Man’s Priority (Pt 4)

Posted on November 13, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Sola Scriptura. This is the Christian’s, indeed, Man’s only rule for life and faith. Within the pages of Scripture, Man finds meaning and purpose. Man finds his priority for life.

The truth of this is evident simply by looking to our society. We have become used to people asking the question: “Why am I here?” Surveying society, we find people not only searching for an answer to that question, but also living a life in answer to that question.

When the Nihilist exists in what is little more than amalgamated moments of despair, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Materialist exists by gathering to himself an ever increasing number of objects, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Secularist exists in his Closed System, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Evolutionist exists in his Chaos, he is living out his answer to the question. When the alcoholic exists in his stuporous state, he is living out either his answer or lack of an answer to the question.

The tragedy encountered here is that each one thinks he either has an answer or has successfully avoided the question, when he has but grasped the air. Even more sorrowful is the fact that rebellious Man, turning his back to Scripture, has rejected the source of Truth and the one place in which he can find meaning and purpose, and priority. Sad, very sad!

Yet, there is a greater calamity still. Such calamity is witnessed when we view the redeemed man also turning his back to Scripture. The rebellious sinner does so precisely because he is a rebellious sinner. This is understandable. This can make perfect sense. The child of God turning his back to His Father’s voice! This is calamity. It is altogether preposterous. Yet, it happens – indeed is happening! Everyday across our nation, Christians go about their business without seeking the counsel of God. Having been bewitched by the philosophy of this age, they indulge their perceived freedom to govern their lives as they see fit. Consequently, they fail to live out the purpose for which they were created and redeemed.

Why am I here? Why are any of us here? What is our individual and collective priority? To worship the One True and Living God in purity through obedience![1]

As noted in the Part 3, Christians today have fallen into the age old temptation that plagued Israel – they have mistaken fervent, industrious, religious activity for true worship. Christians (and those claiming to be Christians ) turn up to church on Sunday; they run programmes; they busy themselves in worthwhile activities; they put money in the plate; they sing with gusto; yet this avails naught because God is displeased with these people for they do not worship Him aright. Whilst they come to His house, offer praises in His name, and comply with certain Biblical commands, the reality is that these are outward motions only. The heart is in a different place and comes to each of these activities with false motives and a different agenda.[2]

Now, I am sure that some will baulk at this assessment. Yet, this is the very evaluation that God made of Israel on several occasions. Israel conformed to the outward standards, but they did not follow in true heartfelt obedience to God’s Law. Yahweh, consequently, told them to stop brining their sacrifices and observing their New Moons because they were a burden to Him. [3] Fervency was not intimacy; practice was external not personal; adherence was rational not relational; and praise was contrived not congenial.

The pertinent question seems to be, “Why do we think that we are immune to that same folly?” When we have puppet shows instead of preaching; when the service is so burdensome that we need an in house coffee hut and an intermission; when we sing a majority of songs that start with “I”; when our personal enjoyment becomes the ‘yardstick’ of a good service; when we become willing to abandon important doctrines so as to attain a better turn out; when some of our churches have sound systems that would cause recording studios to blush; when we fracture Christ’s body; when we fracture families; when we condone sin and effectively trample the blood of Christ underfoot – How is it that we believe, contrary to all available evidence, that we are immune to that same folly?[4]

The Church is currently beguiled by unbelief precisely because She has imbibed deeply of the spirit of this age. Without question, successive generations, raised on a diet of Secular Humanism and rank Individualism, have brought these philosophies to the life of the Church. Man has been elevated. He is no longer a worm. Man is magnificent. Man is the measure. Man’s rational mind can solve all problems. Man therefore assumes the mantle of the “one” to be worshipped.

As a result, subtly to be sure, God’s glory is eroded. God is no longer the single focus. Man crept in slowly. Starting as a mere apparition in the corner of the eye, he slowly moved to become the focal point. As this process was taking place, the equal and opposite reaction began. God was shifted sideways until He became but a speck in the corner of the eye – present to the view, but no longer to be the mono-focus.

Given Man’s elevation, all that spoke poorly of Man had to be eradicated or toned down. Certain doctrines were dropped, modified, or spoken of only in hushed tones. The words spoken from the pulpit underwent change. The hymns known throughout the Church were slowly abandoned. New songs were written that reflected the new beliefs. Doctrinal standards were pushed into the background and remained only as a token of respect to the past. The result of this development is that we have a generation that imitates the external motions of a previous generation, but which function on a very different set of motives.

Subtly, Christianity has become completely subjective, focussing on “me” and “I”. Christianity has become a cosmic power to meet the needs of the individual. I tithe in order to get. I go to the church that I like for my enjoyment. I attend the place where I am comfortable. When seeking a new place to attend, they scope out any prospective congregations with the I. These prospects must be aesthetically pleasing to the I or they will not suffice. If any subsequent changes are made causing that congregation to cease being pleasing to the I, then a motion is put to leave and find somewhere else. The result? They I’s have it. The motion passes.

Worse than this atrocity – the individual Christian becoming the focal point in worship rather than God – was the second phase. Having elevated Man and having dropped those doctrines and terms that offended Man, it was not long before the distinction between Man the saint and Man the sinner disappeared. Thus, the most glaring change that has occurred in this regard is that sinful man has been elevated to be the centre of attention. The Christian does not focus upon an absolutely holy God nor does he focus upon his own redeemed brethren. Rather, sinful, unregenerate Man holds pride of place.

Sermons are no longer aimed at the true, obedient worship of God or edifying and equipping the Christian; rather they are aimed at saving and or pacifying the sinner. Quizzically, as the sinner does not like certain doctrines, they are dropped or minimised so that the sinner can be comfortable. The sinner, in the extreme case, is even offered certain jobs so that they will feel at home within the Church.

This happens across our nation every Sunday, yet people seem absolutely reluctant to admit to the obvious consequences of this process. God demands holiness and separateness, so we must ask, “On what basis do we form an amalgam?”[5] God’s word reveals that certain things must be preached as the means of salvation, so it must be asked, “How do we save a sinner if these requirements are dropped?”[6]

This is not rocket science. It is a case of dealing with hearts that have become hardened unto God; hearts that are listening to Man and not God.[7]

In opposition to this anthropocentric view and coddling of the unregenerate, the Bible instructs us specifically that Man’s priority is to worship the One True and living God and this in absolute purity. There is to be no “guess work”, “stabs in the dark”, “rough enough is good enough” or “God looks on the heart” type theology–which translates into Man doing what he thinks is right and acceptable.

On the contrary, Scripture, in words, signs, and figures, vociferously insists that God alone is to be worshipped and worshipped in the manner prescribed by Him. During the Reformation this principle came to be known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. Sadly, over time men have tampered with this concept to the point that it is either forgotten or obscured.

Nonetheless, the words penned by the Westminster Divines, enunciating the Biblical principle, hold true and should not be ignored:

…But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. (Deut. 12:32, Matt. 15:9, Acts 17:25, Matt. 4:9–10, Deut. 15:1–20, Exod. 20:4–6, Col. 2:23).[8]

What is amazing about this teaching is not the dogma itself, but the fact that it is so patent, so prevalent, so perspicuous, and so emphasised in Scripture, yet men seem unwilling or unable to grasp it.

Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening – fellowship / worship. This relationship was intimate. There was no barrier or hindrance. Then Adam transgressed. What happened next? Man was ashamed to dwell in intimacy with God. Fallen man could not reside before a holy God nor meet the demands for fellowship and worship. Man’s response? He hid. He is still hiding. Man distances himself from God because he cannot bear the light of truth that shines forth from God’s righteous Being and shows Man to be a sinner. It is important to note that nothing has changed in this regard. Sinful Man still hides from God in the 21^st Century.[9]

This principle is clearly seen. Why do we not admit it and believe it? Adam hid. Adam did not make his way to God. At the first hint of God’s presence, Adam scarpered! This is the sinners MO when dealing with God. Likewise we see that it was God who called Adam’s name. It was God who made the blood covering for Adam and Eve.

In terms of our thesis, this is a noteworthy point. If sinful Man runs from God and His worship, “How do we humans believe that we can make God’s worship appealing to a rebellious sinner?” We compromise. We empty our churches and our worship services of the things that would offend the conscience of sinful Man. Hence, in orthodox circles we adopt many of the practices outlined earlier; in heterodox circles we abandon standards altogether and happily teach the principles of homosexuality, feminism, Secularism, Evolution and the like. In short, there is an attempt to legitimise paganism.

Man cannot come to God as he pleases.[10] Man cannot offer as acceptable worship that which is devised in his own mind.

Think, here, of the first murder. What was the setting? Worship! Abel, acceptable to God, presented an acceptable offering according to God’s design.[11] Cain did not. Cain became enraged, but he only had himself to blame. His offering was not accepted because he had adopted the “stab in the dark” approach. He had decided “rough enough was good enough”. Cain believed that God should simply accept his offering because he had made an effort to present something.

In other words, typical of fallen Man, Cain believed, not in obeying God’s revelation, but in the fact that Man can oblige God to look upon him with favour purely on the basis of Man offering a token gesture in God’s direction. Let’s be clear. In every form, this formula is favour or salvation by works! It is Man’s vain attempt to obligate God into rendering favour / salvation to Man on the basis of something that Man has done.

Note the pattern, please. First, Cain pays no heed to God’s standard for acceptable worship – showing his disbelief in God’s word as the only authority. Second, Cain despises the warning given by God to the effect that sin is crouching at the door. Third, having shown a gross disregard for the voice of God on these two occasions, Cain casts off all restraint, strikes out at his brother, killing him, rather than admit that he is a sinner. Cain was culpable. Cain stopped up his ears to the voice of God. Yet, like most sinners, he chose to blame the ‘righteous man’ for being righteous. Cain chose to blame Abel because Abel’s righteousness clearly showed Cain’s sin.[12]

Clearly demonstrated for us in this episode are several facts. Of importance, please note again, the sinner does not run to God, rather he runs from God. Also, the sinner cannot bring any worthy sacrifice that will be acceptable to God. In fact, as the sinner is the impediment to worship, refusing to hearken unto God’s instruction, he cannot offer anything that is acceptable and will therefore only and always react negatively when corrected. Thus, in terms of our worship today, why is it that we seek to cajole and placate the sinner? Why do we insist on a pragmatic means that runs contrary to Scripture? Why do we place the sinner before obedience to God?[13] More importantly, if we are so concerned for the sinner, why do we deceive him?

Lastly, please take serious note of the progression. Cain refused to listen to God and men died. When Cain refused to listen to God’s instruction and correction, he set himself on a course of destruction that ended in death. The instruction of God for worship was not heeded. The voice of God for correction and warning was openly dismissed. Such brazenness toward God could only manifest itself as a total disrespect for man – in this case, the life of his brother.

When we stop our ears to God today, on what path do we step? What consequences will come as a direct result?

Moving forward in history, let us consider the Exodus. When God called His people out of Bondage in Egypt, on what basis did He do so? Worship! God commanded Pharaoh to let His people go so that they may “go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, to sacrifice to the Lord our God.”[14] The intent of this statement is even more clear when Pharaoh finally caves, saying, “Rise up, get out from among my people, both you and the sons of Israel; and go, worship the Lord, as you have said.”[15]

At this momentous point in history, God reveals this singular point – salvation is to worship. One cannot be saved and not worship. One cannot worship unless saved. Salvation is worship, but it is a very specific worship. It had to be as God commanded. It happened not in bondage but in freedom. It happened in God’s land, not in a foreign land. It happened in accordance with God’s standards, not Man’s.

When Israel reached Mount Sinai they were given the Law. Why? So that they would live and worship rightly. What was God’s chief complaint and the reason Israel was expelled from the land? They did not obey God and worship Him appropriately, exclusively, obediently or willingly.

Again, how do we overlook this potent and recurring subject? How do we insist that the priority of the Church, the State, the Family, and the Individual, is something other than total obedience to and worship of the One True and Living God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ? How do we dethrone this God and put the rebellious sinner in His place? How do we do this in light of all that Scripture reveals on the matter of God’s worship in purity, by His people, in accordance with His standard? How do we? We do it precisely because of unbelief. We will not yield to the voice of the Lord.

Jeremiah’s words should make us tremble:

An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so![16]

(Part 5)

[1] The word worship comes from worth-ship. It’s related to worthy as in “worthy is the Lamb.” To worship God means to give Him what He is worthy to receive.

Worship is what will eventually unite the whole creation. The hearts of all men and the direction of all that lives will form a perfect harmony not around a conference table but around a throne. The end of [goal] life is worship. The goal of living is praise.

When we offer proper worship, we are completely free.

For a picture of freedom by worship, we should attend a football game at a stadium. Try to forget how unimportant the issue is, and disregard, for the present, the silliness of the spectacle. Just watch the crowd—all those people different from each other in color, opinion and character. On an ordinary day, in an ordinary room, you could not get six of them to say the same thing on any topic. But now they are unreservedly united while they cheer their team on. For a moment, at least, they are entirely free from every private worry. Nobody even thinks of the mortgage payments. The hope and happiness of every one of them is wrapped up in their team’s victory. The fans in the stadium are a perfect parable of freedom by worship.

The goal of the cosmos is the praise of God. The universe will be free when all our streams of thought and all our aspirations converge on the throne of God.

Today we may already experience something of the freedom and unity of worship. In those rare moments when our prayers turn to praise, we are free. Health, house, money, misery, even sin and guilt are forgotten when we climb the stairway of praise.

In those moments when we have nothing to ask and everything to give, we make the great discovery that we were made for God—and that He and the Lamb are worthy of the worship of all that exists. And we find unity! Effortlessly we find each other in the praises of our God.

Andrew Kuyvenhoven, Daylight: Daily readings with the Bible (Paideia Press, St Cathrines, Ontario, Canada) November 9; Text: Revelation 5:11-14. Italics original. Bold added. Also available at: http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/Daylight.pdf

[2] Isaiah 29:13 ff; C.f Mathew 15:7-9.

[3] Isaiah 1:11-15; Jeremiah 6:20; Amos 5:21-24; Amos 4:4-5; Malachi 1:10; Isaiah 66:3; Micah 6:6-8; Jeremiah 7:8-11.

[4] We will attempt to answer this in the following paragraphs. The short answer is, “unbelief”! We have turned away from Scripture and adopted the standards of the world. Therefore, when we measure our efforts and or activities they seem acceptable only because we are using a false measuring device. We think we are above Israel precisely because we are affected by the same stupor – a stupor that blinds our eyes and dulls our minds to God’s reality.

[5] 2 Corinthians 6:14 -18: Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. 18 “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty. See Isaiah 52:11 as the source quote, making this a Biblical standard. C.f 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 and Revelation 18:4.

[6] The most obvious example would be Paul’s statement that the “Law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24); yet we rarely use the term law let alone preach on it and from it. Here, the chain is complete. Having abandoned faith in the OT, we are in need of a new means to convert sinners. Thus, we invent rather than repent. We turn to our own ideas instead of turning back to God and His Word. A note must also be given on the sentence used. Man cannot save sinners. That alone is God’s work. However, if you listen to the moderns you would think that salvation was but a formula – do this, add that and voilà! This highlights the problem. Men were commissioned by God to preach the Gospel – foolishness to Man but the power of God unto salvation. Why? Salvation is not in believing, as such, but in receiving the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ. This is the “gift” Paul speaks of in Romans. The point being that we have subtly capitulated to the false doctrines that espouse that Man can act for his own salvation. Consequently, we use programmes and entertainments to try and convince Man to be saved.

[7] Ezekiel 3:4-11: Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. “For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel, nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you; yet the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate. “Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. “Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house.” Moreover, He said to me, “Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I shall speak to you, and listen closely. “And go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not, ‘Thus says the Lord God. Ezekiel 5:11 – So as I live,‘ declares the Lord God, ‘surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations, therefore I will also withdraw, and My eye shall have no pity and I will not spare.

[8] WCF 21:1. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[9] If you have any doubt about the veracity of this statement, I beg you, please read Romans chapter one and pay full attention to what Paul has to say, especially at verse 32.

[10] John 6:44; John 14:6; Numbers 4:17-20; Leviticus 21:16-24.

[11] At this point, we must do justice to the text by acknowledging that the offering is tied to the offerer. The text says that God had “regard for Abel and his offering”. The word order suggests that the offering was acceptable because the offerer was acceptable. The same thing is said of Cain. God did not just disregard Cain’s offering. God had disregard for Cain himself. This is important for our thesis as it categorically shows that the offering cannot transcend the offerer. In short, even the perfect offering will be impeded by the imperfect offerer. Once more, then, we are confronted with the Biblical fact that sinful Man cannot find acceptance with God on his own terms.

[12] This is the modern principle in action. Holiness shows the sinner’s deficiency in the eyes of a Holy God. Therefore, everything that would have this effect must be eradicated. Cain destroyed Abel in order to remove the holy object that convicted him of his sin. We are doing this very thing today when we drop or change doctrines. When we change our language. When we reduce our standards. The tragedy is that in doing so we are taking away God’s appointed means of salvation and we are failing to allow this absolute holiness to be a spur to genuine awe and wonder in worship. The result of this is that we rob sinner and saint.

[13] Again, people will baulk at this. Yet it is true. I have witnessed many sermons of late that are almost universally applied to the sinner. It is rare to hear the sermon that encourages the Christian to be a better father, husband, son, employer, employee, friend, companion, lover etc. The current decline in Christianity’s impact on our world is explicitly tied to this subject. As we have turned from God, we have forgotten what we are to be, thus sermons seek to convert sinners (but rarely achieve as the Gospel has been made null) but Christians are not taught to be mature and Christ like. Hence, the downward spiral begins by denying God’s absolute right to be worshiped; it continues in the paucity of true worship; consequently the Christian’s maturity and sanctification are passed over. In the end, there is no salt and light, so the world becomes smelly and dark.

[14] Exodus 3:18.

[15] Exodus 12:31.

[16] Jeremiah 5:30-31.

Sola Scriptura (Pt 3)

Posted on October 21, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

If we are to effectively reform the Church in our day, we must begin by turning back to and embracing the Scriptures as our only rule for life and faith. We must return to the solas of the Reformation and to the cry – Sola Scriptura!

This wholehearted return to Scripture as our only and final authority is necessary in order to counteract each and every attempt by man, yes, even redeemed man, to govern autonomously. Even as the redeemed of the Lord, we still show the tendency of Adam to question God’s perspicuous statements and commands and to believe that we can construct or invent a better way – even if we are not so bold as to state it in these terms!

Let me outline two prominent errors found in the modern Church:

1. The New Testament Christian: This position, implicitly or explicitly, denies the authority of large portions of the Bible, namely, substantial parts of the Old Testament. Those holding to this position would avow that they believe the Bible, however, when pushed, you would find a tacit acknowledgement that the Old Testament is passé to the Christian.

Let us be clear. These people believe the Old Testament. The problem is that they believe it only as history. They believe it as a set of events that have transpired. What they do not believe is that the Old Testament has actual authority to guide and direct their lives. As noted elsewhere, the Old Testament is largely viewed as ‘examples to follow and sins to avoid’. The Bible is not viewed as a single, authoritative whole.[1] Thus, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever ‘Thus says the Lord-ish’ about these Old Testament portions.

2. The Age of the Spirit: This group takes very seriously the fact that the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit has come in power as a sign of the New Age. So seriously do they take this teaching that they, in effect, lay down their Bibles. These, too, see the Bible as passé, albeit in a slightly different manner to group one.

Where the first group would claim that “the Bible” is authoritative, they restrict that authority to the New Testament and often to words directly attributed to Jesus. Thus, they have, at the very least, an interesting concept of “the Bible”.[2]

This second group tend to accept much of the Old Testament. However, their belief in the Spirit sees Scripture subordinated to the Spirit’s leading. Their teachings in this area prompt people to give up on the study of Scripture for a higher and more enlightened path. Thus, regardless of what they say about the Bible’s authority, it is in effect overridden and superseded by a belief in the Spirit’s superiority.

Both of these errors present themselves differently (symptoms), yet they derive from the same source – a failure to believe the totality of God’s word. Room does not permit an in-depth hermeneutical discussion on interpreting the Old Testament. Suffice it to say that what should be clear to all, based on Biblical example, is that the Old Testament is nowhere debunked in Scripture as passé.

On the contrary, we see the exact opposite.

When Luke introduced John the Baptist and sought to describe his mission, Luke quotes directly from Isaiah 40:3-5. When Jesus is taken into the desert to be tempted, Luke shows that His defence against Satan is the very Word of God – “It stands written!”[3] When Jesus revealed Himself and His mission to the world, He did so by quoting Isaiah 60:1-2.[4] When the Rich Young Ruler asks Jesus for direction, Jesus points him to the Ten Commandments.[5] When Herod asks where the Christ is to be born, he is answered with a quotation from Micah.[6] When Paul wants to prove that all men are dead in sin, he quotes from the Psalms.[7] When Paul wants to prove the cardinal doctrine of salvation – justification by faith – he quotes Hosea, Genesis, and a Psalm.[8] When Matthew wants to prove the virgin birth of Jesus, he does so by quoting Isaiah 7:1.[9] When Jesus confronted the disciples on the road to Emmaus, to what did He appeal in order to instruct them? He appealed to the Old Testament: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”[10]

The Biblical evidence, in regard to the written Word and the work of the Holy Spirit, shows no sign of conflict. This evidence points to a priority, not a conflict. What may surprise some is that priority is given to the Word. The picture we are shown is that the Holy Spirit authored the Word and then uses that Word to guide men.

Peter declares:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).

When John records Jesus’ words in relation to the coming of the Holy Spirit, we are told that the Spirit will convict[11], bring to remembrance Jesus’ words, [12] and speak from Christ.[13] In other words, The Holy Spirit does not come with His own message and His own ideas. He comes as an extension of Jesus. He brings back to the mind the words Jesus spoke so that the Apostles can convey them correctly – whether by word or in writing.

Jesus is the Living Word. The Holy Spirit enabled men to write down the things which Jesus spoke and which testify to Him – the written Word.[14] As such, the Bible does not contradict the Living Word. As such, the Holy Spirit does not lead to, contradict, or establish different truths, principles, or standards than those established by God and revealed by Jesus. As such, the directions of the Holy Spirit will never contradict the instructions given in Scripture – whether by God, Christ, angel, prophet, or apostle.

Let us also note a simple occurrence in the Bible. When Paul commended the Bereans he noted that they were nobler because they “searched the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11). He did not commend them for greater revelations in the Spirit. He did not commend them for having access to mystical powers. No, they were commended for going back to God’s authoritative revelation of Himself.

This is important, for at this point, Paul simply mimics His Lord. Think back to Jesus’ encounter on the road to Emmaus. Why did Jesus rebuke these two disciples? Unbelief – “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (v 25) Later, after these disciples had returned to the eleven in Jerusalem, what gift did Jesus give to the disciples? Did Jesus endow them with mystical abilities? Did Jesus give them over to substantial operations of the Holy Spirit? No. Jesus simply ‘opened their mind to believe the Scriptures.’[15]

Jesus, the Living Word, the very Son of God – a man fully endowed with the Holy Spirit and able to impart it to others[16] – directed men back to God’s authoritative word, the Holy Scriptures. This was Jesus modus operandi.

When speaking to the Pharisees and in order to prove his point, Jesus asks this question, “Did you never read in the Scriptures?” and then immediately quotes from Scripture.[17] A little latter, Jesus points out the reason for the Pharisees error: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.”[18] Once more, Jesus makes the statement and then appeals to Scripture to give the correct teaching.

Also, Jesus and the Apostles are fully aware that the happenings, current in their day, were events that had been predicted in Scripture. Therefore, Jesus can say:

But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.[19]
I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.[20]

Likewise, Paul states: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”[21]

Last, let us consider Pentecost. Some may assert that some of the texts used to substantiate our claims predate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and therefore do not have validity. However, any and all objections fall completely flat when we examine the text of Acts. There we see that the Holy Spirit is poured forth (Acts 2:1-4). The next scene we have is that of Peter preaching. Peter’s sermon (2:14-36) uses around 570 English words. Of these, some 250 are direct quotations or references to the Old Testament Scriptures.[22]

If the Holy Spirit’s outpouring superseded Scripture, why does Peter immediately appeal to Scripture rather than use some other esoteric means? Is it not also interesting that Peter appeals to Scripture to prove that the catalytic event that caused the initial commotion (v 6) was in fact the promised coming of the Holy Spirit? Having established from Scripture that the coming of the Holy Spirit was a valid Messianic event, Peter continues with his sermon in order to prove that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah – a fact also established by Scripture.

When we view this text, we must immediately be struck by the fact that the Holy Spirit did not move Peter away from Scripture and to some arcane means; rather He moved Peter to Scripture. In this text, we see that the Holy Spirit incites Peter to validate His own appearing by appealing to Scripture. Again, this is significant. The Apostles had been told by Jesus that the Comforter would come. These men knew that Jesus had predicted and commanded this very event. Yet, Peter does not appeal to Jesus. Rather, following his Master’s example, Peter appeals to Scripture as his final authority. Like Jesus, Peter was content with, “It stands written!”

When we pull these threads together, we are faced with the immovable fact that both the aforementioned positions, and any variations based thereon, are erroneous because they have no Biblical support. Constantly and consistently we see the writers of the New Testament place themselves under the authority of God’s word. Even Jesus, the Son of God, did not presume to be heard on His own. Jesus took His stand on God’s revelation and in doing so gave credence to the fact that He speaks that which He heard from the Father.[23] In exactly the same manner, the Holy Spirit sought vindication, not in new revelations and teachings, but in the prophetic utterances inscripturated in God’s word.

In closing out these proofs, it may be informative to consider the fact that God Himself holds to and stands by His written word! Consider Isaiah 65:6-7:

Behold, it is written before Me, I will not keep silent, but I will repay; I will even repay into their bosom, Both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together,” says the Lord. “Because they have burned incense on the mountains, And scorned Me on the hills, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom.

The lesson? If we say that we love Jesus; If we say that we walk by the Holy Spirit; If we say that Jesus is our example in life; If we understand that salvation means obedience; If we dare to call God, Father; then we must listen to and live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of our Father God. No other standard is acceptable. No other standard carries power. No other standard comes with a Holy Spirit backed guarantee.

We cannot pay lip service to this doctrine. We cannot say that we believe the Bible and then come up with a belief or excuse that sets the Bible and its authority aside. We cannot state that we believe the Bible and then set out to pit its authors against each other as though they are confused and divided. We cannot claim a mission based on Biblical warrant and then devise a mission plan in and of ourselves without further reference to God’s revelation. We cannot claim to worship God and then ignore everything the Bible teaches on worship. We cannot claim that marriage is Biblical and then ignore God’s pattern for that marriage. Finally, we cannot make claims that are unsupported by Scripture on the basis that we have taken to the Bible with a pair of scissors!

The redeemed in Christ must submit to God the Father and all that has been revealed by Him for this is the humble estate of God’s true child. It is the estate in which we acknowledge that our Father is all wise and powerful. It is the humble estate in which we acknowledge that He is and we are not! It is the humble estate in which we accept that our Father knows the end from the beginning and that all things will fall out according to His purposes, plans, and power. Therefore, the obedient child trusts the Father, especially when he does not understand and things do not make sense, and rests entirely upon His Father’s word as true, faithful, and correct.

Part 4

[1] This view comes to the fore clearly when men operate on the principle that unless an OT concept is restated in the NT it has no validity.

[2] It was a similar view that led to Theological Liberalism. They said the Bible “contained” the Word of God. However, where the orthodox would understand this in the sense that the Word was contained in the Bible in the same manner as a bucket contains water, the Liberal understood it to means that the bucket held other than pure water. This subtle change led to a range of manmade methods by which the ‘true’ words of God were to be discovered. The obvious fact of this action was the equal declaration that some of what was in the Bible was not God’s word. When we deny God’s authority we are bound to invent belief and action based on our authority, desire, or limited understanding. Therefore, in the Church today we often invent programmes to fill perceived holes in the Bible when, in reality, the hole is in our understanding because we have been unwilling to listen to God’s instructive voice.

[3] Luke 4:4, 8, 12.

[4] See Luke 4:18-19.

[5] Luke 18:18-20.

[6] Matthew 2:6.

[7] Romans 3:10-18. Quoting portions of Psalm 14; 5; 140; 10; 59 & 36.

[8] See Romans 1:17; 4:3 & 4:7-8.

[9] Matthew 1:23.

[10] Luke 24:27.

[11] John 16:8.

[12] John 14:26.

[13] John 16:14.

[14] It must be remembered that this process was not new and only relevant to the New Testament. We are apt to forget that when the New Testament writers referred to Scripture, they were speaking of that which we now call the Old Testament. Thus, Peter’s statement says more about the Holy Spirit’s operation throughout the Old Testament than it does, in essence, concerning the New Testament. Some may find that a little hard to swallow. What is meant by the statement is this; when Peter wrote those words, he had in mind primarily the Old Testament – the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets – and not the works of the New Testament. What Peter says is true of the New Testament. Yet, from his standpoint, he was affirming the role of the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture – the older canon. He asserts that the Old Testament is authoritative and reliable precisely because it is the Spirit authored Word of God.

[15] Luke 24:45.

[16] John 20:22.

[17] Matthew 21:42.

[18] Matthew 22:29. Consider also the account already cited in which Jesus engages with the disciples on the Road to Emmaus and then with the Eleven.

[19] Matthew 26:56.

[20] John 13:18 & 17:12. See also John 19:24, 28, 36, 37.

[21] 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

[22] Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32; Psalm 16:8-11; Psalm 132:11; Psalm 110:1.

[23] John 8:26.

Belief in God’s Revelation (Pt 2)

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

If the Church’s primary ailment is unbelief,[1] then throwing another programme at a perceived symptom will do very little. As we noted in the introduction to this series, treating the symptom is but a slowing down of the death process. It is not a cure.

Therefore, if we are to counter the ailment effectively, we must counteract the underlying cause. In this case, we do not need to institute yet another new programme. We simply need to encourage people to a true and profound belief in all that God has to say. We need to believe the whole counsel of God.[2]

I cannot pinpoint the exact date on which we decided by consensus to give up on believing God’s truth. It is fair to say that there has always been elements within the Church that have questioned what God has to say and have affirmed doctrines that are not in keeping with God’s revelation.

In the modern era, I believe that World War Two had a lot to do with the loss of faith and belief. Prior to WW2, Theological Liberalism was on the rise. It robbed the Scriptures of everything supernatural and internalised both faith and epistemology. In this trend, Theological Liberalism was but following the Secular trend of the exalted self.

When war broke out and millions of lives were thrown into chaos with people being forced to witness and endure brutalities scarcely heard of, people rightly sought answers. Sadly, Theological Liberalism had no answer. Liberalism could not impart understanding. It could give no reason. Most certainly, its comforts were but hollow words; heartless and without warmth.

Not surprisingly, Man began to question the point of a religion that could not provide answers to the basic questions of life.[3] Thus, Man turned further from the Church and found the warm embrace of Rationalism. This was but a natural step as the exalted self had been long courted by Rationalism. The Liberals had caused Christianity to be transformed into a mere shadow of its former self. This new emaciated Church was gaunt precisely because it had been taught to feed upon Man and not upon “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”[4]

At this point, we had a culture that was enamoured with the exalted self and the basic tenets of Individualism. From that point, we have simply witnessed an outworking of this process. We have seen our society completely dominated by rank Individualism. We witness it every day in the death of society and the fragmentation of our culture.

What of the Church? How has she faired? Well, to use terminology from WW2, She is absolutely “shell-shocked”! 1977 saw this trend of disbelief culminate in what came to be known as Union. At that time, the majority of the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches were rolled into one body, which we know today as the Uniting church.

One only has to look at the resultant state of that new body to see how disastrous the doctrines of the exalted self were and are. This body is almost devoid of any semblance of Christianity. It is noticeably void of anything closely resembling a belief in ‘the authoritative word of God’. Its doctrines are based not in Scripture, but in Secularism and Humanism.

What then of other denominations and those that refrained from joining the Union? Regrettably, the process of disbelief has largely continued unabated. It has to a lesser or greater degree infiltrated most denominations. The result of which has been disastrous.

Here is the problem. Having given up on God’s word as the source of truth, many denominations have drifted into a modern form of Liberalism. As we noted in the introduction, this is the sinister aspect of this ailment. Without a foundational belief in God’s word as their only authority, they will continue to drift. The one thing they must do is the one thing the exalted self does not want to do – completely trust God!

Tragically, this false belief has also had a major impact on those reform movements that have sprung up. When some good folk looked around the Church and saw that She was not having an impact upon the world; when they saw dwindling numbers; when they witnessed injustices; when they realised that people were not being converted, they set out with all good intent to improve things.

Enter the sinister ailment once again. When these people set out to find a cure they failed to realise that they had been so indoctrinated by the exalted self that they simply produced more symptoms. Rather than return wholeheartedly to the God of the Bible and His wondrous revelation, they looked to Man for wisdom. If the Bible was consulted, such consultations were completed in a selective manner; choosing only those texts that seemed to legitimise the new approach.

Consequently, when Church numbers dwindled, demography was proposed as the solution. When church services were poorly attended, entertainment was embraced as an answer. When fallen men found certain teachings unpalatable, the response was to reject those doctrines or to hide them from public view. When desires for different forms of worship were voiced, the corrective was found in the deliberate fragmentation of Christ’s body. When Sexism was raised as a criticism, all barriers were cast down – gender neutral Bibles were invented. When the Government enacted laws on vilification and equality, the reaction was to disown more doctrine and to simply remain silent.

All of these correctives, responses, reactions, and answers have availed naught precisely because they come from the same poisonous root. They are delivering more poisoned fruit, more symptoms, because they are the inventions of Man and not the declarations of God.

As well intentioned as these brethren may have been in their desire and efforts for reform, they failed to realise and react to the true problem, unbelief! As a consequence of this failure, their efforts realised and propagated a new set of errors (symptoms). Therefore, these labours have not led to the Church’s healing. On the contrary, She has been confined to Her sickbed for a prolonged stay.

If we truly want to realise a healthy Church; be a vibrant community of faith; attain to a faithful and pure Bride; offer up spiritual sacrifices; and be a holy priesthood, then we must truly, with all our heart, mind, and soul, believe God’s word and trust to His ways.

If there is one text that we must understand, it is Isaiah 55:8-11:

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.[5]

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the Bible should know that God’s ways are not Man’s ways. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God[6] and God’s true wisdom is not accepted by Man.[7]

Therefore, if we truly desire to see a healthy, vibrant, obedient, worshipping Church, we must put to death the exalted self and be pleased to wholeheartedly and tenaciously cling to the prescriptions of Almighty God – whether it makes sense to us or not!

Believe! As Jesus said, “Did I not say to you, if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”[8]

Part 3

[1] Hebrews 3:17-19 gives us a harsh reminder of the consequences of unbelief and the need we have to always guard against it – And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. Deuteronomy 8:20 sums up the Old Testament equivalent – Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God.

[2] Acts 20:27. The KJV uses “counsel”; the NIV “will”; the NASB “purpose”. ‘Counsel’ and ‘purpose’ are probably the better translations in that they imply the necessity of interaction and compliance on the part of the hearers.

[3] This is, of course, an irony as the alternate religion embraced by Man gave no answers to life’s questions either. It would seem that there was enough capital from the Christian worldview left in the bank to inspire some optimism. World War 2 completely shattered any remaining optimism and the subsequent years have shown that the bank account is continually in the red.

[4] Deuteronomy 8:3.

[5] The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977. Emphasis added.

[6] 1 Corinthians 3:19 – For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.

[7] 1 Corinthians 1:20-25 – Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[8] John 11:40. Yes, taken from a different context, but the principle holds. How do we expect to see the magnificent works of God in this world if we will not believe God’s word and what He says He will accomplish through that word?

Programme or Belief

Posted on October 3, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

There are, no doubt, many problems with the Church today. We may well say that the Church is sick. Like any illness and the necessary diagnosis, the physician must be able to distinguish the disease from the symptoms.

Much of what we see in the Church today are but symptoms of the disease. We can attempt to treat these symptoms, and they certainly need to be addressed, however, if we do not treat the underlying cause, we will be consumed by treatments that never lead to a cure.

Imagine a man with a festering sore on his leg. He goes to a doctor who does nothing but clean the wound, excise any dead flesh, and then redress the wound. In the end, this man will lose his leg and possibly his life. Yes, he is being treated, but only at a superficial level. The treatment will go on. The treatments will change as the wound grows and the necrosis consumes more of the man’s flesh. Yet, in the end, all you are doing is treating the symptom.

Whilst these treatments are necessary, the doctor must also address the cause. He must prescribe an antibiotic or antivenene to deal with the underlying source, otherwise the visible manifestation of the problem will only become more obvious, more serious, and, eventually, life threatening.

The Church is sick. Many have ideas about what is wrong. However, most are only looking at the symptoms. Suggestions about new programmes for this or that are promulgated and the appropriate propaganda developed. The trouble with this approach is to be found in the methodology itself. Where in the Bible do we read of “programmes”? How do we know that these are the panacea?

The Gospel is not a matter of having the appropriate programme; it is a matter of belief. As God’s creature, regenerate or not, we are obligated to believe what God says is true; not reinvent truth to suit our opinions, outlook, or self-established purpose.

Therefore, it must be said that much of the sickness in the Church derives from varying states of unbelief.[1] We are simply unable or, worse, unwilling to believe the Word of God. This unbelief manifests itself in various ways, but these manifestations are but symptoms of the greater and more sinister ailment.

The sinister nature of this ailment is to be seen in the fact that unless we begin to trust God and take Him at His word, we will never find the cure; for belief is the cure. All we will do is engage ourselves in another programme, which is nothing more than symptom chasing. We will swap bandages and bathe wounds, but we will not realise a cure.

You see, the whole “programme” philosophy is one that is suggested by the world. It is not something you will find in God’s word. Thus, the very fact that we tend to solve problems by “throwing another programme at it” clearly demonstrates that we have lost faith in God and His absolute Word. Consequently, we are seen to be following an ungodly philosophy in trying to bring health to the Church.

When we examine the Bible, we do not see programmes; stepped projects, or 5 point plans. The Biblical approach is very simple. It consists of a basic dialogue – God speaks; Man listens. Viewed differently, God speaks and Man either obeys or disobeys. Consequently, Man is either blessed or cursed.

The beauty of this system is its simplicity. If the Church is not prosperous we need only ask two questions: “Are we persecuted for righteousness sake?” or “Are we under judgement for disobedience?”

When the questions are this simple, we do not need “committees” or “programmes”. We simply need to exchange the “worldly programme” or “lie”, as Paul would term it, for a Biblical approach: 1. Listen to and believe God; 2. Act obediently upon His command.

Part 2

[1] In general, we may believe the key doctrines regarding Jesus. However, as soon as we move from these into essential everyday applications – also important doctrines – we see a great divergence.

Of Problematic Preferences

Posted on September 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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 September 12, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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.

As a Christian, evil is a consequence of sin. Sin is rebellion against God.
My objection is not with the statement, but with the Humanist’s definition and implication.
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 September 11, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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:

The Church of England has declined from 40% to 20%.
Non Christians tripled from 2% to 6%.
Those with “no religion” has risen from 31% to 48%
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.

[1] http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/fake-products-may-be-dangerous-choice/story-e6frfkui-1226716422841?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[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; 4^th Edition, 1998. Meaning 5. The example given is” Football is his religion.”

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

[6] Collins: sv Secularism.

Kevin, Who won’t be in Heaven

Posted on September 6, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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:

Publically ridiculed a Christian brother (from his claimed standpoint).[5]
Publically held the Scriptures to ridicule – exciting a frenzied response of cheering and clapping from the audience.[6]
Publically denied the authority of Scripture.[7]
Publically denied God’s revealed standard as the basis for rationality.[8]
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]

The death of the Old Testament and its authority.
The idea that faith destroys reason.
The idea that the Holy Spirit trumps preparation.
The idea that “nice” triumphs over evil.
The idea that the New Testament alone is our authority.
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

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.3)

Posted on August 24, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

What then has been the point of this survey and the points made? Our purpose is to equip Christians, and any who will listen, for the current fight.

Over many years now, I have watched people capitulate because of the Secularist’s penchant for warring with meaningless words and using stigmatised labels. The Secularist’s rarely present a cogent argument. They bully and shame with their invented and stigmatised language.

Regretfully, Christians have capitulated to this language because they have not stayed true to their own Biblical worldview. Christians have thought the World’s thoughts and not God’s. They have reasoned with the World’s philosophy and wisdom and not with God’s.

Consequently, when the Secularist’s “name it and blame it” the Christians cave. They do not want to be unloving. They do not want to be homophobic. They do not want to stigmatise. They most certainly do not want to be bigots.

Yet, herein is the problem. We worship a holy God Who is a bigot. God says, ‘This is right and that is wrong!’ Not only does God make these pronouncements, He institutes Laws that back them up and give them force. God’s way is heterosexual marriage. Therefore, adulterers and homosexuals are condemned. God loves truth. Therefore, the false witness is condemned.

God’s salvation is Jesus Christ and Him crucified! No alternates, no compromises, no points for human inventiveness. God loves some things.[1] God hates other things.[2] God says He will accept this and that He will reject that.

The relevance for us, as Christians, is that we were created in the image of God and then recreated in that image through Jesus Christ. Thus, we come full circle in our worldview and arrive back at the requirement that we must, as analogues of God, think His thoughts after Him.

When we refuse to do this, we are compromised and we begin to give ground. We are afraid of making some forthright statements because we do not want to appear unacceptable to the Secularist and his concepts when, in fact, we should be terrified to the core of betraying God and His revealed standard.

We have arrived at this point because of an absolute reduction in Christianity. Through various influences, modern Christianity has given up on Culture. It is only interested in saving the individual soul and getting it to heaven. Thus, politics, social constructs, cultural mores, God’s Word, and a whole raft of items have been “blessed” into obscurity by being deemed unnecessary.[3]

As a result, the need to win individual souls fuels a flurry of activity, much of which is aimed at answering the foolish question, “How do we not offend the pagan?”[4] Consequently, we are urged to drop a range of Holy Spirit inspired, Authoritative truths from Scripture.

Here, the Secularists have done their job well for we find the Church trying to adopt alternate words and sanitised language. God is reinvented. He never gets angry. He accepts all without question. Commonly, God is said to love everyone equally and without fail.

If this is so, we must jettison the doctrine of sin. If sin is out, we must also toss overboard the doctrine of Hell. As God is so accommodating, we are obliged to drop from our language all words of commission. We cannot use words like must, ought, obey, observe, should, or oblige (whoops!). The Ten Commandments must become the Ten Suggestions. Christ’s statement, “If you love me you will keep my commandments” is reinterpreted to, “I would be pleased if you loved me and tried to stay within My suggestions; but it’s okay if you do not.”

In all seriousness, I now ask, “Based on these new ideas, what message do we take to the world?” If God loves everybody equally and makes no demands upon a person at the personal level, then what is the purpose of the Church or Christianity?

This is precisely why we fail. We are not prepared, in the current argument, to state that God hates homosexuals and thereby put the smell of fire and brimstone into people’s nostrils. ‘No, no, we cannot do that, it might offend.’ will come the reply. Now for the real question – “Who would we rather offend Man or God?” Do we offend Man by trampling on his invented concepts or do we offend God by pretending that He is not the measure of all things?

By our adoption of the World’s standard we have given ground in this battle. We are unable to argue with the Secularists because we have naught to say. We do not want to state the truth because the Secularist has his shame labels prepared and is just waiting to plaster us. So we modify our stand. We try to use moderate language. We try to argue logic and statistic rather than, “Thus says the Lord!”

To illustrate this, let me give an example from a recently televised interview. At the centre of this interview on the ABC was a Christian fellow (more haranguing; I lost the links) who had been a homosexual and had been converted. Opposing him, were the other interviewees who denied the Bible with all the standard fallacies. At one point, the interviewer asked this Christian, “Aren’t you being Judgemental?”

A few comments must be made. First, there it is, the stigmatised language. The Christian is accused of being ‘judgemental’. I do not recall questions of a similar nature being presented to the others. Questions like, “The plain reading of the Bible seems to denounce homosexuals. Why then do you as a Christian not believe the Bible?”

Second, and this is more to the point, the Christian gentleman was slightly taken aback with the question. He responded by saying that ‘they come to me, I do not go out to them.’ The inference was simple. I am not out on the street peddling my wares, people come into my shop.

Please note that the question was not answered, it was deflected.

Without wanting to seem critical, this is an example that has been witnessed over and over in this and other debates. The Christian is unsure and maybe unprepared, so they look for a diffusive answer.

Why back peddle when we can advance? When asked about being judgemental, would not a good reply be, “No more than you are being by asking that question!” In other words, what is the position and agenda of the interviewer? As we have noted, they have a world view; they are not neutral; so hold them to account by their own standard.

“You have inferred that my position is judgemental. Well, yes it is. God decries homosexuality. Therefore, I take my stand on His Word and oppose this practice on His authority. Now, let me ask, ‘On what basis do you judge me?’ Your question clearly implies that my position is unacceptable to you; please explain your hypocrisy. Why is it wrong for me to dislike their belief, but it is acceptable for you to dislike my belief?”

Brethren, Countrymen, this is how we must begin to react to the war of meaningless words and the stigmatising labels that make up the arsenal of the Secularist. To agree that they are correct is to explicitly deny God’s word. It is to say, in essence, truth does not exist. It is to agree with the Secularist in saying, ‘relativism is the order of the day and meaning is what we give to any particular thing.’ When this is done, we have agreed that Man is god and we have aided the God-haters in the overthrow of the One True and living God.

Therefore, brethren, hold fast to what is good! God is good. His Word is perfect. It is a lamp to our path. It is God’s wisdom that confuses the wise of this age. It is God’s word alone that is our power.

So let us imbibe deeply of that Word (living and written) so that we may answer the fool when he speaks with a Heavenly wisdom that cannot be refuted. Let us shred the Secularist’s worldview, his meaningless words, and his wretched labels with the Divinely appointed scissors found in God’s word – the weapons appointed for the tearing down of strongholds!

Let us fight this war in God’s power, with God’s tactics, dressed in God’s armour. Let us give up on the feeble wisdom of this World and apply the mind of Christ, in Who are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

May I therefore encourage you to equip yourself with understanding in these matters. Arm yourself. Prepare yourself. Then, the next time you encounter meaningless words and stigmatising labels, you will be able defeat them and turn the battle for Jesus Christ.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed!

[1] 2 Corinthians 9:7; Psalm 37:28; Psalm 87:2;

[2] Proverbs 6:16-19; Deuteronomy 12:31.

[3] This is illustrated very clearly when some Christian Commentators feel it necessary to explain to Christians why they should be involved in politics. See: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/07/10/god-politics-and-elections/.

[4] The question is foolish precisely because it is unBiblical. 2 Corinthians 2:15-16: For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 1 Peter 2:7b-8: But for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,” and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. 1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.2)

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Claiming to be civilised, the modern Secularist has laid down his sword and gun. However, this has left him in somewhat of a predicament. The Secularist is in need of an effective instrument with which to bludgeon into submission those who oppose.

Enter the abuse of language and the courting of hypocrisy!

The simple reality is that the Secularist does not play fair. When it suits him, he steals from the Christian worldview (e.g., justice, love, society, law). When it suits him, he attacks the Christian worldview (e.g., morality and jurisprudence). When he needs, he destroys language and meaning. When he needs, he places new meaning and non-meaning into words (e.g., what is equality, homophobia or Political Correctness). When it suits him, he claims absolute truth (e.g., right, wrong, and even truth itself). When he seeks to beguile, he lies as though truth was an unknown concept.

If we are to successfully engage the Secularist, we must be aware of his tactics, his false claims, and his bullying. Thus far, we have made a number of claims. Let us now look at how these things work in practice.

1. Worldview: A worldview is your perspective of and on the world. It is a set of ideas with which you interpret the world around you and by which you attempt to make sense of the data you see. Everybody has one. So do not be fooled into thinking that you don’t, they don’t or that such a thing is unnecessary.

This worldview is essentially based on faith – an assumed presupposition that cannot be proven. For the Christian that presupposition is, God exists. For the unbeliever, born in sin and antagonistic to God, it is, God is dead.[1]

A worldview in action looks like this:

The Christian, presupposing that God exists and that God has revealed Himself, On this basis, sees a rainbow and thanks God for His covenant to never again destroy the world by flood.

The Secularist, presupposing that God is dead, looks at the rainbow and contemplates a meteorological phenomenon in which light reflects off water droplets causing a colourful display. It means nothing. It has no purpose. It just is.

2. Religious Battle: The second furphy gladly peddled by the Secularist is that he is free from the burden of religion. He happily, if not smugly, highlights the Crusades as evidence of his statement that “religion has been the cause of most wars.” Then he pontificates about the grandeur of Man and Man’s ability to reason his way to a better state and higher plane of peace and respect with no need for a religion of any type.

In reality, the Secularist is simply in the midst of making a religion after his own image and likeness. He creates a worldview, which means that he has adopted fundamental principles that govern his outlook on life. One of those principles is that God is dead. A consequent principle is that Man is the exalted measure of all things. This is precisely why he attacks Christianity. The Secularist is in a religious war. He wants his god (Man) to dominate the old God; he wants his new worldview (Humanism) to displace and expel the old worldview (Theism). Here, we see the veil slip for the first time. (More later)

Thus, the Secularist is religious; he has a religion. He is formulating principles by which Man should live. The only difference is that he chooses to make Man his god. Therefore, in opposition to Christianity, the Secularist establishes Man’s god rather than contentedly being God’s man.

3. Destruction and Reconstruction: Central to the Secularist’s takeover is the destruction of any and all forms that give voice to the moral principles that were enshrined in law and culture via the old worldview. In our case, God’s Law-Word (the Bible) was the basis for law and morality in our culture. This same God is the basis of the Christian worldview. As such, the Secularist must find a way to deconstruct these ideas or, at the very least, empty them of any moral implications so that the empty shell can be stuffed with the new dogma. In this manner, the Secularist begins to construct and re-construct the culture according to the new worldview.

Consequently, as we note in Part 1, Secularism unleashes its Bastard child, Political Correctness, to begin the process of demoralising and sanitising language. Dropped from the language are all words that have a moral connotation and the implication of judicial penalty: fornication, adultery, sodomy, blasphemy.[2]

4. Tolerance: As Secularism professes to be the new enlightened way, having shed this dictatorial God of the Bible, it adopts as a major tenet the concept of tolerance. It invites all to partake in this new and freer society, regardless of particular beliefs. All are welcome.

The trouble is that Secularism’s invitation is like the free ride to Toyland – all play and no work, then you awake one morning as donkey! It is all too good to be true.

Think about it logically. Are all things equal? Are all people equal? Are all pursuits as noble and worthwhile as each other? Are the diligent and the malingerer actually of the same substance and worth? Are the murder and the philanthropist the same?

Secularism’s claim to tolerance is one more hollow shell.[3]

5. Hypocrisy: It is here that we meet the other key requisite necessary to be a Secularist – you must be a hypocrite! The simple reality is that Secularism does not and, indeed, cannot meet any of the goals it so proudly pursues. It betrays itself at nearly every major tenet that it professes to espouse and to which it tirelessly works.

6. Examples: With this introduction complete, let us illustrate these things with real examples.[4]

Secularism pretends that it is not a religion. It claims, rather, to be merely a movement aimed at aiding the autonomy of Man. If this be true, why then has Secularism declared war on Christianity and the Christian’s God? If Secularism is inert, why then does our current Prime Minister speak of a Secular State that holds absolute sway over all other institutions? Why, in that context, must the faith of all others capitulate to the will of the State?[5]^,[6]

Naturally, we must ask, if Secularism is so accommodating, Why can it not leave us Christians alone? Why must it change and break a system that has served this nation well? Why must the Secularists force Christians to change their beliefs? After all, what is there to fear? Every culture that has had a genuine Christian (Reformational) influence has prospered.[7]

Again, we must ask, “If tolerance is a key tenet of Secularism, why are Christians not tolerated?” A better question for the hypocrites is this, “If tolerance is a key tenet of your religion, why do you not abide by your own stated beliefs and tolerate Christianity?”

It is in answering that question that the veil falls completely. It is at this point that the Secularist must vent his spleen and admit that Christianity is opposed to everything for which he stands. Consequently, it must be eradicated. As long as there is a Christian, there will be opposition to the plans and ideas of the Secularist. It is in these statements that his rebellious nature comes to the fore. It is here that we see his innate hatred of God and His law. It is at this point that his utter hypocrisy is shown!

All the talk concerning tolerance, fairness, and equality are shown to be absolutely hollow. The duplicitous nature of their scheming is unveiled.

How so you ask? Consider the following:

A. Today’s news included an article in regard to the Liberals backing out of a “preference deal” with the Christian Democratic Party because of comments concerning “gays”. The eye catching headline, “Gay Crisis in Sex-Appeal Seat” leads one to a story with the more moderate title, “Libs in preference crisis in Lindsay over gay comments.”[8]

What was the obviously disgusting, degrading, derogatory and inhuman comment that Andrew Green, the DCP candidate, uttered? Well, hold on to your hats, cover the children’s ears, he referred to ‘gay men as having a “lower life span” than heterosexual males.’ Pilloried for stating, what to my understanding is, truth. Harangued, because when asked for a source, all he could say was that “he read it along the way somewhere.”

What this shows is that tolerance is not a part of the Secularist’s agenda, persecution is! Why is Mr. Green not entitled to express his view on this subject? Why is the Liberal Party so sensitive? Hypocrisy! It wants to be seen to be abiding by the “equality” mantra. Yet, by taking the action it did the Liberal Party shows that it believes in neither tolerance nor equality.[9]

Contrast this to a situation I witnessed. (Prepare to harangue as I cannot give the source.[10]) It was a news article describing the lesbian lifestyle. This particular, lesbian was at a café or some such watching women pass by. She saw a relatively attractive lady. Something about this lady came to the fore, perhaps a wedding ring, causing the lesbian’s scathing comment of disappointment, ‘She’s a breeder!’[11]

Hang on! Wait for the outcry. Her it comes. ‘Shut down that café!’ Clear the street.’ ‘Send in the Storm troopers!’ (Deafening silence) Hello? Anything? Maybe just a token whimper? Possibly a little downturn to the sides of the mouth to show a little disapproval? No! What’s that? Oh, a ‘double standard’ you say. Oh, I see, she can belittle because she is a homosexual. Got it!

B. We are constantly told that the sanitising language of PC is aimed at equality and not allowing anyone to be stigmatised. Our story above shows that such a claim is hollow. However, the problem is not a lone lesbian at a street-side café. The problem goes to the very top and to the deliberate murder of language and the open display of hypocrisy by our leaders.

Just last week, Kevin Rudd publicly stated that there was no room in Australia for “Racism, Sexism or Homophobia.” Wonderful! Maybe? Well, no. Given the way the Secularists murder language, we must enquire as to what Mr. Rudd means by these terms.

Earlier this year, we had the situation involving Adam Goodes and a 13 year old girl. The confrontation went national as a case of Racism. Really? Not even close. Racism is the KKK hanging someone from a tree simply because of skin colour. Racism is what motivated Hitler to destroy the Jews. Racism is the Serbs and Croats duking it out in front of the Tennis Centre for no other reason than that they (or more likely their fathers) were born on different sides of a line.

Racism is not making a statement of truth in regard to someone of a different ethnicity. Racism is not found in asking that migrants support and uphold the standards of this nation. Racism is not found in asking that there be one law and one rule for all.[12]

Moving on to Sexism. Was Tony Abbott’s “sex appeal” comment sexist? Not at all. It was a compliment in support of a candidate. Those who were offended by the comment only proved that they were ignorant of Australian colloquialisms. The terms “sexy” or “sex appeal” do not always refer to a sexual act or to derogation based in sexuality. Used in certain contexts, like that of Mr. Abbott, it simply means someone has vitality, persona, and therefore, a general appeal.

Now we move to that hybrid term homophobia. The use of this term is offensive. Mr. Rudd, I am offended. By taking to the microphone and using this term, Mr. Rudd, with the authority of the Prime Minister’s office, actually stigmatised every person in this country who is opposed to homosexuality.

Again, the veil falls. Tolerance and equality go out the window faster than Casanova when a husband returns early! In order to give homosexuals equality, Mr. Rudd is prepared to concretely malign and stigmatise a large proportion of the population who oppose this practice, no matter what their reason.

This is a repugnance that simply cannot be tolerated. Allow me to explain. Firstly, I hate the term homophobia. It is a conjugated hybrid that has no place in language. It has been recruited by that disorderly Bastard to batter and stigmatise those who oppose homosexuality.

Secondly, I hate this term because it is a gross distortion of the truth. Let’s get this straight (pun!), just for the record. Homophobia suggests that I have a clinically diagnosed, irrational fear of homosexuals.[13] This is not even close. I do not fear homosexuals. I detest them. I, for moral reasons, find their sexual choices to be abhorrent.

Thirdly, the term homophobia is not, to my knowledge, a recognised clinical psychiatric disorder. Wikipedia makes this comment, “Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense.^”[14]Consider this statement:

“Homophobia is not an actual phobia, according to three University of Arkansas psychologists. In a recent study, these researchers showed that homophobia originates not out of fear or anxiety – as true phobias do – but from feelings of disgust. The UA researchers also found close associations between homophobic tendencies and concerns about contamination as well as conservative views about sexuality in general. Their findings suggest a social, attitudinal basis for homophobia rather than a psychopathological one, as the term itself implies.”[15]

This being the case, we have the Prime Minister of Australia using labelling language to discriminate against a whole bunch of decent and upright citizens in this country. He has stigmatised these people with an official pronouncement. He has effectively told these people to “pack their bags” for they are not wanted in this country.

Incredulously, Mr. Rudd has chosen to bully and stigmatise these people with a non-word, a word that has been conjured. He has called for disgrace and shame to fall upon these people by describing them as suffers of a mythological, non-existent, pathological disorder.

The real kicker, of course, is that Mr Rudd, until very recently, was one of the condemned who suffered from homophobia because he opposed homosexual union. Having now changed his mind on that topic, and having stated that he will not take a national lead on the issue, he now stands before the media as Prime Minister to point fingers, bully, stigmatise, and forcefully subjugate those who have had the integrity to maintain their opposition.

This is the War of Meaningless and contrived words; invented for two purposes: First, to obfuscate. Second, to shame people into capitulating. However, as we have seen, the Secularists cannot be consistent with their own worldview.

Hollow words from hollow men! Meaningless words used in a religious war.

(Part 3 for the Application)

[1] Paul makes it abundantly clear that the ungodly willingly suppress the knowledge of God because God is evident in everything that they see. Romans 1:18-20.

[2] Some terms, such as “theft” and “murder” are retained, but not without much modification. What is 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd degree murder? Are these categories consistent with Biblical revelation? No, they are not. So what do they mean? Essentially, they are Man’s invention. They are a way to find excuses for murder or to take away Man’s responsibility to punish the murderer.

[3] Remember JJ Rousseau’s magnificent world in which all would be tolerated except the intolerant. Any who were intolerant would be punished with death. Conundrum! How do you identify the “intolerant one” without first becoming intolerant yourself?

[4] We will try and illustrate these concepts with current content. That is to say, with reference to homosexuality and the current political landscape.

[5] “I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.” The problem with this, as we have highlighted, is the question of, ‘What happens outside the physical institution?’ When I go to Church on Sunday, I can decry, presumably, the debauchery that is homosexuality. I can also refuse to marry Adam and Steve. On Monday, I go to work. In response to a question, I outline my position on homosexuality – in exactly the same words as the day before. Now, I am charged with a treasonous act. I have betrayed a major tenet of the State’s religious belief system. Then, I receive a demand from my employer to attend a ‘human rights’ seminar conducted by Adam and Steve. I do not wish to go, but it is mandatory. How then do I divide myself? The answer of Secularism is this: “Easy. Become a hypocrite like us! Believe what you believe. Simply feign acceptance and compliance.”

[6] The Secularists know that their system is a failure. For proof of this, look to the French Revolution. Yet, they will not give up their fight against Christ and His Church.

[7] America was built on this foundation. She was, to a large extent, a light on a hill. She has now shifted ground. The Secularists have taken control and have sanitised law, education, justice, and the like. They have removed God. They have banned prayer. Creation cannot be taught.

Is America a better nation today? No. She has become reliant upon her might and her technology. She has forsaken God with dire consequences. She is weak and feeble. She is in catastrophic debt. She is hypocritical. She goes to war against tyrants on foreign soil, but does not bring justice to the tyrants on her own soil. Why do we think that a Secularised Australia will be any different?

[8] http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/exclusive-libs-in-preference-crisis-in-lindsay-over-gay-comments/story-fnho52ip-1226700883582?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[9] Did the Liberal Party ever stop to ask, “Is there truth in this statement?” If there is, why shy away from it? Again, hypocrisy! They are not interested in truth, but in winning an election. Thus, they walk the eggshell road of veiled answers, non-commitment, and seeming conformity to the demands of the noisy minorities. Here is one article reporting on the shortened life expectancy of homosexuals. It can be dismissed because it is a Christian site: http://carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one. This one though, is from the homosexual community. Whilst not dealing explicitly with homosexual lifespan, it does deals with homosexual suicide (which significantly impacts lifespan) and notes that research shows higher suicide rates: http://theconversation.com/preventing-suicide-among-gender-and-sexual-minorities-11637. So, the conclusion of the matter is this: The Liberal Party does not have researchers or they are not interested in truth?

[10] I am trying to recollect this as accurately as I can. Details may be sketchy, but the point is not.

[11] My story may not be documented, so try this one: “Okay, I was at an LGBT conference last month and I was talking with an open lesbian. She asked me what I identified myself as and I said, “A heterosexual Ally.” She kinda snapped back at me with, “we don’t need sympathy from breeders.” I wasn’t even sure what the term meant but I knew it was offensive and related to my being straight. I reply to her, “What? Why don’t you want the support of heterosexuals? Seems kind of counterproductive doesn’t it?” She muttered something and walked away. I was really confused. I talked to other Allies at the conference and they experienced similar things as well. I went home and then looked up the definition of a “breeder” and this is what I found: “Breeder is a slang term (either joking or derogatory) used to describe heterosexuals, primarily by homosexuals. It is drawn from the fact that while homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, heterosexual sex can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry.”” At: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt160289.html. Accessed 21/08/13. Bold added.

[12] In point of fact, on this last point, it is indeed Racism to divide the nation by applying different rules to different ethnic groups.

[13] Homophobia is “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” Oxford Dictionaries Online. At: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia. Accessed 22/08/13.

[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia. Accessed 20/08/13. Bold added.

[15]At: http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0602/blhomo602.htm. Accessed 22/08/13. Italics added. In fairness, one of those interviewed states that homophobia is more in line with racism. He suggests that the answer is attitudinal reform. Thus, the implication is that those suffering from homophobia are bigoted rather than mentally ill. I, for one can, live with this.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Author Archives: Murray McLeod-Boyle