Of Land Rights and Fleas on Dogs

Posted on March 15, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In a parliamentary miracle, all be it only slight on the scale of miracles, our Parliament put aside its differences recently to give us a piece of legislation aimed at recognising Australia’s indigenous population as the “first” Australians and the “original” inhabitants. This show of unity even included talk of a referendum in order to change the Constitution so as to reflect this new approach. (The enthusiasm for this measure seems to have waned somewhat in the days since the announcement.)

Anyone who has lived in Australia for a reasonable amount of time will be aware that the issue of “land rights” and that the fight for the recognition of Aboriginal peoples has been an ongoing saga. It is an issue that cripples this nation. It is a constant blight on this nation. It is an issue that continually tears at the fabric of this nation. It is indeed an issue that must be addressed forthwith for the sake of all who call this nation home.

However, as with so many issues in our day, if we address it on the basis of Humanism, we will fail. If we address it from a Postmodern view, we will fail. If we seek to bring some great Evolutionary answer, we will fail. The answer to the questions posed must come from God and from His Word.

1. The Evolutionist Speaks.

A. Survival of the Fittest:

As a good consistent evolutionist, my approach to the issue of the aboriginal peoples is easy. It is as simple as saying, “Let them die!” After all, is not the major tenet of the evolutionary system, “the survival of the fittest”? In this scheme, the weak are conquered. They deserve no mercy. All spoils belong to the victor.

This is no different to us allowing for the mugging of grannies. They are weak. They do not deserve to hang on to their handbags and valuables. If they want to keep their things, let them go to the gym and bulk up on protein shakes. Next, we can pick on people in wheelchairs. More easy targets? Kids! They are always ripe for the plucking – the downside is that they do not have much. The Aboriginal peoples are the cultural equivalent of the weak and infirmed.

Given this fact, I must ask, “Why should the aboriginal peoples be any different?” What makes them so special that the rules and principles of evolution do not apply to them? After all, do you not remember the full title of Mr Darwin’s work? Mr Darwin’s magnum opus was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” On the basis of this, it is easy to see that the Aboriginal people of Australia have been “selected” as a non-favoured race. Thus, we may accurately say, that the Aboriginal peoples, from an evolutionary stand point, have been deselected for preservation.

I am simply bemused by all the fuss. It is totally ridiculous. Evolution is taught in our schools and universities as an indisputable fact. Therefore, I cannot see why we are making such a fuss over this cultural minority who obviously belong to an outdated civilization that the evolutionary process has observably condemned to extinction.

Why should we care? Climate change is upon us. The quicker the aboriginals are snuffed out the quicker we find ourselves in a stronger position. In fact, we should be pushing to get rid of all the infirmed and weak. We are just wasting resources on them that could be put toward ensuring that we, the fit, survive the looming disaster!

B. The First People:

Then I must scrutinise the statement that these people are the first, original, dinkum inhabitants of this land. Once more, as a consistent evolutionist, I am not sure how these claims are substantiated. Evolution believes in long periods. Some suggest that the earth is three billion years old. Evolution also posits that things generally move from the simple to the complex. So, in the current case, the aboriginal peoples have no written literature to back up their claims. They rely on “oral tradition” and the interpretation of old paintings left on cave walls. (This suggests a high degree on unevolvedness when placed beside computers and satellites. This takes us back to the previous point.)

Given these facts, “How can we categorically assert, in consonant with evolutionary theory, that these peoples were the first inhabitants?” There are many questions to be raised here. One, there is the theory known as “Continental Drift”, replaced by the more modern view of “Plate Tectonics” (Illustration found at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html). This theory posits that at one point in the Earth’s history, 250 million years ago as indicated by the graphic, the landmasses were as one. This then begs the question, “Are we positive that no one else occupied this land?” As an ardent evolutionist, one must assert that man did not exist at these early times. I try to comfort myself with this. Yet, I am confronted with a nagging doubt – if evolution is true, it is possible that other life forms, similar to what we now call ‘man’, developed at an earlier stage but were subsequently eradicated by some genetic fault or catastrophe.

Two, I am also troubled by this “first inhabitant” language. As an ardent evolutionist, I am not sure how we can define the respective concepts of “first” and “habitation”? Evolution, being a process, means by definition, that we went through several stages in our development. At which of these stages do we declare that we had reached a sufficient level of cognisance or rationality to be able to say that we “inhabited” this land before anyone else?

Three, there is the distinct possibility that in another three billion years, those beings that evolve from us may look back at us and wonder why such primitives thought that they had the right to make such a claim. I must also consider the possibility that Climate Change may wipe out all traces of our evolution, feats, and civilisation, and that should intelligent life re-emerge at some stage in the future that there may not be a single footprint left to alert them to our prior existence and habitation. Therefore, it may not be prudent to make substantial claims when we simply do not have all the data needed to make such a declaration. This is especially so given that my worldview is based on flux, change, and chaos.

C. Sovereignty and Ownership:

Of necessity, I feel it only right to raise the question of ownership from an evolutionary point of view. My thinking on this was shunted into gear when I was introduced to a couple of films by my daughters. The film, Cats and Dogs, plus it sequel, well, quite frankly, they startled me. Here is a movie about a secret society of Dogs that is looking after humans. I realise that this was intended as a joke, but it started me thinking. I had noticed that my pet schnauzer, Einstein, had been acting differently. I have been noticing that rather than brining the paper to me with slobber on it, it was neatly folded, and upon opening seemed to have been perused already – the crossword having been completed was telling! Then, the other day, he seemed somewhat angry and would not let the paper go. In the end, the paper was torn and my reading experience somewhat diminished. However, the disturbing aspect of this encounter was that as he walked away, Einstein glanced back at me, and I swear that I heard him mutter, “I wish you would subscribe to the Wall Street Journal rather than that rag!”

So of course, I am now a little edgy, to say the least. You see, Einstein came with the house. The previous owner, an old lady, passed away, leaving the dog behind. We had been in the process of purchasing the house when this happened so we decided to adopt the dog. As you can well understand, I am now very much concerned that should Einstein evolve sufficiently, he may be able to lodge a prior claim to this property. If Einstein is successful, I would then be out of house, home, and pocket, regardless of everything I have put into both Einstein and the property. Then I must also consider the possibility that any others who have lived at this address prior to my arrival may come forward with similar claims.

As a paid-up member of “Evolutionists for Autonomous and Spontaneous Change”, I am concerned that this radical change may be happening in my lifetime. There are serious repercussions. So it would seem best that we not make any hasty laws that may become precedence for any similar challenges.

Now I will hand over to my Postmodern Humanist friend for the last comment in this section.

2. The Postmodernist Speaks.

A. Subjective Objectives:

As a Humanist and a Postmodernist, I welcome the opportunity to add to this debate and discussion. However, as I began to think through what I should write, I found myself at an impasse. As a Humanist I am greatly enamoured with the indefatigable and indomitable spirit found within man and the ability of his reason to triumph in any situation. Yet, as I thought about this subject, I was confronted by man’s cruelty to man and his seeming lack of compassion to his fellows. As I pondered further, I thought, “Surely, there is one example, one precedence, one principle, one piece of teaching to fall back upon?” Then it dawned on me, that there was not a one! My heart cried, “Alas, the subjective and transient cannot ever cure the objective and real!”

Here I was, attempting to deal with another person’s situation in time and space. Any advice given would have consequences for this person. I was not dealing with a subjective notion, but with flesh and blood. The consequence of my ideas would impact upon the vulnerable, the mortal, and the exploitable. This was not a case of firing arrows at the incorporeal spectre. No, it was a far more serious.

Then the penny dropped. How could I think this way? Postmodernism gives us no belief in the real. All is transient. Without any belief in an absolute, how can comment be passed upon “the first”, “the inhabited”, and questions of worth, ownership, compensation, and future? Unlike Existentialism that posited some semblance of truth and the absolute, even if it was only known and realised in the subjective, Postmodern thought does not even allow such a luxury. There simply is no truth. There simply are no absolutes. Consequently, meaning, purpose, justice, and infamy are all terms without definition and qualification.

Therefore, there is nothing that such a one as I can contribute to this conversation?

3. The Aboriginal / Indigenous Speaks.

A. Cultural Confusion:

“It is time to right the wrongs! As an Aboriginal elder, I speak for my people. It is shameful that until 1967 we were classified as ‘Flora and Fauna’! It is appalling that the oppression from white supremacists has been allowed to continue for so long and to the detriment of my people. It should never have taken so long for Mabo to be handed down and for our claim to “Native Title” to be recognised. We are the traditional owners of this land and our rights in this matter should never have been walked upon. We have every right to be recognised as the “First Australians” although we will continue to call ‘Australia Day’ ‘Invasion Day’!”

After this rousing speech, the elder sat down with another indigenous Australian to talk about matters. The second fellow says to the elder, “Look, could you please clear some things up, as I am a little confused?” Receiving the ‘nod’ of approval, the man continues, “Well, I once heard that great Australian and champion of our people, Mick Dundee, describe the situation thusly: ‘Well, you see, Aborigines don’t own the land. They belong to it. It’s like their mother. See those rocks? Been standing there for 600 million years. Still be there when you and I are gone. So arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on.’ “He is right, is he not? Do we not believe that we belong to the land? If this is so, why do we pursue native title and speak about “land rights” and being the “traditional owners”? It seems to me that being classified as ‘Flora and Fauna’ sits far better with our belief system. We come from the earth. The earth is our mother.”

He continues, “Whilst it is also true that the ‘white man’ has treated us poorly at times, should we not also recognise what he has done for us? It is widely accepted that when these people settled here, we aborigines numbered around 300,000 and that after an occupancy of some 40,000 years. Now we number around 500,000 and that after only another 250 years.”

The elder simply sat in silence. The only gesture was that of a furrowed brow and a stern look of indignation aimed at his fellow.

4. The Christian Speaks.

We have begun our discussion in a very different way. The purpose of this beginning is to show a number of inconsistencies when it comes to the discussion of land rights and ownership. It is by no means an overstatement to posit that this debate has been bogged down for too long in political speak and faulty agendas. This has happened precisely because all the cultures involved in this debate have abandoned God and have therefore tried to use their own subjective arguments to posit one right over another.

A. God Created:

So let us cut to the chase. God created the heavens and the earth and all they contain! Full stop! End of story!

As a Christian I am constantly annoyed by the fact that we are subjected to political nonsense because some people have a guilty conscience or seek to appease a minority group. In the current context, this is the bowing to the constant refrain that the Aboriginal peoples were the traditional land owners of what is today called Australia. As an example, it has become de rigueur here, in our part of the woods, for local councillors on official duty to open speeches by recognising the “traditional owners of the land”.

My annoyance stems from the following facts:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it (Psalm 24:1).
For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine (Psalm 50:10-11).
Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created (Revelation 4:11).

I am offended and indignant that God, my God, the Bible’s God, is treated so very poorly by His creatures. Not only are they content to rebel, but they are eager to rewrite history in order to affirm their revisionist view. From Genesis to Revelation, God Almighty is declared to be the Creator and Owner of this world. How dare we insult Him by claiming that we as men have right and title to this earth before and instead of God! This truly is a case, as the Oracle Dundee spoke, of ‘fleas fighting over the ownership of the dog they are upon.’

Why is it that the Aboriginals receive recognition as the traditional owners, but this same council would not allow the name of Jesus on a table? How is it that this council can build a pavilion in a local park and dedicate it to the Aboriginals, but we cannot open a function with prayer to and in the name of the One True and Living God?

Is it not telling that in the world of PC, the revelation of the One True God (WCF 2:1) can be relegated to legend and myth while the myths of a cultural minority are elevated to fact! God Almighty cannot open parliament, welcome foreign dignitaries, or be invoked before sporting matches. However, it seems more than acceptable to invite loin-cloth clad men to dance, blow into hollow sticks, and to give expression to their religion as this will impart some magic or blessing to the event in question.

B. God Spoke and God Wrote:

Then there is the fact that the God of the Bible revealed Himself to His creation:

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29).
The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations (Psalm 98:2).
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (Psalm 19:1).
Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him. And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to men of understanding. It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him. To Thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, For Thou hast given me wisdom and power; Even now Thou hast made known to me what we requested of Thee, For Thou hast made known to us the king’s matter (Daniel 2:19-23).
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy? (Amos 3:7-8)
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).

This is a substantial point. Consider the basic fact that there was not a time when this earth did not know of the revelation of God. Contra evolution, man was made a rational and fully functioning man with speech and the ability to communicate (Genesis 2:19-25). He did not grunt and procure women by hitting them on the head with a club. Man was able to communicate with God from the start. Adam could name the animals. Adam could name his wife. Adam could woo Eve with soothing words, love poems and sonnets – no clubs necessary! Man was able to receive God’s thoughts and hear His voice (Deuteronomy 5:22-27).

Again, it is very interesting that in our modern scientific age, we willingly scorn the written record of God for myths and cave paintings. How can this be? We do not believe in Captain Cook because of a cave painting or a legend. We believe in him because we have written records that attest to him. If I appeared anywhere today to give evidence and I merely pointed to a cave painting or an oral tradition, I would be a laughingstock. My research would be ridiculed because I did not refer to source documents and the like. My statements are not verifiable; therefore they are unacceptable to modern science. Well, at least until you begin to talk about the God of the Bible. Then source documentation means nothing. At that point, myth is acceptable and, indeed, preferable to the revelation of God. (Note the subtlety. The creation account of Genesis is considered “myth” and is therefore dismissed, even though it is codified. On the other hand, a non-codified oral tradition which is myth, whilst not being wholly accepted, is not ridiculed and dismissed, but is courted and given credence. )

It does not matter that archaeology has found the Bible accurate. It does not matter that there are peoples alive today that can attest to genealogies and trace unbroken lines back for many generations. No, this means nothing. All of this rational, verifiable, source material is unacceptable because it not only proves that God exists, but it proves that God exists and that He speaks to His creation!

Therefore, we will accept myth and cave painting over and above Revelation, History, and the Verifiable.

C. Conquered Peoples:

Although it is not popular to speak about “conquered peoples” today, the simple reality is that unless we do, we will never make sense of the conundrum before us.

At the heart of the debate over the ownership of this nation has been the Latin term terra nullius. This term is used to express the idea that the land was unoccupied, had no organised system of government, title registration, or deeds of ownership – or concepts of this nature. At the very least it means the ‘land of no one’. (Note the similarity with the Nullarbor Plain. Null / Arbor = The No Tree plain.)

Argument has raged over whether Australia was or was not terra nullius at the time of settlement. Most legal rulings upheld this concept until the “Mabo” decision in 1992. The key element of that ruling was that Australia was not terra nullius and that “interests in land and water survived the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown” (Macquarie Concise Dictionary).

However, what we must see is that the whole concept of terra nullius is a ginormous red herring. In Australian parlance, it is a “furphy”! Where did this principle come from? What made it the universal norm? If this is indeed the sole principle, then let us apply it equally all over the globe.

If we do this, there will be only two results.

The first result is positive. God must be recognised as the owner of the earth and the One to Whom homage is due. Why? For God alone has a documented right and title to the earth. His covenant Law-Word (the Bible) attests that He is the owner. It states unequivocally: “The earth is the Lords!”

The second result is negative. Because fallen man will not accept God as owner, the only other possibility is that terra nullius is pursued until utter confusion and devastation are realised throughout the world. Think this through. Who are the original owners? How far back do we go in trying to uncover the original owners? What system of substantiation are we going to invoke? Will we accept only written documents whether they be deeds or histories? Will oral traditions be accepted?

Let me give a few examples:

(i) The Biblical: When we look at the conquest narratives in Deuteronomy and Joshua, we are introduced to a number of conquered or displaced people. To whom should the land of Israel be returned if we set out to apply terra nullius? We are familiar with the modern claims, but as stated, there are ancient claims to be reckoned with from the pages of Scripture.

Now, I need to summarise, as to quote the texts would be too extensive. So, look at Joshua 10:3-5. There five kings are mentioned and they are defeated. Then in the verses 29-40 another six cities and various kings are defeated. In chapter 11:1-5 we see that “Jabin king of Hazor” rallies some other kings to come and fight against Israel. These too were defeated. In fact, Joshua 12:23 states that 31 kings in all were defeated.

Here is our conundrum. We dispossess Israel acknowledging the original inhabitant’s prior rights in accordance with the terra nullius principle – that is to say that these peoples had kings, structure, organisation, and settled in towns. Compared with the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, they were much more organised. Who then do we acknowledge as the traditional and rightful owners? To whom shall this land be returned?

It is absurdity to believe that of these thirty–one kings, none had come to power without conquest. In fact, the Bible tells us as much. Joshua 11:10 states: “Then Joshua turned back at that time, and captured Hazor and struck its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the head of all these kingdoms.” How is it that Hazor is no longer head? Did a generous king wake up one morning and divide his kingdom; parcelling out portions to his friends? Highly unlikely!

So our conundrum becomes more difficult. Which cities and territories are returned to Hazor? Then we need to look for further evidence of how this rule came about. Was that by conquest or inheritance?

(ii) England: Let us bring the argument up to date and make it a little more relevant. England is the original source for the predominant culture in Australia today. If we look back to her history, to whom do we assign ownership rights? Do we look to the Angles, the Saxons, or the Normans? What do we make of Viking visits? How do we factor into this the Roman conquest? We could then look at people like Queen Boudica’s uprising against the Romans to reclaim her father’s kingdom. (It is an aside, but the mention of the Romans begs the same question concerning all their conquests.)

We must of course ask, Which of these do we see as the legitimate title owners of England?

(iii) Oral Tradition: Last, we need to consider oral tradition and its accuracy. There was a time in history where oral tradition was used and it was accurate. However, as we have developed culturally and access to writing instruments has become more readily available, we have become less attuned to remembering histories in this manner. Equally, we must also consider that, in some cases, the ‘oral tradition’ has clashed with ‘Chinese whispers’ – which I guess is now un-PC and racist!??!

Recently, I saw a part of that television show, Who Do You Think You Are? The guest that day was actor John Hurt. He explained a part of his family history, regarding a male ancestor, and the stories that had been passed down within the family. The man was supposedly successful. He was meant to have certain ties. You know; all the things that would stand you in good stead in the England of that day. However, as the story unfolded, this person turned out to be an absolute shonk! He had been involved in shady deals. He had been dismissed from his position as a consequence of this corruption and so forth.

In the end, it seems that some alternate history had been invented to paint the family in its best light and this revision now became fact to the descendants of this man.

In terms of our discussion, we are forced to reiterate the question, ‘What substantiation methods will be employed?”

What is clear from this discussion is that this whole concept of terra nullius is pure bunkum. We have no legitimate way of researching what cultures were or were not “no man’s land”, if you will. We have no way of arriving at an absolutely concrete solution, other than adopting option one. This whole idea of trying to define who was or was not an organised culture with any type of right and legitimacy prior to this or that incursion is the prerogative of God alone; for He alone in omniscient! We as men could never work through all the possibilities. This is especially so considering the verity that we simply do not have all the facts at our disposal.

Like it or not, as far as history and ancient history is concerned, the only reasonable measure to apply is the concept of “conquered peoples”. Many in our day will reject this, but on what basis? The evolutionist thrives on such concepts. You have the fit versus the weak. Evolution says nothing of morality. It is the fit versus the weak. If you conquer, then you were meant to do so by the divine appointment of evolutionary principle. If you are conquered, then you have been, as stated by Mr Darwin, deselected for survival. Consequently, the evolutionist can have no quarrel with this concept as it is the only one that fits his worldview.

One could say that there was no war declared, but what does that prove? Many people have been invaded without a declaration of war. Equally, the Aboriginal peoples are exactly that, peoples, tribal groups. With whom would a treaty or declaration of war been made? Many emotive arguments are put forward, but in the end, none are effective.

The simple reality, which can stick in the craw, is that if we do not accept the “conquered people” standard, then we open ourselves up to confusion and devastation. It is that simple.

D. Confusion, Devastation, and Disintegration:

Some may wonder at this point, but it is necessary so that we understand what is at stake in this argument.

If we reject the “conquered peoples” perspective and try to force twenty-first century ideas and constructs into an eighteenth century event, we will end with turmoil and cultural disintegration that will help no one. By rejecting the “conquered peoples” theory and giving into the culture of “guilt” so prevalent in our day, we are setting all concerned with this matter on a path to destruction.

Look at how our society is being torn apart today. We have people talking about reconciliation, but their actions tear and rend. We have a situation where we are paying out huge sums of money to lease back part of our country from the Aboriginal population. We speak of the loss of freedom in countries like Russia and North Korea, yet here in our country you need permits to enter certain tribal lands. We have begun to have two standards at law. Our television can blaspheme the One True and Living God, but other programmes carry warnings so as not to offend the Aboriginal peoples. There are places some Australians are not free to go because they are deemed sacred to the Aboriginal peoples. Yet for a Christian to turn a homosexual away on genuine Biblical grounds, well that is sketchy and wrong!

However, this is but the tip of the iceberg. The Aboriginals of this land, whilst wronged in certain circumstances, have also benefitted and prospered under the new regime, if you will. Whilst news media carry stories and reports of death rates in indigenous populations, they fail to carry the stories that show how health care and access to health care has benefitted these people greatly.

I once remember a show featuring an Aboriginal elder in a wheel chair. Now we are mocked and harangued, but the truth is that in her culture she would not have been cared for at all. If she slowed down, she would have been left to die.

Here we come to the crux. If the Aboriginal peoples want out, then let them out, completely and utterly. If they despise the “white man” and his “invasion”, then let them forsake the white–man’s money, medicine, and culture in every way! Do not come to play Aussie rules, for that would be hypocrisy. Do not agitate to open Parliament, for that would be a compromise of the worst kind – celebrating the warlords that enslaved! Do not ask for housing or complain about living standards in Aboriginal communities where you are autonomous. Why seek help from the invaders.

People will criticise these sentiments. Yet, they are truth. Underneath everything, the Aboriginal peoples will lose more than they gain, if this current foolishness is pursued to its logical conclusion. This issue will tear this country apart. It will destabilise. The writing is already on the wall. We will have at least two law codes. We will have two sets of standard for conduct. We will create and fuel animosity. Guilt will be our motive and guide; and guilt is a terrible motive and an even worse guide! Decisions will be made by those in charge based not in right and wrong and a moral code, but by popularity vote, point scoring, and the typical smoke and mirrors routine of our parliamentarians.

The current course of action will solve nothing precisely because it is a political solution designed by politicians. Every time the politicians make one of these ridiculous decisions the average Aussie, the taxpayer, comes to resent the Aboriginal people all the more. It is wrong, yes, but it is understandable. The resentment comes not from a racist tendency, contrary to popular media, but because the average Aussie is tired of being squeezed, blamed, and manipulated. I tend to think that the Aboriginal peoples of this land feel a bit the same. They have soaked up the attention because it has given them some gain. However, the sooner they realise that they are political toys, the sooner we can sit down and work out a real solution.

E. God and Morality:

In the end, the only solution to this problem is God and His revealed morality in Scripture.

I have shunned all the attempts and requests to say “Sorry!” I have done so because, for the most part, they are political stunts that achieve very little. What is “sorry” when we are talking at the level which is necessary for this conversation? It is akin to the trite, “Now, shake hands. Good. Now we’re friends again!” deal employed in the schoolyard. As such I resent that this issue, as important as it is, has been turned into a politician’s play thing and made, thereby, into a trite spectacle.

What we need is a model, based in the Lord Jesus Christ, and called, Redemption! When we understand this, the trite “sorry” will give way to true heartfelt grief and genuine repentance at what has been perpetrated, covered, and justified.

I will not apologise that my ancestors came to this country. Despite the common rhetoric, these people did not come in a Man o’ War or bearing arms, as such. They came, many of them in irons. They came as prisoners. These people were displaced from their homeland, never to see kith and kin again. Some were deserving of this. Others were not. Then there were the free settlers who came simply looking for a better life or the opportunity to make something for themselves.

What I am ashamed of and what I grieve over; that for which I would readily apologise and seek true repentance, is the fact that my ancestors treated the Aboriginals, at times, in a heinous manner. There were conflicts in which people died. In these instances there was, on occasion no doubt, guilt on the part of both. However, it is simply inexcusable that permits were issued to allow the hunting (cold blooded murder) of Aboriginals. Equally, to have them classified as “flora and fauna” was reprehensible.

Whilst there is debate about the extent of massacres on the part of settlers and reprisal killings on both sides, the simple reality is that they happened. Numbers are irrelevant to some extent. That Aboriginals were hunted, poisoned, and driven off cliffs is the true shame. That it took far too long for settlers to be held accountable at law is shameful.

To try and surround or cover these happenings with the dust of a thousand political barrows being pushed in earnest is to make a mockery of the situation. Yet this is what happens. The murder of Aboriginals then was wrong. The murder of Aboriginals now is wrong. Just as the murder of infants today is wrong. Just as the slaying of the elderly is wrong and the taking of any life is wrong.

Welcome to the real issue, Morality. When we try to cover these instances and atrocities, whether then or now, against black or white, we show that we do not have a moral compass. Because of the lack of a moral compass, the proposed solutions by political means are inept, inadequate, and more likely to do harm than good.

We opened this article in the manner we did precisely to highlight the inability of the prominent worldviews of our day to actually say anything constructive, helpful, or reconciling in regard to this situation. We continue to dig the hole deeper, precisely because the dominant worldviews have no answer. What does Secular Humanism know of sin? What does Evolution know of forgiveness? What does Postmodernism know of reconciliation? What do any of these know of grace, love, atonement, and justification?

These terms are found only in Scripture. There alone are they defined. There alone are they given meaning, expression, and function. Therefore, it is to God and His morality as it is revealed by Him in the Bible and in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ that we must turn for any concrete answers.

5. Cultural Suicide.

At this point, we need to pull these various threads together and make a sound application using the Biblical data.

A. No Culture Without Christ:

The first point that must be made is that both the cultures at the centre of this argument are doomed to destruction if they continue on their current paths. This is a bit hard to swallow for autonomous man, but it is nonetheless the truth. You see, despite man’s group delusion, God made culture, not man! God, in Jesus Christ, therefore stands as judge over all cultures. A culture rises and falls at Yahweh’s command. A culture is sustained by its obedience to God or it is brought low by its rebellion from God.

And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; (Daniel 2:21)
Arise, go to Nineveh the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me … Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown. (Jonah 1:2 & 3:4)
Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord … Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground … Now Abraham arose early … and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 13:13; 19:24-28)
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

The complete irony of the situation is that we superior, white, Europeans are trying to save – culturally from a Humanistic perspective – these poor Aboriginal savages, and many other cultures beside, but with what? I am reminded of a cartoon that I saw years ago. It was aimed at the Christians and was a challenge to people’s faith in God. It depicted the Ark, if I remember correctly. It is a small, crowded, wooden vessel drifting aimlessly. In the next frame a modern ocean liner, sleek and powerful, pulls alongside. People disembark from the Ark and board this modern wonder, captivated by its size and majesty. In the last frame you see these people sailing off into the sunset, pleased at their decision to abandon God’s method for that of the moderns. However, as the ship steams away, her stern comes into view for the first time, and we see that these hopefuls have boarded the SS Titanic.

This is the reality of our day. What do we think we are going to offer the Aboriginals? Electric toasters! A brand new energy saving air conditioner! Please, what they needed from us was the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation for man or culture. They needed to be called out of darkness. They needed to be told to forsake their dark ways that only angered God and brought His wrath upon them. Our failure at this point, is one more of our shameful disappointments. (Please do not write. I know there were and are Christian missions. My point is that they have been and are ineffective.)

So what is it that we hope to impart to the Aboriginal peoples of this land and other migrants that are coming to our shores? Aids, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, genocide, hopelessness, political exploitation, tyranny, divorce, fornication, suicide, godlessness, murder, theft, covetousness, adultery, poverty, blasphemy, alcoholism, drug abuse, road rage, fraud, spam, hacking, rape, familial destruction, rebellion, sloth, high taxation, injustice, or something else from the cornucopia of evils?

You see, as it stands at this very point in time, the hand of the Lord is against this nation in totality, as much as it is against any one particular ethnic group that may make up this nation. The abandonment of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ, on the part of this nation has in essence doomed every ethnicity that makes up our culture. As the Apostle says, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”; “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”; “Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

In fact, it is fair to say that the current political attempt to gather all together into one under the banner of Humanism, labelled as “multiculturalism”, will only brings God’s judgement upon us more swiftly and harshly. Therefore, without Christ as the centrepiece of our culture we in fact have nothing to offer the Aboriginals or any others who come to our shores. We, like they of yester year, are ripe for the plucking. Our culture is one of death precisely because we have turned away from Jesus Christ the source of life. Consequently, we will reap the consequences of what we have sown.

B. We too are in line to be Conquered Peoples:

We spoke previously of the Aboriginal peoples as being “conquered peoples”. This term is unpopular in our day because of the evil bent on equality. However, the reader must understand that when this term is used here it is not based upon a racist belief that we have something in ourselves that makes us superior or better. It is used in the Biblical sense in which God prospers those who obey His word and He judges those who disobey. In His judgements, God is always just and He often uses other nations as the instrument of that judgement.

Earlier, we made reference to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. Why was that conquest possible? Well, there are a number of reasons, but one prominent one was the sin of the peoples in that land. Says Yahweh to Abraham, “Then in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete (Genesis 15:16).” Further commentary is given in Leviticus 18:24-30: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.”

What we learn from these texts is that there is no room for racism or some superior attitude based in man. Israel deposed the nations before them at God’s biding precisely because of the evil and wickedness committed by those nations. However, note very well, that Israel was warned not to practice the abominations of those nations and cultures lest they too be ejected from (spewed out) of the land.

The practical application of this is that the Lord God Almighty judged the Aboriginal peoples of this land for their sin and abominable practices. Contrary to popular opinion, the Aboriginal peoples were not pleasant, peace-loving, people who dwelt in animistic harmony with nature and each other, á la Pocahontas! These people were in part cannibalistic. They warred with each other. They knew both abortion and euthanasia. They could be at times very cruel to their own. Then there was the bigger issue, God! The peoples did not worship the One True and Living God. They had turned their back on the knowledge of the One True and Living God. As Paul says in Romans 1:22, 23 & 25: “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

Thus, the Aboriginal peoples were, by God’s standard, ripe for the plucking.

Now look to Australia at large today. Are we any different from the Aboriginal culture of 200 years ago? No, not in the slightest! We have forsaken God and Jesus Christ His Son in order to worship the “creature”. Look at the list of sins given above. Our nation is guilty of them all and then some! So what is it that we think that we can do today for the Aboriginal peoples of this land or for any others? Yes, we can feed and clothe them. Yes, we can give them medicines. However, is it of any real advantage to be ushered into either the dining room or the medical bay of the SS Titanic!!

The very simple reality is that Australia today is ripe for the plucking. We are on the list of ‘to be a conquered people’. Sadly, the more we acquiesce to false religions, whether it be the Animism of the Aboriginal, the Koran of the Muslim, the “all roads to Rome” of the Universalist, the doctrines of the Evolutionist, or the idols of Humanism, the more we hasten both the day and severity of God’ judgement.

If we would help our fellows in this nation, regardless of their ethnicity, skin colour, locality, size, shape, or appearance, we must proclaim to them these things:

I am the Lord your God … You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

6. Conclusion.

The cut and thrust of this article can be summed up in Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” All the political flurry in the world will avail us naught if we will not turn back to God, seek His face, and pledge as a people to live in obedience to His will and law. If we continue on our current course, we will simply continue to be a “disgrace” in the eyes of God.

We cannot save others when we are in our own cultural ‘death throws’ and in need of salvation ourselves. We cannot help the Aboriginal peoples of this nation to move forward in a positive way, when we once again offer them a poisoned chalice. What we need, what we all need, is to drink the living water found only in Jesus Christ.

God alone, through His Son Jesus Christ, gives life to men, nations, and cultures. Our help and our hope are in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth!

A Battle Plan (Pt. 9)

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

4. The Pieces of God’s Armour.

“It’s about time!” may be the expression of some. It may even boarder on exasperation; “Finally, the Armour!” Yes, I have taken a different approach to this subject and I apologies for any tedium. This difference in approach may bemuse some, but it is not necessarily wrong. Much of the Christian’s modern warfare has been ineffective precisely because the areas addressed have not been adequately dealt with. If we fail to understand the difference between the big and little esses, then we have a defective view on warfare. If we fail to understand the targets of our warfare, then we too will be vulnerable. If we focus on the ‘authorities in the heavenly’ alone, then we miss the Biblical call to action. If we are all fired up about Christian Warfare, but fail to count the cost or to make the appropriate sacrifices, then we are nothing more than Quixotic dreamers ‘tilting at windmills’.

We can hold the very best of ideals and desire for the most positive outcome, yet, if we fail at one of these points, that outcome will not, indeed cannot, be realised. A highly polished suit of armour proudly paraded around your living room with the consequence that ‘mother needs to buy new blades for the ceiling fan!’ every few days, is hardly the concept of which Scripture speaks. It is of no benefit to enter one’s prayer closet and ‘curse the darkness’ or ask God for victory, then walk outside and when confronted with a situation, turn your eyes to the ground, close your mouth, and walk away. It is worthless to express an idea such as, “We need a Muslim terrorist to enter our church and open fire! It will wake people up!” when as a leader in Christ’s Church you have not made every effort to hold fast the truth.¹ The soldier needs the best armour and armament, for sure. However, the soldier behind that armour needs to be fit and skilled – attributes that only come through sacrifice. He also needs to be directed to the correct battlefield to oppose the proper enemy. There is little point in landing elite troops 3000 miles from the true battle field where the real enemy wreaks havoc!

Thank you for your patience.

With these things said, we are in a far better position to appreciate the nature of the “armour” in which Paul encourages us to be clothed. For now we will be the complete soldier.

Footnotes:

1. Yes, sadly, I had this very scenario placed before me. It was not expressed concretely, but it was nonetheless expressed. The sad element was that I had witnessed firsthand a number of compromises by this brother. It is despicable to court such an idea when, as a leader, you have not disciplined to truth; shot wolves; fed sheep; or really exercised the spiritual oversight required by Christ.

A Battle Plan (Pt. 8)

Posted on February 19, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

C. The Purpose of the Armour: What then is the purpose of this armour? Many become embroiled in deep discussions over each piece of the armour whilst missing the essential point as to why the armour is given. It is important to clear away the clutter so that we can see, adjudge, and obey God’s word. To direct us in the way, we need to listen to the Apostle’s words in verses 11 and 13:

Put on the full armor of God, that you may be able to stand firm against the schemes of the devil.

Therefore, take up the full armor of God, that you may be able to resist in the evil day, and having done everything, to stand firm.

Everything else in this passage of Scripture is governed by these words. It is in these words that we find the purpose for all the rest of Paul’s words. The armour is given so that the Christian may “resist” and “stand firm”. This point needs to be understood and proclaimed. As I look at Christians and Christianity today, the words ‘resist’ and ‘stand firm’ are not the words that readily spring to mind as apt descriptors. The more appropriate terms would be “capitulate” and “lie down”.

Therefore, my brethren, may I urge you to understand what the Holy Spirit is here saying to the Church through the apostle Paul.

When we look at verses 11 and 13 we see that they are essentially a reflection of each other. Both command the Christian to do something with God’s armour (Put on! Take up!). Both give the purpose (Stand firm! Resist!). Both tell us what to stand against (Devil’s schemes; Evil day). Please note that Paul’s argument does not admit of capitulation or compromise. There is no running away; there is no fleeing. Our obligation is to “Stand!”

Harking back to the previously quoted texts in Joshua, if we have turned our backs to our enemies it is because of disobedience to God’s command and the consequent withdrawal of His favour. When we look about the Church and we see capitulation and back turning, it is because of disobedience. This point was made earlier and you were asked to keep it in mind. Why? Precisely because that principle still operates today. God cannot and will not bless disobedience. If we are running from our enemies it is because of disobedience to God’s holy standard. We have given up on doing as God has commanded. We have respectfully but erroneously informed God that we Christians in the 21^st century, having Facebook, Twitter, Youtube, the WWW, and so on, are just that bit more advanced and wiser than our forebears. We have even impugned God be inferring that we are a bit smarter than He is and that we do not need to follow His specific commands because of our enlightened status (Ring any bells? Think Adam. It ended badly!). The simple, Biblical truth, which cannot be ignored, is that we flee from our enemies only because God has withdrawn His blessing on account of our persistent disobedience!

Let’s do some reverse engineering here with Paul’s logic. Paul commands that we take up the armour of God that we might stand firm. If we turn this around, the question is this: Christian, do you have any intention of fighting or standing firm? If not, it is disobedience and you will not need the armour. In such a situation, the armour will only hinder your running away and ‘lying down’. If you answer yes, it is obedience and the only way you can achieve your goal is by being clothed in Christ Jesus. Thus, we all have one very specific question that we must ask and answer; Flee or Fight?

Please understand that I speak foolishly as according to man. For the text does not admit, at any point, of the Christian having such a choice (though to look at some quarters of the Church you could be forgiven for believing that such a choice existed). Paul is insistent that our only option is to stand. Therefore, we must be arrayed in the Armour of God.

Paul’s insistence is clearly evident in the text. We have looked at verses 11 and 13. Now, please look at the opening of verse 14. Paul opens his explanation of the armour with a command – Stand Firm! Paul has twice commanded the Christian to take up the armour so as to be clothed appropriately. In those places, Paul has subordinated the purpose – standing firm – to the taking up of the armour. Here, that changes. Paul now opens with the command to “Stand firm!” With the command issued, Paul then moves on to the specifics of each piece of armour. In other words, Paul is insistent on two things – take the armour and stand firm!

Please try and grasp this. Paul wants every Christian to walk the victorious life in Christ – the life of the soldier. Pauline writings are replete with the symbols of Christ’s victory. Because Christ Jesus is victor, His redeemed ones are to be likewise victorious. We bring no glory to our God or to Jesus our Redeemer when we are defeated because of disobedience. Consequently, Paul gives us the keys to victory. We must stand firm and we can only stand firm when we are fully clothed in Christ. We cannot stand without the armour and the armour is useless if we will not stand. This is not an ‘either / or’ situation. It is a ‘both / and’ situation.

If we decide to stand, but do so without armour, we are being disobedient and will therefore fail. If we have no resolve to stand in obedience to God’s command, then being clothed in the finest armour avails nought. This too is disobedience.

Understood in this manner, Paul is really giving only one clear command – “To victory in Jesus Christ!” However, Paul does this by giving us two unambiguous commands. The first is the command of purpose – “Christian, you must stand!” The second is the command of instrument – “Put on God’s panoply!”

Maybe, with a bit of poetic licence, we could bring Paul to life. Imagine him as the general in front of His troops delivering a rousing speech. In short sharp words and with authority and conviction, Paul is heard to say: “This is the evil day, the day of battle. The enemy approaches. Honour Jesus! – Your King who died for you. Make your stand; give no ground. Make you stand. Clothe yourself in Christ Jesus, the very Armour of God! Clothe yourself, I say, and make your stand. For this is the ‘making sure of your calling and election!” (2 Peter 1:10-11; Ephesians 4:1-6; Philemon 2; 2 Timothy 2:3)

Therefore, please understand this imperative. God’s Armour is given to the Christian for a purpose. That purpose is so that, in obedience to His calling as a soldier, you may stand firm. God’s Armour ensures obedience to God’s command and therefore the wonderful state of being blessed by God.

Brethren, let is dwell in the blessing and victory that is ours through Jesus Christ by clothing ourselves in God’s armour with the full resolve that, with all our might and with all Spiritual aid, we shall stand firm in the evil day.

The Love of Money Is the Root of All Evil!

Posted on February 14, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Once more the media is abuzz with the news of drugs in sport. We thought that the “drugs in sport” issue may have reached its dizzy heights with the Lance Armstrong affair. However, with revelations that certain highly prized Australian codes may be infected with a drug culture we were obviously mistaken.

Whilst I am a sports fan, enjoy a good game, and appreciate how money has helped to improve some grounds, the simple reality is that I have become increasingly disillusioned by the part that money has played in sport, all sports. The simple reality is that no sportsman is worth the current figures being paid. Take cricket as one example. Recent contract shuffles see Australian cricketers on retainers of $230,000. Michael Clarke receives a bonus as captain; While all players receive significant match fees – $14000 a test; $5600 per One Day match; and $4200 for a Twenty20.

Speaking in the context of AFL Boss Andrew Demeitriou’s salary, you may find this following paragraph of interest: “From an annual pay package of $560,000 – less than many of the best-paid players in the league back in 2004 – his pay climbed to $2.1 million last year, double that of dual Brownlow medallist Chris Judd. Last year the league’s 11 key executives – who all report directly to Demetriou – earned $6.2 million between them, an average of $536,500. That’s well above the $365,922 earned by Prime Minister Julia Gillard, and 12 per cent more than the year before.”

Now many arguments will be adduced about how money can benefit sport. Those familiar with Cricket will have heard the mantra many times, even this summer. We will hear that money makes for better competition. We will hear that money makes for better competitors.¹ We will hear all sorts of arguments. What they do not openly discuss, however, is that this vast amount of money renders them as fruit ripe to be plucked.

In short, if there are large sums to be made then the unscrupulous will begin to circle like the hungry shark. Then we must add into this equation the emerging evil of “online betting” and, in particular, “sports betting”.² Similarly, we must add in the elevated status of Sports Stars. When I was a boy, Rock Stars were the in thing. Now, for the most part, these have taken a back seat to the “heart throbs” and “glamour girls” of sport.

When all this is taken into account the simple question is, “Why are we surprised that there are increasing incidents of drug induced cheating in sport?”

I have had a long standing opposition to excess money in sport. It harks back to the days of yore when I witnessed a “skins” game (golf). One player sunk a hole in one. His bonus was the equivalent of one year’s salary. Such should simply not be the case.

My objections are in essence threefold:

First, we arrive at the situation we have today. People’s lives are turned upside down. Reputations are ruined. That is at one end. At the other is the simple sports fan. He is disillusioned. Did his team win or did they tank. How does he trust any result. Is his boyhood hero really a hero, a gifted and well trained athlete or is he a drug cheat?

Second, people will respond by saying that these people are top athletes who train diligently and deserve what they receive. That is a cogent argument if it proves valid for all. When scrutinised, it falls flat. As a biased and proud husband, let me use my wife as an example. Annette spent years at university to get her initial degree. She has worked to hone her skills in clinical practice. She has completed further study. She has been engaged in training the next crop of “health professionals” through the university system. Yet, on a full time wage she would not receive half that of those on the cricket retainer. Unless she is keeping secrets, she has not had anyone offer her money to wear their particular brand of shoes; write exclusively with their pen; or appear on a television commercial pushing a particular product. Let’s put this into sharp relief. If cricket was stopped tomorrow, what would we lose? What would be the flow on effect? If people stopped turning up to institutions of higher education to train people, what would we lose?³

Third, I do not think that enough people stop to ask, “From where is sports money derived?” What revenue does sport in and of itself generate? The answer is, Nothing! You are the cash-cow of sport! That is right, YOU!! Sport receives some input from government. That is your tax. Then there is sponsorship. Where does that money come from? Yes, you! Every time you buy a bat, a ball, a sports singlet, or a franchise hamburger or chicken burger, you are paying for the sport. When you go through the turnstiles, you are paying for the sport.

I do not have such an issue with the turnstiles as that was how the operations were originally funded. However, now that there is such big money from sponsorship, people should be admitted free. I mean after all, it is not just sportspeople, but sports grounds, and sporting events that receive sponsorship.

You have for example, Blundstone arena in Tasmania. “Etihad” stadium in Melbourne. The “Cattery” was “Kardinia park” it is now Simonds Stadium. The Sheffield Shield was lost as a name of meaning to cricket for some years when it became the “Pura Cup”. The competition was then taken over by different sponsors. Seemingly the historic name “Sheffield” has been reunited to the domestic cricket scene, but only as a subtitle. Then we can look at team sponsorship and the matter of sponsorship by government agencies – again your taxpayer dollars. The SpeedBlitz Blues have as a major sponsor the RTA. We could then point to the TAC’s sponsorship of several AFL teams. When Collingwood lost that sponsorship due to an infraction by a player, they were said to have lost $500,000.

Think this through. Every time you pay your registration fee with its “third party” component – if you live in Victoria – you are paying for a football club. I imagine the NSW RTA is in a similar situation. Then we have the burgers and fries. The list is endless. However, the limitations of your wallet and income are not! How much do you pay every year for sponsorship; a hidden cost built into thousands of sporting products? Now companies will argue that such sponsorship comes from profits. We would counter, “Where do the profits come from?” Again, they come from you, the end user. You!

The simple reality of the situation is that we are now paying the Piper. We are seeing the consequence of our sin and rebellion. We have made sports people into the new gods. We have hailed them. We have worshipped them. However, when it is all boiled down, they are just finite, mortal, men and women.

Our God is angry. In His justice He is exposing these travesties for exactly what they are. They have stolen His name (Exodus 20:7). They have stolen His day of worship (Exodus 20:8). They have stolen His glory (Isaiah 42:8). They have even attempted to steal His crown (Nehemiah 9:18; 1 Kings 12:28). It is a mini saga replicating the key elements of Man’s rebellion in Genesis (Genesis 3:1-24).

Men, being fallen, are full of pride. Men, being fallen, love to be worshipped. Men, being fallen, love to receive tithes from their underlings. Men, being fallen, love to hear praise. Whilst this is ever the case, these fallen men will turn to anything to protect their status.

Man is corrupt. Mega dollars only magnify that corruption.

God’s wisdom in 1 Timothy 6:8-10 is: “And if we have food and covering, with these we shall be content. But those who want to get rich fall into temptation and a snare and many foolish and harmful desires which plunge men into ruin and destruction. For the love of money is a root of all sorts of evil, and some by longing for it have wandered away from the faith, and pierced themselves with many a pang.” Similarly Proverbs 11: 3 & 8: “Riches do not profit in the day of wrath, But righteousness delivers from death” … “He who trusts in his riches will fall, but the righteous will flourish like the green leaf.”

Drugs in sport, cheating, if you will, is but one more evidence of Man’s rebellion against God and of the corruption of his heart as a consequence of that rebellion. What we see is the innocent corrupted, yet again. What is before us with these fresh allegations is a giant tick for the Biblical view of man as fallen and corrupt. Yet man’s response will be to deal with this issue in his own power and after his own ideal, for the one thing he will not do is admit that he is “a sinner in the hands of an angry God.”

A general panacea to this epidemic will not be found until we return to God and His wisdom. By that is implied, a return to the message found in the text of Timothy quoted above. A return to being content with enough; not the most. A return to being content with what is adequate; not that which is in excess. A return to simply being content.⁴ Such contentedness comes only when the heart is reconciled to God through Jesus Christ and through the proclamation of God’s law. It does so precisely because it makes us realise that gold and silver can never satisfy. It makes us realise that the only thing we can take from this world are our works and even these shall be tested by fire.

We have sown the wind. Now we shall reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7). We have cast aside the most magnificent Being, revealed to us in Jesus Christ, known to us through the Bible’s revelation as God Almighty. In his place we have established idols in our own image and likeness. These new gods have proven fallible. God has shaken (Jeremiah 10:10) the earth and these new gods have begun to fall. May their end be as that of Dagon (1 Samuel 5:3-4) of old – left lying in pieces at the feet of the One true and living God!

Footnotes:

1. Like Tiger Woods being lured to play in Australian Masters with the Victorian Government paying 50% of his 3 million dollar appearance fee. Yes, it was touted to generate a 20 million dollar boast to the economy. However, how can one really measure such an input? If it is effective, why do the taxpayers have to foot the bill? If it is so effective why does the financial outlay not fall to those who expect to reap the most benefit?

2. Think about this. Tobacco sponsorship was banned. Cricket lost a long term sponsor in Benson and Hedges. We know that it is illegal for players, in most codes, to bet on games or seemingly for even their relatives to do so. This was highlighted recently in AFL. Yet now we have the St Kilda football club being sponsored by one online betting establishment. What message does this send? If you watched any cricket this year, you will have seen another online betting establishment prominently featured. Where is the consistency? Oh yes, we always hear, “Remember, gamble responsibly?” but who are they trying to kid? Why not say, Smoke responsibly?

3. Yes, we would all agree that the university system needs an overhaul and that it would be a blessing if some “faculty” did not turn up. However, this is not the norm. Doctors, Veterinarians, Para-medical, Lawyers all contribute a great deal to society. A similar example is that of my brother. He is a mechanic. He has slogged away for years in an unsung profession. If all mechanics stayed home tomorrow, how long would it take for our country to grind to a halt?

4. An illustration of what is meant here, a simple illustration, is the mobile phone craze. How many people do you know who go for the latest phone and gadget whether they need it or not?

Health Trumps Morals

Posted on February 13, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

A recent news headline, in regard to the abortion drug RU486, grabbed my attention—and that for all the wrong reasons.

Australia has become such a moral cesspool that we no longer seem to consider moral arguments as in any way relevant to the decisions that we make each and every day. The article mentioned was crying foul that certain women were being forced into home abortions by the, supposed, fact that “they cannot afford a doctor’s prescription or cannot get to a clinic.” This situation then, supposedly, leads to the procurement of RU486 from disreputable sources, which puts these women at further risk because the product can be contaminated.

At these claims, one’s heart is supposed to bleed. Mine does not. In the interest of “full disclosure”, I must state that I am a male and a Christian, which means, of course, that I am insensitive to “women’s needs” and biased. With that out of the way let us break this situation down and expose it for what it really is: Lawlessness dressed as compassion!

If we go back to the beginning of the abortion debate in this country, you will find exactly the same argument – ‘Oh, we must legalise or make abortion-on-demand available so that backyard abortions are stopped and the pain and suffering ended.’ For the most part, for all intents and purposes, abortion is now legal and readily obtainable. So why are women still subjecting themselves to home abortions?

The answer, Biblically, is sin and guilt. The article in question quoted one Professor as saying, “Women who bleed extensively may present at hospital but won’t say (that they took the drug).” Why is this? It is because there is an innate guilt associated with the act of murder. Dress it up. Call it by any other name; Yet the fact remains that women who have abortions end up being plagued by psychological phenomena associated with the guilt. If guilt is not at the heart of the matter, why not carry the child and give it up for adoption? After all, in our shameless society, that is more than possible.

Then we could ask concerning accountability. The problem today is the same as it has always been. To quote one Elder, ‘If women kept their legs together and men kept their pistols in their pockets” we would not have this problem. Amen brother! You see, at the heart of abortion is morality. It begins, for the most part, with illicit sexual relations. It is driven by a desire not to be exposed, and that at the deepest level of human existence. People wish to deceive themselves into thinking that they are pure, good, and decent people. However, it is very hard to convince others, and particularly yourself, that such is true when you willingly tear an innocent life from your womb. After all, good people do not kill the innocent. Pure people make right decisions for all. The decent, being a fellow who would give you the very shirt from his back, should not now demand the shirt back, leaving you to freeze.

Of course, we must ask the economic question, “How much are the good old fashioned contraceptives?” Surely, five bucks on a packet of condoms is better than sourcing abortive drugs illegally from overseas? Surely, a prescription for the pill is easier to acquire than an abortion clinic? Surely a bus ticket is cheaper and far more convenient than a lonely, agonising death on a bathroom floor due to blood loss or other complications?

Here we return to morality. The simple fact is that these women have a number of options before them – starting with no illicit sex and extending to taking responsibility for their actions. However, as with most things today, the wrong choices are highlighted and argued ad nauseam and to the nth degree so as to guilt people into further lawlessness and immorality. Most interestingly, the wrong is even argued as a moral right!

An example of this is found in a related article that illustrates the absolute nonsense on which these people operate. It says: “RU486 struck fear into the heart of the anti-abortionists; a pill was just too easy, they thought. If a woman must have an abortion, make the process difficult. Make her suffer. In 2006 then Health Minister Tony Abbott said RU486 was just too risky; he overrode expert advice to ban the pill, warning of backyard miscarriages and unscrupulous doctors. That effective ban was overturned and the pill is available on Australia. In some places. At some expense. For many – the poor and those living in rural Australia – abortions in general are still hard to get. But women find a way. You can order RU486 online and have yourself a home abortion, unsupervised. Dangerous. There is a lesson in this about pragmatism. You can have all the moral objections in the world to abortion, but if women can’t access them safely, they will find a way to access them unsafely. And you end up with backyard miscarriages and unscrupulous doctors.”

“Okay! Okay! I give up. You have convinced me.” I mean, how can I be a pro-life / anti-abortionist in the face of such overwhelming logic and argument? Easily!

First, note that the fall back position is scorn and ridicule. I do not know of any Christian that opposes abortion on the basis of wanting women “to suffer”. On the contrary, women who have abortions do suffer. I want that suffering, and that of the child, to end. That is the position of the moral absolute found in God. Do not commit the sin and thereby alleviate all the consequences of that sin.

Second, there is the absurdity. We have legalised abortion to stop backyard abortions. However, we have not made it legal enough or available enough, therefore, we will get “backyard miscarriages (note the subtle change in terminology) and unscrupulous doctors.” What I see in this particular mess of pottage is that legalising abortion has not worked. Put differently, legalised abortion has failed to meet the end for which it was given, promoted, and continues to be trumpeted. (Please also note the absolute contradiction. Tony Abbott is condemned for banning the drug amid fears of backyard abortions; now this drug is the source of those backyard abortions. In short, Tony Abbot was right! Where do they send their heartfelt apology?)

This, again, leads back to morals. Legalising the immoral never makes it right or acceptable. It is common in our godless society to hear much about legalising evil so that it will not be driven underground. The constant mantra is ‘bring it into the light of the day where it can be properly controlled.’ Now, pray tell, where has that got us? Nowhere! When you bring things into the light you give them energy, nutrients, and the ability to spread and corrupt. Rarely, if ever, are they controlled. Equally, legalising the element does not stop the underground trade. Pills are easily and cheaply available from a chemist, yet there is an underground trade. Sex is available at legalised brothels, yet there is an underground trade. Abortions are readily available; yet there is an underground trade. Why is this? Because the heart of this issue, as with the others, is morality.

Third, I cannot let the word “pragmatism” go without taking a stick to it. The pragmatic approach is to do what “works”. However, pragmatism has not proven to be a very good guide. It is currently destroying the Church. We no longer seek God’s blessing through obedience. We just do what works. Until recently, I was a member of a small, elderly congregation. I used to joke with them saying that, “I could fill the place if they would but let me place poker machines in the cry room and employ topless dancers to direct attention to the minister!” I mean, it would work! We would get a completely new demographic involved in our congregation. Yet, we must stop the frivolity and ask, “Is this the purpose of Christ’s bride?” Similarly, Hitler struck upon a wonderfully pragmatic answer to the question of his “Final Solution”. Anyone cheering for that one? Now, it may be that some will tell me to stop making silly arguments. After all, we know Hitler was a bad man. Yet is this not the sting in the tail. Hitler was indeed a bad man, but to say so is a moral judgement! Saying that Hitler was bad is not a statement based in pragmatism. It is a statement that moralism alone can make; more precisely, moralism as based in God’s word.

Therefore, if the author of the above news article wishes to be pragmatic then let us be helpful and suggest a few possibilities:

Let all women have tailor-made corks fitted; (Cheap. Simple. Readily available.)
Let all women with unwanted pregnancies be put to death. (Why should the baby alone pay? Also, there are statistics from America that show that recidivism is high. So this action should help drive the numbers down.)
Let all women, not interested in babies, stop having sex. (I know, it sounds moral, but it is also pragmatic. No sex. No pregnancy. No pregnancy. No need for abortion.)

What, no takers! I thought these to be very pragmatic solutions.

The simple fact is that “Health” is a moral issue. The simple fact is that some conditions can only be solved by morals. The simple fact is that “technology” and “breakthrough” cannot solve all conditions. The simple fact is that a little thing like “No!” can save you from a world of hurt and pain that no earthly physician can cure.

The only Physician that can cure all is Jesus Christ, God’s Son. Jesus cures by giving a new heart. Jesus cures by giving us a moral compass which is attuned to the Word of His Father. That compass directs in the right way and directs us away from backyard abortions and self-induced miscarriages. Such are simply not necessary when the right moral choice is made in the first place.

Proverbs 14:18: “But the path of the righteous is like the light of dawn, That shines brighter and brighter until the full day.”

Psalm 119:105: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path.”

A Battle Plan (Pt. 7)

Posted on February 4, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

B. Please Note the Adjective: Yes, it’s a strange subtitle. Why is it there? Can you tell me? It is important to our discussion, believe it or not! Allow me to explain. The first reason is simply that I like adjectives and I want to save them. Adjectives describe things. Big house. Red dress. Boring writer! Oops, how did that get there? Anyway, moving on. Adjectives are under threat because of political correctness and wretched ‘equality’ laws. Try going to a police station in the “World of PC”, where adjectives are banned, to give a statement regarding a stolen item and the thief. “Hello officer, I would like to report a theft. My golden ring was stolen by a large white male, with dark hair. He escaped on a blue skateboard. He was wearing blue jeans with a white cotton embossed shirt.” Do you think that the felon would be quickly apprehended?

Back to topic. The second reason adjectives are important is that they build our knowledge and help our understanding. As the first example shows – and you thought I was being silly – our language and communication are impoverished when adjectives are removed. Without these descriptors, we are as the needle in the haystack – lost with little chance of being found.

Allow, please, an illustration which I hope will open the way to understanding. Modern Christians are very good at wrongly dividing the word of God. We have become adept at placing wedges where none should exist. Take ‘Spiritual Gifts’ as one example. What bothers me is the way in which we are made to choose a gift. “What is your gift?” is the commonly heard question. Again, such questions show a lack of understanding with regard to what the Scriptures teach. Let us turn to Galatians 5:22-23:

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law.

Here, there are 9 fruits listed. Yes? No! There are 9 fruit listed, but they are the fruit – singular – of the Holy Spirit. If you are born again of the Spirit of God it is not yours to choose which gift you shall exhibit. On the contrary, it is yours, by the fact of regeneration, to exhibit all of these fruit.

Taking this lesson, think adjective and armour. Paul’s instruction (command) in both verses 11 and 13 is to “put on the full armour of God.” We are not just to “put on the armour” we are to put on the full armour! We are not to walk around the armoury in a quiet state of contemplation seeking some arcane clue as to which piece we should pick – the shiniest, the scariest, the piece that best matches our eyes! Such an exercise would be patently futile for we are to be arrayed in them all.

Understand this well – arrayed in them all! This is not the armoury of “Pick N Choose” where one gains “brownie points” for contemplation and thought. This is the King’s armoury where every soldier is under orders to be decked out with all the tackle available. God’s soldiers are to be skilled soldiers. They must be able to defend. They must be able to attack. They must be prepared.

Therefore, if we are to be considered as effective soldiers in Christ’s army; if we are to effect Christian Warfare, we must be kitted out in every piece of God’s armour. Not a piece. Not some pieces. Every piece; without exception!

As an illustration, it is common to hear some Christians described as a “prayer warrior”. This is a good term. Prayer is very much needed. However, if this is all that this warrior does; if this is their only piece of armour (? more later), can this be considered as faithfulness? Some will see this as judgemental or ungracious. It is not. It is nothing more than a challenge based in a Scriptural “ought”. Paul says “every piece”. The Apostle simply does not give us a choice. Therefore, no matter how noble any one piece of armour may be, we cannot rest contented with that one piece. We must strive to put on every piece. We must learn to like it and wear it as a second skin. These pieces must become as one with us.

It is only the “full” armour that offers the soldier the ability to fight and to win. Allow me to paraphrase and modernise. How long will the soldier last if he has his feet fitted with the holiest of sneakers, but has nothing else? He can only run from the enemy for so long before his sneakers blow out. Moreover, this is his only option. What else can he do but run? What of the soldier who has no sword? He can run into battle with a shield and mount some type of defence, but how does he retaliate? How does he strike down his enemy? After all, he can only absorb so many blows before his strength wanes and he becomes susceptible to his opponents sword tip. Then there is the soldier who runs into the fray naked but valiantly wielding his sword. He may well land some hefty blows and wreak momentary havoc. However, without any protection he is vulnerable. It will not be long before an arrow finds its mark. Similarly, every glancing blow will have some impact and will take its toll, precisely because there is no armour and no protection.

Consequently, brethren, we must take heed to the jots and tittles of Scripture – in this case an adjective. We must put on the whole armour of God. Not a piece can be missing. We must have the armour fully. In this alone will Christ our Lord be magnified. In this fullness will our stand be strong, uncompromising, and inspiring. It will be so because this alone is obedience.

Antidiscrimination + Equality + Political Correctness = Cultural Insanity

Posted on January 30, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, Cultural Insanity! When did happiness become racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Battle Plan (Pt. 6)

Posted on January 29, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

3. Three Points Regarding the Christian’s Armour.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

Un-Australian – Ambiguity, Enigma, and Dinkum!

Posted on January 28, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

Ah, a misspent youth!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Battle Plan (Pt. 5)

Posted on January 25, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

2. Counting the Cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

Of Land Rights and Fleas on Dogs

A Battle Plan (Pt. 9)

A Battle Plan (Pt. 8)

The Love of Money Is the Root of All Evil!

Health Trumps Morals

A Battle Plan (Pt. 7)

Antidiscrimination + Equality + Political Correctness = Cultural Insanity

A Battle Plan (Pt. 6)

Un-Australian – Ambiguity, Enigma, and Dinkum!

A Battle Plan (Pt. 5)