Monthly Archives: September 2013

Of Problematic Preferences

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of the recent election, we have heard several calls for electoral reform. These calls have been put forth because of the interesting minority groups who have landed a seat in the senate. Personally, a couple of “normal” people might just help put some sanity into our political system. Anyway, I digress.

What puzzles me most about these calls for electoral reform is that I have not heard a direct reference to overhauling the system as it pertains to the House of Representatives. This is by far the greatest need.

Anyone who has stumbled through our previous writings will be aware of our total dislike for the preferential system of voting that we have in this country. I object to it because it is a total sham that makes a mockery of the whole process of democracy.

In essence, people are duped into voting under the guise of democracy. However, if you are not diligent to number all boxes, the candidates end up deciding where your preferences will go. Even when you number all the boxes, the candidates end up deciding where your preferences will go. There is no “opt-out” section. For example, in this year’s ballet there were several candidates and parties that I would not desire a single vote of mine to support, but I have no option to make this view known.

Then there is the major objection – preferential voting skews the result!

At this point, I want to make it clear that I am not out to discuss the pros and cons of a particular Party or Candidate. This is purely an exercise in number crunching to show how Preferential Voting skews results.

Many in this country celebrated the demise of One Nation. People from the two major Parties openly gloated when One Nation not only failed to win the 12 seats they projected, but were wiped from the political landscape. As we have noted previously, on first past the post, One Nation would have claimed 15 seats.

That is history. So let us talk about the “now” and the fallout from the last election. What I want to illustrate is the fact that the election results are skewed by Preferential Voting. As you read, please keep the question, “How different would our nation be?” floating in the back of your mind.

 I live in the seat of Indi. In our seat, the sitting Liberal member lost her seat to the Independent by 437 votes. This is supposedly the “democratic” result. My question is this, “How does someone who was 12000 votes in front on the Primary vote lose their seat by 437 votes?”

In Indi, the sitting member of Parliament had a 13% margin after Primary votes – 12000 votes – and they lost! Interesting concept of democracy, is it not?

As a consequence of my living in this area, I may be open to charges of “bias”, so in the interest of fairness we will look at some other results.

Clive Palmer wants to win the seat of Fairfax and become Prime Minister. That seat has gone to a recount as Mr Palmer won the seat by only 36 votes after preferences were counted. Once more, a skewed result! After the Primary count, the Liberal candidate had 41.3% to Mr Palmer’s 26.5%. In other words, the Liberal candidate enjoyed an approximate lead of 15% – 12000 votes – and he looks like losing. Again, how do you lead by 12000 votes and lose? Let me also ask this question, “Would you prefer a decision based on 12000 votes or on 36?”

Let us now consider the seat of Barton. This seat is a close contest indeed. Yet, what we see is that the waters are once more muddied. In this seat, the Liberal candidate leads, after preferences, by 489 votes. After the Primary vote, he led by 1525 votes. In this case, it does not look like the result will be altered, but, as stated, it muddies the water. The result is made to be a closer contest than it is in reality.

Then there is the seat of McKewen. In this seat, the Labor candidate is 345 votes in front with the counting of preferences. Yet, after the Primary count, the Liberal candidate was 2751 votes in front.

In showing these figures, I will be accused of being Pro-Liberal and so on. That is not the case at all. These results are from the closest seats at this election and simply illustrate how Preferential Voting skews the result.

In an attempt to put this in perspective, let me give an analogy. Like an election, we have a horse race that “stops the nation”. It is called the Melbourne cup.[1] Image that this prestigious race has been run. There is a clear winner. This horse won by lengths, not just a nose. Yet, as you scan the crowd, no one is excited or jubilant. You quietly ask yourself “Why?”

In hope of an answer, you ask a passerby, “Why are the winners not happy?” “Winners! Winners?” comes the reply. “There are no winners yet. The jockeys must get together and vote on who they think should have won the race.” Puzzled, you thank the stranger and move on. Then you hear the announcement that “such and such” has won the Melbourne Cup. You are even more bewildered now as you can clearly recall that the horse announced as the winner was obviously an “also ran” that finished well back in the pack.

Let me ask, “Who would settle for such circumstances?” Let’s extend the analogy – the Stawell Gift; the Olympics; World Titles; Little Athletics; or your child’s school sports. If your child crossed the line first in his school sports and was then placed second last, I am fairly certain that your course of action would be to remonstrate with the officials and not to console your child with a dissertation on the ‘democratic process’. Where would we settle for anything close to this? Yet, that is exactly what we do every time we go to an election.

In order to make this point as clear as possible, I would like to return to the topic of Pauline Hanson and the seat of Blair.[2] In 1998, Pauline Hanson lost this seat and the vitriol began. Then again, did she lose?

After primary votes, Pauline Hanson was, in round figures, 7000 votes in front of the Labor candidate and 10,000 in front of the Liberal candidate. From my perspective, this is a clear win. Now let me ask you, “Who won the seat?” If you were to say, as logic would predict, that the Labor candidate in second position won, you would be dead wrong! The winner was the Liberal candidate who placed third, near on 10,000 votes behind. Pauline Hanson lost to this person on preferences by 4632 votes.

Think this through. The bronze medallist ended up with the Gold Medal and the person who crossed the line first was given that heartless dissertation on “democratic process.”

If we are to have electoral reform, let it begin with the removal of this ridiculous Preferential Voting system that skews results and ultimately denies the democratic principles it claims to uphold.


[1] This analogy in no way condones horse racing, gambling, and the ills associated with the industry.

[2] Here again, I am not concerned as to whether you loved or hated this woman. My question is, “Do you believe that this result was in anyway fair and just?”

Losing my Religion 2

Posted on by
Reply

Yesterday, we looked at the whole concept of Losing my Religion. We noted that it was in fact an impossibility to lose one’s religion. One may change their fundamental outlook on life, but one cannot ever be devoid of such an outlook.

If it is possible to lose religion, we are of necessity faced with some “hairy” questions. I mean to say, where did you leave your religion so that it now has a “lost” status? Is it behind the dryer with that missing sock? Did you leave it in your other pants? Is it lost in the deep recesses of your makeup case – behind that fluorescent lipstick that you “just had to have”? Maybe it is at the grocery store with your car keys?

Then we have to look at the other possibilities. If someone finds your religion, do you want it returned? Did your mother sow name labels into your religion at the same time she was doing your underwear for just such an occasion? Have you gone to the police station to file a report in regard to your lost religion?

Now, to the truly perplexing. If you do not want your religion back, then it is not lost, it has been abandoned. That which is discarded is not lost, nor will it be sought. A conscious decision has been made to exchange one set of beliefs for another.

So, in the end, we reassert the fact that everyone is religious and all have a religion; whether or not you subscribe to God, gods, or you elevate Man to the position of “God”.

This morning’s news brings another story to our attention – another story that promotes the myth of neutrality and the diarrheic drivel that people can be areligious:

“Former ABBA star Bjorn Ulvaeus says people have become to [too] scared to criticise Islam and that “less religion in the world would be better.”

“Look at all the misery in the Middle East for example. All these countries have Islam in common, and far too few dare to criticize Islam as an ideology, and what it’s doing to these countries,” the 68-year-old told The Wall Street Journal.

“I know I might get punched in the face for saying these things, but my conviction is that less religion in the world would be better.”

Ulvaeus said he did not mean to single out any specific religion but rather believes that countries, like his native Sweden, should be “open, liberal, secular and democratic.”

“Religion is the root of so much misery in the world and I’ve always thought there is lack of criticism against it,” he said.

He is a member of Humanisterna (Swedish Humanist Association) which campaigns for an end to religious oppression and an open secular society.”[1]

I now wish to issue a full and unqualified retraction of all that I have said. Benny has proven me wrong. As Benny was instrumental in the success of ABBA, he must, of course, be absolutely right! NOT!!!

Once more, we a treated to the inane arguments of the humanist – “All evil in the world is because of religion!” This hackneyed argument is trotted out time and again, especially when criticising Christianity.

The astute among you will now call me a hypocrite. After what I have written, how do I deny or criticise the statement that “all evil in the world is because of religion”. Well, I do so for a number of reasons.

  1. As a Christian, evil is a consequence of sin. Sin is rebellion against God.
  2. My objection is not with the statement, but with the Humanist’s definition and implication.
  3. What of the “good” that religions, particularly Christians, do every day?

What I mean by this is very simple. In this statement, Benny uses the term religion” in the sense outlined in the first article. He uses religion in the sense of an organised worldview that looks to God or gods. However, as we have seen, this is a faulty view of religion.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic and would fall under Benny’s condemnation. What then of the many Eastern religions? Some have a pantheon. Some state that “god” is found within. Then we must consider those animistic religions. They are less formalised, but they still acknowledge a god or gods. Further, we have pantheism.

Who exactly is Benny criticising here?

As always, the Humanists take aim at the first three, for they are the codified “religions” that have a view of a Supreme God, who having revealed Himself, demands that His creatures obey Him. This, of course, does not sit very well with the Humanists who wish to follow the rebellious desires of their fallen nature.

Benny, openly criticises Islam, but his veiled comment about ‘criticising all religions’ includes Christianity. I am fairly confident that Benny is not about to enter into a diatribe against Buddhists and Animists. He attacks those codified religions. So let’s understand this point well. Benny criticises those religions that have structure and a rule book.

What then is Benny’s Humanism? As you can see, he belongs to an organisation, a body with rules; a structure. (Hmmm!) Dig a little further and you will find that it also has a rule book that defines its beliefs. (Quizzical look of baffled amazement!) Read the rule book and it calls itself a religion! (Gollum: Hospitals pleases. Silly Bennises has nasty bullet holes in his footses!)

So says the Humanist Manifesto 1933:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate. There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation.[2]

There it is folks. At the very outset Humanism declared itself to be the new religion. Please also note that it was to be a true religion! It had dogma or doctrine. It spoke of salvation. It sought to dominate the world.

Benny is right when he speaks of religions (worldviews) being at the root of many world clashes. However, he is absolutely wrong in his application. Many of these so–called ‘evils’ arise when good men stand up to tyrants.

Benny is also incorrect in his assertion that Humanism is not a religion and is therefore exempt from the criticism. What of Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and the myriad other tyrants of recent times who have murdered, pillaged , and plundered in the name of their particular cause?

Similarly, Benny is mistaken in the substance of his comment which passively asserts that religion, Christianity in particular, does not do any good in this world. What would the world be like if the Christians were taken away? Maybe Benny should read the book or watch the video, ‘What if Jesus had never been born?’

The prophet says that the “heart of man is desperately sick.”[3] It is evil to the core and from it flow all evils.[4] The only panacea is Jesus Christ the Son of God. Only Jesus can bring peace and wellness to the human heart. Only Jesus can deal with the human condition – sin. Only Jesus reveals that it is His redemptive peace that will see the nations beat their swords into ploughshares.

Once more we see, not an areligious soul, but a religious soul peddling a false religion. Benny has aligned himself with those who wage war against God and against His Christ.

Benny, “Kiss the Son, lest He become angry and you perish in the way!”


[1] http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/too-few-criticise-islam-abba-star-bjorn-ulvaeus-says/story-e6frfmqi-1226717306347?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[2] Available at: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Humanist%20Manifestos.pdf. Accessed 12/09/13. Emphasis added. It may be for these reasons that there have been two more versions of the Humanist Manifesto,

[3] Jeremiah 17:9.

[4] Matthew 12:34-37; Matthew 15:19-20.

Losing my Religion

Posted on by
Reply

In 1991, R.E.M. released their song, Losing my Religion. Twenty years later today’s news carried the headline, Britons become less religious.[1] Spooky. Were R.E.M. prophets in disguise?

I doubt it. This Thomical attitude is based on many reasons; chief of these is the fact that one cannot lose their religion. A person may change his religion, but it is a sheer impossibility to be areligious.[2]

Modern usage of the terms Secular and Religous have led us to the point of believing that the two terms are mutually exclusive. More exactly, the inference is that if you tend to the sacred or religious you believe in a God or god, more or less defined. If you are a secularist, then you do not believe in these things.

In today’s world, the definition is really driven further. To be religious is to be that poor, deluded soul who pursues myths. You are in need of a crutch on which to lean because the vicissitudes of life are threatening to overwhelm. The secularist is then viewed as the pinnacle of true humanity – the one who has gained the strength to stand without any crutch.

These definitions will be found in most dictionaries with all the implications noted. The problem is that the dictionaries are mostly inaccurate. When you look through the definitions, you will generally find a hint that religion is more than a belief in God or gods. The subtlety is usually there in phrases like, “a system of faith”[3] or “something of overwhelming importance to a person”.[4]

Thus, when the clutter is removed, we see that to have a religion is to have a set of beliefs that govern how we live. A person may be irreligious but he can never be areligious. It is simply not possible for a person to function without a basic set of beliefs. Therefore, It is inconsequential, at this point, to argue over who determines one’s beliefs. The critical issue is that everyman has a worldview – a set of essential beliefs by which he lives. Call it religion; call it secularism; call it what you will; all men have a fundamental worldview.

Support for this is gained from looking at a thesaurus. One such item lists the following as equivalents for religion: belief, creed, cult, denomination, faith, sect.[5]

This is where we encounter the conundrum and confusion. This same dictionary, under the heading of secular, states: “of worldly affairs, not of spiritual or religious matters.” When we put these two sets of data together the problem should be apparent. To be a secularist is to be someone who is faithless, creedless, and beliefless.

If this were the case, the secularists would all be the ultimate pacifists. They would sit quietly in the corner and say nothing for they would not have anything to say even if they were prompted to speak. Having no creed or belief they would have no principle on which to base statement or opinion.

As we know, secularists are not generally like this. On the contrary, they are vociferous in voicing their opinions and telling us how and by what standard we should live.

The same conundrum is highlighted in the Collins dictionary under the head secularism. There, we are told that this term means: “1. Philosophy – a doctrine that rejects religion, esp., in ethics. 2. The attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.”[6]

Note, please, the use of the word “doctrine”. Does not such a word have religious overtones? So, we are, in essence, being told to reject one set of doctrines in order to adopt a different set of doctrines. Throw out God’s doctrines; accept and operate on Man’s doctrines! Does that sound like a faithless, creedless, beliefless worldview to you?

How do we arrive at an ethical standpoint without a set of morals? How do we arrive at morals without a set of beliefs? It is completely impossible to have a set of ethics based on nothing. Even situational ethics or absolute subjectivism have some type of belief system that inform them. No man is born or operates within a vacuum.

Then we are told that religious attitudes should have no place in civil affairs – this after telling us to believe their doctrine!

Let’s cut to the chase here. What is the difference between an atheist and a secularist? Nothing. One is the application of the other. The person first denies God (atheism) and then tries to build a world without reference to God (secularism).

At this point, we are once more faced with the myth of neutrality. The moderns use terminology to imply that “the religious” are biased and they, the areligious, are unbiased, impartial, and neutral. Yet, as we have seen, their terminology is somewhat contradictory.

No man is born in a vacuum. No man is impartial. No man is unbiased. Every man has an outlook on life which can be termed as his religion. This outlook may change, but he can never be devoid of a basic world and life view.

Therefore, when we read that the “Britons are less religious” now, we need to understand what is really being said. Britons are not becoming theological marshmallows without belief, opinion, and conviction. Rather, they are changing their belief, opinion, and conviction.

A survey conducted in 1983 was compared to a recent survey. These are the results:

  1. The Church of England has declined from 40% to 20%.
  2. Non Christians tripled from 2% to 6%.
  3. Those with “no religion” has risen from 31% to 48%
  4. The Congregation of Rome has stayed steady at around 9%.

When these numbers are “crunched” what we see is that the 20% no longer represented by the C of A are represented as non-Christians (+4%) or those with no religion (+17%). What we witness is a shifting of camps, not and abandonment of belief, opinion, and conviction.

Equally, we should not be surprised at this shift. As the C of A has become increasingly Liberal – a supposed Christianity devoid of Saviour, miracle, and purpose – the congregants have realised that they can be the same person without the burden of an external framework and the demands of a formalised structure.

This denomination in England, like others here in Australia, has stopped preaching the truth. Instead, they have adopted a worldview that opposes God and robs God of His glory, wonder, and being. In the end, it is but a small step to alter the capitalisation of words. God becomes god and man becomes Man.

People do not give up on belief, opinion, and conviction; they simply go into business for themselves; open their own throne room; and begin governing for themselves. These have not lost their religion. They have simply established their own in opposition to God.

  • Proverbs 23:6 – For as he thinks within himself, so he is.
  • James 4:4 – You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
  • Proverbs 12:5 – The thoughts of the righteous are just, But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.
  • Psalm 10:4 – The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
  • Psalm 53:1-3 – The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; there is no one who does good. God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there is anyone who understands, who seeks after God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

[2] We use this term in its true sense of being without a religion. It is not a misspelling of irreligious.

[3] Little Oxford Dictionary, The Clarendon Press. 1986.

[4] Collins English Dictionary, Harper Collins; 4th Edition, 1998. Meaning 5. The example given is” Football is his religion.”

[5] Oxford Australian Essential Dictionary and Thesaurus, Oxford University Press; 2nd Edition ,2008.

[6] Collins: sv Secularism.

Kevin, Who won’t be in Heaven

Posted on by
Reply

Lord give wisdom!

As a Christian, respect for one’s elders is paramount.[1] Being courteous and polite to those in authority is also a Biblical requirement.[2] Yet, with Gary North, citing Elijah, sometimes it is necessary to “ridicule the ridiculous”. In that case, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal and their false god.[3]

In the present, our current Prime Minister has brought himself to the point of ridicule for being ridiculous.

In his first tilt at the top job, Kevin Rudd adopted the slogan Kevin 07. After he ridiculed the asker of the following question: “Mr Rudd, do you believe in Jesus Christ?”, I altered the slogan to, Kevin, Who won’t be in Heaven!

Sadly, nothing of a resurrected Kevin Rudd has caused me any pangs of conscience for labelling him so. Rather, to the contrary, he has continued to amass evidence that substantiates the fact that Kevin Rudd is a Humanist in whom the Spirit of God does not dwell.

The happenings of this week, with particular reference to Q & A on Monday night, have simply brought his ungodly attitude into stark relief. These happenings simply cap off or crown the growing pile of evidence. However, these happenings have also highlighted some other failings, not on the part of Kevin Rudd, but on the part of the Church in this country.

Much has already been said about Mr Rudd’s reaction on Q & A, so I do not intend to go over those points again from a moral standpoint. What I would like to do is examine the whole issue from the perspective of apologetics – the defence of the faith. We recently posted a three-part series designed to encourage people to combat the language and tactics of Secularism. The need is all the more dire because we saw Mr Rudd use these tactics on Monday night. Equally, we witnessed the lack of a cogent response on the part of Christ’s representative.

1. The Heavenless Kevin.

Kevin won’t be in heaven not because he belongs to the Labor Party, but because he continually denies Jesus Christ the Son of God. On Monday night, Mr Rudd used the word “Christ” several times. He did so in the adjectival form Christian. He spoke twice of a “Christian conscience”.

A Christian, by definition, is a disciple of Christ. The appellation is taken and worn precisely because the Christian identifies with Jesus Christ in both His person and His work. It is not, in any way, reasonable to call yourself a Christian simply because you think sandals are cool or you have empathy with the idea of helping people – especially when the rest of your life fails to measure up to the many other ethical stipulations outlined by Jesus. Yet, this is exactly what Mr Rudd has done and is doing. Kevin Rudd claims to have a “Christian conscience” when in reality he has a “–ian conscience” for there is no Christ in it.

Sadly, Mr Rudd is allowed to mock Christ because few, if any, in the Church are willing to label him as a Hell-bound heretic for fear of seeming judgemental and harsh. The Church’s love of the pluralistic peace-at-any-cost theory has meant that we are expected to endure our beloved Jesus being mocked by this man. He claims to be a Christian; therefore he must be treated as a Christian – all evidence to the contrary!

This is nonsense position for the Church in this nation to hold. Jesus said, “By their fruit you shall know them.”[4] Look at the fruit. Where is a genuine loving submission to Christ Jesus on the part of Mr Rudd? Does Kevin Rudd really support, believe in, and promote Jesus Christ in His person and work? Not at all.

On Monday night Kevin Rudd:

  1. Publically ridiculed a Christian brother (from his claimed standpoint).[5]
  2. Publically held the Scriptures to ridicule – exciting a frenzied response of cheering and clapping from the audience.[6]
  3. Publically denied the authority of Scripture.[7]
  4. Publically denied God’s revealed standard as the basis for rationality.[8]
  5. Publically committed epistemological suicide by claiming a “universal principle” from the Bible whilst denouncing the Bible as authoritative.[9]

The pertinent question is, “Why is Mr Rudd allowed to get away with this nonsense?”

2. Brother Matt:

This brings me to the really difficult part of this article; criticising a brother in Christ.

Most articles have defended Matt in regard to the way he was treated and rightly so. However, without wanting to defame this brother, I believe there are some good lessons to be learned from this encounter.

First, let me state that this is not an exercise in superiority or any such. I understand what it is like to be in a crowd as the minority. I can only imagine the difficulty of facing television cameras and a seasoned campaigner like Kevin Rudd. So, I honestly say, “Well done!” to Matt for being willing to subject himself to such a situation for the cause of Christ.

These truths notwithstanding, there are issues that need to be faced:[10]

  1. The death of the Old Testament and its authority.
  2. The idea that faith destroys reason.
  3. The idea that the Holy Spirit trumps preparation.
  4. The idea that “nice” triumphs over evil.
  5. The idea that the New Testament alone is our authority.
  6. The idea that “love and tolerance” are universal Biblical norms.

In many encounters one or more of these concepts seem to be present when Christians seek to defend their faith. When one or more of these concepts are present, it becomes almost impossible to defend the Christian faith.

How do we truly argue for marriage if we do not believe that the Old Testament is God’s authoritative word? If the Old Testament is nothing more than “examples to follow and sins to avoid”, on what basis do we argue exclusively for heterosexual marriage?

Matt rightly quoted Jesus, but seemed to miss the particular emphasis that Jesus made. When responding to the Pharisees, Jesus answer came as a quotation from two Scriptures, namely, Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Matt highlighted the second quote, but missed the first reference – a reference that would have put Mr Rudd on the spot. You see, Jesus first words on marriage are, “He (God) made them male and female!” Squirm, Mr Rudd! Squirm!

The importance of Jesus’ statement is incalculable. Mr Rudd is a New Testament man. Out with all that dodgy Old Testament wrath, anger, and righteous law stuff. Away with it! He wants the New love and grace Testament that allows him to wiggle around ethical dilemmas on the basis of Jesus’ universal principle of love. However, right here, in Jesus’ words, the wheels on Mr Rudd’s bicycle went square and he should have been tipped off in ignominy.

After all, here is Jesus, the pinnacle of New Testament altruism; the Liberal’s poster boy – no blasphemy intended – and yet He is heard to say, “Marriage is between one man and one woman; homosexuals need not apply. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into!” So, where does Mr Rudd go from here? He must either dismiss Jesus or attempt some gross reinterpretation of Jesus’ words. At either point, you have the upper hand. The door is open to ask Mr Rudd why he insists on calling himself a Christian when he so readily denies Christ. We could also ask him about reinterpretation – If everything is so interpretable, how can he be sure of the accuracy of your universal principle of love?

Again, I reiterate that it is much easier to argue these things from my study and without a television audience. So please understand that this exercise is not that of picking upon or defaming a brother. It is a lesson in encouragement. I desire my brethren to learn so that we can all do better. To know God’s word so that the answers are ready to hand in any situation. To be able to articulate Biblical arguments. If you cannot, please do not put yourself in that position. To understand, as Jesus showed, that the Old Testament is authoritative Scripture. To understand that the Holy Spirit will give wisdom and guidance, but equally that we must do the hard yards of learning as well.[11]

Mr Rudd’s fervent attacks on the Christians of this nation have exposed some weaknesses. We have not seen published denunciations of Mr Rudd at a denominational level – furthering the myth of godless government. We have witnessed confused and unBiblical reasoning particularly with regard to homosexuality – the myth of God’s absolute love for all. There has been no authoritative challenge to Mr Rudd’s heretical Liberal position – the myth that the Bible is not supernatural. We have to face the fact or should have faced the fact that we have imbibed too much of the world’s philosophy—the myth of neutrality. Foolishly, we have put down our Bibles and have tried to reason after the wisdom of this age rather than in the Power and Wisdom of the age to come.

Another lesson, applicable to the moment, would be that of heeding Paul’s words to Timothy: For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline (self-discipline, prudence). Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.[12] On account of our Secular Government’s institution of laws that attack righteousness and gag any who would point out that the emperor is “butt naked”, we have become a people who are loath to speak out. We have become fearful of falling foul of Big Brother. Hence, we need to be reminded that the Gospel life requires courage.

This courage is needed in terms of confrontation. It is the courage Matt displayed to open his mouth in a stacked forum and to endure the ridicule of an egoist. Alongside of this, however, we need the courage to kneel before God and confess that we have dropped the ball; to confess that we have not borne the name of Jesus aright and that we have seen it trampled because we were afraid to speak. It is the courage to open our Bibles and, in its holy light, amend our ways so that we conform to the image of Jesus Christ. It is bathing in this light so that our minds are transformed into suppositories (repositories) of God’s wisdom. This is Biblical courage.

On the other side, we have the cowards, like Kevin, Who won’t be in heaven, for they take out a pen and rewrite the Bible to suit their own fallen nature. They hold out to ridicule any who challenges them because they have no foundation. Therefore, they must mock. In taking this course, they come under severe judgement: But these men revile[13] the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.[14]

Our challenge and our calling are to be so armed with the Wisdom and Word of God that we cause the mouths of such men to be silent in the presence of a Thrice holy God. It is only when these men are forced to stop flapping their gums that they might be still and know that Jesus Christ is God.


[1] See: Leviticus 19:32.

[2] See: 1 Peter 3:15 (with gentleness and reverence); 1Timothy 2:2; Romans 12:17-18; Hebrews 12:14.

[3] See: 1 Kings 18:20 ff.

[4] Matthew 7:20.

[5] His attack on Matt Prater was simply undignified. He attacked the man and not the ball. Having no sound argument he had to attack the man and win the crowd. It is his only play. I believe that they call this “bullying”. I thought that there were laws against such things? Equally, there was very little of 1 Peter 1:22 seen in Mr Rudd’s conduct.

[6] When Mr Rudd equated believing that the bible condemns homosexuality with the idea that this then means that we should still sanction slavery, the audience erupted in support. Note 1: Mr Rudd did nothing to stop this in an effort to engender respect for Jesus or Bible. Note 2: Mr Rudd showed utter contempt for the text of Scripture.

[7] Mr Rudd spoke of a “good Christian conscience”. “Good” by whose standard? If you deny God’s word as your authority, then how do you objectively verify “good”? You do not. It is a subjective assessment and, as such, it is not worth a crumpet – well, it is like a crumpet in that it seems solid, but when you turn it over it is full of holes!

[8] Mr Rudd started with his conscience, moved to “born that way”, and then started on the philosophical, “if you accept that premise”. Immediately, he is building upon a false foundation. His conclusion must be erroneous because his premise is faulty. Mr Rudd started with, “God has not spoken and if he has it is now culturally irrelevant” and from there the teddy bears took him round and round the garden and ended up tickling his own ears and ego.

[9] If the Bible is passé, it is passé completely. One cannot deny whole sections and then claim one principle. Nor can one claim a single principle that overturns all other teaching, for such a principle would overturn the principle itself.

[10] These issues need to be faced regardless of whether Mr Rudd is ousted tomorrow – a happening for which I sincerely pray. Regardless of the election result, these issues remain as thorns in the side of the Church and will continue to be cause pain until extracted. It must be remembered that Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott are both apples from the same tree.

[11] The Biblical reference to relying on the Holy Spirit in the defence of the Gospel all sit in the context of persecution – being dragged before kings and princes. I think it a mistake to apply these texts to a situation where prayer and study (all Spirit governed) can be made beforehand. Luke 12:12; Matthew 10:19; Luke 21:14-15. C.f Ezra 7:10; Acts 17:11; Acts 18:28; Acts 17:2; Luke 4:17ff.

[12] 2 Timothy 1:7-8.

[13] The Greek literally says to blaspheme.

[14] Jude 10-13