Abbott and Costello – Comedy duo and political nightmare! In this article we are not concerned with Bud and Lou, rather our attention is fixed upon Tony and Peter.

Tony Abbot has come under fire for making the point that Homosexual Union is not the priority in the upcoming election. Mr Abbott sees that the issues of the economy are of a higher order.

Mr Abbott, how wrong you are!

The problem with this country is morality,[1] not economics; nor anything else for that matter. The economy of this country suffers because the economic principles employed have been divorced from morality. Governments believe that they can tax without limit; that they can demand more taxation be paid for their latest and greatest scheme. These Governments spend without regard to legitimacy, equity, longevity, or prosperity. These Governments spend immorally.

Think here of Kevin Rudd’s stimulus package. People’s ‘hard earned’ gathered by the Taxman had been stored by the previous Government. Economic downturn hits. Mr Rudd’s genius plan – let’s throw all this money at people (generally the people not taxed in the first place) in the hope that they will spend up big and save the economy.

Politics aside, who thinks this to be the master plan? It is sheer nonsense. Who runs their household budget this way?[2] Imagine the domestic equivalent: Your husband comes home from work and announces he has been fired due to economic downturn. No more money. He then announces, “No problem, we will just take all our savings and give it to Bert across the road. We will direct him to spend it on products made by my former employer. This stimulus should help them and they will reemploy me!” Possible? Yes. Probable? No. Most likely you end up stone-broke living under a bridge or in your mate’s garage.

This leads us to the other half of this political duo, Peter Costello. When he was Treasurer, he was heard to say something along the lines of ‘some debt is good.’ At that time, this was a mantra. People were encouraged to hang on to a little debt because it supposedly gave them better options. Why pay out your mortgage and risk more fees should you ever want to borrow again? Keep the debt. Keep the credit line open and you could possibly, maybe, at some stage, save some money.

Again, economics divorced from morality. The Biblical point of view is that if you are in debt, then you are a slave. The slave has no freedom. The slave has his future governed by the one in power.

Then there was the whole, ‘do not get a personal loan, add it to your mortgage’ propaganda. Why pay 15% interest when you could pay 6%. It seemed so reasonable. However, none seemed to stop and do their sums – except for the Banks. When you work it out, 15% over two years is a lot less pain than 6% over twenty years. Consider, also, the epiphanic discovery by the Banks – pay your loan fortnightly and save money. Epiphany! Not even close. The word is “manipulation”. These institutions knew this; they simply wanted to milk the situation.

So why was there a push to keep people in debt? The short answer is – a complete absence of morality in economics and business.

What, then, is the point?

Australia is, above all, facing a crisis in morality. This crisis is most clearly seen in the acceptance of homosexuality, the protection afforded to homosexuals, and the now constant demand for Homosexual Union.

What Mr Abbott has failed to grasp is that there are not a number of separate, standalone issues facing this country. We have one fundamental problem – as a people we desire immorality. This immorality permeates every aspect of our lives. It is the issue in dysfunctional families, poor customer service, the greed of “Big Business”, the demand for anarchic individualism, unjust taxation, murder, profligacy, border protection, the right of individual choice, and governmental tyranny.

We hear much about “Secular Australia” or the “Secular State”. What is meant by this term? Most, when hearing the term “secular”, interpret it to mean free from religion. What they do not grasp is that “Secularism” is a religion. It is an immoral religion. It is that simple.

This country was to a degree founded on Biblical truths. Those truths started with the fact that the God of the Bible exists and that He is the source of right and wrong – the moral Absolute. As a culture we have rejected God. In essence then, we have willingly adopted everything that God opposes. We are not “atheists”, but “antitheists” in that we are anti-God.[3]

Now you may ask, “How does homosexuality show this?”

The answer to such a question is very easy, if you believe the Bible. I do not expect the secularist to jump in here with a hearty, “Amen!” However, I would ask that fellow Christians think about this seriously – not on my say so, but on the authority of God.

Consider Paul’s argument in Romans Chapter one. Paul begins by noting that he is a preacher of the Gospel of God. He notes that he is not ashamed of this gospel for it is “the power of God unto salvation.” Paul then (v17) posits that salvation is about the revelation of the righteousness of God.

With the scene set, Paul then states unequivocally that God’s wrath is revealed from heaven against ungodliness. Not will be, may be, might, or could; is![4] Paul then advances his argument, showing that God is known and seen in creation and that Man’s refusal to obey God is because he shuts his eyes to the observable. For this action, Man is condemned as darkened and foolish.

This said, the Apostle unpacks the consequences of Man’s rebellion. Paul outlines three specific points. Each contains the phrase “God gave them over” and illustrates a particular point in which Man’s rebellion has had dire consequences. For us, the importance of the text is to be found in the parallels with Genesis and the Creation Mandate.

In Genesis 1:26, we see God purpose to make Man after His own image. The implication here is that Man, whilst lower than God, would be made in the same perfection as God. This perfection would mean that Man could share in and express the worthiness (worthship) of God. Today, we call this worship. Thus, man was made specifically to enjoy God in worship.

When we look to Romans 1:24ff, we see that the first area in which God handed Man over to his basest[5] desires was in the area of worship. Man worshipped himself, among other things, rather than the One True God.

Next, and this is the most relevant aspect, we see that God made Man male and female (Genesis 1:27). With this difference in sexuality, Man was gifted the ability to “be fruitful and multiply”. Having been gifted in this manner, Man was able to propagate and thereby “subdue the earth”. In these sentences, we are introduced to family and to an expanding social structure.

Turning again to Romans, we see that this is the very next area in which Man’s basest desire came to expression. Man would no longer, in his maleness, fulfil the role for which he was created. This in turn resulted in Man not fulfilling her femaleness. Rather, male and female rebelled against God’s design and devised other uses for their sexuality, viz personal, self gratification (hedonism).

Therefore, in homosexuality we see both Man’s ultimate rebellion against God and the ultimate judgement of God against immorality.

Then, in verse 28 of Romans one, Paul moves on to the societal aspect. With Man rewriting his own being, sexuality, and purpose, it would not be long before there was a flow on effect to society. Instead of Man, as male and female, establishing the family unit in righteousness and propagating both his kind and the knowledge of God throughout the earth, Man adopted the absolutely selfish traits epitomised in homosexuality.

As we move toward implication and application, it is important to note that we commonly speak of four institutions in society: the Individual, the Family, the Church, and the State. Thus, the rebellion of Individual against God’s design and purpose had to have an unavoidable and negative impact upon the design and function of the family. As the Family is the building block of society, any fundamental shift in the family’s structure had to have an impact upon society, particularly in regard to morality and consequent behaviour. Then we see both the Church and the State capitulate to the Individual’s demands. The Church locks the doors and goes to prayer in the corner, not daring to raise a voice. The State looks for electoral “Brownie points” and therefore kowtows to any socio-political demand that seems like it might be a vote winner or which further strengthens its position in rebellion against God.[6]

In analysing the flow of Paul’s argument, we note that the individual’s rebellion can reach to great depths. Paul shows, in regard to the individual and family, that homosexuality is the absolute acme of rebellion. This, for us, is the clue. This is the key indicator.

Armed with this, let us make some points in application:

1. We are not saying that homosexuality begets immorality in the ‘prime moving’ sense. What we are saying is that homosexuality is the height of rebellion. Therefore, if our society and government readily accept homosexuals, a great statement is being made concerning our nations immorality.

2. Man’s rebellion means that Man must be governed and sin restrained. If the Man will not be self–restrained, it is up to the other institutions to correct and teach to restraint. Therefore, if the other institutions fail in their task, either through dereliction, coercion or sympathy, sin will not be restrained but proliferated.

3. The reality is that we have had successive Governments who have had sympathy with rebellion against God. As a consequence of this sympathy, these Governments have coerced the other institutions into aiding and abetting the rebels. This aiding and abetting is seen throughout society. Where is justice? Why are criminals paroled so as to murder again? Why are families hounded so as to not discipline their children? Why do the claims of the rebellious teenager automatically hold sway? Why can mothers kill their children in the womb with impunity? Why can Governments tax incessantly and without limit?

This list could go on. No matter whether you are a Christian or not, most would be dissatisfied with the current state of many things in this country. In the words of Julius Sumner Miller, “Why is it so?” It is precisely the result of us being an immoral people who love immorality in rebellion against God. It is the result of successive Governments peddling this rebellion as ‘the wisdom of the age’.

Tony Abbott is absolutely wrong. Homosexuality is the big issue in this election. It is so precisely because morality is or should the big issue in this election. Our economy will not improve without a moral injection. The ills of society will not improve without a moral injection. The hospital system will not improve without a moral injection (excuse pun). Our education system will not improve without a moral injection.

The choice is simple: carry on in rebellion and continue to reap the misery that is Secularism or repent and turn back to God – leaning not on our understanding but always acknowledging Him so that He will make our paths straight.

The choice is not between Labor, Liberal, Democrat, Green, or Independent. It is not Business v Social welfare; it is not Economy v Environment; it is not Wealth v Equity.

The choice is: God or Man? Morality or immorality? Life or death?

Sadly, to date, I have not heard one candidate or one Party state these facts; not one person or party distill the issue to this point.

I guess that is why this election campaign looks like it has been orchestrated by Abbott and Costello – that is, Bud and Lou!