that is as changeable as the wind.

Some time ago, there was a dog food advertisement. It was for the “Bush’s” brand. The punch line went, “Blah, blah, blah, Bushes!” In reality, that should have been the content of the President’s speech. It would have been as sincere; meant as much; and ultimately had the same overall impact. In fact, having listened to his words, I cannot help but think that they were a type of precooked mess from a tin. (Now, please understand, whilst the President is singled out for his gross hypocrisy, few Western leaders would be any different. We here in Australia suffer from exactly the same hypocrisy in our Government. I recently placed a submission on the “Exposure Draft – Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.” The submission was accepted and covered by Parliamentary Privilege – that is, all but one sentence. That one sentence equated Julia Gillard’s stance on abortion with genocide.)

The problem is that although the Government seeks to act as a firewall, it is functioning on the wrong protocols. When you turn on your computer, protected by ‘GovernmentNanny’, you are directed to the pornography websites and to the seediest part of the web. Good and wholesome are filtered out and sent to the spam folder. Ugly and perverted are walked on through and even given a blessing.

The problem is that whilst God has ordained the government to act as a firewall, governments have essentially abandoned this task, precisely because they have abandoned God. Therefore, governments become the firewall product at the cheap end of the range that claims to keep your computer safe, but never really does. It is a travesty.

Sadly, both we the people and the Government seem to continue along in our deluded state, believing that the Government can abandon the wisdom of God and then somehow effect righteousness, law, and order. Talk of group cultural delusion!

The reason that the firewall is not working is precisely, to shift the analogy slightly, because they have the wrong software installed. The problem with modern Humanistic governments is that they do not accept that man is problematic, let alone defective to his core. The Humanists are trying to teach us that man, in and of himself, will be able to triumph over all adversity through his own resources and unified action because there is good in us all. That inherent and innate good simply needs to be released – bud needs to turn to blossom. The trouble for the Humanist begins when he opens his eyes, for what he sees in reality does not accord with his belief system. The humanist believes that each man has a seed planted within. The humanist also believes that this seed is a rose, which will bloom and fill the man with colour and fragrance. The reality is much closer to the words of U2: “Plant a demon seed, raise a flower of fire!” All men are not good to their core, which is precisely why some men pick up guns and shoot children and others fly aeroplanes into buildings.

It is also for this reason that the government cannot produce an effectual answer and why the firewall is defective. Our governments are Humanistic to the core – Yes, especially the American government. I wish the brothers over the pond would wake up to this en masse – consequently they are making laws to free man from the chains of Christian morality. In so doing, they are calling on man to express the individual tenets of his personal worldview. However, in this very call, you are inviting the establishment of the debauched, depraved, shocking, and abhorrent.

Thus, Government is powerless to act effectively and decisively for a righteous outcome and that for three reasons – particularly in regard to firearms. One, the government’s worldview is uniformly defective and therefore can never clearly identify the central issue. One may even say that it carries a bias against identifying the decisive point. Two, governments of our day only understand tyranny. They predominantly realise their goal and bring about conformity to their goal through force or coercion. Three, therefore, the government will breakdown any means by which you may resist their will – at any point and on any subject. Consequently, a populace equipped with firearms presents a challenge.

Guns are not the problem. The source of the deficiency is to be found in the inadequate worldview (firewall) of hypocritical Humanistic governments and agitators whose views actually promote mass shootings, directly or indirectly, as indeed they promote all kinds of evil.

Stonewall: The only answer to the situation is to return to the solid Rock, Jesus Christ. God’s Word revealed is our stone wall. It gives a solid barricade behind which one can take shelter. It forms a solid boundary between right and wrong. Equally, it supplies a firm foundation on which to stand and view the happenings round and about.

We can argue all day about firearms. Do we ban them all or allow some. If we allow some, which ones do we allow? The arguments are endless. So let us look at some solid Biblical principles.

First, we must recognise man as fallen, sinful, and corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 15:18-19). Not every desire of his heart is pure, nor can it be without Christ. Humanism does not recognise this fact. Therefore, they throw off the chains of restraint imposed by Christian law, gleefully expectant that man will make right choices for himself and society. However, sinful man is selfish. He cares nought for his neighbour. So at the outset, it is obvious that the two worldviews lead in two distinct directions. Sinful man literally says, ‘to hell!’ with my neighbour (1 Kings 21:1 ff). Biblical man looks out and cares for his neighbour (Luke 10:25ff).

Second, God gives freedom to man. It is only when man transgresses that he must be penalised. Therefore, to penalise the innocent is a procedure at law that is alien to Scripture (Exodus 23:7). To penalise the innocent is tantamount to blasphemy (Deuteronomy 27:25). It is to say that the Law-Giver does not distinguish right from wrong, innocent from guilty, and such is most definitely a lie (Deuteronomy 34:6-7; see also 25:1-4).

Third, we must be willing to punish the transgressor. Because Government has rejected the Biblical view of man and has denied the operation of sin, government institutions, like courts, are being white-anted by psychological excuses. Punishments do not fit the crime, and that is if anything like a punishment is meted out! Just punishment exacts the due penalty, but it also acts as a deterrent (See page 11; Point B — Punishment and Retribution). One does not punish to deter. That is a road fraught with danger. One punishes for justice, but the execution of true justice helps to deter (Deuteronomy 17:11; 19:19b-20).

Fourth, the application of true justice, including the death penalty, saves lives. I recently read of a pastor who killed a young woman in order to fulfil his fantasy of necrophilia. The sad reality is that he had a violent past. Had we a real justice system, the perpetrator would not have been with us to commit the crime. Similarly, some years ago I watched a documentary on serial killers. One person, who had killed around ten, I think, had, as a young man, been convicted of rape. In Biblical terms, he would have been invited to leave the land–of–the–living and, likewise, his future victims would have remained unharmed.

Fifth, true justice is a communal responsibility. Scripture is very clear on this point. The community was to take its stand against evil. This was most clearly seen in the punishment of the transgressor. At this point the community had to come together as one (Numbers 15:35-26; Deuteronomy 21:21; 22:20-21; Leviticus 24:14-23). In exacting the punishment, people were reminded constantly of the need for obedience and conformity to the law. We can see the degradation of this principle as executions went from being a public display to that which took place behind closed doors.

A second issue here concerns the instigation of ‘police forces’. Whilst, I have nothing against a ‘police force’, as such, the instigation of such an entity with the direct implication that you, as an individual, no longer have a responsibility for or participation in the enforcement of law is questionable. A community that is aware of law, is involved in the execution of law, and participates in the sentence of the law, will be a community in which law and order are treasured. It will be a community that looks out for neighbour; a community that is aware of the bad apple; a community that will respond to crime and not one which will disengage from crime.

Sixth, morality! In particular, God’s standard of morality. Some may ask what morality has to do with firearms. The answer is very simple. Moral men or moral and ethical men, do not gun down innocents. Thus, whilst morality does not speak to firearms in and of themselves, it speaks vociferously to the situation in which firearms are wielded as weapons of terror.

What we must see is that oft times the perpetrators of these crimes are the products of immorality. As an example, we quote the following from a Christian newsletter in regard to the Sandy Hook incident: “The story so far appears to have some grim echoes of the massacre in Norway last year perpetrated by Anders Breivik. Like Breivik, Adam Lanza (20) lost his father through divorce, which neighbours said was traumatic for the children. Anti-social and lonely, suffering from a personality disorder, Adam is said to have immersed himself in violent computer games for hours each day.” (Family Voice, January 2013. P.2.)

Here we see the rudiments of catastrophe laid bare. How many time of recent have we seen similar scenarios? Broken homes beget broken lives. Broken lives beget catastrophe. Whether it be the angry man who murders; the purposeless daughter that sells her body; the rejected wife that finds solace in a bottle or an abusive boyfriend; the dispirited teenager who cannot cope and turns to drugs or the disenfranchised lad, who never having had a real father figure, does not know how to really love a woman and conduct a meaningful relationship, the consequences are the same – pain, hurt, dysfunction, bereavement, destruction, and death.

From a humanist’s perspective, who would guess that a broken home or divorce could bring such devastation? After all marriage in their estimation is nothing more than a cultural convention. From a Biblical point of view it is a “no brainer”. Marriage is fundamental to family and family is fundamental to society. So what happens when marriage is ridiculed and trashed? The humanist would answer by saying, “Nothing!” In fact, his answer would probably be more along the lines of, “It is high time we ditched this religious hangover from a previous stage of our evolution!” Biblically, we maintain that to ditch marriage – in its true context and extent – is to invite disaster. Proof? Earlier, we cited the clock used to count the number of abortions in America. We may then ask, “Who has abortions?” On one website, they have this illuminating answer: “In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).” Does this not illustrate the point well? We could then add this statistic from the same site: “In 2009, 55.3% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).” The point? Very simple. It has to do with recidivism. In other words, 44.7% of those having abortions in 2009 were repeat offenders.

Morality matters. God’s standard of morality matters most. In God’s world, by covenant and design, there are causes and consequences. We cannot jettison God and His revealed standard and believe that as a society or as individuals we will get off scot–free. Such is but one more cultural delusion.

Conclusion: Whilst Sandy Hook is a tragedy in every sense of the word, it is not impossible to define the causes for the incident. The first one is that we live in a fallen world. Evil men perpetrate evil deeds. The second cause has to do with the predominate worldview held by most governments – it is a worldview that brings carnage.

As we have seen in this article, politician’s talk of one thing while their actions belie the true state of play. A president stands and mourns 20 children brutally gunned down in a school, yet that same president allows the mass murder of the unborn. A president mourns the loss of life via a rampage, yet that same president pushes on with a liberal agenda that will not see a cessation of such incidents.

Therefore, all the talk of banning automatic weapons with large magazine capacities is useless. All the talk of restricting the sale of firearms is useless. Why? Because the problem is not to be found in the gun, the magazine, or the bullets! Each one is an inanimate object. In and of themselves they are lifeless and powerless matter. The problem is the heart of man. The problem is that evil men do evil things. The problem is that our governments, when they capitulate to a Humanistic worldview, have no answer outside of depravation. In short, the Humanist worldview will not tackle the problem of the inner man. It cannot. So those holding this worldview will attack the external. They will ban or attempt to ban firearms of all shapes and sizes. All manner of foolishness will be put forth to aid their cause. The will gloat. They will pontificate. However, when the dust settles, one pertinent question remains, “Will the acts of evil men be stopped? The answer is, No!

If the answer is deprivation, where do we start and stop? Look at the world around us. USS Cole attacked by boat. 9/11 utilised planes. Timothy McVeigh used a Truck bomb. Ted Kaczynski (unabomber) posted or left small bombs for his victims. In a call for consistency, we should then ban boats, planes, trucks, mail, metal containers, and wire.

Why should we stop there? In 2009, there were 13,756 murders in the USA. Of these, 9,203 were committed with firearms. (Surprisingly, the vast majority were with handguns, not high capacity assault rifles (6,503).) So let’s ban guns, as well as planes, boats, trucks etc. Of course this is not the sum total, so we must continue our search for items to be banned. “Knives or cutting instruments” accounted for over one thousand deaths (1,828), so these should be banned as well, obviously.

Now I face a serious conundrum. As I looked at the statistics, I see a category of “Personal Weapons”. Hmmm? I would have thought that if you owned any of the aforementioned weapons, that they would have been personal. It was obviously very personal, if it was used to take another person’s life. However, none of these concepts fit appropriately. So, I turned to the footnote for a definition. A “Personal Weapon” is considered to be “hands, feet, fists, pushed, etc.” Deaths by these “Personal Weapons” accounted for 815 deaths. Now, let’s do the math. 815 divided by 20 equals 40.75. Okay, so death by these weapons accounts for 40.75 times the amount of deaths (children) recorded at Sandy Hook. Then it seems absolutely essential that these “personal weapons” should be banned as well! After all, these weapons are not regulated. They are readily available. Most people have multiples of the specified items. Very dangerous!

I apologies if sensitivities have been encroached upon. However, it is important that we not be distracted from the essential point of the argument. Evil men will use any means at their disposal to commit their evil deeds, right down the very limbs of their body. Therefore, there is nothing constructive to be gained by any argument that revolves around the instrument only – in this case the gun. The focus must fall upon the perpetrator and that which motivates him to evil.

If governments are going to make a ruckus over incidents like this, then let them respond seriously and in sincerity. Let them respond by examining the consequence of the ideas by which they govern. Let them begin by asking themselves why they deny God and His Law.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 4)

Posted on January 21, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

D. The Biblical view: When these threads are pulled together we are faced with the consistent Biblical picture in regard to Christian Warfare:

Lesson 1: Our warfare is Spiritual. It is powered by the Holy Spirit. The battle cannot be effectively engaged or won when clothed in any other power.
Lesson 2. Our warfare is spiritual. It involves powers and authorities in the heavenly. On both sides.
Lesson 3. Our warfare is fleshy. We are engaged in this battle as man. We oppose other men. We must act in the corporeal against the corporeal.
Lesson 4. Our warfare is fleshy, not fleshly. It is of man as man, not of man as sinful man; though we oppose sinful man. Harking back to Paul, our warfare is fought in the flesh, not according to the flesh.
Lesson 5. Our warfare, of necessity, involves action on our part. There is no warfare if the soldiers do not break camp! As with Israel, so it is with the Church. The soldiers must mobilise even though they fight for and under Yahweh.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 3)

Posted on January 18, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

C. A New Testament View: Arriving at the New Testament, we have become used to adopting the diametrically opposite view of that dealt with above, namely that the warfare in the New Testament is spiritual, not fleshy. The locus classicus for this position are Paul’s words in Ephesians 6:10-20, but particularly verse 12:

For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.

In this case, I am not out to prove that the warfare is spiritual. Paul has already explained this clearly. Our point here is to make it apparent that the battle so defined also includes flesh and blood. Just as the erroneous Old Testament view denied or greatly diminished the spiritual aspect of our warfare, so the commonly held New Testament view denies or greatly diminishes the idea that men are involved in that war.

What must be grasped is that the power of our warfare is Spiritual, but that the targets of our warfare are primarily flesh and blood, even if backed by other forces. It must also be understood, as with Joshua, that we cannot leave the fight to those in the spiritual realm while we lay back on the beach and “catch some rays.” We, flesh and blood Christians, are required to do things. We are required to act. We are required to fight. Even though our weapons are Spiritual, it does not mean that we do not need to wield them. Equally, we must understand that our armament is exercised against someone or something – the foe! Paul does not equate us with ceremonial soldiers — those who dress in polished uniforms and carry replica weapons that have been polished so finely that they could blind a man at a thousand paces with the sun’s reflection, but which, in the final analysis, are only good for show. Not at all! Paul calls us to be equipped with real weapons which are to be employed against real enemies.

It seems sad that Paul’s argument has been misunderstood or deliberately denied on this point, despite the perspicuity of Paul’s words. To illustrate this point we need to read carefully the whole of Paul’s argument in Ephesians 6:10-20:

10 Finally, be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might. 11 Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil. 12 For our struggle is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places. 13 Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm. 14 Stand firm therefore, having girded your loins with truth, and having put on the breastplate of righteousness, 15 and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; 16 in addition to all, taking up the shield of faith with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one. 17 And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. 18 With all prayer and petition pray at all times in the Spirit, and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints, 19 and pray on my behalf, that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth, to make known with boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

I desire you to read this, many times if necessary, so that Paul’s words are clear. One of the problems with “well known” texts is that they are usually not that well known. We think we know what they say, but rarely have we taken the time to listen carefully to what the Spirit says to the Church. To help you, I have taken the liberty of highlighting some of the words. This is not to treat you as a “dill”, to use the vernacular. It is simply to help you grasp the point. Paul is firmly arguing that our warfare is Spiritual. However, please notice that Paul wants us to understand his point on the source of our warfare, not so that we can opt out, but in order that we may engage the battle more effectively and join with Paul in his battles – well, at least for the original readers; for us, the Apostolic battle passed to our generation.

To give clarity, it may also be helpful to break the text down and place it in a table. Hopefully, this will illuminate the point being made:

Our Action	Instrument	Positive Purpose	Negative Purpose
Be Strong	In the Lord, and in the strength of His might
Put on	The full armor of God, that
You may stand firm			against the schemes of the devil. For
Our struggle			is not against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the powers, against the world forces of this darkness, against the spiritual forces of wickedness in the heavenly places.
Therefore, Take up	the full armor of God	that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.
Stand firm
having girded	your loins with truth, and
having put	on the breastplate of righteousness
and having shod	your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace;
in addition to all, taking up	the shield of faith	with which you will be able to extinguish all the flaming missiles of the evil one.
And take	the helmet of salvation
and (take)	the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.
pray	With all prayer and petition at all times in the Spirit	and with this in view, be on the alert with all perseverance and petition for all the saints
and pray on my behalf		that utterance may be given to me in the opening of my mouth
to make known		with boldness the mystery of the gospel, 20 for which I am an ambassador in chains; that in proclaiming it I may speak boldly, as I ought to speak.

If we look at this table, we see that the column on the left titled “Our Action” is complete. As we move from left to right, the columns tend to thin out. Of course, I must admit that there is a degree of arbitrariness about this, but, be assured, I have not just cooked up this table to suit myself. The simple reality is that this text contains 5 clear imperatives (commands).¹ In other words, Paul is commanding we Christians to action. He is not simply saying, “Hey Christians, the war is spiritual, kick back, take it easy, the Lord has it under control!” No, not even close. On the contrary, as we have noted, Paul is more like a general who, giving his soldiers marching orders, directs them to the armoury so that they are in possession of the essential equipment that will enable them to fight effectively in the face of the opposition.

Analysis of this passage shows that Paul’s priority is that of urging / commanding the Christian to action. He then directs them unto their God, explaining that He is the Armoury and that they must derive their power and weaponry from Him, and in particular, His Spirit. Then they are given instruction as to how and why these weapons should be used. Last, Paul mentions the enemy in the heavenly realm. In other words, Paul’s emphasis from greatest to least is something like: 1. The Christians has a responsibility to fight. It is an “ought” not a choice; 2. The Christian’s power comes from Almighty God, and no other source; 3. This power is to be wielded in the service of Jesus Christ as He marshals His troop to defeat His Father’s enemies; 4. God, in Trinity, along with all His children have enemies in the heavenly realms.

The Christian’s warfare is spiritual, little “s”. It is so because, as we have seen, the Scriptures’ consistent message is that our battle involves another realm, a spiritual realm. The Christians warfare is also Spiritual, big “S” – sorry for the trip back to primary school! It is so because we are redeemed in Jesus Christ and our power source is nothing less than the Spirit of God and of Jesus sent into the world to enable God’s redeemed to fight and to win (John 16:5-15, 33; Romans 12:21; 1 John2:12-14).²

We need to understand the difference between our big and little esses. Most today speak of spiritual warfare in terms of the little “s”. If we, as Christians, get stuck at this point, then we may as well give up. For who of us is able of himself to war against spirits? However, Paul’s point is not to focus our attention upon spirits in the heavenly places, though this he does, but it is more to focus the Christians attention on big “S” theology. The Christian can and must engage in this battle precisely because we partake of a greater power by which flesh, blood, and spirits can be defeated. What are Paul’s opening words in Ephesians 6? “Be strong in the Lord, and in the strength of His might!” To use the beautiful old word, “Whose panoply is the Christian to carry?” It is God’s!

The Christian is to fight precisely because he has access to the very armoury of heaven in which are stored all the weapons necessary to “ka-thump” and “ka-pow” all of God’s and our enemies, no matter what their form. We are partakers of the power of the age to come (Hebrews 6:4-5; Ephesians 1:18-23). Understand well that this is not mere bravado; an attempt to gee–up my brethren despite reality. Colossians 2:15 tells us that Jesus has “disarmed” rulers and authorities. Therefore, Scripture gives us two sound reasons to engage in Christian Warfare: a) Christ has disarmed rulers and authorities; b) We are partakers of the power of the age to come. It is for this reason that Paul’s counsel is consistent. Consider 2 Corinthians 10:3-5:

For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh, for the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but divinely powerful for the destruction of fortresses. We are destroying speculations and every lofty thing raised up against the knowledge of God, and we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ.

With this said, it is now appropriate to make the point about our struggle being with flesh and blood. Scripture is clear. It speaks as one on the issue of spiritual warfare. However, as we have noted, New Testament Christians, have relegated “flesh and blood” to the sidelines. They have failed to grasp the import of Paul’s argument with the necessary consequence that any emphasis upon man has been diminished or dismissed.

Two reasons for this can be adduced.

The first is primarily due to our infatuation with the Greeks and a tendency to introduce dualism into our theology.

Dualism is a philosophy which divides body and soul. Intrinsic to this belief is the idea that the flesh is evil, while the spirit is good or pure. Dualism has plagued the Church throughout its history and I would posit that it is again making a nuisance of itself. It is through an incipient Dualism that we have this misunderstanding in spiritual warfare. The spirit is conceived of as good and pure and the only thing of worth, whereas the body is evil. When viewed this way, man is in need of jettisoning his evil cocoon so that he can become the spiritual “butterfly”.

Equally, it has the consequence of causing men to think that the body is of less worth than the spirit and that, therefore, the emphasis should lie elsewhere, namely, in the spiritual realm. It is for this reason today that many Christians refuse to take a stand on politics, for instance. In their view, Politics belongs to this world. It is earthly and unspiritual. Consequently, they choose to deal with only the spiritual and, therefore, the significant, rather than the corporeal and insignificant – as they would understand it.

To this type of theology we must respectfully reply in the most erudite of expressions along the lines of “Bah! Humbug!” To believe as outlined is simply to deny or grossly misunderstand the teachings of Scripture. Nowhere, and I do mean “Nowhere”, on the pages of Scripture will you find a jot or a tittle that in anyway specifies or emphasises a dualism in man that promotes one part above another or relegates one dimension of his being to the garbage can.

Whilst the Bible does note that man is made up of dimensions, those dimensions are never bifurcated, relegated, or exalted. Man is always conceived of as a whole. This is God’s design. Hence, to teach otherwise is blasphemy. Even when we encounter texts that, as noted, highlight different dimensions, they never separate those dimensions. Consider the following:

And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. (Deuteronomy 6:4-5)

Here, we clearly see what I have labelled ‘dimensions’. Man has heart, soul, and might.³ Is man divided? No. The command here is to “love God with all”. In short, every dimension of our person is to be brought together as a whole to love God. Man as a man, in all his being, is to love God.

The second reason for a failure to properly grasp the concept of Christian Warfare stems from our lack of understanding with regard to Biblical word usage. In Scripture, many words take on a specialised meaning or usage. As interpreters, we need to make certain decisions about the form of the word and its meaning. Take, as an example, the word for “world”. In Scripture, this word has shades of meaning. The world is that thing on which we stand; it is the realm of men; and it is the thought process that is opposed to the rule of God. Therefore, when we are commanded – in Biblical paraphrase – to be in the world but not of the world, we will be greatly perplexed if we do not grasp these nuances. In fact, many are perplexed and evasive of the “world” because they have not grasped these nuances. So, as Christians, we are to live in this world – stand on the rotating orb and join the realm of men – but we are not to be of this world – hold to a philosophic mindset that opposes God’s rule.

The same is true of the Greek word for flesh. This term can refer to that filling that is stuffed under your skin and which hangs on your bones. It means the content of your Sunday roast! It can mean you as a person – “This is me, in the flesh!” It also means, particularly in Paul’s writings, that sin soaked instrument which works contrary to the will of God and as an expression of fallen human nature.

Consequently, we must be aware of these nuances, lest we go astray.

In 2 Corinthians 10:3-5, quoted previously, we see the term “flesh” used three times. If we go back to verse 2, we will see a further use. To understand Paul’s argument, we need to start in verse two, as this first use sets the tone for the subsequent usages. It is apparent that Paul has his detractors. Some are obviously suggesting that Paul’s actions are fleshly, that is, worldly and inappropriate for a Christian. Hence, he is accused of walking “according to the flesh”.

Paul then speaks of “walking in the flesh”, but not “warring according to the flesh”. To give understanding, may I draw your attention to the critical point. Four times, “flesh” is used. Please note, however, that the term “according to” is used only twice. This is extremely important. To walk according to the flesh is wrong. To walk in the flesh, is not.

Thus, Paul, having been accused of “walking according to the flesh”, repudiates this criticism and hints at dealing with its propagators when he arrives in the flesh – sorry, could not resist. He then goes on to acknowledge that even though he walks as a man, in the flesh, his warfare is not according to the flesh.

In paraphrase, we may render it like this: ‘I do not walk as the ungodly, governed by sin. Even though I live as a man, I do not war as the ungodly, for the weapons of my warfare bear no resemblance to those of the ungodly, being furnished by God.’

Properly understood, Paul joins himself to these “divinely appointed weapons”. He uses them in the flesh and against the flesh.

For understanding, let us turn to Scripture:

(Acts 13:4-12) So, being sent out by the Holy Spirit, they went down to Seleucia and from there they sailed to Cyprus. And when they reached Salamis, they began to proclaim the word of God in the synagogues of the Jews; and they also had John as their helper. And when they had gone through the whole island as far as Paphos, they found a certain magician, a Jewish false prophet whose name was Bar-Jesus, who was with the proconsul, Sergius Paulus, a man of intelligence. This man summoned Barnabas and Saul and sought to hear the word of God. But Elymas the magician (for thus his name is translated) was opposing them, seeking to turn the proconsul away from the faith. But Saul, who was also known as Paul, filled with the Holy Spirit, fixed his gaze upon him, and said, “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” And immediately a mist and a darkness fell upon him, and he went about seeking those who would lead him by the hand. Then the proconsul believed when he saw what had happened, being amazed at the teaching of the Lord.
(Matthew 16:22-23) And Peter took Him aside and began to rebuke Him, saying, “God forbid it, Lord! This shall never happen to You.” But He turned and said to Peter, “Get behind Me, Satan! You are a stumbling block to Me; for you are not setting your mind on God’s interests, but man’s.
(1 Thessalonians 5:23) Now may the God of peace Himself sanctify you entirely; and may your spirit and soul and body be preserved complete, without blame at the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ.
(Romans 6:12-13) Therefore do not let sin reign in your mortal body that you should obey its lusts, and do not go on presenting the members of your body to sin as instruments of unrighteousness; but present yourselves to God as those alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness to God.
(Galatians 2:11) But when Cephas came to Antioch, I opposed him to his face, because he stood condemned.
(2 Timothy 3:8) And just as Jannes and Jambres opposed Moses, so these men also oppose the truth, men of depraved mind, rejected as regards the faith.
(Mark 11:15-18) And they came to Jerusalem. And He entered the temple and began to cast out those who were buying and selling in the temple, and overturned the tables of the moneychangers and the seats of those who were selling doves; and He would not permit anyone to carry goods through the temple. And He began to teach and say to them, “Is it not written, ‘My house shall be called a house of prayer for all the nations’? But you have made it a robbers‘ den.” And the chief priests and the scribes heard this, and began seeking how to destroy Him; for they were afraid of Him, for all the multitude was astonished at His teaching.

Whilst these verses cover a wide range of topics and people, they all have one thing in common – the body. Please, see this. In the first text, Paul seeks to witness. He is opposed by a man, a false prophet. This man sought to destroy Paul’s witness. So Paul fights back. Note well that he did not simply ‘curse the darkness’; no, he went to war with the man that opposed him. This he did in the power of the Holy Spirit, thus it was Spiritual warfare! Yet, his war was with a man in the flesh. Paul did not tell Elymas to stand aside so that he could engage the “spirit” behind him. Nor did Paul seek to exorcise the “spirit” so that old Elymas could be a non-combatant on the sideline. No. Paul engaged the physical enemy in front of him. The false prophet was plunged into darkness. This was a Spiritual war, man on man!

In the second example, we see Jesus rebuking Peter. Jesus had just revealed the ultimate goal of His mission – to die. Peter, no doubt with good intention and thinking that Jesus’ self-esteem was a little low, took it upon himself to rebuke our Lord and give Him encouragement. However, in doing so, he crossed a line and became a stumbling block. I fully believe that Peter took this action with integrity. Peter has just been commended for confessing that Jesus is the Christ. Having rightly identified Messiah, Peter could not think that he had come to die. The problem was that Peter’s integrity was undermined by his failure to understand Messiah’s mission and word. Thus, Jesus rightly opposed him; and He did so in no uncertain terms. Again, man against man or God-man against man. The mindset of Peter was described as demonic, but it was rebuked in the flesh with tangible words.

In the third example, Paul is placing a benediction upon the Thessalonians. He asks that they be sanctified and preserved complete at Jesus coming. Interestingly, he does this by asking that every dimension of man be preserved. Paul wants, spirit, soul, and body preserved and made complete. Do you not find this important? You should. Paul is not willing to place a hierarchy here. Paul is not out to say, “Well look, Thessalonians, I really hope that you can get yourselves into the Kingdom in a complete fashion. However, if you think you are struggling, give up on the body. It is a worthless cocoon that can be abandoned. Concentrate on saving your soul and the spiritual.” On the contrary, Paul’s theology reflects that taught elsewhere in Scripture. Man is united in his being and all these aspects must be and will be perfected in Jesus Christ.

The fourth example is placed for emphasis. If the body is not important, why is Paul so keen to teach that the body must reflect redemption? If the soul is saved and the body unimportant, why does Paul waste words encouraging Christians to cease using their bodies as instruments of sin?

The fifth example sees two Apostles engaged in a confrontation. One rebukes the poor behaviour of the other. (Positive Spiritual Warfare?)

The sixth example, gives us great insight. It is a New Testament text citing that which happened in the Old Testament. In this action we see the unity of the Scripture’s teaching. We know well that Moses was opposed by Pharaoh’s magicians. Here, again, we see that there was obviously a greater power at work on both sides. Yet, we also see that man opposed man. Paul takes this historical battle and uses it to illustrate the nature of the battle in his day and into the last days – that is, into our day. Even the Apostle’s command to “avoid such men” (v5) is instructive. Again, note well that Paul does not address himself in this section to dealing with “evil spirits”. What is Paul’s remedy? You should know it well! “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” Yes, Paul did mention the “snare of the devil” in 2:26, however, in chapter three, Paul does not resort to a teaching about “evil spirits” or “demons” or any such. He tells us, as he told Timothy, to be equipped for every good work by believing and acting upon God’s word. Please note that our “being equipped for every good work” involves “rebuke, correction and training”. In other words, Paul instructs us to a human action, both to ourselves (equipping) and to those who oppose (rebuking). We are to read, study, and know God’s word! In short, Paul requires of us Holy Spirit powered human action to God’s armoury to be clothed in God’s armour in order to maintain Christ likeness!

The last example is one that is deliberately forgotten by most Christians. Just as Luther labelled the Book of James as the “epistle of straw” because he did not like its contents, so many Christians seem to wish that this passage was not in their Bible. Nonetheless, the Spirit authored Scripture tells us that Jesus went into the temple, made a whip, and drove out those who were denigrating His Father’s house. Why did Jesus do this? Surely, of all men, Jesus knew that the warfare was spiritual. Why did He not simply curse the darkness? Why did He not order Michael onto the spiritual scene to war with the demons that were moving these men? Such questions cannot be answered if an unBiblical position on Christian Warfare is adopted – for there is absolutely no justification for Jesus, or any of the others mentioned here, to have opposed men. However, if we are willing to see what the Bible teaches in its fullness –namely, that we are enjoined to a spiritual war that manifests itself in the flesh – then Jesus’ actions make full and complete sense. To oppose an evil man is to engage in spiritual warfare. To oppose the man who opposes Christ, is to engage in spiritual warfare. Equally, the Son of God clearing out the temple by force was nothing less than an act of warfare – Christian Warfare, Spiritual Warfare!

Footnotes:

1. There ar 6 if you count the ‘double duty’ in verse 17. There are also a significant number of participles, which may also take the force of the main verb making them imperatival in nature.

2. I hope to pick up the theme of victory later. For now, please begin to think it. Jesus did not come into this world for defeat. He came for victory. He came to conquer. Scripture says that Jesus is currently suppressing and defeating God’s enemies so that He may present the Kingdom to God. This is a positive message.

3. Interestingly, the New Testament quotations of this passage also add ‘mind’ (Mark 12:29-30).

A Battle Plan (Pt. 2)

Posted on January 12, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

B. An Old Testament View: When we look at the Old Testament we are immediately aware of the many battles in which Israel was engaged. Whether they were battles to enter the Promised Land; battles inflicted because of disobedience; or internal battles for either righteousness or disobedience, there were many battles.

For brevity’s sake, I will take it that this point is understood and agreed upon. The question then is, “What type of battles were these, fleshy or spiritual? As stated, the common belief is that these were fleshy battles that had little spiritual significance. Such a belief is disastrous and has wreaked untold havoc on the Church. This belief has come to us through those who have sought to place a great cavern between Old and New Testaments and treat them as though they were alien to each other. May it never be!

When we turn to the pages of Scripture, to our only rule for life, faith, and instruction, we see plainly that Israel’s battles were indeed spiritual. Consider these texts:

When you go out to battle against your enemies and see horses and chariots and people more numerous than you, do not be afraid of them; for the Lord your God, who brought you up from the land of Egypt, is with you. “Now it shall come about that when you are approaching the battle, the priest shall come near and speak to the people. “And he shall say to them, ‘Hear, O Israel, you are approaching the battle against your enemies today. Do not be fainthearted. Do not be afraid, or panic, or tremble before them, for the Lord your God is the one who goes with you, to fight for you against your enemies, to save you. (Deuteronomy 20:1-4)
Now it came about when Joshua was by Jericho, that he lifted up his eyes and looked, and behold, a man was standing opposite him with his sword drawn in his hand, and Joshua went to him and said to him, “Are you for us or for our adversaries?” And he said, “No, rather I indeed come now as captain of the host of the Lord.” And Joshua fell on his face to the earth, and bowed down, and said to him, “What has my lord to say to his servant?” And the captain of the Lord’s host said to Joshua, “Remove your sandals from your feet, for the place where you are standing is holy.” And Joshua did so. (Joshua 5:13-15)
Now when the attendant of the man of God had risen early and gone out, behold, an army with horses and chariots was circling the city. And his servant said to him, “Alas, my master! What shall we do?” So he answered, “Do not fear, for those who are with us are more than those who are with them.” Then Elisha prayed and said, “O Lord, I pray, open his eyes that he may see.” And the Lord opened the servant’s eyes, and he saw; and behold, the mountain was full of horses and chariots of fire all around Elisha. (2 Kings 6:15-17)
Now when the Philistines heard that the sons of Israel had gathered to Mizpah, the lords of the Philistines went up against Israel. And when the sons of Israel heard it, they were afraid of the Philistines. Then the sons of Israel said to Samuel, “Do not cease to cry to the Lord our God for us, that He may save us from the hand of the Philistines.” And Samuel took a suckling lamb and offered it for a whole burnt offering to the Lord; and Samuel cried to the Lord for Israel and the Lord answered him. Now Samuel was offering up the burnt offering, and the Philistines drew near to battle against Israel. But the Lord thundered with a great thunder on that day against the Philistines and confused them, so that they were routed before Israel. And the men of Israel went out of Mizpah and pursued the Philistines, and struck them down as far as below Beth-car. (1 Samuel 7:7-11)

More texts could be adduced, but these are sufficient to prove the point we are making. Although Israel marched forward with shields, swords, bows, and spears, it was ultimately Yahweh for whom they fought and, most importantly, it was Yahweh who fought for Israel.

In the texts paraded, it is impossible to miss the spiritual overtones. Here, I would particularly highlight the texts from Joshua and 2 Kings. In the former, Joshua is contemplating how to conquer Jericho. In a moment, he notices a figure standing with sword drawn. Joshua’s first reaction is to challenge this person, presuming a) that it is his right as Israel’s captain; and b) that the One before him is but a man. The answer to his challenge made Joshua realise that this was no ordinary man. Importantly, Joshua realised that he was a man under Authority. The One before him was the none other than the “captain of the host of the Lord.” Now, whether we associate this figure with “the Angel of the Lord” or with a high ranking angel, such as a Michael, the point is the same – Joshua, the man, was aided in his war by the angelic host of heaven. The presence of this ‘host’ did not mean that Joshua could retire to his tent for a spa and a massage while the angels went forth to “kick bottom”. No, it just meant that the battle took on a greater importance and was viewed, as it were, with a wide angle lens that captured the activities of the heavenly.

The passage from 2 Kings is equally enlightening. The king of Aram was being thwarted by the prophecies of Elisha. So much so that he thought he had a traitor in his midst (2 Kings 6:11). When it was told to him that Elisha was the problem, he sent his men to capture the prophet. As the text shows, Elisha’s servant arose and saw the army sent to capture the man of God, and was quite disturbed. Not so Elisha. When the servant’s eyes were opened at Elisha’s request, he saw the area filled with flaming horses and chariots. The Arameans were indeed outnumbered and powerless.

I might also draw you attention to the first text cited, that of Deuteronomy 20:1-4. I would simply direct your attention to the covenantal and salvific overtones of the text. Israel is called, in very specific terms, to remember that God is with them. These terms are significant precisely because they speak of Yahweh’s salvation of His people and His covenanting with them – “who brought you out of the land of Egypt” (Salvation); “I will be your God and you will be My people!” (Covenant). Note also the role of the priest. Israel’s battles involved Israel’s God who had saved them from slavery by covenant promise and turned them into a community of Yahweh worshipping Priestly–Kings.¹

Therefore, on the basis of this evidence, it seems quite ridiculous to posit, in any shape or form, that the warfare of Israel was not spiritual in nature. In fact, it was spiritual – a truth borne out by the covenantal nature of this warfare. Note well that Israel fought for Yahweh and was delivered by Yahweh only when Israel went forth in obedience. There are many accounts of Israel being defeated precisely because Israel did not act in total obedience to Yahweh’s command. One very clear example comes from the book of Joshua, just two chapters after that quoted above. High in spirits, because of the conquest at Jericho, Israel moves to take Ai. Joshua decides to spell some of his troops thinking the battle will go easily for the Lord is on their side. However, Israel was routed. Joshua perplexed. A lesson needed to be learnt. Thus we read:

But the sons of Israel acted unfaithfully in regard to the things under the ban, for Achan, the son of Carmi, the son of Zabdi, the son of Zerah, from the tribe of Judah, took some of the things under the ban, therefore the anger of the Lord burned against the sons of Israel … And Joshua said, “Alas, O Lord God, why didst Thou ever bring this people over the Jordan, only to deliver us into the hand of the Amorites, to destroy us? If only we had been willing to dwell beyond the Jordan! “O Lord, what can I say since Israel has turned their back before their enemies? “For the Canaanites and all the inhabitants of the land will hear of it, and they will surround us and cut off our name from the earth. And what wilt Thou do for Thy great name?” So the Lord said to Joshua, “Rise up! Why is it that you have fallen on your face? “Israel has sinned, and they have also transgressed My covenant which I commanded them. And they have even taken some of the things under the ban and have both stolen and deceived. Moreover, they have also put them among their own things. “Therefore the sons of Israel cannot stand before their enemies; they turn their backs before their enemies, for they have become accursed. I will not be with you anymore unless you destroy the things under the ban from your midst. (Joshua 7:1; 7-12)

This foray into the Old Testament teaches us two important points. First, the warfare of the Old Testament was indeed spiritual. Second, we are taught that the warfare is also covenantal and is therefore dependent upon obedience on the part of God’s people. These lessons need to be kept firmly in mind as we move forward in our discussion.

Footnotes:

1. If you have any questions about how this relates to you as a Christians, may I commend to you 1 Peter 2:4-10. The typology is very hard to miss.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 1)

Posted on January 12, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

The Essence of War was a two part article published recently. Feedback on that article suggested two flaws or inadequacies. One asked for a “Battle Plan”. The other, thought the focus should have been more on prayer and weaponry or at least their role should have been highlighted. Taking these comments seriously, I would like to try and give some further explanation.

First, it needs to be understood that The Essence of War was not seeking to paint the whole picture. It was focussed on calling Christians to wake–up to the fact that there is a war raging. This may seem very obvious to some Christians. However, let me assure you that I have run into many who either do not understand that they are in a war or who, having grasped the concept, have little clue about the nature of the battle.

Second, the issue of Christian warfare is a big topic. At best, I hope here to scratch out a useful outline that may give direction and help people to engage in the battle effectively.

Third, please be prepared to sacrifice some sacred cows, jettison long held fallacies, and, most of all, adopt the “Berean Attitude” (Acts 17:11). One of the reasons that the Church is so befuddled today can be summed up in the term “Biblical illiteracy”. In short, as part of our compromise, Christians have stopped reading and, in particular, understanding the Bible. It would seem that they would rather read a book about the Bible, than put the effort into reading and understanding the Bible itself. The remedy can only be to re-immerse ourselves in God’s expired (breathed out), Holy Spirit authored, Christ magnifying Scriptures; accompanied by a simple yet fervent prayer that God would give us understanding and wisdom.

1. Christian Warfare.

A. Spiritual Warfare: The first issue necessary to understanding Christian Warfare is indeed to understand the terms. You will note that I have not, in general, used the more common term “Spiritual Warfare”. I avoid this term because it has become loaded with the terminology of the “other”. By this I mean that there has been an increasing trend in Christian circles to see everything as belonging to another realm or another time. Thus, many Christians, for instance, no longer believe that God reveals His wrath in time and space. They claim that God will only judge at the end of time.¹ Now it is true that there is a judgement at the end of time. However, Romans 1:18 clearly tells us that the wrath of God is being revealed from heaven. Another instance would be the way in which Christ is seen only as love and peace. Yet Scripture posits that Jesus is in fact God’s Judge (Acts 17:30-31). We have, in modern Christianity, seemingly lost the ability to hold two truths together. The ultimate example of this would be in regard to the character of God. We seem unable to hold together the myriad and perfect attributes of God as they are revealed in Scripture. This being the case, it is not a wonder that we have trouble with lesser concepts.

The same can be said in regard to Christian warfare. Through the influence of faulty theologies that see the Old and New Testaments as in some way opposed to each other (discontinuity or radical discontinuity), it has become popular to understand that the Old Testament was filled with fleshy warfare – swords, shields, warhorses – whereas the New Testament is spiritual warfare – prayer and evil spirits.

I would like to posit at the outset that such a delineation is an outright fallacy and a case of wrongly dividing the word of truth (Contra 2 Timothy 2:15). It is errors like these that, over time embedding themselves into Christian doctrine and teaching, have really robbed Christians both of the will and ability to understand and engage in Christian Warfare.

The simple reality is that both Testaments teach exactly the same point. It is, at best, the emphasis that differs.

Footnotes:

1. Of course there are a growing number who deny God’s judgement completely.

PostTenebrasLux

The Dominion of Jesus Christ is Light: The path of the righteous is like the light of dawn! Proverbs 4:18

Monthly Archives: January 2013

Antidiscrimination + Equality + Political Correctness = Cultural Insanity

A Battle Plan (Pt. 6)

Un-Australian – Ambiguity, Enigma, and Dinkum!

A Battle Plan (Pt. 5)

Obama the Magician

Of Firearms, Firewalls, and Stonewalls

A Battle Plan (Pt. 4)

A Battle Plan (Pt. 3)

A Battle Plan (Pt. 2)

A Battle Plan (Pt. 1)