Monthly Archives: April 2013

Of Designer Babies and Murderous Acts!

Posted on by
Reply

Our culture of death strikes once again!

Melbourne doctor, Mark Hobart, has hit the news for refusing to refer a couple to another doctor in order to perform an abortion.[1] Dr Hobart took his stand when he found out that the parents wanted to abort the child because it was the wrong sex. The parents only wanted a boy.

Sadly, this is not the first time the Designer Baby issue has raised its ugly head in this country. We have already witnessed the murder of twin boys for the same reason.[2] As technology advances, we can expect the “Designer Choice” to go beyond sex, to eye colour, hair colour, and any number of things.

This is a sorry state indeed. Yet there are worse things to be noted. Today, I was watching the Nine afternoon news. The story of this doctor came up for discussion. One of the panelists was 2GB’s Ben Fordham. He made comment on the issue. Two things in regard to his comment were noteworthy.

The first was the absence of Free Speech. You could see Mr Fordham struggling to choose words and to avoid saying anything inflammatory. He hedged the issues until he came out with the statement that “a healthy baby had been aborted.”[3]

This led to the second point. Mr Fordham added that “this was the thin edge of the wedge.” Well, I am sorry, Ben, you could not be any more mistaken. The wedge of which you speak came and went a long, long, long time ago!

We are entering a furore because this poor child was aborted as a result of it being the wrong sex. Supposedly, it was wrong to choose one sex over another. Yet here is the fallacy inherent in the stated opinion of Mr Fordham. Every abortion, well, the majority, is a choice. What is the difference in choosing convenience, prosperity, comfort, sleep, etcetera or the sex of the child? Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

This then cuts to the heart of that demon, Feminism. The acceptance of abortion was propagated on the basis that a woman’s body was her own and she had the right to “choose”. This is the demonic beast that gave birth to abortion and it has been the constant mantra of pro-abortionists to this day. I even had the displeasure of reading a statement by Hillary Clinton on Emily’s List. Said she, “I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”[4]

The nonsense touted can be translated thusly: ‘We do not want to kill babies, but if upholding my right to choice means that babies are killed, then that is the collateral damage we will have to accept in order to uphold my inalienable right to choose!

So, here we are. The conundrum! The basis argued for the legalisation of abortion, is now becoming an unpalatable reality in the form of Designer Babies. Choice has now freely exhibited itself to a greater extent and its wretched consequences are unveiled for all to see. Seemingly, those that witnessed this unveiling have been repulsed.

Here, of necessity, we must make comment and pass judgement upon the futility of individual choice as final arbiter:

1. Choice has once more been exposed as a “nice” Humanistic ideal, but a poor and wretched guide. The ability to choose wisely presupposes that one has the moral ability to make a “right choice”. Such ability only comes through surrender to Jesus Christ and being clothed with the mind of God.

2. As those seeking abortions are rarely clothed with the mind of God, they are partakers of a mind that is hostile toward God. This mindset rejects life and clings to death. It rejects God’s voice and asserts individual right. The glory of God is not considered worthy; only the temporal comfort of the individual matters. Thus, external, moral, absolute revelation is rejected. Decision is made on the basis of internal, immoral, transient values.

3. This in turn leads to the worship of self and to the declaration of autonomy. Man, and man alone, has the right to govern his life, choose his destiny, decide upon values, and to commission any outside help to achieve the goals of his system. This all sounds good, in theory. Yet, in practice, it is the progenitor of diabolical monsters. Currently, Designer Babies. Recently, cannibalism. Do you remember the case in Germany? A man had longed to eat someone. He advertised and someone responded. The victim chose to be eaten![5]

4. This said, let us analyse Hillary’s statement: “Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”

“To make the right decision”. The presupposition of this statement is that the person in question is moral and has the ability to make a morally correct choice. Given that most abortions are to hide sin, the moral integrity of the one choosing must immediately be questioned. Then, off course, in a Postmodern world, one is rightly entitled to question what right rightly means? Right!

“The individual”. In philosophical terms, we must ask, “What happened to the many?” Here, we clearly see the rank individualism of our day and of the human heart on display. There is no reference to others, particularly to the creator God. We are in a closed system in which the individual rules supreme.

“For herself and her family”. First, let me play the role of the stereotypic misogynist and ask, “What happened to the father?” If there is a family, all homosexual abominations aside, there must be a father. Where is his say in regard to his wife and his family? Second, and as a natural concomitant, we must note that the woman has governance – herself and her family. One seems forced to ask, “What happened to equality?” Why, at the very least, is this not our decision for our family? The answer is that Feminism was never interested in equality, despite the constant use of phrases like “equal rights”. It was interested in usurpation. It was interested in fulfilling the sinful desire within woman to rule.[6]

“For herself and her family.” In considering these words, we must also ask about the needs of a society. What role does the many play in the life of the one and vice versa? Societies must grow in order to thrive. At the very least, there must be the replacement of the existing population or the society withers and dies. The exaltation of individual choice as final arbiter is not only a road to anarchy, but a road to extinction. By allowing the exercise of the individual’s right of choice in regard to the immoral, the society becomes complicit in both the anarchy and the extinction. First, we are our brother’s keeper. That means that society needs to restrain the errant individual who is out to act foolishly. Whether this be procuring an abortion, a prostitute, or an illicit substance, society has an obligation both to restrain and denounce evil. Second, prosperity can never be had by a society when it refuses to restrain the errant individual. God cannot bless unrighteousness. Thus, allowing the errant individual to practice lawlessness will only beget and encourage more lawlessness, which, in turn, constrains God to withhold His blessing farther.[7] Third, the individual’s morality has serious consequences for society. Two moral individuals will form a moral family whose offspring will add to society through integrity and righteousness. The immoral individual will destroy family and beget destruction.[8]

“Not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.” This comment is a follow on to the previous point, but it deserves it own space. Note again, the rank individualism. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to govern this individual. Not a husband, not the Church, not even the State! This being the case, as touched upon in footnote 4, “Who becomes the arbiter or judge?” “On what basis is there a justice system?” Look at the various happenings in America recently. The Boston bombings. The shooting at Sandy Hook. We could even go back to Columbine. All those involved were denounced. Why? Were they not all individuals exercising their incontrovertible right of choice? If this is so, then how can they be condemned? Hillary has spoken – none shall judge the individual’s choice! “Ahh,” you say, “but that does not involve the murder of innocents.” Doesn’t it? Doesn’t it!!! Pray tell, what happens when the choice is to abort a perfectly healthy baby? Is not the child murdered? Does not that choice take life? In the case of the twins aborted, is this not mass murder? How is it different to Columbine or Sandy Hook?

What Hillary Clinton has stated, and what Emily’s List promotes through her quotation, is nothing less than anarchy and extinction.[9] If Hillary Clinton’s thesis holds true, then no individual can ever be held to account for any deed precisely because all deeds are a matter of individual choice and no individual is accountable to anyone for the choice made. In one fell swoop, Hillary has destroyed God, Law, justice, society, Church, State, Family, governance and so on. Poof! Gone!

In their place, the individual has been enthroned to rule eternally and sovereignly. But wait! There is more. The individual will also rule in tyranny, according to the capricious nature of their own laws and desire. Anarchy will be the first condition realised as individuals end up warring with each other as they each exercise their “right” to choice. War, as we know, has casualties. So, we head to extinction. This we do, gleefully; happy in the knowledge that it is our choice. Of course, we may wish for a better outcome. However, as our mantra is “individual choice above all else”, we must be content to simply board the train and allow it to take us to the terminal terminus of our belief.

Brethren, the right of choice is implicitly tied to the choice of right. The choice of right always trumps the right of choice. The right choice enables and permits the right of choice. It is so because the right choice declares the chooser to be a moral man of God and thereby permits him to exercise his right of choice.[10] In contradistinction, the right of choice by no means guarantees a right choice. In fact, demanding the right of choice shows a heart estranged from God and underscores the inability of that person to make a right choice.

Friends, I beseech you by the mercies of God; beware the right of choice demanded by the rank, God-hating individualist. It is a poison and a canker that harks back to the Man’s rebellion in the garden. It is no more than a modern manifestation of that old lie, “Did God really say?” It is Man once more expressing his desire to overturn God and His righteous rule by declaring himself fit and able to rule in God’s place.

Man’s choice may be to serve himself. Man’s obligation is to render total obedience to God through Jesus Christ.

 


[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-be-punished/story-e6frf7kx-1226631128438

[2] http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/playing-with-nature-the-ethics-of-sex-selection/desc/

[3] This is noteworthy because it is how totalitarian regimes work. Although everyone is supposedly entitled their opinions, yet they are made to fear the public airing of those opinions.

[4] http://www.emilyslist.org.au/about-us/what-we-believe-in. Here, in fancy language is rank individualism. What are the consequences of this choice? Why are we crooked that two brothers detonated bombs at the Boston Marathon? Why is Obama so upset about the shootings at Sand Hook? He would back Hilary’s statement. These people made choices. What is the problem? The real question is the part about “right choices”. Who sits in judgement? At what point do we pass judgement on the rightness of this choice?

[6] “She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris—at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been.” Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers) 1991.

[7] This is no different to the exercise of discipline within the Church. If false teaching and errant behaviour are not corrected, they corrupt.

[8] For example, have we aborted the person who could have cured cancer or united fractured nations? We are also seeing generational breakdown. Fractured families beget fractured families. The single home begets single homes. The “seed sower” condones and begets “seed sowers”.

[9] Deuteronomy 30:15 – “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity.”

[10] The saved man is given a new mind to exercise (Romans 12:1-2). He is expected to exercise it. He is expected to make wise decisions in pursuit of holiness and godliness.

AA

Posted on by
Reply

AA. These two letters, placed side by side, are a common sight today. They stand for a battery and bra size. It could be used to refer to the Australian Army or to an Anti-Aircraft battery. Its most familiar forms are probably: American Airborne and Alcoholics Anonymous.

Here, I would like to create a new acronym using these two letters – Arrogant America!

On the 11th of September, 2001, America and the world were reshaped by an act of terrorism. In the wake of that attack, the patriotic rhetoric followed. It was not the flow of a gentle stream. It was the torrent of a mountain gorge after heavy rain in the mountains above.

One may expect a degree of patriotism after such a devastating event. One would even say that some patriotic statements would be a natural psychological reaction to such a catastrophe. However, to this day, I am still puzzled by the degree of the rhetoric. What is more, I am absolutely bewildered by the lack of humility that was displayed.

That lack of humility caused me to pen the following:

What are these deep questions? Let us start with, ‘Why does not “God bless America?”’[1] ‘Why does America believe that she has something to offer the world when she is in turmoil?’ ‘Why does America state a belief in God and then ban His teaching from schools?’ ‘How does the President talk of “Justice” when the court system rarely delivers anything resembling justice?’ Last of all, Why does this nation exclaim, God Bless America! and then humiliate preachers of the Gospel whilst exalting Islam?

This leads us to the prayer mentioned earlier.

The prayer in question is used because it exemplified many of the themes found in other prayers. It was delivered by a female politician.[2] As she stood at the microphone delivering her invective, a picture formed in our mind. There stood this woman in front of a maddening crowd. The crowd was in a frenzy and they were being whipped up even further. How was this done? This woman had done the miraculous. She had captured the nation’s god. She held it out to the people. She demanded of this god that it act to do the will of the people. To excite the crowd further, she placed one hand on the back of the god’s neck and forced it to adopt a posture of submission. With her other hand she twisted the god’s arm behind its back. She forced it further and further. With each flinch made by this god, she made more demands. This god was to bless the nation. It was to mandate revenge against the evildoers, but it was to be blind to the transgressions of the nation. If this god would but do this, it would be allowed to remain as the nation’s deity. In the ensuing battle and victory, all the glory would belong to the nation. If they failed, they would once more capture this god and punish it for its second delinquency. After all, should not this god have protected the righteous from the outpouring of the infidel’s wrath?

When this woman spoke, nay, foamed at the mouth, she did not exhibit grace. There was not an ounce of contrition. One looked in vain for humility. She did not for one moment countenance the idea that this event may have been a judgement upon her nation, a wakeup call or a call to repentance. In short, this was not a person placing themselves before almighty God in a humble prayer. This was not the prayer of the faithful seeking wisdom of the Almighty. It was not the prayer of one who sought justice for the righteous at the hand of God. Rather, it was akin to a letter of final demand.

This prayer sounded very familiar. We remember reading something like it in an old book. We searched and found this ancient prayer. The similarities were striking. This ancient prayer was offered by a public official in a time of national crisis. However, there was an even greater similarity, namely, the attitude involved in offering the prayer. As we read this old book, we were also struck by the commentator’s appraisal of the prayer. It makes for interesting reading. The following is an excerpt from the book:

And He [Jesus] also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a taxgatherer. “The Pharisee [public official] stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this taxgatherer. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ “But the taxgatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted.”[3]

… This woman, as with the Pharisee, prayed to herself. She may have used the jargon of her culture’s religion, but she was not praying to the God of the Bible. As she prayed she brought herself under Jesus’ denunciation. She thought more highly of herself than she ought. She was not willing to pray, ‘Father (intimate and relational) thy will be done (humble submission) and grant wisdom that justice may be done in the earth.’ No. We heard, God (impersonal and aloof) we are going to find the people responsible and exact revenge (subversive). She “trusted in herself.” She trusted in the State. She was one who needed not a physician. Which raises the question, ‘Why did this woman even bother to call the doctor?’[4]

So, “Why revisit the past?” you ask. Simple. America is “thicker” than the proverbial plank![5] They have not learned the lesson so terribly taught to them over a decade ago.

Recently, two brothers set bombs at the Boston Marathon. These bombs killed three. What was America’s response? Once more the torrent of patriotism flowed. Once more pride, ego, bombast, and arrogance were the order of the day.

Only a day or two ago, I saw both the President and Vice-President giving speeches. There was nothing of humility and certainly nothing to do with Almighty God.[6]

Once more there was simply a hollow, patriotic rhetoric echoing a belief that America was, of itself, invincible. Note these words from Vice-President Joe Biden:

“Why this terrorist phenomenon the beginning of the 21st century, why? People say to me for they surely know they can never defeat us. They can never overthrow us. They can never occupy us. So why? Why? Whether it’s al Qaeda Central, or two twisted, perverted, cowardly knock-off jihadists here in Boston. Why do they do what they do?”

…“I’ve thought about it a lot, because I deal with it a lot, and I’ve come to the conclusion, it is not unique to me, but they do it to instill fear, to have us, in the name of our safety and security, jettison what we value the most, and what the world most values about us, our open society, our system of justice that guarantees freedom, the access of all Americans to opportunity, the free flow of information and people across this country, our transparency.”

“It infuriates them that we refuse to bend, refuse to change, refuse to yield to fear,” Biden said. “The doctrine of hate and oppression, they’ve found out, cannot compete with the values of openness and inclusiveness. And that’s why they’re losing around the world. The irony is we read about these events, we experience them. But the truth is, on every frontier, terrorism as a weapon is losing. It is not gaining adherents. And what galls them the most is that America does remain that shining city on the hill. We’re a symbol of the hopes and dreams of the very aspirations of people all around the world, people who live where they thrive. Our very existence makes a lie of their perverted ideology.”[7]

There is a lot in those statements. Let us, then, start our critique with the last highlighted comment – a shining city on a hill. This comment is really the salient point. America’s founders, being Christians, spoke of the new nation as a city on a hill. Thus, the term came to have particular relevance to Boston.

This reference from Matthew has to do with Christ’s disciples being the salt and light of the world.[8] Consequently, when the term “a city on a hill” is used, the shining has to do with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, not the indomitable spirit of Humanism. The shining is the “Light of life” that came into “the darkness”[9] and not darkness masquerading as light.[10]

Therefore, implicit in this terminology is the fact that the shining is the righteousness of Jesus Christ based on the fact that He is the exact representation of God in whom the fullness of the deity dwells. In short, the shining is capitulation and submission to the Law-Word of God. We shine only when we are obedient to all that the Father has commanded.

Therefore, Mr. Biden is naught but a deluded fool when he speaks of the magnificence of America in the terms that he does. For speaking thusly, he is not speaking of Christ and obedience to God, but of Humanism and the pride of man. This leads us to ask, What justice? What freedom? What openness? What transparency?

We are speaking of a country that practices open genocide. America has murdered millions of unborn children in the womb since 1973 and called it choice. I tell you that Saddam Hussein at his worst did not come close. We are speaking of a country where law enforcement can add the word ‘terrorism’ to a charge and you simply disappear; no judge, no lawyer, and no jury.

We are speaking of a country whose current President’s right to hold office has been constantly challenged because his birth certificate has been sealed. Sums of money have been offered to induce him to come forward and produce his birth certificate. Thus far, nothing. Transparency! This is not transparency. This is somewhere between opaque and “particulate soil in a colloidal suspension” – mud!

Then, when he speaks of “our open society”, this deluded man speaks not a freedom and truth, but of the acceptance of perversion. He speaks of letting homosexuals from the closet. He lauds the rights of those who kill children in the womb. He stands in awe of the euthanasic doctor who destroys the old and infirmed. He loves “openness” in so far as family and society are laid open to government infiltration and control for the exacting of unjust taxes and false government. What he will not tolerate, however, is the preacher of righteousness who speaks truth in God’s name. Then the “open society” closes ranks in order to silence, denigrate, and obliterate God’s name.[11]

America may still speak of God with a capital “G”, but the truth is that they, organisationally as a nation, have abandoned this God and his standards. You can add the words” God Bless America!” to the end of as many speeches as you like, but it will not bring God’s blessing.

When the heart chases darkness; when the heart wilfully rebels; when the heart is openly deceitful; taking the words “God Bless America” to your lips is treasonous and leaves one ripe for judgement. It is to acknowledge the God of the Bible. It is to acknowledge that He has revealed His standard. Yet, it is to belittle God by believing that you can deceive Him.[12] It is to ask God to be an absolute hypocrite. Yes, that is right. Americans are asking God to be a hypocrite. They expect God to protect them from evil doers, when they in fact commit more evil than their enemies!

This is the crux of the problem. America wants to be the “light on the hill”. However, they fail to appreciate two absolute truths regarding the light.

First, the light is righteousness. It is not freedom. It is not democracy. It is not the constitution. It is not the creating of a legal environment in which “every man can do right in his own eyes.” It is righteousness and righteousness alone. Righteousness is rightness before God. Rightness before God is obedience to God. Obedience to God is Jesus Christ and those who are in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the radiance of the light emanating from that hill must be Jesus Christ and all that His glorious name entails.

Second, America has a perverted view of how that light is to work. If I put a powerful light on the roof of my house, must it not of necessity illumine my house and my yard before it reaches to those of my neighbour? Americans walk around draped in cloaks with large hoods. These they use to hide themselves from the light, comforted by the fact that they do not need any such light. They shield themselves, yet hope that, as the light leaves their shores, it would gather intensity and help those to who it comes.[13]

Two fallacies. One, a light that is not Christ is no light. Two, the light must fall upon and illumine those closest before it can fall upon and change those far away.

America may have started out as a light on a hill. It may have shone brightly as it sought to obey God in Christ. However, as the Christian heritage has been jettisoned bit by bit, so has the true light. The Humanists could see the light diming and people began to ask questions. The humanists, being clever and deceptive, lulled you to sleep. Then, while you were sleeping, some humanists trotted to the top of the hill and switched globes.

The consequence is that you still see a great light. You think it is the same one your forefathers erected, but it is not. It is dressed up the same. It is described using the same language. Yet, you know it is not because the new light is cold and harsh, not warm and gentle. Those old enough to have witnessed the true light will testify that it was warm and gentle. It gave guidance in dark places. It was alive. It would take the lost by the hand and lead them to safety. Not so this new light. Its harsh light blinds. It beguiles. It does not warm and lead. It blinds and makes all to think that they are upon a safe path, when in fact they skirt a precipice.

America’s national anthem shows the old light. Its last verse says:

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand; Between their loved home and the war’s desolation. Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land.
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave![14]

These words, rightly understood made America the land of the free and the home of the brave. It did make America a light precisely because their trust was in Almighty God. Today, this is no longer the case. They use “God” words that are hollow. They are left over from a bygone era. They have form, but they have no substance. All these words are, is a provocation in the ears of God.

How many wakeup calls must America receive? How long will she pretend?

America may be the land of the free (laughable) and the home of the brave (undoubtedly). However, she is also the home of the stupid and the arrogant. She is this because she has wholeheartedly turned her back on the living God and has turned aside to idols of her own making. This sin is bad enough in itself, but she multiplies her guilt by pretending to still serve God Almighty.

Such a provocation can only result in a manifestation of God’s judgement. This is seen every day. Shootings, murders, governmental disintegration, racial tension, violence, familial disintegration, governmental policies of nihilism, ineffective government, high taxation for no result, debt, not to mention 9/11 and Boston.

America the Arrogant; how she needs the humility of Christ! She has become like the ancient city of Babylon – strong, great – yet the heavenly voice cries out, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! And she has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird.”[15]

This is the end of every nation that comes to believe that it is invincible apart from God. They abandon God. They delve into sin. They become abhorrent in the sight of God and God casts them down.

Is this not the pattern shown to us in Scripture? The Amorite. Israel. Judah. Assyria. Babylon. Egypt. America will not escape unless she repents.

America the Arrogant! Repent of your falsehood and your evil deeds. Repent and return to Jesus Christ, the fair and beautiful light you once new. Put away your arrogance and clothe yourself in the humility of Jesus Christ and, once more, be a light on a hill.

Australia, repent and do likewise, for we too are a stench in the nostrils of God.


[1] We do not have room to expand on this point. Suffice to say that the Biblical concept of God’s blessing is very much associated with peace. It strongly infers rest from all of one’s enemies. Strife, internal, external or both, would suggest a lack of blessing. Here, in summary, we simply posit the end of all things. God’s blessing upon His people is peace. No tears, no sickness, no evildoers. The swords will be turned into ploughshares. These themes can be found in any of the covenant documents.

[2] Please forgive the lack of specifics. As I sat watching this event unfold I began making mental notes. Unfortunately, what I should have done is tape it or use pen and paper to record specifics.

[3] Luke 18:9-14. The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977. All Scripture quotations are from this source unless otherwise noted. Emphasis added.

[4] Twin Towers: Symbol of Hypocrisy; Part 2 The Walls Came Tumbling Down.Available at: http://www.reformationministries.com.au/sfarticles/TwinTowers2February2002.pdf.

[5] The Biblical terminology is hard-hearted and stiff-necked.

[6] If anything was clearly apparent during this event it was the lack of reference to God. Maybe 9/11 pushed America into a more self-aware state of paganism. As natural crises in the past have caused people to abandon a superficial faith, so 9/11 may have (I would say, has had) this effect upon the United States.

[8] See Dispelling Darkness for a commentary on our nature as light bearers. Available at: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/04/dispelling-darkness/.

[9] John 1:1-5.

[10] 2 Corinthians 11:14; 2 Timothy 3:5.

[11] Space simply does not allow for a list of things that contravene God’s law. Humility needs to be shown by us Aussies because our leaders, whilst not as blatant, are tarred with exactly the same spirit of godlessness.

[12] Psalm 94:8-11: “Pay heed, you senseless among the people; and when will you understand, stupid ones? He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, Even He who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are a mere breath.”

[13] Jesus had something to say about a “speck” and a “log”, which would seem appropriate at this point. Matthew 7:3-5.

[14] Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner. Please note the use of capitals. ‘Heaven’ and ‘power’ are both capitalised signifying that they are references to God Almighty. There is even a reference to salvation in that the “land” is rescued by God. It is in this knowledge that the forefathers could say, “In God is our trust.” They believed God. They believed His word. They believed His Christ. Thus, they had confidence to seek God’s blessing as a reward for their obedience. Equally, they could expect victory when they fought for the “just” cause. This was not a carte blanche view. It was a Biblical and covenantal view.

[15] Revelation 18:2.

Dispelling Darkness

Posted on by
Reply

Don’t you just hate curly questions? You know the ones to which I refer. They put you on the spot. They make you feel uneasy. Your brain scrambles with the constant egoistical message, “C’mon dude! You’re a smart man. You can answer this!” Yet all that flashes before your eyes is something akin to that wretched web error: “Http 404 page not available!” In an instant, I am once more back at school and standing in the corner.

As perplexing and humbling as the “curly” question is, sometimes it has a great benefit. If we will lay our egos aside for just a moment, we will realise that the curly question may be a blessing in disguise. If we are willing, the curly question becomes to us Alice’s rabbit hole or the Pevensie’s wardrobe – it becomes a portal to a journey of discovery!

One such curly question came to my attention via a visiting missionary. He related how he had once been asked by a tribesman, “Where does the darkness go when the light is turned on?” I can imagine the surprise the missionary felt. Here you are to teach people concerning the Bible and you end up with a question that would puzzle most physicists.

Yet, the question has merit. I have found myself pondering this question from time to time. The more I thought about it, the more I saw that it was a profound question; the answer to which had far reaching implications. It brought to me a perspective on obedient Christian living that was life affirming, but which also shook me to the core.

You see, as Christians we are familiar with the conceptual use of light and darkness as parallels of good and evil. What is not apparent to most is that the statement just made is indeed false. Yes, it is what most Christians perceive. However, that perception is an error.

What do I mean? Simply this. It is a mistake to view the Scriptural use of light and darkness as just an analogy for good or evil. When we diminish these concepts to a mere analogy, we rob these concepts of their veracity and potency. In Scripture, light and darkness are not simply concepts used for illustrative purposes. They are real, powerful, inherent forces.

In other words, the Biblical authors were not at a script writing session discussing, “Okay. God is good. Satan is bad. What can we use to illustrate this concept?” As the discussion continues they stumble upon a correlation between good and light. “Aha!” the lead writer exclaims, “from now on good will be conceptualised as light and evil as dark!”

The reality is that evil is darkness and darkness is evil. Just as good is light and light is good. In Scripture, both are seen equally as inherent forces. They are, in a sense, tangible, palpable, intrinsic entities to be reckoned with.

To bring this issue into sharp relief, we need to think here in terms of antithesis. The basic presupposition of every Christian is, or at least should be, God is! This forms the building block for every piece of theology. God is. All that opposes God is not God, from God, or a part of God. God is infinite; the not God, finite. God is eternal; the not God, temporal. God is immutable; the not God, changeable.

This antithetic relation is also seen when viewing light and darkness. John says: “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Note what John does not say. John does not describe God as light, similar to light, or like light. No, God is light. Consequently, darkness has no part in His essential nature.

James brings out this same dictum when he refers to, “the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow” (James 1:17). Whist this text seems difficult, at first, its intent is extremely clear. God is understood in the plural (lights) as emanating a perfect light from multiple sources. The effect of this light emanating from multiple points is to eliminate every shadow.

Think here of a sports match under lights. Given the state of the light and the limited position of the light towers, it is not uncommon to see four or five distinct shadows following each player. Imagine now the same game, but with more towers, betters lights, and, in particular, light from above and below. Now, the perfect light eradicates every shadow. No matter where the player moves, shadows are an impossibility.

The perfection of this light and its intensity is also shown to us when God is described as He “who dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16). The truth of this is borne out by other Biblical texts.

Consider the events surrounding Moses encounter with Yahweh. Moses wanted to meet God face to face. In Exodus 33:18-23 we read the following exchange: “Then Moses said, “I pray Thee, show me Thy glory!” And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

Here, Moses asks to see Yahweh’s “glory”. Yahweh says, “No!” Instead, Moses is granted permission to only see Yahweh’s “goodness”. Even now, with this limited grant, Yahweh still insists that he shall hide Moses in the Rock and cover him with His hand until He has passed by. Then Moses will be granted a look at Yahweh’s back. What was the result of this encounter upon Moses? He shone. Moses was, in essence, irradiated by the light of Yahweh’s presence.

We read of a similar type of event in the New Testament when Jesus confronts one Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:3 states, “And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.” When Paul relates this story to King Agrippa, he describes it in these words, “At midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me.”[1]

These accounts serve to show how intrinsically light is allied to the being of God. This connection is not just that of an analogy for the purpose of explanation or illustration. It is far more. It is in essence, ontological.

This fact is borne out by John. When he opens his gospel he begins with this ontological antithesis. Jesus, God’s Son, the very nature of God, [2] comes to the world and is light. The world, fallen and rebellious – the not God—is darkness. Jesus mission is to liberate His people who are lost or bound in darkness by drawing them into the light.[3] That light is God. Yet, it is also to draw men to Himself, for Jesus is God.[4]

This truth is also borne out when we look at some further statements of Jesus and events surrounding His life. Jesus is establishing a Kingdom. That Kingdom is life and light. It is so because the King of that Kingdom is nothing less than Life and Light: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”.

Consequently, when a parallel is draw, and the focus falls upon those barred from the Kingdom, we see them described as being cast into darkness. Indeed, all those who rebel against God are said to be in darkness.

  • [The unfaithful Israelite] shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12).
  • Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13).
  • And cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:30).
  • For whom the black darkness has been reserved forever (Jude 13).[5]
  • These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved (2 Peter 2:17).[6]
  • And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

We must also take note of that peculiar event that took place as Jesus hung upon the cross dying. All the writers of the Synoptics tell us that the land was darkened from the sixth to the ninth hour.[7] Interestingly, the darkness did not descend when Jesus died, but as Jesus was dying. As the life drained from the Light of life, so darkness encroached. The symbol of God’s judgement came to the fore to show that His wrath was being poured out upon Jesus.

The potency of this statement is that darkness came at the precise time of noon. At the time when the sun should burn the brightest, it was snuffed out. What better cosmological testimony, to bear witness to the truth of Scripture, than to have the one created source of our light and life extinguish at the same time that Jesus, our eternal light and life, was being extinguished by God because He carried the sin of His people.

At this point many things could be said and need to be said about the wonder of Jesus’ death as life for His people. We need to understand His great substitutionary atonement. However, it is beyond the scope of this article to do so. For now, we need to focus upon the light and darkness. Jesus was light. God’s judgement, darkness. When Jesus fell under God’s just judgement, when Jesus was forsaken by God, the light failed and darkness enveloped the inhabitants.

When Jesus died, the light returned because the penalty had been paid. The debt owed had been repaid. God’s people had light and life once more. The true power of this fact had to wait until resurrection morn when Jesus arose from the dead. In essence, we still await its fullness in Jesus’ second coming. Yet, we have been given hints.[8] Note that when Jesus was transfigured His garments shone with exceeding brightness (Mark 9:3). On resurrection morn, the two Marys were confronted by an angel, whose “appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow” (Matthew 8:23).[9] Then, when Jesus ascended, He is once more accompanied by two men in “white clothing” (Acts 1:9).

In short, we are given glimpses leading up to Jesus’ death, at Jesus’ resurrection, and at His ascension, that light is the dominant order of the Kingdom. This is put beyond doubt when we read in Revelation 4:5: “And from the throne proceed flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.” Note here the emphasis upon light in this text as it focuses upon God’s throne.[10] More importantly, we must note that the term for the “flashes of lightning” seen proceeding from the throne is the same term used to describe the Angels in Mathew 28:3 and Luke 24:4.

The brightness or radiance of God is therefore a tangible aspect that is reflected in those whom He possesses – His angels and His saints.

Okay. What, then, is the practical application for us?

Well, to answer this we need to return to the curly question? What happens to the darkness when light appears? The simple answer is that light dispels darkness. Light dissipates darkness.

However, more needs to be said. Imagine that you stand in the opening to a room. Before you is a thin veil to prevent leakage. The room is full of water. Suddenly, a large volume of air is pumped into the room. What would happen? You would get wet, very wet. You would be engulfed by one element as it was displaced by another. The same would happen if we reversed this process. This time you would feel a rush of wind.

Now for the challenge! Stand in a doorway in the dark. Flick the light switch and …! What did you feel? Any elements rush by? Did you feel the darkness running from the room? Did you find it hard to move around the rest of the house because there was now an extra room full of darkness spread out in the other rooms? Did you hear the darkness complaining as it moved passed your ear canals: “I wish they’d make up their minds. I was just getting comfortable and now I gotta shift!”

No, you felt nothing and you heard nothing. That is because the light dissipates the darkness by eliminating and overcoming it. We can think here of the space age ray guns. Unlike Captain James Tiberius Kirk, our ray guns are not set to stun, but to disintegrate. We are out to atomise and vaporise – even though these terms are in themselves inadequate descriptors.

When the light shines, darkness is overcome. It is dispelled. In the presence of light, darkness simply vanishes. It is destroyed and replaced.

This leads us to the “So what” of practical application.

Christian, strap yourself in! It is time for shock and awe!

In Matthew 5:14-16, Jesus gives His people a bit of a job description: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

Wow! Shock and Awe. Jesus is not the light of the world. You are! Okay, Jesus is the light of the world, but so are you, His blood bought disciple. The consequence of being Christ’s disciple is that you are the light of the world. You are not as light. You are not like light. You are the light of the world. This light cannot be hid. It must shine. It must illumine. It must overcome the darkness. So says Jesus!

Just as Jesus is one with the Father, so we, as Jesus’ blood bought disciples, are partakers of the Godhead. We become as our God. We become lights. Our essential nature becomes one of light. We are, as it were, luminaries of and for Christ, the eternal Son of God.[11]

This constitutes the “Awe” part of “Shock and Awe”. What a great blessing it is that God has so completely saved us that we are left awestruck and pondering the statement of John: “See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are” (1 John 3:1). We are! We are the children of God through Jesus Christ! Mind blowing; yet beautiful and wondrous.

Now comes the “Shock”. How should we then live as God’s children? What does it mean to be the luminaries of God’s family? What burden or obligation does this place upon us?

Many modern Christians will simply not like what comes next, but it must be said. Many will agree that the world is dark. I have spoken to a number of Christians in recent times who are of the opinion that the “end is nigh”, based on the ungodliness of our time and culture. Yet, almost to a man, they have had no idea of their responsibility as light bearers.

The simple fact is that the world will always be the world.[12] It will always be a dark, smelly, putrid place, full of death and dying until Jesus makes all things new.[13] The ungodly will never be Godly apart from Christ. The point of this is that the Christians of our day tend to circle the wagons and then sit around the campfire moaning about the darkness in the world. Well, wake up people! Who are the lights? You are!!! If it is dark, shine!

If the word is dark it is because we are abandoning our God given task to “let our light shine.” It may be worth noting the imperative at this point. We could, and probably should, translate this text as “Shine your light before men!” It is not an option. We are light bearers by nature, by consequence of our newness of life in Christ. They only way that we can fail to shine is by deliberately choosing to veil that light – when place ourselves under a container.

Consequently, the pertinent question is, “Are we veiling the light of Jesus Christ?” The further question is, “Are we aiding the ‘deeds of darkness’[14] by failing in our task to provide an all pervasive and prevailing light to this world in Jesus name?”

How do we veil the light? Simple. We drift into sin. We begin to judge right and wrong by a measure of our own making rather than by God’s revealed Law-Word. We even abandon the idea of right and wrong by adopting a false view of God’s love. We enter upon practices that seem good to us, by our measure and our standard, but which are frowned upon by God.[15]

We slip in this direction because we have given up on reading God’s word. We no longer say with the Psalmist, “Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105). Rather, we have become enamoured with pragmatism and the theory of “what works”. We have fallen in love with the concepts that the World has taught us. We are concerned to comply with the latest law of the civil magistrate in regard to our operation and worship, but we will not heed the dictates of Almighty God on these same subjects.

Why is this? Sadly, it is because we have lost the object of our love, Jesus Christ. We have allowed the rank individualism of our age to fill our senses with the heady aromas of autonomy and thereby lead us from Christ. Man fell precisely because he thought of glory for self before glory for God. Unfortunately, we are tainted still with that trait. Even as Christians, we are tempted to follow the dictates and desires of self rather than the dictates of God.

This penchant has resulted in us desiring our own glory and happiness above that of our Christ. Therefore, we adopt practices in worship that make us feel good and we then feign and project our acceptance with God. We rearrange our family to fit what is most appealing to me and my needs, and then invoke the name of the latest guru to justify our action. We capitulate to the demands of the world for tolerance and equality and comfort ourselves in the knowledge that God has told us to love everyone.

When the wheels fall off and we are faced with a crisis, what is our reaction? ‘Oh, the devil made me do it!’ ‘The world has encroached. They are insidious.’ ‘Oh, the church did not help my family.’ Yes, we are back in the Garden. Having believed the lie all over again, we resort to the same inane finger-pointing as did Adam and Eve.

It is time for us to “Man up!” It is time to accept that we have sinned against the One Holy God of heaven and His blessed Son, Jesus. It is time to confess before God that we have been disobedient and that we have hid the light of Christ through unfaithfulness. It is time to reject the error and tear down the false idols we have erected. It is time, in true humility, to genuinely repent of these sins and turn away from all that does not glorify God. It is time to turn back to God’s word and earnestly implore Him to teach us, through the Holy Spirit, of His standards, precepts, and law. It is time for us to accept God’s word as our only standard, to accept it willingly because it is God’s word, and to echo Christ’s words – My food is to do the will of Him who sent me (John 4:34).

If we are concerned about the darkness then we must shine. That is our task. That is our nature as God’s children. If our light is hindered it is because we have forgotten our first love and have begun to crawl under a basket. I implore your brethren, by the mercies of God, repent and shine.

There is a modern chorus that contains the words, “Shine Jesus Shine”. Many sing it with gusto. However, does it make an impact? The song needs more emphasis upon the fact that we are Christ’s light bearers. Yet, in fairness, it does contain the lines, “As we gaze on Your kingly brightness. So our faces display Your likeness. Ever changing from glory to glory, Mirrored here may our lives tell Your story.”

The point is that we should not just be asking Jesus to shine. We should not just be asking Jesus to “Shine on me”. We should be asking Jesus to shine with the full radiance of His brightness through us. This is the weakness of this chorus. It is individualistic and “me” centred. “Jesus, shine on me!” No. no. Jesus, please shine through me! Jesus, please shine through your people! Jesus, make us into the luminaries of your nature! Jesus, use us to dispel the darkness! These should be our prayers and pleas before the throne of grace.

Brethren, we are the light of the world. Our God-given power is that we can eradicate darkness through our Christ-like lives. It is ours, not to curse the darkness, but to eradicate it. It is ours to disintegrate both its power and presence.

Again, my friends, please think about this one fact. If we are surrounded by darkness, it is we, the children of God, who are at fault because our light is not present so as to overcome the darkness. We are failing in our task to illuminate this world for and with Christ.

Where does the darkness go when the light comes? I do not care where it goes. I am happy that the Christ-light dispels darkness. I am happy that righteous lives dispel darkness. I am happy that Jesus righteousness replaces the works of the Evil one. I am happy when darkness is gone because it means that God’s people are obeying their God and living in the brightness of his countenance.

Brethren, why do we let the darkness pervade our land and our lives? Do we love Jesus so little that we will not surrender all to him for His glory and the glory of our Father? Do we love Him, who gave His all, so little that we will not give up certain pleasures for His honour? Is not Jesus, the very essence of Wisdom, worth our being wise in the making of ethical decisions that will glorify His name?

May we all ask ourselves the sobering question, “Am I letting my light shine before men so that my Father in heaven is glorified by the watching world?”


[1] Acts 26:13.

[2] Hebrews 1:3 – “And He [the Son] is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”

[3] See Simeon’s prayer (Luke 2:29-32). See Zechariah’s prophecy regarding John, which had implications for Jesus (Luke 67-79). See the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Matthew 4:15-16) Compare: John 3:19; 8:12; 12:46; Ephesians 5:8; 1Thessalonians 5:5.

[4] John 6:44; John 12:32; John 9:5; John 11:9; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.

[5] Jude’s phrase here could be translated as the blackness of darkness, the gloom of darkness, or the gloom of the nether regions. The last of these is more interpretive. The importance is that it once more shows the fact that the nether world, God’s place of judgement, is a place where His essential nature is not. Thus, it is totally bereft of light.

[6] Peter here uses the same phrase as Jude.

[7] That is from noon to 3pm.

[8] One very clear hint is seen in the dead saints raised at the precise time of Jesus’ death. In Jesus’ death, men lived.

[9] See also: John 20:12; Mark 16:5; and Luke 24:4. Luke’s “dazzling apparel” has parallel to Matthews “like lightening”. The term expresses a gleaming brightness.

[10] Fire is throughout Scripture a covenantal sign of God’s presence.

[11] John 17: 9-11; 17-23: “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine;  and all things that are Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. “And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are …  “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. “As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me.  “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.” See also 2 Peter 1:4.

[12] It is important to understand that the term “world”, when used by Scripture, often means ‘an ethical system that is opposed to God’s rule’. An illustration of the attitude implied is seen in the “kings and rulers of the earth” who plot against God and His Messiah saying “let us cast off their fetters!” It is a desire for autonomy. It is a desire to return to the Garden and once again challenge God’s sovereign right to rule.

[13] John 3:19: “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.”

[14] Ephesians 5:11

[15] Read the story of Ahaz in 2 Kings 16:10-16. Note how he sees a pagan altar, copies it, and brings it into Yahweh’s temple. Note his offerings and sacrifices. They are the Biblically prescribed offerings, but they are offered on a pagan altar. Consequently, they are not offered to Yahweh with a pure heart. This is simply religious motility, not true worship. It is syncretism. It is the blending of the true and the false, which renders all false and unacceptable to God.

Conservatism and an Election Year

Posted on by
Reply

Good day Reformers,

 I have been moved to forward to you the following link: http://againsttheworld.tv/?p=985

 It features Jerry Johnson from Nicene Council. He is speaking on Conservatism in the political arena. Yes, he is an American. Yes, it reflects the American scene. Nonetheless, it is salient, relevant, and poignant. I well understand that many Australians have an aversion to American politics. For the most part, I share that aversion. However, truth knows no bounds and if we are able to learn something from one crumbling system that may help us save ours, then it seems to me that we should “listen and learn”.

 We have long held that here in Australia we have two political parties representing two distinct views. Of these, the Liberal Party has been seen as the conservative party. Therefore, many Christians are drawn to vote for those candidates who stand under the Liberal flag. Yet, we have reason for pause. Is the Liberal Party really a conservative party? In terms of the previous question, ‘What does conservative mean?’

 Recent events must cause us to question, along with our brother Jerry, just what we hope to gain through mere conservatism. Recently, I saw former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, interviewed. Again, he noted that he resigned from the Liberal Party because it had become too conservative and had lost the original aim of its founder. He asserted that the Liberal Party had always been intended to be “liberal” — forward looking and progressive with a willingness to experiment.

 When we hear things like this, I know that it helps me make sense of the Australian landscape. On at least two occasions, the Liberal Party has been given the majority in both Houses. The Australian people have voted for Conservatism and has been given a travesty. This explains why on these occasions there were no significant changes made or decisions taken to reverse trends of immorality and ungodliness.

 These claims must also be weighed in light of the supposedly “conservative” modern Liberal Party. Where is this conservatism? Malcolm Turnbull is por same-sex marriage. My local Liberal MP, though voting against homosexual marriage, is nonetheless proud of her support and achievements as far as homosexual rights is concerned. Will a Liberal government ban abortion? Will a Liberal government give us Justice? Will a Liberal government overhaul the Family Court? Will a Liberal government abolish de facto relationships; change divorce laws; re-establish parental rights; etc., etc?

 Part of our problem is the term “conservative”. A Conservative has always been viewed as one who would uphold “traditional” values. What we do not want to admit is that this conservatism is nothing less than Biblicism. It is in the Law-Word of God, the Bible, that we find all of these so-called traditional values. Thus understood, we must realise that as these conservatives drift further from a fundamental, Biblical, belief in God and His Christ, the less willing and able they will be to implement Christ’s principles.

Therefore, a godless party can never be a conservative party. They can masquerade. They can ride on coattails, but they will never truly be conservative in the sense of maintaining or reforming to the Biblical norm.

To borrow Jerry’s term – Brethren, in this election year, please think well upon it!

Note: This blog was originally circulated as an email. It has been posted because its relevance has increased since it was sent. The vote by the New Zealand parliament to acquiesce to the “homosexual agenda” has seen that particular fire fuelled once more in this country. Notably, we have had several more “liberal” leaders in the shape of Barry O’Farrel and Colin Barnett come out in support of homosexual marriage. So, if you live in NSW or WA it is now clear, if there was any doubt, that you do not have a conservative government. You have outright humanism under a different flag. Having said that, the simple reality is, as the email states, there simply is not a truly conservative party amongst the major political parties in this land.

Please think about this as we come to an election. As a Christian, you are obliged to vote for righteousness, not the party dad supported. Do not vote for one mob just because you dislike the other. Vote wisely. Vote righteously. Today, this means pray, pray a lot!

Leadership: A Reflection of the People

Posted on by
Reply

As a people we are often highly critical of our leaders, particularly those in the political sphere. These criticisms, on the part of some, can lead to bitterness and sheer hatred. Such has been evidenced in recent days with the passing of Margaret Thatcher, the former British Prime Minister.

It was, to say the least, disturbing to see people in the street celebrating and toasting her death. One person interviewed, filled with morbid glee began to chant, ‘The wicked witch is dead!’

There seems to this author to be several inherent problems with such callous displays.

1. Dictatorship: Whilst Maggie was nicknamed the “Iron Lady”, there is no evidence that she was a bloody dictator. One could understand great cheers at her demise, if she had been the instigator of death squads and midnight disappearances.

However, her greatest wrong seems to have been nothing more than a forthright and honest effort to rectify the failings in and of her nation.

2. Democracy: I am often puzzled by the reactions of the electorate towards representatives in power; by comments made in the media, particularly by politicians. England, like Australia, is a democracy – well that is what they would like us to believe! People are elected by the majority vote. Why is it then that some are so critical of people elected to office? Why is it that opposition spokesmen, especially those recently tipped from power, are so vociferous against their fellows?

It seems to me that we are unhappy with democracy or at least the form of democracy under which we toil. In regard to Maggie, the simple reality is that she was the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20th century. The majority of the British people thought that she was the best of the choices available for that period of time. Therefore, to gloatingly rejoice at the death of an elected representative is to mock democracy.

Now, I do not like Julia Gillard, our current Prime Minister. I do not like her for a substantial number of reasons. However, I must accept that our system has allowed her to become Prime Minister of this country. To do otherwise, is to attack the concept of democracy on which our country is founded. It is also, and this is the real issue, to agitate for a more despotic system of government.

This seems to be the point missed by most. To celebrate or desire the death of a leader when they have done nothing worthy of death is to inherently attack the system of government and democracy upon which our respective countries have been founded.

It is also, of course, a theological issue. It is to say to God that we are unwilling to rest under His providence. It is to say to God that we deserve other than that which He has given to us. Again, the problem with such criticisms is that they are based solely in the subjective opinion of the voter. The lazy person who has existed on government handouts will vote for the person who prolongs and increases these handouts and not for the government that is going to call him to account. Similarly, the person who works hard and pays taxes is going to vote for the person who, in their opinion, best uses those taxes.

The issue with both of these positions is that they are nothing more than subjective elements being expressed by fallen men. They are not the dictates of Almighty God.

3. Desert: This leads us to consider what I would think is the “elephant in the room” in regard to this topic.

What is man’s desert? Okay, I may need to be a little didactic. No, I am not talking about a waste region. I have not misspelled the word referring to that part of a meal that is full of sweet goodies. I am speaking of the archaic form of the word “deserve”. We most commonly understand it in its plural form in the idiom, “just deserts”. The phrase means to be given a reward, good or bad, for one’s actions. Consequently, we must explore the question of the desert of the voters.

In our modern Western democracies, we tend to see the voter as all powerful. It is people power in action. “Yea!” for us. We the people elect the representative most suited to the welfare of the people; and we the people are never wrong.[1] Well, at least this is the fundamental presupposition that we are taught and on which we are urged to vote.

However, if this fundamental presupposition be so right, why is there so much dissatisfaction with government? Why are governments so unable to resolve problems?

Please, unveil the elephant!! (Shield the children’s eyes!)

In our godless Western democracies, we shut God out of the picture. Therefore, we never stop to contemplate that, in regard to the election of officials, often God gives us exactly what we deserve! We never ask the question, “Has God given us the ruler we deserve and not the ruler we need?”

2 Samuel 24:1 states: “Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Here we see clearly that God is angry with His people. Israel had sinned and Yahweh was displeased with this sin. Yahweh’s method at this point was to “incite” the king to an action against the people in order to manifest that sin and bring judgement upon the people (c.f 2 Samuel 21:1 ff)

In light of such a statement, we must ask ourselves if our leaders do not act foolishly at times because the Lord God Almighty is indeed angry with us as a people. We are quick to react against seemingly silly and errant decisions on the part of our leaders, but do we ever stop to ask, “Is this foolishness a consequence of my sin?”

As that question resonates in your mind, do not forget the apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans chapter one. There, in verse 24, 26, and 28, Paul acknowledges that God “gave them up” to their sinful desires as a judgement in consequence of their sinful desires.[2]

When we view these two principles in combination, we are faced with the fact that, in the political realm, God will in fact incline to our cry as a people and give us what we want, not what we need. In short, God will give us our just deserts; the very thing that we deserve for our constant rebellion against Him.

David’s sin seemed innocuous. Yet it was devastating! What is wrong with counting heads? To us, maybe nothing. However, we must respect the text and note two important things. In 2 Samuel 24:10 David’s heart was stricken and he realised that he “had sinned greatly against the Lord.” Then in 2 Samuel 24:15we see that seventy-thousand men perish from the land as a result of the pestilence brought by God’s judgement.

David’s sin in counting the people may have been an act of foolishness that denied the protective power of Yahweh. It may be that he momentarily relied upon the numbers of men rather than Yahweh’s sovereign power. For us, the matter is really inconsequential. It matters naught what motive David had. At this juncture we need to hold fast to the two major premises of the text. First, Israel sinned. Consequently, the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel. Second, in order to bring judgement, David was provoked to an act if sin in order to facilitate the required judgement.[3]

Thus, when unpacked this text shows us clearly that the guilt belonged to the people and the people ultimately paid the penalty. The king was secondary in the incident. His actions were but the trigger. The obvious import of this text, its clarion lesson, is aimed at the people and not the ruler.

When these things are considered, we may well have an “Aha!” moment in which we realise that the circus in Canberra is a consequence of us as a people sinning before the Lord. It may be that we get a good glimpse at that elephant and realise that it is within our power to open the door and usher it away.

There is a distinct Biblical principle that shows that the people will never be better than their leaders. However, as we have seen, even when there is a good ruler, the sin of the people can cause that ruler to do foolish things with disastrous consequences for the people.

When we pour out our prayers to God in regard to our governments – and they certainly need our prayers – do we stop to offer a prayer asking for the forgiveness of the sins of the people? Do we contemplate that laws on homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, begin with the desires of many within our nation and not just with elected officials?

What then will be our response to this situation? Are we prepared to tackle these issues with our fellow citizens? Next time you are involved in a conversation and an expression of dissatisfaction is made, will you ask that person the question, “Has your sin put that person in office or brought this decision to the fore?”

It is sobering, is it not, to think that our sin as a people could be the very reason that God has allowed a Julia Gillard to be elected and to prosper, despite foolishness, opposition, discontent, and rancour?

If we desire to see Revival and Reformation in this land, then it is time that we, the people, began to confess sin and shun evil.[4] When we clean up our act and prove a desire before God for righteousness, maybe our Lord will relent and give us the governments we need to continue the pursuit of righteousness.

Next time you are apt to criticise or share in the criticism of the elected officials in this nation, can you please pause and ask, “Has my sin contributed to our current estate?” Then we need to ask ourselves what we are doing to quell the sin of the nation. Does my position allow me to instigate a programme that would see people sin less? Do I have the ability to teach and mentor in such a way that people would sin less? Am I willing to give up comfort in order to point out sin to people?

In an election year we would do well to ask ourselves these and similar questions. We are apt in our despondency to lodge a “donkey vote” or an informal vote. Yet it is worth remembering that the Donkey we have to saddle come September 14 may have a lot to do with the asses that voted!

Sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34). Does our sin, as a people, make for disgraceful government in our nation? Now there is a question to contemplate!


[1] Please see the following series of articles: John Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract” by Isaac Thomas: http://www.daniel244.org/blog/?p=239

[2] Verse 24 = “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity”; Verse 26 = “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions”; Verse 28 = “And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.” Throughout this section there is an obvious cause and effect of covenantal judgement in place. God’s judgement was to allow people to be swallowed up in the depths of their desired depravity.

[3] It seems also fair to state that Yahweh’s use of David was also an act of divine grace. Whilst David’s sin supplied a trigger for Yahweh’s judgement, David’s heartfelt repentance also mediated the situation. David was given the choice of three judgements. David’s choice was option four – to throw him and his people upon divine mercy. Please also note that although it was Yahweh who “relented” and halted the pestilence, David nonetheless went out to the “angel of the Lord” and offered sacrifices. So it seems that David both caused the judgement of God to come, but through his relationship with God also mediated grace in the midst of judgement.

[4] See: 1 Kings 8:33-40.