Category Archives: Australia

Homosexuality: Rebellion, Ignorance, and Death

Posted on by
Reply

Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

When the Apostle Paul wrote these words, he gave to all Christian, in all times and in all places, a really good insight into the tenacity with which ungodly men will pursue their ungodliness. Sadly, many Christians turn from Paul’s words today because they seem to be a little harsh, unloving, and intolerant. However, if we take the time to look around at our culture today, we will see that Paul was right on the mark.

As you well know, there is a push on in Australia to legitimise homosexuality. This began many moons ago with basic equality laws and it is coming to a head with the current push to allow homosexuals to marry. Now, we have written elsewhere on these topics, so we will not cover that ground again.[1] The points to be highlighted here are those in the title, which fall in line with Paul’s warning.

Rebellion: The first point to be considered, because it is the fundamental point to be grasped if Christians are going to move to victory, is that all unregenerate sinners are rebels at heart. Again, this may seem unloving, but these are not my words or, in the first instance, my point of view. This is the revelation of the facts given to us by God Himself.

Paul begins his discourse in verse eighteen by noting that the ungodly suppress the truth of God. Paul then goes on to show that the knowledge of God is available to all because God Himself made it available. This is what leads to Paul’s disturbing conclusion – They know their deeds are worthy of death because they contravene God’s law, but they do them anyway and encourage others to follow.

It is fundamentally important that we grasp this point. Sinners are rebels. They do not want to give up their sin. So addicted to their sin are they that they will encourage others to join them so that they can have an easing of the pangs of conscience and a greater justification for their actions – “Well, they are doing it too!”

An example of this rebellion occurred last night (26/08/16). Michael Kirby was interviewed on Lateline. Michael Kirby, a retired High Court Justice, is a homosexual and he is using his “clout” to push his particular barrow. During this interview, of which only short snippets were glimpsed, Mr Kirby advocated that the politicians should decide the matter of homosexual union and not have it decided via a plebiscite. He went on to say that if the Parliament decided against the proposal that was fair enough because it would be overturned later. Here, in the flesh, is the rebellion.

It seems to be a forgotten fact that the Parliament did vote, the Parliament did decide and their decision was an overwhelming, No! In September 2012 the Australian Parliament voted, 98 to 42, to reject same-sex marriage. Ever since then the narcissistic rebels have cried foul, agitated, introduced Bill after Bill, thrown their lollies on the floor time after time, and acted like spoiled children attempting to bully their way to victory.

Proof comes from the opening lines of the Sydney Morning Herald: “Advocates will shift their focus to legalising same sex marriage at the state level, after Federal MPs yesterday voted down a bill which would have allowed gay couples to marry.”[2] Not happy with the democratic vote of the Federal Government, the rebellious ones set their sights on a different group of politicians. This shift in focus no doubt resulted in the ACT introducing its own legislation, which led to a High Court challenge by the Federal Government.[3]

Thinly veiled in Mr Kirby’s statement is the fact that the homosexual minority[4] is going to continue their push until the Australian Government submits to their will. The Government can vote and defeat the Bill this time and the rebels will keep at it.

This rebellion is exactly why these people are targeting Parliament. They know that they are in the minority and that most people in this country do not support their stand. Thus, they do not want a popular vote of any kind and they most definitely do not want a popular vote that is binding. They want to use coercion and bullying tactics to manipulate the weak political situation for their own end.

In this, we also see the duplicity of the rebels. They speak of democracy and equality, but they will walk over both to attain their goal.[5] They respect not the people or the Parliament, because they respect not the One Living and True God.

Ignorance: Paul notes that those who rebel against God and His order will be extremely keen to have the positive support of others. They want a mutual society of sycophants so that they can justify their actions and feel justified by the company they keep. However, there are many who are also duped into giving hearty support because they do not look with God’s eyes and therefore do not really understand the essence of the argument or what is at stake.

We came across such a situation today. We had a lay-by at a particular little shop, a favourite of my wife’s. We have been there many times. Today, upon entering, we saw a rainbow flag hanging on the door. When we had finished our business, the comment was passed to the owner that it was disappointing to see that flag. She responded by saying that “the shop” believed in this and that was that. The interesting part was no sooner had the words fallen from her mouth than she said, “I do not want to talk about it.” Whoa up! You display the flag, which is a political statement and then you do not wish to engage on the topic. Hmmm!

Anyway, thankfully she was unable to restrain herself and started by stating that ‘people who “love each other” should be able to get married.’ The question was sent back to her, “What is love?” This was responded to by another affirmation that she desired no discourse. Then, she interjected that ‘marriages fail, often with children in the middle, so why not allow homosexuals to marry.’ Well, that caused some head scratching! If marriages fail and children get hurt, should she not be advocating that marriage and procreation be banned, rather than advocating the broadening of marriage? After all, we are aware of several cases already involving homosexual couples that have parted ways and then enter a battle over custody of the children. In short, allowing homosexuals to marry will not resolve this problem; it will only create more and unique cases for the courts to figure out.

Refraining from silence, the last effort on the shop keeper’s part was to speak of “equality”. Our reply was that equality does not exist and that to approve homosexual marriage would be to actively discriminate against heterosexual marriage. We received a bewildered, “no!” in reply.

The point to be made here is not that we enjoy harassing helpless shop keepers, but rather that there are people who are roped into supporting the rebels without having any clear understanding of the issues. They have been blinded by the “love” words and calls for “equality” without every realising what these terms are being used to veil. The conversation reported above was interesting because it was almost as though the shop keeper was reading from prompt-points written by a homosexual propagandist; yet, she clearly had no depth of understanding as to the real issues.

This is, of course, exactly what the rebels desire. They seek to capture followers by feigning exploitation, by emotional heart-string pulling, and the claiming of injustice. They do not want the truth to be known because that would be a very inconvenient truth for their cause. Thus, for the Christian, the lesson is that we need to understand the issues well so that we can poke holes in these false reasons and clearly demonstrate what is at stake. We need to put God’s word before these people, but we need to also understand the issues and concepts so that we can explain the errors.

Death: Paul’s reference to death is often explained away as only referring to the last judgement and the consigning of the wicked to Hell. However, such an understanding seems to be contrary to the whole thrust of Paul’s argument. Paul seems to be speaking of those presently engaged in activities that contravene God’s law. His point is that they are not only flouting God’s law but also the penalties (death) that are prescribed by God’s law.

Understood in this way, we must see that these rebels are dead in trespass and sin (Ephesians 2:1) and that they, therefore, bring an air of death to all that they do and touch. This stands to reason. If life, full and abundant, is in Jesus the Christ then those who deny Jesus and rebel against God must be devoid of life and be the harbingers of death.

So it is in the current case. We have seen either explicitly or implicitly how these rebels have killed or are killing the political process, democracy, truth, language, justice, morality, and law. With the demise of these elements, we will see our culture and nation begin to atrophy until the emaciated carcass finally collapses and falls to the earth dead.

Are we exaggerating? No. Not even a little bit. God judges sin. Proverbs 14:34, often quoted, states, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” Paul, in Romans 1, tells us that homosexuality is a great sin, indeed the greatest, and therefore a great disgrace. If it is a disgrace, then it will not lead to exaltation, but to deprecation. Already, we see that this nation is failing and it will continue to spiral downwards as long as we tolerate sin. Recently, I spoke to a lady who was bemoaning her mother’s negative attitude to everything. We asked her to pause and think about the standards that her mother grew up with and the type of society that was and is now. It did not take long for the “penny to drop”. Our children are not safe on the streets. Murder is an everyday occurrence and we are no longer aghast at its reality. We have no faith in Governments. Drug addiction is rife. Family violence is rife … need any more be said.

Equally, if we understand Paul’s words correctly, we must grasp that homosexuality is not only a sin, but a judgement – God handed them over or gave them up. Thus, rampant homosexuality and its willing embrace tells us that our nation is already under God’s displeasure; to further legalise homosexuality and establish it as a norm is surely to beg disaster.

The Humanists will repudiate such a notion because they do not fear God. Yet, the truth of God’s judgement is borne out by empirical examination: Name one nation that has prospered and blossomed after embracing homosexuality? The once mighty West is but a shadow of its former self. We have more strife than ever before. What of Rome? What of Sparta? What of the once mighty Greek states? All embraced homosexuality. All are like the Dodo.

Brethren, let us not be duped. The current remonstrations are not about justice, equality, or tolerance. The rebels are rebelling against God. Ignorance fuels their cause because they and this nation will not listen to God’s word. Death will be the end result, because they reject Jesus Christ, the author of life.

Now, understand well, this is not a prophecy of doom, as such. It is a prediction based on God’s word. If the nation does not repent and forsake these evils, we have no reason to hope for a bright future. However, Jesus saved us and has left us on earth to be Light and Salt as His witnesses. So it is, brethren, that we have the ability to change this nation and to bring days of prosperity and blessing. Yet, such hope is conditional. It is conditioned by our repentance, the forsaking of our sin, the courage of our hearts to stand for Christ in these dark days. It is conditioned on our willingness to shine the Light of Christ and spread the Salt of Christ.

We do not speak here of mere religiosity or religious fervency, but of the heart submerged in Christ and His word by the grace and presence of the Holy Spirit; the life that has no higher or greater purpose than to glorify God. A life that loves Jesus and obeys His commands. A life that hungers and thirsts for righteousness. A life that is clad in the armour of God. A life that, therefore, hates evil and delights in the fear of the Lord.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] See: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2015/06/marriage-is-life-ap-version/; https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2015/03/equality-and-coercion-the-antipodes-of-humanism/; https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2015/02/the-hypocrisy-of-humanism-stephen-fry-and-his-blasphemy/; https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2015/07/nonsense-in-the-name-of-god/; https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2012/11/the-slippery-slope-homosexuality-to-polygamy/.

[2] http://www.smh.com.au/national/gay-marriage-bill-defeated-20120919-266a8.html accessed 27/08/16.

[3] For a critique, see: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/12/the-high-court-and-homosexuality/.

[4] A recent statistic showed that the number is approximately 1.2%, not the widely publicised 10%

[5] See: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2015/06/catchphrases-of-doom/.

The Death of Democracy

Posted on by
1

2016! Australia has voted in a Federal election. It is a close contest; a real nail biter. However, the real issue to come out of this election, for me, is the death of democracy.

Whilst we hang around waiting for the final result, the truth is that we already know in part who has been elected. One such elected representative is Pauline Hanson who has been elected to the Senate and she forms the centerpiece of this article.

Several days after her election, News.com.au ran an article under a heading that went something like this: Is Sunrise to blame for Pauline Hanson’s return?” The story distills down to the horrendous and horrible fact that Pauline Hanson was paid to appear on Sunrise, Channel Seven’s breakfast show, in the months leading up to the election.

Now, it bothers me nought that this lady was paid by a television programme. Big “whoop”! It happens all the time. Most pollies are probably jealous that they could not land the same gig!

The problem for me is in the word “blame”. In a democracy, people are supposed to have the right to vote for whomever they will (some clarification needed, but let’s leave it at that for now) and if the people decide upon a particular choice, then that is their choice. Their is no blame. That is how the system is meant to work!

Imagine going to your car dealer with the complaint that ‘when you put your foot on the brake pedal, the vehicle stopped!’ What reception would you receive? I am pretty sure that after the wry look, you would be politely informed that ‘the system has worked as per its design.’

I particularly find this “blame game” interesting given that the Senate voting system has recently undergone reform to stop an influx of unhelpful minorities. So, in essence, the Parliament’s redesign of the Senate voting system to exclude minor parties etc, should have meant that Independents and Minor Parties should have been excluded. HMMM! Looking at the results, this does not seem to be the case.

Hence, the only real evaluation of the situation is that the democratic system worked and that Pauline Hanson was voted into the Senate by the people. The people voted. The people chose. That is democracy after all, is it not?

So far.

Now I sit by and wait for the witch-hunt to begin. I have soft spot for Pauline Hanson. Not because I agree with her position or because I hope for some free Fish and Chips, but because she has weathered a storm in the political corridors of this nation which proved that democracy is dead.

Tony Abbot got knifed by Brutus Turnbull. I did not like the happening — and neither did the Australian public given the voting pattern in this election — but I found it hard to shed a tear. Why? For the simple reason that Tony Abbott had been the willing henchman of both Liberal and Labor in seeking and bringing about the downfall of the One Nation Party and Pauline Hanson in particular.

That time in Australian politics was absolutely disgraceful and that is a poor summary. This woman was hounded into jail on what seemed to be very dubious charges — a fact seemingly supported by her release 11 weeks later when the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction.

At the time that Tony Abbott was pursuing and, yes, I would say, persecuting, Pauline Hanson, Australian politicians were crying out for the freedom of political dissidents in other countries. Hypocrites!

Is it any wonder that since those days the Australian political scene has become a complete shambles and the domain of the unprincipled. Is it any wonder that the road to the Prime Ministers office is not through righteousness and integrity but by virtue of the quickest and sharpest knife.

Yes, it was a sad and disgusting day in Australian politics. Democracy was killed off by the power hungry.

Returning to Pauline Hanson, there is another grievance. She is often portrayed as a buffoon. Yes, okay, she may experience foot and mouth from time to time. Yet, for me, I would rather that, knowing she is telling me what she believes, than put up with the silver-haired, Armani clad seller of “snake oil.”

I remember when Pauline Hanson lost power. One Nation hoped to claim twelve seats, they won none. Ridicule abounded. Salivating media were everywhere with their vitriolic pieces. Pauline Hanson was mocked for saying that the voting system was corrupt.

Would you like to know a little secret that is not so secret. One Nation won fifteen seats on primary votes. That is right. If we elected people on a ‘first past the post’ basis, One Nation would not have been ridiculed. Pauline Hanson suffered from a seat redistribution (the cynic in me says HMMM!), nonetheless after primary voting she topped the poll with thirty-six percent, leaving her about 10% in front of her nearest rival. Then there is the twist. After topping said poll, Pauline Hanson lost on preferences, not to the runner-up, but to the third placed Liberal candidate.

The epic saga that is Pauline Hanson has taught this nation a number of valuable lessons. I wonder, “How many have we learned?”

Personally, I do not think any. The statement of “Who is to blame?” once more attacks the democratic principle. The media or parts thereof are simply not happy to have a real conservative in politics. We have had electoral reform in the Senate, but our broken preferential system in regard to the lower house still remains. Results are skewed.

As a nation we have rejected Theocracy. As a nation, at least in principle if not in fact, we are rejecting democracy. (Bill Shorten’s promise of homosexual marriage is another indicator — no vote, no consultation, we will just do it.) What then is next? Anarchy!

BY God’s grace, it is my prayer that we learn the lessons quickly or we will perish as a nation. (Proverbs 14:34)

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.7)

Posted on by
Reply

(Loose ends and clarification)

In this article, it is our intention to deal with a few loose ends. Specifically, we would like to deal briefly with the concepts of Sin and the Medical Model and then conclude with a few words on psychology.

7.1. Sin is the Cause.

When the documentation regarding Counselling is reviewed, it is soon apparent that the Doctrine of Sin is central to the argument. In essence, three positions are evident, a) Sin is the cause; b) Sin might be the cause; and c) Sin is not the cause.

In relation to c), it must be noted that the denial of sin as causative is usually accompanied by an explicit and overt denial of sin as a reality. This is the position taken by the Secularists. It is a position that is completely at odds with Scripture. Thinking back to the Biblical worldview, we have God is, Creation, Fall …! It is the Fall, the entrance of sin into this world, that undoes the Creation and brings strained relationships, erroneous thought patterns, and faulty reference points into being. Similarly, some may use the term sin, but reinterpret it so that it comes to mean an innate dissatisfaction with oneself rather than being a state of lawlessness—rebellion against God’s Law (1 John 3:4). Thus, these views are to be rejected; having no basis in Scripture they should never be found in the Christian’s thought pattern.

In regard to b), some well-meaning folk choose to limit the extent of sin. They take the Bible’s statements concerning sin seriously; however, they end up, for various reasons, limiting the extent, power, and prevalence of sin. When this position is embraced, it inevitably leads to the adoption or quasi-adoption of c). The practitioner who limits the extent, power, and prevalence of sin, must, as a consequence, believe that the problem encountered can have its source elsewhere; therefore they must seek a corrective that either dismisses sin or which limits the prevalence and influence of sin.

It is at this point that we encounter the Medical Model in regard to psychology and counselling.[1] The Medical Model, in essence, renders the patient blameless and innocent. At its core, in very simplified terms, is the idea that problems come upon us from uncontrollable external sources. As these external sources were not rationally chosen by the individual, the individual can, therefore, refuse to accept any responsibility for either his exposure or the consequences of his exposure.[2] Think here of a man. He is fit and healthy. Upon going to work, he meets a friend who is ailing. The friend inadvertently sneezes on our man, contaminating him with the virus, causing our man to call in sick the following day. When questioned as to why he is sick, our man can reply, “It’s not my fault. Friend sneezed on me!”

In a similar way, the Medical Model looks for these external, uncontrollable, and unavoidable occurrences in the patient’s life as a means of explaining and healing the manifestations of “the virus” that has been unleashed upon him. Such factors may be parentage, environment, social status, religion, governmental, anatomical, or anything that comes into view.

The essence of the point can be refined down to this syllogism: Choice or Decision precedes responsibility; I did not choose or decide for option (…); therefore I am not responsible for option (…)! As can readily be seen, this is an extremely dangerous philosophy. Consider the fact, as one example, that all our significant beginnings in life are not chosen by us—our birth, our sex, our parents, our location, our government,[3] and so on. Thus, in a world where “personal choice” is the new god, absolution is given to the most wicked and depraved of individuals on the basis that they did not choose to be born … etc, etc, and so on ad nauseam!

The detrimental impact of this philosophy is evident all around us, especially in our so-called Justice System. How many people have not been punished or held to account because of this belief system? How many times have you heard of a crime committed, a person apprehended, only to hear that said individual is being sent for a “psychiatric assessment”? How often do you hear a litany of reasons as to why this person should not be held to account even though they are clearly guilty of the crime committed? How many times are irrelevant and extenuating circumstances brought forth in order to excuse guilt and lessen punishment? This is the Medical Model at work.[4] This is Man’s attempt to diagnose and treat himself apart from God. Therefore, when Christians adopt such a model, in part or in whole, to that degree they must abandon the truth as God has revealed it to us.

Turning our attention to proposition a), we are left with this as the only tenable position based on God’s revelation. Sin is, has been since the Fall, and will be until Christ’s return, the root of all Man’s problems. As soon as this statement is made, one can hear the vociferous choir of dissent warming in the background. “What about …? Explain this …? Science has proven …!” and an assortment of related questions and exclamations. Even the well meaning Christian will chime in with, “I read in John 9 of the blind man. Jesus disciples asked, ‘Who sinned?’ and Jesus said ‘No one!’ so how do you claim that sin is always the root of Man’s problems?”

In answer to such opposition, it must be remembered that we are primarily talking worldviews and presuppositions. In regard to John 9, the specific answer is that the disciple posed a ‘cause and effect’ question based on their outlook to life. This man is blind. Blindness is an abnormality. Abnormalities occur as a result of God’s judgement of sin[5]. Thus, they logically asked, ‘who sinned?’ Jesus, in answering with the word “neither”, does not say that sin is not present, that sin did not cause the man’s blindness, nor that the man is sinless. Jesus’ answer simply denies the assertion made. In this case, the blindness is not attributable to a specific sin by the man or his parents. Yet, as we know from Scripture, blindness comes to men physically as a result of sin and indeed such physical blindness becomes a metaphor for of our sinful estate – spiritual blindness.[6]

Here, it is important that we distinguish “sin” from “personal guilt”. All men are sinners – their beings are ravaged by sin. The world has been radically altered by the entrance of sin – chaos instead of peace; estrangement rather than fellowship. However, this does not necessarily mean that when something bad / chaotic befalls a person that the person is paying the penalty for a personal infraction. Examples are that of Job and of the man in John 9, currently before us. Neither of these men was considered to be “personally guilty” or to be paying the penalty for a “personal infraction”. In fact, just the opposite is true in both cases. These men underwent trial in order that they might learn a substantive truth concerning God. However, that does not mean that “sin” was not present in terms of being an exploitative defect. The man of John 9 was blind. Blindness does not occur in perfection. Job’s children died, his livestock were stolen, his servants slain. Death, thievery, and murder are abnormalities caused by the entrance and presence of sin. Hence, the absence of personal culpability does not mean, by any stretch, the absence of sin.

It is important that this point be grasped. Those who rail against men like Jay Adams, often do so because of the emphasis placed on sin. However, their rants are fuelled by the misconception that sin equals personal guilt. Now, to be sure, in some cases personal guilt is also present, however, in all cases sin is present.

This leads us to consider another informative aspect of John 9. When Jesus instructs His disciples ‘that neither the man nor his parents had sinned’ causing the man’s blindness, Jesus does us the courtesy of explaining the situation and ending the drama. Says Jesus, in effect, “This man is blind in order that God will be glorified.” This statement is profound, to say the least, and is worthy of some attention.

Consider Jesus’ statement in light of all that has been discussed in this series so far:

  • God is; (Jesus affirms the fundamental starting point of the Biblical worldview.)
  • God has a plan; (God is Sovereign.)
  • God’s plan involves men; (Man is governed.)
  • God’s plan involves men whether they understand that or not; (God works through men for His glory even in the most adverse circumstances.)
  • God’s glory supersedes Man’s glory. (Man is always the creature and must glorify his Creator.)
  • God displays His glory, design, and purposes in His sin affected creatures. (God works in, with, and through fallen Man in order to better display the awesome wonder of His Being.)

If we try and put these points into a sentence, it would read something like this: “Though sin has entered the world and severely marred Man as a consequence, diminishing him greatly, yet God’s power, plans, and purposes are by no means diminished or thwarted; allowing God, the absolute Sovereign, to display His glory through and in such marred creatures.”

          This may sound like we have forgotten the topic in hand and wandered off in to a vague theological discussion. Not so. Throughout this series, we have laboured the point of presuppositions, of letting the Bible speak, and of judging all things by God’s revelation. We even went so far as to challenge the reader to understand what Christian writers mean by the terms “Biblical” and “authoritative”. We did so precisely because they are important and that importance is now on display.

          John 9 clearly educates us on a number of important issues, not least of which, in regard to counselling, is the fact that in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted in order to display God’s glory. We might take this one step further and say: in a sinful world Man can be and often is afflicted by God as a means of showing Man his spiritual bankruptcy and his need of God’s salvation’ which can also be, at times, a precursor to God graciously bestowing that salvation. Examples of this can be found in Naaman the Aramean (2 Kings 5), Nebuchadnezzar, king of Babylon (Daniel 4:34-37); these pointing forward to and culminating in the coming of Jesus Christ, Messiah, and the testimony that, “He healed them, so that the multitude marveled as they saw the dumb speaking, the crippled restored, and the lame walking, and the blind seeing; and they glorified the God of Israel” (Matthew 15:31).

Therefore, when we deny the Biblical worldview, and the fact that God is, we not only deny the doctrine of sin, but we deny God as the Sovereign. In denying God as Sovereign, we deny the fact that Man’s afflictions have a higher purpose and end than just that of “hardship”. In God’s providence, that affliction may lead to a gracious encounter with the Lord Jesus Christ and to the bestowal of life eternal.

Think this through. If God is not and the Fall never happened, as the Secularists espouse, then there is no genuine and absolute explanation for suffering and of why things go awry in this world. This means that a person’s affliction can have no higher end than that of being a personal affliction. That is it. There is no superior purpose, grand scheme, or big picture. It also means that there is no hope in the form of a higher Being’s interposition. The only hope comes from a fallen Man who is afflicted in the same manner as you are.

Hence, we must understand that man’s insistence on “Choice” is just an echo and reverberation from the Garden. It is Man again asserting that he has the right to be Sovereign over his own life. It is Man once more opposing God’s sovereignty.

In John 9, we witness a man who had been “blind from birth”. He had spent years without the ability to enjoy the aspects of life that others took for granted. Think of this. He never experienced something as simple as his mother’s smile or her eyes light up when he had achieved something significant. He ended up begging in the streets. This was his life and his existence. Decades[7] of darkness, fear, disappointment. Then, one day, there is movement beside him. He hears a conversation. The voices of strangers? Maybe not. Possibly he had heard this voice before preaching a better message. Next thing he is touched. A stranger has put mud on his eyes. He is now commanded to go to the pool of Siloam and wash. He does so without question. As the mud disappears from his eyes, he is overwhelmed by light. For the first time in his life he sees!

All of the agonies that this man faced now pale. He has come face to face with God’s true prophet, Jesus Christ. His physical blindness has been removed. He receives sight, physically and spiritually. He knew God was behind his blindness and his sight. Now is God glorified, because this man believes in Jesus Christ, Son of Man and Son of God! Now is God glorified, for this man’s seeing becomes a testimony to the truth of Jesus’ claims.

The point is very simple. By Divine providence this man was born blind because of sin and corruption which entered through the Fall. This man was appointed a time; a time to be born, a time to wait, a time to be healed, and a time to be freed. All of these times were appointed by God and for His glory. Read John 9! Note Jesus’ words, “We must work the works of Him who sent Me, as long as it is day; night is coming, when no man can work.” The blind man was one of God’s works! Just as Jesus came at the appointed time,[8] so this man was, by God’s sovereign power, appointed a time and an affliction. His time coincided with Jesus’ time. Saviour and sinner meet by Divine providence and the sinner receives the gifts of healing and salvation. God is glorified. God’s Saviour, Jesus, is honoured and worshipped.

The blind man’s affliction led him to a direct and compassionate encounter with Jesus. In the end, nothing is said of his years of affliction, he simply rejoices at meeting the Son of Man and bows in worship.

The pointed question for us moderns is, “How many people miss out on healing and freedom, true healing and freedom, because the Secular model does not allow for sin or the fact that people may suffer in order that God would be manifestly glorified when they are healed by Jesus, Son of Man and Son of God?” By removing God, the Biblical worldview, and the doctrine of sin from modern counselling, we remove the Divine response and answer to sin. Therefore, such counselling is ultimately useless because it will never declare the one true answer, Jesus Christ.

7.2. Psychology.

The second point of clarification that needs to be made is that psychology, in and of itself, is not wrong. Throughout this series we have resisted making this clarification in order to drive home a significant point. We questioned Jay Adams stand against psychiatry whilst allowing for psychology. We did so in order to make the same point: psychology has been hijacked!

To help the reader understand, allow us to draw a parallel with anthropology. If you open a standard systematic theology, you will usually find the term anthropology or a reference to ‘the doctrine of Man’. Anthropology, as a term, is derived from the Greek and means the study of Man (words about Man). When found is the context of theology, the study of Man is first of all passive. A picture and understanding of Man is given to us based on the paradigm God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption. It is this revelation that shows us what, who and why Man is.

If you compare this Biblical anthropology with the anthropology of modern universities, you will find little similarity. Modern anthropology does not or rarely discusses morals. God does not factor into the equation. Religion is defined as how “this” people understood the concept of god and worshipped in that context. The study is not based in revelation, but upon evolution. If you want an up close example, watch an episode or two of the television series, Bones.

In the same way, psychology, meaning a study of the soul (words about the soul), as it is commonly understood, has forsaken all Biblical roots. It is no longer a passive study that first listens to God’s revelation and then deals with Man in light of that revelation. No, this modern concept denies God from first to last. That is why we have, throughout this study, maintained the rage against psychology as understood by most people. The degradation is so radical and so complete that the Christian concept of psychology really needs a new term.[9]

In short, Biblical psychology is moral. As such, it accords perfectly with the point made above, sin is the cause. Biblical psychology, being moral, also means that it is based in law, God’s Law to be specific, and thus refers to an ultimate, absolute, and objective standard that is applicable to every Man. Sin is a transgression of God’s Law. Having transgressed, Man now fosters his state of rebellion by developing relative and subjective standards of morality by which he judges his own actions as ethical or not. This is not abstract theology, it is reality. It is the source of Man’s pain. Man, rejecting God’s Law and rule, seeks now to find happiness, contentment, and purpose by his own hand. However, he cannot escape the intrinsic fact that he is a created being living in his Creator’s world. He is an image bearer and everything he looks at in this world reminds him of God’s claims upon him. It is this that leads the soul of Man into conflict and which leads to anguish. In other words, Man, the image bearer now fallen, cannot escape God. Man thus invents false standards of morality that accord with and appease his conscience, yet none of these avail, for they only lead him into greater conflict within himself. Man is moral. He was created by a moral God. Man’s rebellion brings conflict, internal conflict, which cannot be ameliorated by the self-manufacture of morals that are more to his liking.

This point is clear when we consider the Bible’s view of psychology in comparison to that of the moderns. Adam and Eve, created in perfection, fellowshipped with God. They were both naked. Neither felt shame. They lived in the open. When Man rebelled, they immediately felt shame and they hid from God and each other. Their shame lead them to the inadequate measure of sowing fig leaves together and this simple act belied the fact that their mindset had been radically altered.

You see, my brethren, Man’s dual relationship with himself individually and corporately was always dependent upon his relationship with God. When Man sinned against God all other relationships were broken. Man’s path to restoration could only be in reconciliation to God. However, Man, now being left to a morality of his own making, rationalised that as he now felt shame in the presence of Man he could alleviate his shame by sewing fig leaves together. Phew! Disaster avoided. Man was content in the presence of Man – well that was until God turned up! Then Man had to go scurrying for cover and seek for himself an even greater “fig leaf” that would hide him from God.

When we look at the Biblical narrative, we see that fallen Man was content with a morality of his own making and a remedy to his conflict that was of his own design (sewn fig leaves). However, when God arrived on the scene in the fullness of His righteousness, Man’s efforts were shown to be futile. The lesson is simple. Why does modern psychology distance itself from God? Why does modern immoral psychology prevail? Because fallen Man, despite all his so-called advances, is still shown to be sewing fig leaves together and hiding behind them. The fig leaves seemingly work well in regard to Man’s relationship individually and corporately and Man is pleased with the level of peace this gives him. However, Man is keenly aware that God’s Almighty Eye penetrates fig leaves and thus Man erects signs which state, “God not allowed!” Man becomes hostile when he hears mention of the fact that God is in the vicinity because he knows that God’s Light will dry out the leaves and His Breath scatter the dried fragments, leaving Man, once more, naked and without excuse.

Therefore, we have maintained the rage against secular psychology because it has forsaken its Biblical roots. Biblical psychology is a welcome asset. It works with Elders because it is born out of Scripture. Biblical psychology understands sin and its effects upon this world and all in this world. Biblical psychology equips Elders to fulfil their God-given task as under-shepherds.

What true psychology does not do is supplant Elders and usurp their role. What true psychology does not do is force Elders into a holding pattern until something better comes forth from our secular universities. What true psychology does not do is label Eldership as passé—a concept of the past that is no longer fit or viable for the modern world. Christian, if your view of psychology suggests, hints at, or actively seeks the reality of any of these positions, even if it is not marketed in those words, then you are peddling a blasphemy. You need to repent because you are attacking the Church of Jesus Christ and seeking to inject into it nothing less than idolatry.

Elders, if you are peddling these concepts, then you are actively pulling the rug from under your own feet. You are destroying the very foundation on which you are to stand. You are part of the problem and not part of the cure. Repent. Believe God and take Him at His word. Reject the world’s philosophy and cling to that which has been taught by Christ. Jesus is the Church’s Head. Jesus is the Chief Shepherd. Jesus knows what is best for His blood bought sheep.

Is it not time we took these words to heart: Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge Him, and He will make your paths straight.[10]

Shepherding Shepherds Part 8 (The Last in the Series)

FOOTNOTES:

[1] It is to be pointed out that the Medical model applies to c) as well. See Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p xvi-xvii for a brief discussion on the Medical Model.

[2] Here, we need to understand that most of the problems encountered by us are not actively chosen by us. So this is not the point of contention. The true point of contention is our accountability to and for the way we respond. Biblically, we are accountable for how we respond to any situation, whether it is of our choosing or not. This truth is summed up in the old adage, ‘Two wrongs do not make a right!’ In the Medical model, excuses are proffered on the basis that the individual did not choose what has befallen them or that, in the case where it is their own action that caused the grief, there was yet another catalyst that must be viewed as the prime cause.

[3] We often see this mentality expressed, in regard to the government, by the phrase, “Don’t blame me, I did not vote for them!”

[4] The Medical Model has been superseded in some ways today, but the basics remain. The supersession has to do, not so much with a change in philosophy, but with the way this philosophy has become endemic to society. Blame-shifting and excuse-making are rife.

[5] Deuteronomy 28:28.

[6] Note that in Matthew 23:16-26 Jesus labels the Pharisees as “blind” five times.

[7] Commentators debate over this person’s age. The phrase “he is of age” is claimed by some to mean that he had attained to 30 years of age; others to 13 years of age. It would seem that the person was older rather than younger from other facts. He was known to the people (v8). He is referred to as a “man” when there are a number of Greek words that could be applied if he were a child. This “manhood” seems to be evident from the man’s situation (begging) and his ability to reason with the Pharisees. Similarly, it is hard to conceive of parents so readily abandoning a 14 year old and leaving him at the mercy of these voracious Pharisees.

[8] Galatians 4:4.

[9] The term “Christian psychologist” is misleading because it does not equate to Biblical psychology, but to a dualistic or pluralistic position in which Christian principles are injected into a secular discipline or, more correctly, where secular principles are injected into a Biblical discipline. Think back to our illustration regarding Christian education in Part 2 of this series. Christian education is not the combination of a person who is a Christian and who also has a degree in education from the local university. No, a Christian teacher and a Christian education are those things that flow from, uphold, and apply the Christian worldview. Thus a true Christian education for example, will be given when the faithful mother, without a degree teaches her child that this world was created by God in six days. Christian education is not that which is taught in the Christian school by the teacher with a degree from a prestigious university when he says that God created via evolution or by long ages. So too, Christian psychology must begin with the Biblical worldview and its consistent application; not with the counsellor and what degrees he possesses.

[10] Proverbs 3:5-6.

Referendum: The Only Way Forward

Posted on by
2

The issue of Same Sex Marriage (hereafter Homosexual Union or HU) refuse to go away. It has now provided a destabilising and distracting influence in our society for far too long.[1] Our country is on the brink and this in so many ways. We have had a revolving door installed in the Prime Minister’s office. We know that Brutus is alive and well in the halls of Parliament and in both major political parties. There is no longer any sense of right or wrong, morality, honour, or integrity amongst most politicians and within most political parties. Economically, we are in trouble. Socially, we are in deeper trouble: ‘ice’ epidemic; murder in our streets; internet bullying; suicide – need I continue. Yet, when you look at the news, we hear no concrete response to these issues. Why, because we are bogged down in the distractions of the day and whilst bogged we witness the continuing disintegration of our society.

Homosexual Union is an unwelcome distraction. It is so for two reasons. First and Biblically, HU and the associated life choices are condemned as being the ultimate living judgement of God. That is to say, God responds to Man’s rebellion by “handing him over”[2] to the very lifestyle, with all its pitfalls, that he has demanded. Secondly, this issue shows how this nation, in excluding God from politics, has become essentially immoral[3] – that is, we no longer abide by God’s law as the ultimate and only moral standard.

The combination of these factors means that we now witness a constant push by a vocal minority for a moral recognition to which they are not entitled. Their plea is made vociferously to politicians who, no longer governing according to morality, are looking to be popular – the new version of morality. These politicians, shifting ground faster than sand in a sand storm, are malleable, pliable, and always apt to change their mind.

Anyway, what does this have to do with the whole issue of HU? Much and everything! Throughout this saga, men like Senator Cory Bernardi have consistently said that the “Parliament should decide”. Senator Bernardi has also stated, and rightly so, that ‘Parliament has decided’. The problem is that the Parliament has taken no action to end the issue or to stop the debate. Thus, Parliament is failing the people of this country by its gross negligence.

What do I mean by this? Well, in simple terms, we wonder when Parliament will take a stand and stop this nonsense. In the last few years we have seen attempt after attempt to have HU legalised in this nation. Bills have been defeated, left in limbo, introduced under false pretences and so on. Yet, we have not had one politician suggest that we need to put a moratorium on this issue or put a sunset clause on it. This lack of action by our politicians then means that the door is left open and the Parliamentary circus continues. It also means that those demanding the recognition of homosexual union will keep badgering Parliament, according to the Biblical parable of the Persistent Widow,[4] until they cave; and cave they will – eventually!

Yes, Parliament should decide. Yes, Parliament has decided – and this several times! However, a Parliament that strives to be immoral is a Parliament that is like the storm tossed ship that has lost both sail and rudder—it cannot help but founder! It will, it must, eventually slide beneath the waves of sin and immorality. Why? Precisely because this Parliament has rejected God, the only and absolute source of all morality, it will begin, in the words of Isaiah, to call evil good and good evil.[5] This process has begun. This process is gathering pace.

Some may doubt the veracity of these statements, but please mull over these historical facts that show this hurried and hastening descent into the abyss.

Writing in the Herald Sun, former Treasurer, Peter Costello, made these comments:

Yet back in 2004, when the Coalition government amended the Marriage Act to make it clear that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman, Labor’s shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, made it clear that Labor, as a party, supported that: “The Bill is something we do not have an objection to,” she told the House of Representatives. The Bill passed without a vote being called. Only three people spoke in the debate. The House of Representatives settled the issue of gay marriage in 25 minutes.[6]

Fast forward eight years to 2012. The agitators have now made certain that the non-issue has become a bothersome issue. The agitators show that the Parliament has changed from a Parliament that saw “no objection” to God’s moral order in and for marriage to a Parliament that was discontent with God’s moral order. The culmination of these points saw a Bill proposing the legalisation of HU introduced to Parliament and a vote was held on 19 September of that year. The Bill was soundly defeated, 42 for and 98 against.

Was the issue settled? Had the slippery slope been abandoned? No. This vote simply buoyed the agitators and gave them reason to continue. This vote simply added suds to the slope so that the momentum was gained. Doubts? Please read on: “Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who backed the legislation, says the vote shows there has been significant progress towards legalising gay marriage. Just a few years ago there wouldn’t have been the support of anything like 42 votes on the floor of the national Parliament for a marriage equality bill.” However, the salient point came in these words: “All the figures show that there is majority community support on this issue… and I think at some future time, Parliament will catch up with the community opinion.”[7]

Now I do not give any credence to this “majority of the community” type nonsense that is so often quoted, but never statistically verified. I am far more interested in Mr Albanese’s comment that he hopes, “Parliament will catch up in the future.”

With these words, the seeds are sown. The agitators, once outside of Parliament are now within Parliament. This is highlighted by the fact that at the time of this vote there were three other Bills, aimed at producing the same result, waiting in the wings. Parliament was in for a fight. They were not expecting this fight and morally, few if any, were equipped for the fight.

Move forward but a few years. Brutus Turnbull slays the elected ruler, Tony Abbott – a criminal, apparently, for insisting on morality that was akin to God’s morality in regard to marriage! The agitators now take control of the Liberal Party. Whilst not declaring an official position in favour of HU, the Liberals are gesturing in that direction. This is no doubt a concerted effort to beat Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and his deputy, Tanya Plibersek, to the punch with their promise to introduce a Bill supporting HU within 100 days of being elected.

Now for the hypocrisy! Let me give you some names, eight in all. Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Julie Bishop, Warren Entsch, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull. Of these eight, six (75%) voted against HU and two (25%) voted for HU in the 2004 vote. Currently, three (37.5%) hold to the same position as they did in the 2004 vote, meaning that five (62.5%) have abandoned their position or have rebelled against their Party’s position.[8] Can you name the three?

The three are Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, and Tony Abbott. Interesting, is it not? Tony Abbott is the only member of the supposedly conservative Party who has remained steadfast! Anyway, I digress. Of the remaining five, two have left politics, but that does not change the point to be made—our Parliament is filled with fickle, immoral politicians whose stand on moral issues for absolute moral reasons is almost non-existent. Therefore, these people will succumb to the pressures of the day. The statistical change, highlighted in the eight parliamentarians named above, show that the process is well under way.

Our politicians are no longer moral watchmen and paragons of virtue, standing upon the parapets of our nation with a keen eye, determined to protect those within its walls and modelling for its citizens an upright life. No, our modern politicians are more like corrupt judges. They are open to bribery, flattery, and all kinds of ills.[9] Sure, they do not use these terms, but it all amounts to the same thing. The term “faceless men” came into usage in recent years, but the fact is that the faceless men have been around for decades. Conversations in dark corners, whispers, promises, winks and nods, have become the order of the day. None, or very few, are actually willing to speak according to conscience and belief.

These unhelpful traits are, of course, all compounded and made far worse by the idiotic madmen and self-appointed moral policemen – you know them as the media – who, without bias (excuse me while I laugh), have insisted on highlighting and commenting upon every perceived blemish or otherwise of the politician in the spotlight. So, who cares about policy! Tony Abbott is no good! Why? He wears budgie smugglers! Oh, the shame of it. Yes, shameful that in a country of obese people we had a Prime Minister who actually likes to exercise and wear the official Aussie cosy. These people would rather that this country was run by an articulate liar than someone of clumsy speech whose intentions were pure.

The point is that all of these things coalesce to give us a Government that is concerned with transient opinion polls, which rarely mean anything, rather than governing solidly and morally for the long term welfare of the nation. The politicians no longer guide and protect the nation; they simply capitulate to whim and fancy in order to stay in power. As a real life example, I live in the electorate of Indi. My Federal Member has made HU her signature issue. In a discussion with her on this subject, she stated to me that it is the Government’s responsibility to keep pace with society. In other words, the Government has become like an over indulgent parent that never says “no” to a child or disciplines a child. Rather, the Government is now simply a facilitator of the desires of the people.

With this being the case, we the people, by God’s grace and in His power, need to take direct and positive action.

This then brings me to a discussion of the need for a referendum. A few years ago, we wrote two articles[10] on the issue of a referendum in regard to HU. At this point our fundamental belief has not changed. What has changed is the fact that I am now calling for Christians to demand a referendum on this issue. I am also calling for Christians, in particular, to cease being afraid of a referendum and to commit this whole issue into the Hands and Providence of Almighty God.

A referendum is necessary for two reasons. First, we have no way other way, as a people, to bring this issue to a head. Secondly, by flexing the muscles of people power we have a unique opportunity to show our politicians just how out of touch they are with the people they govern.

Let us address these two points.

As we have outlined, the simple reality is that our politicians have adopted immorality in their governance. These people are no longer governed in conscience or action by the moral Absolute or the concept of right and wrong. Today, righteousness has been jettisoned in favour of expedience. Consequently, we have witnessed the Parliament move from a unanimous view on Marriage, as between one man and one woman, in 2004; to voting on this issue in 2012; to promises being made to make HU a reality in 2015 – and all this in the space of a decade.

Fickle is a good description, but I do wonder whether that term is either strong enough or broad enough. Anyway, the simple reality is that the immoral politicians will eventually cave and give in to the vociferous minority and we will have HU foist upon us. I say foist deliberately. We live in a so-called democracy. The governments of the land are meant to listen to the people, to the majority of the people. Yet, on this issue, the politicians are simply stopping their ears to the majority voice. The media is blocking publication of the Biblical view. Dissenting voices are being banned from the public square. Thus, we must demand a referendum and only a referendum.

Why not a Plebiscite? The answer has to do with the non-binding nature of a plebiscite. If we have a plebiscite on this issue, it amounts to nothing more than an incredibly expensive opinion poll. Let’s ask some questions? What number is needed in a plebiscite in order to convince the government that they are wrong and that HU should not be legalised? Is this number 51% or is it 91%? What number is needed to ensure that we do not see any more Bills on this issue introduced to Parliament in the next decade? Speaking of time, how long would this plebiscite hold? Are we even guaranteed that a 91% vote against HU would stop Parliament from legalising HU? Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, did not place a caveat on his 100 day promise? So what effect would the plebiscite have on his promise?[11] We can also highlight the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, voting in plebiscites is not compulsory. This forces to ask the serious question, “What part would our nation’s apathy play in such a vote?”

Simplifying this issue, we really have three options before us. One, we take Senator Bernardi’s position and let Parliament decide. This will simply mean further wrangling until our Parliament is radically changed morally or it capitulates to the demands of the homosexual lobby. Two, we undertake a plebiscite with absolutely no guarantees that the government will pay the slightest attention to the outcome. They may. They might. However, ‘In what form?’ and ‘For how long?’ remain the two important questions. Third, we move to a referendum and vote as a people.

Alright, let’s explore the referendum a little further. There are some pitfalls in this strategy, well, one really, and that is the question put to the people. As with all votes, the question and its framing become the central issue. This is the critical issue and it is the great unknown. However, one would hope that given the topic to be decided that there would not be any game playing. Outside of this, there are no real drawbacks to this option. It needs to be remembered that the Constitution gives the Parliament the right to decide on marriage. This understanding was reinforced by the High Court in its recent ruling. Therefore, why should we not take this opportunity to have the Biblical understanding of marriage also enshrined into the Constitution – safeguarding it from the hands of the fickle parliamentarians?

The second issue is that of flexing our muscles as a people. I will guarantee that you can meet a stranger in the street and within five minutes have them expressing their dissatisfaction with Government. People are inherently dissatisfied in our day and this is no less the case with those in power. They see no real options and no real answers in any Party. We have had five Prime Ministers in the same amount of years. What has this gained us? One thing — an increasingly long list of living ex-Prime Ministers to be supported by the public purse – that is code for your tax dollars! For what? To be made a laughingstock. To see our nation fall into the abyss. To see even more despair fall upon the people.

Our politicians regularly ignore us. At election time they clamour for our vote, they make grand promises, they lull us with their hackneyed rhetoric and worn out tracks on “health and education”, yet nothing changes, positively that is! Our nation drifts and that which is adrift is in constant danger because it is subject to the power of external forces.

So, before us we have an opportunity. What happens to Mr Turnbull and Mr Shorten when a referendum says that the majority of Australians, let me say, the vast majority of Australians, support the Biblical idea of marriage. Well, in political terms, they are made to eat the pie of humility. What are the possibilities? Think here of proving the politicians so wrong. The question would then become, if you were so wrong on this issue, what else are you wrong about? Then we might think of how such an opportunity might awaken the Australian people from their apathy. If they realise that they can have a significant impact upon politicians, it may encourage them to hold their elected representatives more accountable. What about morality? A stunning victory for God and His morality may indeed force this nation to realise that “sin is a disgrace” and that we need to return to being moral people.

As I see it, to hold to the status quo of ‘letting Parliament decide’ in regard to this issue is to guarantee that HU will become a legal reality in this nation. This simple fact is that the Governments of this nation have become entangled and bound by their own rebellion and the instatement of ungodly and immoral laws – like equality, religious vilification – which now hold them to a path and agenda of social destruction as we provoke God’s wrath more and more.

In this climate, what then do we have to be afraid of as Christians? Psalm 27:1-3 states: “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread? When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, my adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell.  Though a host encamp against me, My heart will not fear; Though war arise against me, In spite of this I shall be confident.” Shall we not trust the Lord today, with this battle, as the Kings of old did? Can we not say with Jehoshaphat, “O our God, wilt Thou not judge them? For we are powerless before this great multitude who are coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are on Thee.”[12]

We must, as God’s people, look to the Lord our God for His aid in winning this battle. We must begin by believing that God is the Sovereign King of the universe. We must begin by truly believing that God, anointed Jesus Christ, His Son, to wear the mantle of Kingship in order that He would subdue[13] all God’s enemies. We should be confident. We should be glad. We should engage in this battle looking for the triumph of God in Christ Jesus.

Remember, it is the demons and all their allies that tremble at the name of Jesus (James 2:19). This is the reason that we have had two Prime Ministers suggest a referendum and within a few days the idea has been debunked, forgotten, or transformed into a plebiscite. These people know that they will not win this referendum. These politicians fear that by letting the people vote they will be shown to be wrong and then they must do what the people say on this matter. In short, our politicians, and others in our society, fear the people of God and they fear the real outcome of the democratic process they profess to uphold! Let us show them that they are right to fear the Army of the Lord, for it is the Lord, the Almighty, who goes before us to fight for His name and His people.[14]

Paul’s counsel to Timothy is valid: “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.”[15]

Footnotes:

[1] Proverbs 4:25-27 – Let your eyes look directly ahead, and let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you. Watch the path of your feet, and all your ways will be established. Do not turn to the right nor to the left; Turn your foot from evil. Psalm 119:15 – I will meditate on Thy precepts, and regard Thy ways.

[2] Romans 1:18-32; especially the thribble “God gave them over” of verses 24, 26, and 28.

[3] The term “immoral” is correctly used here. Some would expect, possibly, that we speak of amorality; however, there is simply no such creature. We either have obedience to God’s standard – morality – or a departure from that morality – this is not amorality, it is simply immorality.

[4] I find it very sad that those opposed to Jesus Christ use this model in order to wage war against God and His people – persistent, long term badgering, yet the people of God do not grasp the teaching of the parable – pray day and night and God the father will bring about justice speedily for His children!

[5] Isaiah 5:20-23.

[6] Peter Costello, Bipartisan, but only when it suits, Herald Sun, Tuesday, August 18, 2015. p. 26. Italics added.

[7] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-09-19/same-sex-marriage-bill-voted-down/4270016.

[8] A footnote is needed in regard to Julie Bishop. She has not publicly declared her support for HU, but had dropped hints that reforms are needed. Her political views are more to the liberal side of liberal politics. One may gain some insight from comments made around a propose UN resolution on the family. These comments inferred that there are a diverse range of families and that the family should not be treated solely as a unit. Here, then, seems to be the basic ideas of non-heterosexual unions equating with heterosexual families and of individualism. To what extent these ideas reflect hers, we cannot be sure. However, the Minister’s reluctance to give her own view on this matter means that she is looking toward her political future. Her actions in regard to Tony Abbott, suggest the same. Thus, methinks she cannot be trusted. It seems to me that her priority is her own political future and that she will do whatever is necessary to preserve that career. The judgemental comment is now to follow, so if you do not want to read it, look away! I am also suspicious because, after a failed marriage, Julie Bishop has decided upon a life outside of wedlock, but not of singleness – “Asked if she can see herself marrying again, Bishop laughs. “No, not at my age” she says firmly. “I think he would have to be a very brave person to take it on. The role of a Cabinet Minister is all-consuming. I throw myself into it with my heart and soul, 110 per cent effort” (http://www.perthnow.com.au/entertainment/power-and-the-fashion/story-e6frg30u-1111114162157). Thus, like Julia Gillard, it is hard to see how she will have either a solid view or complete understanding of marriage when she has no interest in being married. In short, if she does not represent and commit to the genuine and Biblical understanding of marriage in her own life, then how will she ever fight for that understanding on behalf of this society? Sadly, what we see in Julie Bishop, as with Julia Gillard, is a fundamental commitment to individualism and personal satisfaction. Self, self-happiness, and self-fulfilment take pride of place; so political career and ambition take centre stage, becoming the priority that does not allow for any other contenders. Thus, in reality, there is little difference between this position and that of the homosexuals demanding HU. It is a difference in degree only, not in kind. For this reason, methinks political ambition will sway Julie Bishop to eventually “come out” as a supporter of HU. (An aside: In 2012 Julia Gillard voted against HU. In 2015, she came out in support of HU. Now, please consider these words: “In a 2013 interview with The Washington Post, she stated: “I think it would be inconceivable for me if I were an American to have turned up at the highest echelon of American politics being an atheist, single and childless” (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard). Let me focus on the word “single”. This is an interesting word, given that from 2006, through her time as Prime Minister and Deputy leader of the Labor Party she was in a relationship with Tim Mathieson. So here we see the real hypocrisy. I do not want God. I do not want marriage. Yet, I want aspects of God’s marriage. Is it any wonder then that Julia Gillard’s position has wavered? How can she deny others – whatever their sexual preference –the very things she has demanded for herself?)

[9] Proverbs 16:12; 20:26 & 28; 31:4-5.

[10] https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/07/a-referendum-on-homosexual-marriage-pt-1/;  https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/07/a-referendum-on-homosexual-marriage-pt-2/.

[11] If you doubt this, please go to this website – http://www.peo.gov.au/learning/fact-sheets/referendums-and-plebiscites.html – and take note of the fact that there are no rules that govern a plebiscite.

[12] 2 Chronicles 20:12.

[13] 1 Corinthians 23b-25: “Christ’s at His coming … will deliver up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.”

[14] Joshua 10:42: “And Joshua captured all these kings and their lands at one time, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.”

[15] 2 Timothy 1: 7-8.

Of Revolving Prime Ministers and Moral Decay

Posted on by
Reply

Most Australians have awoken today to the news that we have a new Prime Minister. This makes five Prime Ministers in about the same number of years – even if for some it was their second time. Welcome to the world of revolving Prime Ministers and moral decay.

What then will Malcolm Turnbull, the latest offering of the revolving door, do positively for Australia? The answer is, “Nothing of substance!”

First, let us look at the political hypocrisy, deceit, and lies that have accompanied Malcolm Turnbull into the top job. We have heard much in the media that former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, could not unite the Party. This very day, Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, has tried to justify her rebellion by citing this divide. Says she, “I did what a deputy (leader) has to do and that is to reflect the views of the party,” … “Tony asked for six months to turn it around and unfortunately that hadn’t happened. “It became obvious to me that the majority of the party had lost confidence in Tony (and) I informed him as is my duty as deputy.” “Through that time, nobody wanted Tony to succeed more than I (but) the vast majority of the party room had lost confidence in him.”[1]

Next we encounter the words of Malcolm Turnbull himself: “Heading in to work as Prime Minister designate this morning, Mr Turnbull said he was getting on with the job. “There has been a change … but we are a very, very strong government, a strong country with a lot of potential and we will realise that potential by working together.”[2]

Okay, Abbott is out because he created a divide in the party. Julie Bishop speaks of the “majority”, indeed the “vast majority”, that were dissatisfied with Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull states that the Party will now prosper by “working together”, which seems to imply significant unity. Yet, when we look at the vote it was only 54 – 44 in favour of Malcolm Turnbull. This, my friends, is neither a majority, a vast majority, nor is it unity.[3]

Please explain to me, then, where the gain is to be found? We have swapped one embattled leader for another. I could almost guarantee you that of the 10 votes that separated the two candidates, there would be a significant number who have voted for change for change’s sake in the hope that something better may eventuate – for themselves!. After all, Malcolm Turnbull has already been the Leader of the Liberal Party and he was ousted because of his dismal performance. One commentator, on last night’s edition of The Drum, noted that, when he led the Party, Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers were far worse than Tony Abbott’s.

My concern here springs from being an old guy who has heard all of this rhetoric before and seen firsthand how these close votes end in tears. As a child, sad to say, I grew up in a congregation that was divided between the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. The “bad” guys won votes by single figure margins and men crowed about “majorities”. Then their plans and desires turned to dust before their eyes. They became bitter. They slandered and maligned. They undermined. What was the outcome? That congregation, in excess of 100 at that time, barely exists today. The divide continued and brought disgrace to Christ’s Church with constant infighting and bickering.

A secular example? Just look back a few years to the Rudd – Gillard saga. Starting in 2006, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beazley 49 – 39.[4] In 2010, Julia Gillard challenges Kevin Rudd. When the writing is on the wall, Rudd chooses to resign rather than stand for re-election.[5] In 2012, Kevin Rudd challenges Julia Gillard because of dissatisfaction with her performance. Gillard beat Rudd with a 71 – 31 vote.[6] In March 2013, Simon Crean and others are concerned at Labor’s fortunes. They agitate for another leadership spill. Julia Gillard calls for the spill in a hope to end the infighting. Again, Kevin Rudd is touted as the challenger. In a repeat of history, however, he realises that the numbers are not with him and he refuses to put up his hand.[7] Then, a paltry 3 months later, June 2013, Kevin Rudd challenges for the leadership and dislodges Julia Gillard with a 57 – 45 vote.[8]

When you look at these numbers, you can see that from Kevin Rudd’s earliest days, the party was divided and that he never enjoyed a majority of support.[9] The clearest margin out of all of these changes belongs to Gillard’s so-called “midnight coup”. Her numbers were far better than Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers, yet she could not overcome the subterfuge and undermining processes of the dissenters. What then makes us think that Malcolm Turnbull’s fate will be any different?

To add weight to our argument, you need to be reminded of history. You will hear that Tony Abbott pipped Malcolm Turnbull at the post by one vote in the 2009 leadership spill. This is true, but it is not the complete picture. Malcolm Turnbull was the incumbent. He was challenged and the spill occurred. What is rarely spoken about is that the initial vote was between three candidates, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, and Joe Hockey. In this poll, Abbott was the clear victor by 9 votes (35), followed by Turnbull on 26 and Hockey on 23.[10] Note this please: Malcolm Turnbull, the incumbent leader, only survived being eliminated from the race by three votes.[11] It is only once the second round of polling was completed that the famous won by one scenario comes to the fore with Abbott on 42 and Turnbull on 41. The clearest explanation of this result is that, once there man was out, two-thirds of Joe Hockey’s supporters abandoned their desire for change and opted to stay with the status quo and one-third backed their instinct for change; but I digress.

The main point here is that Malcolm Turnbull, as leader of the Liberal Party, was not able to unite that party. The figures showed then and they showed again last night that he still does not have the majority support of his Party, despite his and Julie Bishop’s rhetoric.

Therefore, questions about legitimate gain must be asked. How does the hypocritical justification for knifing a sitting Prime Minister, given by the Leader and his Deputy, assure us of better things ahead? Mr Turnbull’s speech did not outline any concrete policies; he just trotted out slogans – again in a hypocritical fashion.

This begs the questions: Are we just witnessing another egocentric display as we did with Kevin 07? Having failed to secure a real majority, will Malcolm Turnbull govern correctly or simply aim for the opinion-poll popularity contest? Will we see him affirm any position in the hope that it will make him acceptable to all and sundry?

Second, the reason that Malcolm Turnbull will not deliver any significant change has to do with ego over morality. The problem with governance in this country has to do with the fact that it is no longer moral. When was the last time you heard a politician of any persuasion speak of morality? When did you last hear any candidate speak up and say that the fundamental problem with our nation was not “health and education”, but morality?

It is at this point that these two factors coalesce. Malcolm Turnbull does not have a majority in the Party. From my perspective he is not generally accepted by the public. Thus, his primary goal is going to be ego and or popularity.

The direct application of this is that morality, particularly God’s morality, as the necessary panacea for this nation will be sidestepped yet again in favour of ego or popularity. Instead of governing according to morality, ethic, and principle, Malcolm Turnbull will govern for himself and his own personal benefit or he will govern in a manner that seeks to make his Party popular, neither of which will benefit this country one iota.

We saw the politics of ego in the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. His comeback had nothing to do with the people of this country. It was all about Kevin. If he had been sincere, he would have stayed on after his Party’s defeat. If he were absolutely convinced that he was the best man for the job, he would have stuck to the task. His capitulation simply showed that his aim was payback and his name in lights. Consequently, we need to ask as to whether or not we are in for more of this grandstanding via the politics of ego; a political enterprise that will only further impoverish our nation.

What then of opinion-poll popularity politics? In this sense, I do have sympathy for Tony Abbott. Many are critical of his performance, yet few seem to spread the blame. The previous Labor government was almost ineffective over its six years of reign. Policy after policy bled this nation dry. Whilst Rudd and Gillard bickered, Australia failed. Tony Abbott then wins the election and immediately faces a barrage of hostility for no other reason than he has a Romanist leaning and therefore has a few morals to guide his conscience. Instead of the elected members getting on board to bring change and move the country forward, they stalled, blocked, and grandstanded; Palmer practicing the politics of ego par excellence. To his credit, Tony Abbott stood his ground and refused to simply make policy in order to be popular. Now that Malcolm Turnbull is in charge, and there seems to be distinct lack of Biblical morals to guide his conscience, we have no reason to expect that anything but popularity will drive Liberal Party policy.

If this eventuality transpires, then we are in for a torrid time as a nation. Julia Gillard clung to power (ego) by making deals with a few Independents (popularity). That combination then set this nation on a futile and destructive course as true governance was derailed in order to indulge the whims of those with whom bargains had been struck in order for her to stay in office. One notable lowlight was the vote on homosexual union. Julia Gillard’s lust for power introduced the possibility of a reprehensible evil being made legal in this country. Whilst Parliament voted that proposal down at that time, it nonetheless fuelled the fire so that this distraction has continued to dog parliament. Ever since that vote, Tony Abbott has come under personal attack for his refusal to compromise and has had to fend off constant criticism in regard to this issue, which is really a non-issue.[12]

It is important that we understand this point. Popularity and ego has tied this particular weight around the neck of the Federal Parliament of this nation. Popularity and ego have meant that we have not been rightly governed now for nearly three terms of Parliament. When popularity and ego are combined with a minority leadership, and an immoral minority leadership at that, then chaos and debacle can be the only outcomes.

Malcolm Turnbull is pro homosexual union and a republic, just to name a couple of points. He has a very liberal attitude to moral issues and even today has spoken of looking forward and cutting the ties with the past. In short, he is concerned with being all things modern, which by definition means that he sees no place for God in government and morality in politics. (How did he make it to the leadership of the supposed conservative Party?) It would, therefore, be of no surprise if these issues come to the fore very soon in order to either distract the public while he attempts to make ground or introduces them in order to make ground.[13] Either way, we will see the politics of ego, popularity, and minority (disunity) continue to ravage this nation.

What is needed to restore this nation is the application of God’s morality. We need to see right and wrong restored. We need to see justice. We need to have a parliament that guides and protects, not one that simply affirms. We need to remember that a nation’s health can only be measured in terms of its obedience to God, not by its bank account or balance of trade figures.

We have quoted Proverbs 14:34 often of recent – Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a disgrace to any people. We quote it again because it is the essence of our nation’s health. Whilst our elected officials continue to deny the necessity of morality and righteousness for our nation’s wellbeing, we can only plunge deeper into sin. Plunging into sin can only increase our disgrace.

Our moral decay is the only explanation as to why the Prime Minister’s office is currently equipped with a revolving door. Moral decay is why we are shamed constantly by backstabbers who seek the top job for their glory and not God’s. For the naysayers, I merely direct you to the histories of Rome and Israel.

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/emotional-julie-bishop-defends-her-decision-to-turn-on-tony-abbott/story-fn5tas5k-1227527662827?sv=33eb56284952ab31cc6de47d0fb36d40. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[3] Julie Bishop secured her position with 70 – 30 vote, which is a bit more in keeping with what one would term a majority.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2006.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2010.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2012.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_March_2013.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_June_2013.

[9] The objective lesson here seems to be that the Labour Party settled for Kevin Rudd as the best in a bad bunch, hence the numbers. It seems equally true that with regard to Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull that the Liberal Party has done exactly the same thing. This is what happens when there is no clear cut leader for people to rally behind. It means that the man out the front must always be looking over his shoulder and second guessing himself. In such an environment, it is not a wonder that people do not succeed. The sad reality is that these political “fat cats” retire on their super-doper pensions and superannuation packages while the average Australian is bankrupted by their profligacy.

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spill,_2009.

[11] It is worthy of note that, looking at percentages, Malcolm Turnbull only garnered 31% as the incumbent leader. This means that on the first round of voting, 70% of his party was willing to see him go. By comparison, only 54.5% of the Party deemed that Mr Abbott was worthy of an invitation to retire.

[12] This is a non-issue in that Parliament voted that homosexual union should not be legalised in this country. It is constantly raised by agitators in order and only in order to destabilise and distract.

[13] The issue of homosexual union is an interesting one. It seems that Malcolm Turnbull has given assurances that there will be a plebiscite at the next election. This then is not a policy change. It is the same tactic that was proposed under Tony Abbott’s leadership. So, if this issue dies down it shows that there has been hostility, rancour, directed toward Mr Abbott and that this issue has been used as a shoe horn to lever him out of office – and this no doubt by some within his own Party. It will also be interesting to see whether or not the Cabinet stops leaking with this change of leadership. If both happen, it is a sure sign that Brutus is alive and well in the Liberal Party.

Leyonhjelm’s Lunacy: The Plot to Destroy Australia

Posted on by
1

Once more, we find the battle lines being drawn over the issue of homosexual union and whether it should be made legal in this country. From a Christian perspective, we fundamentally oppose any such move and would much rather that Parliament took steps to make the Marriage Act 1961 a great deal stronger by referencing the Bible’s God as the sole Definer of marriage.

However, the truly disturbing aspect of this new debate is to be found in the proposed legislation itself, the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014. By this, we do not mean the proposal to destroy marriage by throwing open the gates to all and sundry, as repulsive as that is, but the absolutely nonsensical rationale on which the proposed legislation is based.

We have to admit to being a bit slow here. With this recent escalation in the debate, we finally got around to reading the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 and were immediately and absolutely appalled at the logic, or lack thereof, that is presented as the basis on which this radical and culturally destructive proposal is based. Truly, one would think that any first year philosophy student, regardless of their belief system, would see the glaring holes. Yet, here we are, standing on the precipice, waiting for our Parliament to debate this nonsense.

This has truly bothered us to the core, precisely because it causes us to wonder if there are any thinkers in Parliament or just a bunch of dummies with rings through their noses, being led captive to the latest political fad. Does any Parliamentarian any longer have a sense of moral absolutes, those concepts which do not and indeed cannot change, or have we reached the absolute absurdity of Democracy[1] in which 50.1% governs the day, even if its only for that day? Are there any in Parliament who have the ability and integrity to look at this proposal, even if they support the idea proposed, and say, ‘No. The justifications used to substantiate this proposal are so poor that their acceptance would serve to undermine and destroy our society.’

We hope that there are those who will see and we pray our Father in Heaven, in the  name of Jesus Christ, that He will make people see that this proposed legislation does have the potential to destroy this nation. Strong words, yes, but true nonetheless, for this is exactly what the adoption of this proposed legislation would accomplish. Thus, by God’s mercy we write, praying that this work may help men to see. “Lord, make them see!”

  1. The Weapon of Obscurity:

The first point to be made, and that in passing, is to again ask why these destroyers of the Social Fabric cannot be honest with the Australian people. Note that the proposed legislation is the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014. Are people not already free to marry in this country? The current Marriage Act is dated 1961. Such a date would seem to suggest that people have been free to marry for at least the last fifty years! Last year, our parents celebrated their sixtieth wedding anniversary. Hmmm? Did they do so illegally? Well, no. It was our task to procure a copy of their marriage certificate so that the appropriate dignitaries might send them congratulatory letters.

So, are people not free to marry in this country? No. No. No, a thousand times, No! People are absolutely free to marry in this country, as long as they meet some basic criteria. These criteria start with the Biblical view that marriage is between one man and one woman and is a covenant for life.[2] These are the primary criteria, to which others regarding age and consanguinity are added.[3]

Next we consider the wording of the motion put forward by the arch enemy of heterosexual marriage, Senator Hanson-Young, which read, “That the Senate agrees that all members of Parliament and senators should be granted a conscience vote on the issue of equal marriage in Australia.” The words to note here are “equal marriage.” Again, what is equal marriage, we might ask?

The point is, simply, that these people purposely muddy the waters of the debate with their deliberate attempts to obfuscate the true issue. Why will they simply not use the terms “homosexual” or “gay”? Why is the proposed change not titled, the Homosexual Marriage Bill? Why did Senator Hanson-Young’s motion not read: “That the Senate agrees that all members of Parliament and senators should be granted a conscience vote on the issue of homosexual and or gay marriage in Australia.” Why, because the opposition would be greater!

Just today we read an article claiming that seventy-two percent of Australians are in favour of marriage equality. This may be a very accurate figure, but the nagging question remains: Did people understand what was meant by marriage equality? Were people asked further questions as to their definition of and essentials for marriage? Were they told that the questionnaire was aimed at being a support for a change in the Marriage Act 1961?

Much can be claimed when you adopt obscurantism as your main tactic so as to deceive people into supporting that which they would otherwise find unpalatable.

As the old adage says, “Truth is the first casualty in a war!” and it seems to ring true for this current battle.

  1. The Politics of Nonsense:

Senator Leyonhjelm, in putting forward his foul proposal, has given the following rationale as to why his proposal should be accepted:

The purpose of the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 is threefold.

First, the Amendment reduces the extent to which government interferes in private life. It does this by allowing all Australians regardless of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to marry.

Second, it imposes no claims or burdens of conscience on those persons who object to marriages other than between a man and a woman for both religious and non-religious reasons.

Third, it ensures that while conscience is to the greatest extent protected, the state – which stands for all Australians and whose laws ought to be facially neutral – cannot make claims of conscience in this matter.

A cursory glance at this list probably does not raise many concerns for the average person who has imbibed much of the Modernist’s thought. ‘Love and peace for all’ is the common currency for buying political favours of any kind, so it is only natural that we find these elements present. However, if you are willing, take a moment to think through the implications of each statement. Are you willing? If so, then let us take that journey together.

  1. a. Freedom –– First, the Amendment reduces the extent to which government interferes in private life. It does this by allowing all Australians regardless of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to marry.

Senator Leyonhjelm is a Libertarian, so it should come as no surprise that restriction on Governmental interference is high on his agenda and makes its way into his rationale. Equally, we must say that we appreciate Senator Leyonhjelm’s consistency on issues, even if we do not agree with the points directly. For example, the Senator believes in loosening gun laws and legalising both marijuana and euthanasia. Thus, there is an attempted consistency in the application of his thought.

Yet, this is exactly the problem; it is his thought that governs these debates. It is his subjective principle of freedom – an anti-God principle[4] – that dictates the merits of Governmental intrusion. For us, the question, obvious to all we would think, is, “Why not have the Government retreat from marriage altogether?” If the overarching principle is to lessen Governmental interference in the private lives of citizens, why does this proposed legislation not move to abolish the Marriage Act completely? In fact, why not construct a piece of legislation that does away with the Government, full stop!

Of course, we are also compelled to ask the serious questions in regard to the obscure phrase, “allowing all Australians regardless of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to marry.” We ask this because we have legitimate concerns as to what “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” really mean and, equally, what groundwork they lay for the further degradation of our national morality.

If lessening Governmental interference is the primary goal of this act and its primary application is to homosexual union, then what secondary applications can be made to polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relationships,[5] and other variations on the theme, using this same principle?

These questions must be considered because Senator Leyonhjelm has introduced a criterion and then not applied it to all aspects of the Marriage Act 1961. It seems to us that he has been rather particular in his application of his guiding principle. Thus, we must ask why he retains the qualifications that marriage is for two people and for life and the “prohibited relationships” contained in Section 23:2? Surely, these are just further examples of the Government interfering with the private live of the citizens. If not, why not?

Therefore, the first reason for rejecting this proposed legislation is that its guiding principle is fundamentally flawed. This principle does not deliver to us an absolute moral, a concrete foundation, if you will, which guides, restrains, and defends. Rather, we are introduced to yet another subjective standard that can be erased or moved the next time a new fad takes someone’s fancy.

2.b. Conscience –– Second, it imposes no claims or burdens of conscience on those persons who object to marriages other than between a man and a woman for both religious and non-religious reasons.

This second rationale brought forward by Senator Leyonhjelm is a simple lie, a misdirect, an untruth, a pork pie, a furphy, even a red herring. Law, by necessity, binds the conscience as well as the behaviour. A “law abiding citizen” is not one who only conforms outwardly, he is one who obeys the law of the land for conscience sake. He knows that to obey is good and right and he trains himself to do so in order that, when unsupervised, even though none but God sees him, he will still do right.[6]

The Apostle Paul, discussing the nature of rule and authority, in Romans 13, states: Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection [to authorities], not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

Paul here addresses both outward conformity—the fear of wrath—and the true desire to do right—for conscience sake. The Apostle’s whole argument is that all authority, Governmental, parental, etc, derives from God. This teaching is important and we must understand it. Paul is saying that if you are in authority, you cannot bind the conscience of anyone to any standard that is contrary to the Law of God. Equally, if you are a subordinate, you cannot rebel against any such law that complies with the Law of God. Thus, Paul, applying God’s Law, once more guards against both tyranny and anarchy.

However, the main point is that in such a system, compliance because of fear alone is an inadequate response. The man who complies with law only because he fears wrath will undoubtedly end up feeling that wrath. This will be the case because he will fail to rightly govern himself, will trip, and will be caught out. On the other hand, the man whose conscience is bound to the Law of God will conduct himself, at least in principle, properly on all occasions because he has an inner guide to which he will remain true—the Law of God as applied by legitimate Government. Thus, Paul wants us to see that it is the love of the Law of God, dwelling within, and guiding our consciences, that is to be prized.

In commenting on Romans 13:5, John Murray states:

The meaning here must be that we are to subject ourselves [to right authority] out of a sense of obligation to God. … God alone is Lord of the conscience and therefore to do anything out of conscience or for conscience’ sake is to do it from a sense of obligation to God.[7]

Therefore, on apostolic authority, we must again assert that the Senator is grossly mistaken. Conscience does matter. Consciences can never be, if you will excuse the terminology, free range. Consequently, this proposal does present a burden and a claim upon our consciences for two reasons: a) the proposed legislation is contrary to God’s command; b) the proposed legislation deals with an essential element of Man’s identity as created in God’s image so as to serve God’s purpose. Thus, we, as Christians, are being asked to choose between God and country. We are being asked, nay, commanded, to disobey God in order that we might comply with Man’s demands for obedience.

The Senator also references the non-religious objectors, and they too are in for a shock.[8] You see, it’s all nice to talk about one’s conscience being free or ‘not burdened’, but what happens when any who object take their conscience to the public square or to the agora? What happens when my conscience clashes with the Government’s law? Answer—Legislated penalties happen and your conscience is trampled upon by all sorts of sordid individuals wearing hob-nailed boots! We see this clearly in cases in the United States where Christian businessmen and women have refused services to homosexuals, particularly in the context of homosexual unions, and the State has fallen upon them with glee.[9] No respect for conscience at all is on display; only the brutality of tyrants who demand that you capitulate to their religious ideals.

For example, what happens when a minister, conscience bound to God, stands in his pulpit and denounces homosexuality and homosexual union?[10] Some might say, “Oh he can do that!” Yes, but for how long?[11] Okay, what happens when he is invited on to a popular ABC talkback show and is asked to state his beliefs?

What happens when, in the next round of proposed changes and revisions to the Marriage Act 1961, ministers of religion lose their right to marry according to conscience? The current proposal seeks to remove the term “minister of religion” from Section 47[12] with the intent that all authorised persons simply be classed as “marriage celebrants”. However, to allow this amendment is to remove from the Act a particular group that are set aside and recognised as operating under a different auspices. It is to remove some specific freedoms aimed, presumably, at allowing better counselling and a stronger foundation for marriage. Thus, the removal of this category is one step closer to all celebrants being classed as ‘State employees’ and, therefore, one step closer to all being compulsorily bound to not discriminate; that is, one step closer to everyone who conducts a marriage ceremony being forced to marry all and sundry, even against their conscience.

Senator Leyonhjelm, in his proposal, often refers to freedom of conscience, yet there is nothing within this legislation that truly guarantees this freedom. In point of fact, we see the exact opposite and it is scary. Remember, any right granted by legislation can as easily be removed by legislation. As noted above, item seven of the Senator’s proposed legislation removes any conscience from a “State employee” demanding that they must not discriminate.[13] This is a truly horrendous measure, for it essentially demands that the individual, upon entering the employ of the State, surrenders their conscience and any right of conscience, to the State. At this point, the Senator’s Libertarianism seems to have taken a distinct sidestep into Fascism or Nazism.

Therefore, the second reason to reject this proposed legislation is because the second tenet is an absolute lie. This legislation, rather than highlight or respect freedom of conscience, would guarantee the loss of any right to conscience by demanding that your conscience be surrender to the service of the State.

2.c. Secularism is Neutral –– Third, it ensures that while conscience is to the greatest extent protected, the state – which stands for all Australians and whose laws ought to be facially neutral – cannot make claims of conscience in this matter.

This third section, by far the worst, is almost unintelligible. We have already seen that despite the rhetoric there are no concrete guarantees that the conscience will be protected. Where are the new paragraphs, set in stone, never to be removed or altered, saying that anyone who believes that marriage is only between a man and woman is exempt from any prosecution under these laws; any related law; or any unforseen circumstance as a consequence of these laws?

If conscience is free and unburdened, why are some compelled to perform marriages according to this proposed law? If conscience is free, why are there references to the word “discriminate”?

Here, it would seem that we need to read the fine print. In the context, the freedom of conscience espoused can only be extended to those who have the ability to solemnise a marriage. They are the only ones mentioned in the Act and, therefore, the only ones granted latitude. The same is to be said in regard to the words, in this matter, as found at the conclusion of rational three. The matter is the proposed changes to the Marriage Act 1961, and therefore cannot refer to anything outside of that Act. Hence, we are back to the conundrum highlighted in point two above. The celebrant or minister may have some right of latitude in deciding whether to perform a marriage or not, but as soon as he steps outside of that context, he is open to all sorts of bother.

Humour us for a moment. Imagine a “tent making ministry”. The minister, lacking enough support for fulltime ministry, runs a cake shop three days a week. A homosexual approaches this man to marry him. He says, no. All is rosy. The next day the homosexual walks into the cake shop and asks the same minister to make a cake for his wedding. Again, the answer is, no. The result this time, law suits, hate mail, and so on.

Understand well, please, this proposal does not supply to all people who object a free pass. No, it only gives a free pass to those who are rightly able to solemnise a marriage and then only in regard to that one point, this matter. At every other point your conscience is to be trampled upon.

Concern must also be raised in regard to obligations that are placed upon those who exercise their right to conscience. For example, in regard to a military chaplain, the following is proposed:

Item 10 recognises that that the state must not discriminate, even in a military context. Therefore, any defence force chaplain who refuses to solemnise a marriage on the basis of conscience is obliged – where it is possible – to provide to the couple seeking solemnisation an alternative chaplain who is willing to solemnise the marriage.[14]

Of most concern, is the little word “obliged”. Whilst this is a little word, it sure can punch above its weight. So, what is meant? Well, we are not sure and no real definition is given. The following paragraph does try to outline instances in which this part may not be possible; nonetheless, we are ill at ease with this requirement.

Could this be interpreted to mean that a chaplain bear certain expenses as part of his obligation? If the postponement meant other complications, could he be deemed to be liable under another piece of legislation? If the request comes in a remote location and no other chaplains will be available for six months, what pressure will be brought to bear so that this chaplain feels obliged to perform the ceremony? Logically, we can also see that the conclusion of this matter will be that most, if not all, chaplains recruited for the armed forces will be namby-pamby liberals without convictions.

Last of all, we wish to pay a visit to our old friend, the Myth of Neutrality. Did you see him there in rationale three, proudly waving as he went past? If you missed him, he can be found atop the phrase, the state … ought to be facially neutral. Man, what a gem!

No, the State ought to be absolutely biased toward God and His Law. Neutrality is a myth. The laws of this nation will either serve God for His glory or they will serve to promote the glory of Man. It is that simple.

Therefore, it is at this point that we witness the veil fall. The words “facially neutral” are priceless, for they give the game away. These words are a tacit confession that the best the Government can do is feign neutrality. They can dress things up, apply the foundation, the blush, the eye liner, and so on, but they cannot truly attain to neutrality, they can only attempt to disguise the mutton as lamb! In the end, we are left with a feigned neutrality. In concrete terms, this means that the government pursues its agenda, based in its religious convictions, all the while pretending to govern for the well-being and according to the convictions of all citizens.

Remember, the “state” to which the Senator refers is often referred to as a Secular State. Former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, used this expression in his justification for the adoption of homosexual union. His point was that Australia was a “secular state” and therefore should not be governed by any particular religion. The fallacy on display in this statement is that Secularism is itself a religion. The reason that the Secularist does not want Christianity in the public square has to do with the fact that they are competing to dominate the same piece or real estate. When this is understood clearly, the gibberish contained in the Senator’s rationale becomes evident.

If you still need to be convinced about the obvious error here and the claim that our Government is facially neutral, please allow us to point you to one concrete proof—Parliament itself. If neutrality exists, why are the Houses of Parliament divided between Liberals, Labour, Greens, Democrats, and Independents? Each of these groups represents an ideology, a worldview, a religion. Each believes his religion to be true and wants to see his god placed in the position of reverence. For Senator Leyonhjelm, that god is liberty (Libertinism); for the Sociaslists it is community (Communism or Statism); for the Greens it is Nature (Animism); for the Democrats it is Radical Individualism and Rights (Autonomy); and for the so-called Conservatives, they seemed to have picked up that old Chinese religion – Confusion-ism, for they do not know what they are!

Therefore, we contend that this last rationale is to be rejected for the following reasons: First, it espouses a perverted concept of government in which God and His morality are absent from Parliament – the Myth of Neutrality; Second, there are no protections in this legislation for any who would disagree with the new and perverted view of marriage – the State is making claims to conscience!

  1. Tyranny and Subjugation:

Before closing, we would very much like to draw your attention to the psyche of the Socialist style governments that we have in this land, the absolute tyranny that is inbuilt into legislation, and the mechanisms by which this tyranny will be wrought.

First, it is fundamental that we appreciate that, despite the colour of the flag flying in Canberra, all the major Parties are Socialist in their philosophy and dogma. This is clearly seen in the out of control welfare system; the laws that enable governmental intrusion, beyond their legitimate sphere of sovereignty, into the lives of the people; and the continued teaching of the rhetoric that ‘the State knows best!’

All of these things fly in the face of God’s design for Man and Society. God gave Man law and conscience. God expects Man to be self-governing and self-disciplining in terms of His law. Outward pressure is only brought to bear when the individual fails to self-govern. By contrast, the modern view is that Man is free. He does not have to be self-governed or even moral. He is free to be what he wants. However, this creates a conundrum. It does not take long to realise that this free man is going to come into conflict with that free man. The solution then is to turn to God’s order, in a perverted manner, and to begin to impose external sanctions on both parties. However, as this is a travesty, the aim of the external imposition is not to make moral, self-controlled, and, therefore, self-governed Men, but simply to erect a fence that forces Men to stay within the confines of and feign obedience to the rules of the playground.

The tragedy of this is that, in the end, and we have witnessed this myriad times the world over, the subordinate rule maker – the government – becomes a victim of its own Liberalism and must continue to change the rules so as to allow more latitude in the playground.

This leads to the second point concerning tyranny. As the rules become more Liberal, there will automatically be more conflict as more and more key societal norms are infringed upon. This is absolutely logical. If you work outward in ever increasing circles, you must impact more people. Thus, more and more, Men’s consciences and basic rights are trampled upon. Men lose the right to freedom of speech; to freedom in general. Men become enslaved to employers. Men are discriminated against and are subjected to “Big Brother’s” illegitimate and illogical policies wherever they go. The minority dominates the majority through these perverted and incongruous laws and the minority’s voice seems loud and united, being amplified by the fact that the dissenting voices are silenced.

At this juncture the hypocrisy becomes evident. For example, if we spoke to those in favour of homosexual union, there is little doubt that they would condemn the “slave trade” and the repression of minorities in either Fascist Russia or Nazi Germany, yet they are very happy to see people enslaved today and to see the majority dominated and persecuted in order for them to achieve their goal.

This said, we need to consider the third aspect of the methodology involved and in so doing pull these three threads together.

The simple fact is that the push for homosexual union is only the culmination of moral and societal erosion that began years ago. Whilst I hold out hope that we will not see homosexual union legitimised in the State’s law, we who oppose homosexual union need to do some serious thinking and we need to extend our thinking.

You see, if we are to truly win this battle, we need to start arguing that all the rights gained by homosexuals over the years need to be revoked. We need to begin to argue that all those government bodies created to ensure that there is no discrimination, that there is supposed equality, etc etc, are abolished. Why, because they all derive from the same corrupt understanding of Man and Society that is explicitly anti-God in its outlook.

Many Christians are going to find this hard to swallow because they long ago abandoned God’s truth for the homogeneous outlook of peace and tolerance as peddled by the Secular Humanists. However, the truth of our statement is manifest if you will simply stop and look at the evidence.

Over these last decades, the God haters have set about bolstering their position by changing laws that are not always in the public view or which seem to have an air of legitimacy, say, tolerance. As a consequence, we have seen the laws on discrimination and equality spread throughout society. This has come about as the State, by coercion or coaxing, has overreached its legitimate sphere of sovereignty and has extended its tentacles into schools, hospitals, employee’s lives, subordinate authorities and the like.

Now, we must understand the impact of these laws in regard to the current debate. If we look to examples overseas, we see that people are being persecuted for refusing to provide goods and services to homosexual unions. Those people being persecuted protest, particularly in America, that they have the right to freedom of religion under the constitution. The answer, in one form or another, that inevitably comes back is, “This is not about religion but about your failure to comply with anti-discrimination laws under …”, with some State regulatory body being cited.

Do you understand this? In other words, the battle is raging in these secondary areas. Whether or not homosexual union will be realised in this country is beside the point. Already, Christians have lost the right to hire people who comply with their belief system – read, denied the right to practice morality. These rights, in some States, are being even further eroded. Homosexuals have been given almost every right at law and it is hypocrisy simply to deny them the right to marriage, if they are legitimately entitled to everything else. Equally, if it is not legitimate for homosexuals to marry, then it is not right that they gain all else. Thus, we must not only repudiate the concept of homosexual union, but repudiate everything that is associated with it. We must repent of all sin; from the very first day we turned aside from God’s path and chose to walk in disobedience, not just those sins of the last few steps.

Examples of the battle are these: Locally, the Council, under State Government direction, made – read, compulsory attendance required – all its employees attend a Human Rights seminar so that they could be taught about their obligation toward perverts and deviants. Staying in Australia, we know of a government employee who had the suggestion made that when they write in public forums that they should use an alias – that is a Christian employee stating things that government policy may not agree with. Overseas, there have been several cases of people who have expressed private opinions on social media or in a book and have subsequently been hauled over the coals, suspended, or dismissed.

The question then must be, “What do we gain merely by rejecting homosexual union, if all these secondary methods of tyranny remain?” We cannot continue to live in this halfway house where we reject homosexual union, but embrace homosexual equality in every other sphere of life. We cannot be free to reject homosexual union, but then be condemned because we refuse to employ a homosexual.

This is the tyranny and this is the methodology. If you do not agree with the Government’s agenda, enshrined in so many other statutes outside of marriage, you lose your employment, you lose your freedom, you lose your business, you lose your home, and ultimately, you will lose your society.

Leyonhjelm’s lunacy is simply one more in a long line of lunacies that have brought this society to the brink of collapse. Our appeal is to the Christians because we alone have the ability to turn our nation back to God and to a positive future. However, to do this we must be willing to repent, ask God’s forgiveness, indentify where we left God’s pathway and return to that very place so that we can step back upon the path of truth. Fighting individual issues will not suffice, we must destroy the poisonous root that feeds the tree. We must exchange the lunacy of Man for the Sanity and Wisdom of God.

Footnotes:

[1] I would hope that the Christians of this nation, in particular, are beginning to see that Democracy is not Biblical and should not be trumpeted as the saviour of Man, like so many are accustomed to do. True Democracy, in the extreme, means mob rule. The only question is, “What do you define as a mob?” Democracy, without any sense of an absolute, without any concept that there is a limit to the concept, becomes Ochlocracy!

[2] See Genesis 1:26-28 – Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

[3] These are also derived from the principles of Scripture. See Leviticus 18 for example. Interesting, is it not, that this chapter, which defines the limits of heterosexual relationships, also proscribes homosexuality. If Senator Leyonhjelm believes that the limits of consanguinity should remain, on what basis does he seek to remove the limits to heterosexuality?

[4] It must be understood that, Biblically speaking, Man has his greatest freedom when he is governed by law, specifically God’s Law. We recognise this principle every day when we go about our business, yet, we do not recognise this principle. Confused? Do not be. What makes it relatively safe for you to drive on the roads, your freedom to do what you will or your ability to obey the road rules? It is the second. Your freedom would result in chaos and death. We know this because most road accidents are attributable to breaches of the law. Thus, the principle that you are at your freest when you are obedient is a principle that we know well. The trouble is that as soon as we move into the political arena, this principle gets mutilated or maligned and that is precisely because we have abandoned our belief in God, the One whose laws stop both anarchy and tyranny.

[5] Before the censorious crows cry foul, they may wish to take note of the fact that there is already a push for this type of recognition; yes, they have even helped us out by giving it a name! See: http://www.kidspot.com.au/the-father-and-daughter-who-are-getting-married/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_content=recent&utm_campaign=sitecampaign.

[6] We have in mind here those laws that do not conflict with the Law of God and are thereby to be obeyed by all men. When man-made laws conflict with God’s Law, our conscience must be bound to God alone (Acts 4:19).

[7] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT, Grand Rapids; Eeerdmans Publishing; 1 vol, 1968) 2:155

[8] Whilst Man is a rebel and a hater of God and His Law, the simple reality is that Man, as a consequence of being made in the image of God, can still have a right conscience on matters.

[9] See here:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/florist-barronelle-stutzman-refuses-to-pay-fine-for-refusing-to-provide-flowers-for-a-gay-marriage-on-religious-grounds/story-fnizhakg-1227236997936 and here: http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/

[10] Again, the case in Houston stands as a warning. See:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/october/houston-feels-pressure-after-subpoena-response-sermons.html?paging=off and here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/houston-mayor-sermon-subpoenas_n_6070650.html. It is not without note that this storm erupted when Houston’s gay mayoress tried to enforce her religious agenda.

[11] It is worth remembering that the Brumby Labor Government in Victoria was hatching plans to intrude into churches and worship services.

[12] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s47.html

[13] “Item 7 refers to the governing section, 39(4), which disapplies section 47 to authorised celebrants who are employees of the State, and who therefore cannot discriminate.” See here:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs983_ems_5753824b-b9e6-468c-8a0c-ccf455305ea4%22

[14] Emphasis added.

Catchphrases of Doom

Posted on by
2

Catchphrases are about us everywhere. These tiny slogans, often only using a few words, are the droplets of a distilled philosophy. As the droplet hangs, it gorges itself on the rays of light emanating from the full philosophy and then diffuses the philosophy into the world as a bright, eye-catching display of colour. Many are bedazzled by this light display. The pretty lights, dancing before our eyes, are intoxicating and mesmerising. The trouble is that while your view is obscured by the coloured lights, someone is picking your pockets!

At heart, most slogans really do not portray the fullness of the philosophy or outline the extent of the philosophy’s application. When this is the case, the catchphrase becomes deceit. It does so of necessity due to the process of reduction. When anything is distilled its natural composition must be altered. Some elements will be eliminated. Some will be changed. Others will be intensified.

Take for example the phrase, God is Love. This is Biblical. It is right. However, if we take this as a catchphrase, intended to show the totality of God’s character, then it becomes deceit and a lie. If the lie is believed, it becomes a source of doom.

The latest catchphrase of doom to makes its way into the public arena is the homosexual lobby’s “Love is Love”. This slogan is designed to evoke an emotional response, of the Mill’s and Boon variety, in which reason is trumped by Man’s eternal desire both to love and be loved. I mean, please, pass the tissues! Here, in a world of turmoil, a world of hatred, a world of ‘wars and rumours of wars’ are these oppressed people who just want to Love each other. They simply want to be left alone to love and be loved–to foster an atmosphere of love wherever they go. I mean, ‘sob, more tissues, please’, “What could be more admirable than loving, being loved, and spreading love?”

Now, while you are mopping up the last of your tears, let it be asked of you that, before answering the question, you might disengage your emotions and engage your mind. “Love is Love”, is a wonderful slogan, but here is the real question, “What does it mean?” Yes, we can be sidetracked into an emotional exercise debating the answer to the first question, but that will simply be an enterprise in futility if we do not answer the second question first. We must have a definition before we can enter upon any discussion. We must set some parameters so that the discussion is meaningful. We must understand the concept or meaning will elude us.

Let us start, therefore, with the basic question, “What is love?” When you read the slogan “Love is Love” you are immediately struck by the fact that love is always wholesome and pure. The word love is used like a sanctifier–take anything, add love and, voilà, it is now pure and holy. However, this is simply not the case. As we know empirically from everyday usage, love does not, in and of itself, speak of a pure motive or a pure object.

Love is a subjective expression that must, as a general rule, have an object. The very fact that Man expresses love for something does not mean that either his expressed passion or the object to which he expresses his passion is legitimate, pure, or holy. Man’s expressed love may be all of these or none of these. It is God’s morality that determines the legitimacy of both, not the mere fact that Man loves. An obese person can love his food. A sexual deviant can love his prey. A man can love God. Are all these loves legitimate and equal?

Let us examine three Biblical examples:

          Isaac: “Now then … go out to the field and hunt game for me; and prepare a savory dish for me such as I love.”[1]

          Amnon: “Now it was after this that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of David loved her. … And he said to him, “O son of the king, why are you so depressed morning after morning? Will you not tell me?” Then Amnon said to him, “I am in love with Tamar, the sister of my brother Absalom.” …  However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her… Then Amnon hated her with a very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, “Get up, go away!”[2]

          God’s People: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”.

These examples show us the extremes of human love. The first is of an elderly man who has a hankering for his favourite meal. His desire is expressed as love; yet are we to believe that his desire for a meal was of the same intensity, purity, depth, and breadth with which he loved Rebekah[3], his wife? In the second example, we see a young Amnon, passionate in his love for Tamar to the point of melancholy; yet his was not a true love, it was a violent love, a lust, that drove him to rape his sister. The third example is God’s statement as to how His people were to love Him in fullness, completeness, and totality.

If we believe the homosexual lobby’s catchphrase of doom, we must believe that the actions listed in these texts are legitimate and equal on the basis that they are all said to be motivated by love. Therefore, if “Love is Love” then eating your favourite meal, raping your sister, and loving God with the whole of your being are moral equals.

Next, the homosexual lobby would have you believe, via the “Love is Love” catchphrase, that sexual activity is legitimised by love. These lobbyists are pushing for marriage rights and the right to engage in sexual activity without stigma and the foundation of their argument is love. In other words, the homosexual lobby want to legitimise their sexual acts. To do this they know instinctively that they must be married. However, as they fail to meet God’s criterion of heterosexuality they are under obligation to invent a new criterion, love.  Yet, once more, we must ask as to how “Love is Love” transmogrifies into “Love is legitimate sexual activity”.

To put it simply and bluntly, love never legitimises sexual activity! In Scripture, legitimate sexual activity must meet two criteria: heterosexuality and the marriage covenant.[4] If you remove either criterion, then the sexual activity is illegitimate, unsanctioned, and debauched. This is borne out by the language of Scripture and of our day:

          Fornication: Heterosexual activity when not married;

          Adultery: Sexual activity with other than your spouse when married;

Sodomy / Homosexuality: Sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage and heterosexuality.[5]

Please note well that love is never the criterion that legitimises sexual activity.[6]

Last, let us highlight more obviously what the homosexual lobby and their catchphrase of doom seek to hide, namely, that men can and do love absolute perversion.

When Jesus came into this world, rightly to be embraced by Men, John records Man’s response with these dreadful words: this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.[7] In this regard, nothing has changed. Still the homosexual community loves its evil deeds of darkness and seeks any and every avenue to legitimise its aberrant behaviour. There is little doubt that amongst the homosexual community there is genuine love, but it is a love for the darkness. Their love, genuine as it is, does not legitimise, excuse, or sanction their deviant sexual behaviour. One can place a blanket of love upon a bed, but that does not mean that every activity between the sheets is lawful.

“Love is Love” is a catchphrase of doom precisely because it is one more veil, another puff of smoke, the positioning of yet another mirror in an attempt to garner support for an errant cause by obscuring the truth.

Man’s duty of love is to God and His Christ. Jesus said: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” and “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me.” [8] True love, therefore, is aimed at God and expresses itself in obedience to his commands. Any love that does not meet this standard is the love generated from within a fallen and corrupt heart; a heart that loves darkness and not the Light!

Footnotes:

[1] Genesis 27:3-4.

[2] 2 Samuel 13:1, 4, 14-15.

[3] Genesis 24:67.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] 1 Corinthians 6:9 list these three sins separately, emphasising the fact that they each transgress God’s law in a different manner.

[6] An example from our everyday relationships. If you engaged in sexual activity with all those you loved, based on the idea that love legitimises sexual activity, would you not be considered by most, even the homosexual lobby, to be a debauched and depraved individual.

[7] John 3:19.

[8] John 14:15 & 21.

Marriage is Life: AP Version

Posted on by
Reply

 (This version was produced for the Australian Presbyterian. It is a shorter version, but also includes a few comments that the original version does not. It is only 1200 words. Print it out and hand it to your friends. Lord willing, it will help you have some worthwhile conversations on the topic of Marriage.)

There is little doubt that, in Australia today, we are experiencing a clash of worldviews. Over the last decades, the Secular Humanist attack upon Biblical Christianity has gathered pace and it recently presented to this nation a new challenge.

Christianity, both as a belief and a worldview, has been systematically attacked in this country for at least fifty years. In that time, attacks have been mainly focused against the application of Biblical law. Examples of this may be seen in the erosion of (traditional) marriage. The concept of both “de facto” relationships and divorce were popularised and de-stigmatised. By stealth, therefore, marriage was undermined. Its significance and importance was devalued. Marriage was relegated to the status of a cultural relic from the bygone age of “religion” and non-enlightenment.

This diminution of perspective is attributable to Humanism’s attack on the application of Biblical law. These attacks stem directly from the fact that the Secular Humanist denies the existence of the Bible’s God (Psalm 14:1). With God removed, the Secularist believes himself free to set about making this world after his own image in order to rule by his own law. Consequently, the Secular Humanist has sought to erode any law explicitly based in Scripture.[1]

The question is, ‘What is next?’ What is Humanism about to attack and redefine after its own design? The answer is apparent. We have, of recent, witnessed the introduction of several bills to Parliament for the sole purpose of altering the Marriage Act; primarily allowing for homosexual marriage.

This is an escalation in the war. No longer are the Humanists simply attacking the peripheries – the application of Biblical law – they are now insisting on attacking God directly by redefining Man. This battle is not about the (human) tradition of marriage as a legal union. This battle cuts to the heart of Man and his sexuality as male and female and impinges upon the fact that marriage is God’s precise design and mechanism for perpetuating life to and for His absolute glory.

The question that must be asked is, “Why is homosexuality and homosexual marriage Biblically wrong?” To answer this, we must turn to the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) of Genesis.

In this text there are some fundamentals that simply cannot be ignored:

First, is the simple but important fact that Man is made in the image of God.

Man is not, therefore, a self-determining creature from the black swamp who “got smart” and decided to make something of himself. Man is not the Mark 4 in monkey design. Man is not chaos, chance, randomness, coincidence, or accident. He is not a cosmic virus virulent upon the earth as some type of intergalactic plague – with the earth hoping for a vaccine! Man is not the meaningless transient dream of the existentialist!

On the contrary, Man is the product of the perceptive absolute will of Almighty God. No mistake. No design flaws. Made in fullness! Made in perfection! Man, made as God planned. Man, endued and imbued with every power, grace, gift, talent, ability, faculty, facility, and function that God intended him to possess. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Second, God’s Man was created in plurality! Man is made in God’s image and he is made male and female. Like a coin, Man was made with two sides. Both image bearers. Both endued with God’s gifts, talents, and purposes. When the two are brought together in the marriage covenant, the whole becomes far greater than the sum of its parts.

This position must be understood, for it is the essence of any and every rebuttal to all schemes which attack Man and Marriage.[2] In Genesis 1:28, God pronounces a blessing upon Man. Part of that blessing is that Man should be fruitful and multiply. God’s Man, made in plurality, covenanted in unity through marriage, can receive this blessing and bring it to fruition.

Humanism’s Man cannot! It does not matter how much semen you pour into a man’s rectal cavity or how many attempts are made to fashion the perfect phallic symbol, Man’s futility can never replicate or replace God’s fertility! God made Man male and female. God gave them perfect fertility and bodies designed and equipped to fulfil Man’s assignment within God’s purpose and plan.

Before proceeding, we must say something simple about that plan. Please note that the text of Genesis 1:26-28 has to do with God’s dominion. That is to say, the fundamental aspect of that text is both the Rule and Worship of God over all and throughout all the earth. The mechanism by which this is achieved is the prosperity of the womb in covenant marriage and the subsequent education of that fruit in the fear and knowledge of God. In short, it is covenant prosperity to the glory of God. Thus understood, heterosexual Marriage is the key to life.

When marriage is pictured Biblically, we see that it is far from a cultural convention or tradition. It is a widely practiced principle precisely because it is a Creation Ordinance stamped onto the heart of every man. Marriage, sexuality, progeny, God’s rule, and God’s worship are all writ as writ upon the heart of Man by the finger of God. These components are who we are as Man. They cannot be erased, imitated, or substituted. It is only when male and female are brought together in the covenant of marriage that all of the blessings specified by God will flow freely and abundantly in fulfilment of God’s design and purpose. Then, and only then, are we truly the Married Man.[3]

Therefore, the homosexual desire for marriage is not simply a desire to change a rule or definition in regard to marriage. Rather, it is a diabolical attempt to redefine Man according to the idols of Humanism. It is an attempt to rebuild Man without any reference to God, His purpose, or His glory. This basically means that Man must be smelt and recast. Consequently, the new proposition is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Man. In short, it is death of Man in the Death of God!

Marriage is not a human institution, convention, or cultural tradition, Statist or otherwise. Marriage is the inherent consequence of Man being created male and female in the image of God. Marriage, therefore, is not only bound to Man as male and female, but it is bound up in the essential nature of Man as male and female. It simply cannot be imitated by male/male or female/female relationships. Marriage is not a mere mechanism to legitimise sexual behaviour. Whilst this is a right component, we must see that marriage only legitimises sexual behaviour of the type which accords with God’s design and purpose, thereby manifesting absolutely His rule, worship, and glory. Therefore, homosexual marriage must be repudiated as a travesty.

Marriage is life! That is, one man and one woman in covenant union before God and to His glory. Marriage is life!

Footnotes:

[1] Well, not quite. He has eroded the laws that require restraint of carnal appetite and pleasure. He is rather keen to keep the laws regarding murder and theft as he wants to live to enjoy his greed and hedonism!

[2] Whilst texts like Leviticus and Romans are helpful and instructive, they tend to be limited to a sexual expression. By returning to Genesis, we are looking at the very design and purpose of God for Man.

[3] No comment here is directed toward childless couples or those God has called to a single life.

Equality and Coercion: The Antipodes of Humanism

Posted on by
3

“You will know them by their fruits”, so says Jesus.[1] This is a wonderful piece of advice and one which every Christian should learn to put into practice. In essence, Jesus is telling us that if you want to understand what makes a man tick, look at the fruit of his ideas. If someone comes to you selling “sweetness and light”, but behind him there is a trail of stench and darkness, then you would rightly question the intrinsic nature of the salesman’s product. In such a scenario, the terms ‘witchdoctor’ and ‘snake oil’ would readily spring to mind.

As Christians in the year 2015, we have many witchdoctors peddling much snake oil, but it all comes packaged as “sweetness and light” or, more specifically, Religious Freedom and Equality. Yes, the packaging sells the product well. It is bright and shiny. It makes some wonderful claims that just warm the cockles of your heart. It’s calorie free. It can be consumed at any time. It will add volume to your hair and … you get the picture. Yes, it seems laudable and the racketeers, oh, sorry, marketers, do a fine job in pushing their product. However, have you stopped to look at the fruit of their wares? When you look at our culture, are people healthy, thin, and sporting voluminous bouffants or are they ailing, squidgy around the middle, and balding?

Brethren, what fruit do you see about you today?

This challenge is necessary precisely because the common place mantra in the Church today is “Do not judge; do not judge!” Consequently, when we as Christians are confronted with fruit that is rancid or which looks highly questionable, we tend to be duped or coerced into believing the packaging and its claims. Thus, we quote the mantra, breathe deeply, and take a bite, rather than dispose of the rotten fruit — pledging never to buy from that retailer ever again!

Two such pieces of ugly fruit, being mass marketed as we speak, are Religious Freedom and Equality. Yet, both are rotten to the core. They are so because they are anti-God and as such contravene explicit commands that God has given. As such, one would think that the average Christian would give these products wide birth. However, it still seems that Christians are willing to believe the promises of the racketeers, rather than the Word of God.

Reformation Ministries, Salt Shakers, and other Christian organisations, expend much energy on warning people, Christians in particular, about the dangers of Humanism and electing governments whose explicit agendas run contrary to God’s Word. Today, we place upon your table the fruit of Humanism’s hollow promises, garnished with a real life example of Humanism’s hypocrisy.

We are all aware of the terms Religious Freedom and Equality. Both are pushed by the Humanists. Both are said to mean that any and every man will be free to believe what he will and act in accordance with his own conscience. This sounds good to many, but it is in fact the first false step. Man was created in God’s image and for His glory.[2]  As such, Man’s beliefs and conscience are inextricably tied to the Law and revelation of God as opened to us in the Bible.[3] In short, Man is not autonomous, he is Theonomic. Man is not “I” centred (anthropocentric), but “God” centred (Theocentric).

Applying this Biblical truth means that Man is neither free to follow any religion he likes or invents nor able to demand equality for every practice. By this we mean that Man must worship God, through Jesus Christ, as God has specified in Scripture and that Man’s acceptable behaviour is that, and only that, which God in His Word countenances.[4] This means that bowing to a golden image is as wrong today as it was in Daniel’s time. It means that the wicked are not equal with the righteous or the murderer with the innocent.

Thus, Religious Freedom and Equality are usurpations of God’s rule and authority and they are a manifestation of Man’s desire to ascend to the throne of God.

That this is so can be seen in the case of Barronelle Stutzman, which comes to us from the USA.[5] This 70 year old, a Christian florist, has fallen foul of the State authorities for refusing to supply flowers for a homosexual union – what is termed as ‘gay marriage’. In looking at this case, we see that the Humanist veil has completely fallen off, displaying their bigotry, bias, and hostility to Christ and His own.

The cut down version of the story is that a long time customer of Mrs. Stutzman took advantage of perverse marriage laws[6] and decided to unite with his homosexual partner. Mrs. Stutzman was in turn asked to provide flowers for the event. After careful consideration, she politely declined the invitation. From this seemingly amicable declining of an invitation, the story, carried by the great evil of social media, began to circulate. At this point, Washington State’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, having viewed the social media, stepped in and sued Mrs. Stutzman. That’s right. The Attorney General, without a complaint from the man involved launched a suit against Mrs. Stutzman. Bob Ferguson’s rationale is this: “My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I[7] will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”[8]

Here, we enter upon the conundrum. We subtitled this article, The Antipodes of Humanism, and we did so for this reason – Humanism cannot reconcile its two great mantras!

When Christians defend the faith, they can be criticised for being biased – which we are happily; biased toward God and His Word – and people can use that bias to disbelieve the message.[9] However, the above story, giving voice to the Humanist agenda, shows that the fruit of Humanist philosophy is rancid, unpalatable, and poisonous. It does so precisely because it proves that the two great Humanist mantras of Religious Freedom and Equality are completely incompatible. It proves that Humanism cannot guarantee everybody’s freedom. At some point, a person’s ideology (religion) is going to clash with another’s ideology as the fruits of that ideology (actions) are put on display.

Let’s make it simple. Your religion will dictate your practice. Your religion specifies your morals; your morals are worked out through your fingertips, so to speak. Now the fallacy of Humanism, and its outright hypocrisy, is that it tries to pretend that all actions and, therefore, all religions are equal. However, this simply cannot be true and the above story proves it to be so. A Christian operating on her religious convictions refuses a service to another person based on the fact that the other person’s religion and practice conflicts with her own. At this point, Humanism should be delighted. Both parties have expressed their conviction and have practiced their religion accordingly. Yet what we see is that Humanism is decidedly unhappy. Mr. Ferguson, wielding the power of the State, is incensed and feels that action is warranted.

Naturally, he must favour the Christian. After all, she holds to tenets that have been cherished and believed for thousands of years. She believes as the founders of America believed – in a Law giving God who proscribed homosexuality as an abomination. Hers is the established religion of centuries. The judges of America sit beneath the Ten Commandments. Surely, hers is the right! No. Not so.

You see, the new god dictates who is right and who is wrong. The worshippers of this new god know that Equality is a fallacy precisely because not all religions agree on every tenet and disagreement must mean a difference in practice.[10] Yet, they continue with their mantra hoping to blind as many people as possible.

The key lesson here is that Humanism is itself a religion and one that is, at present, far more destructive than the threat posed by Islam. Please do not be fooled by Humanism’s rhetoric of either Freedom or Equality; neither be fooled by Humanism’s claim to be neutral. All are lies. When a stalemate occurs, as in the above story, the servants of the new god become the umpires and they will always side with that which promotes their religion and their god.

This said, there are other disturbing elements to this story. For example, Mrs. Stutzman is not only being sued as a business, but also as a person. She has now also had lawsuits brought against her by the ACLU and the person involved. Then there are the homosexual activists who are now sending more requests to Mrs. Stutzman for flowers at their union ceremonies, knowing she will refuse and thereby increase fines and so on.

These elements are wrong and true justice is mocked. For example, how many times can a person be sued for one action? If the Attorney General proceeds first, in the name of the State, on what basis are these other suits presented. In essence, any person in America aggrieved at this lady’s action could sue her![11] Then we have to ask as to the rights of a business owner to refuse service to a person. How is refusing service to a homosexual any different to refusing service to a person with an inappropriate dress code or who is drunk?[12] Both these later examples are acceptable, with one being required by law. Hence, we can only conclude that discrimination is acceptable, it is simply a matter of whom you choose to discriminate against and on what basis.

This then leads us to a clarion statement: Christian, the persecuted Church no longer exists in Communist, Islamic, and Third World countries. It exists right here, in the so-called Christian West! America calls itself a Christian nation, yet She actively persecutes true Christians. Do not be fooled, the same is happening here in Australia. It may be less noticeable, but it is here. It is not different in nature, only in degree.

Hence, we, as God’s people, must take action whilst we are still able. Dear friends, this is why we ask you to join us in our stand against these false standards. This call is issued because, sadly, the Christian populace has largely embraced these false ideas of Freedom and Equality, either naively thinking that they were good or they have been coerced by law and threats of litigation.

In essence, Freedom of Religion and Equality are the Secular Humanist’s values enshrined in law and the means by which they will discriminate against all those who hold to a different religion. In the end, the question is not, “Will there be discrimination in our society?” but “Who is to be discriminated against and by what standard?”

We ask, therefore, that you might join in rejecting all forms of the Humanist agenda and thereby become an integral part of the Church Militant instead of the Church compliant.

[1] Matthew 7:20.

[2] Genesis 1:26-28.

[3] Question and answer 3 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism highlight this: “What do the scriptures principally teach? The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. (2 Tim. 1:13, 2 Tim. 3:16)”

[4] The perfect example of this pattern is to be seen in the Ten Commandments. The first four deal with God and His worship, the following six with how man should relate to man. God therefore loves the one who worships correctly and hates the one who presents false worship. God deplores the thief and the adulterer, but has regard for the one who honours his parents. In God’s eyes, not all religions are valid or all actions acceptable. God, as the perfect Sovereign, determines these things. Not Man!

[5] http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/florist-barronelle-stutzman-refuses-to-pay-fine-for-refusing-to-provide-flowers-for-a-gay-marriage-on-religious-grounds/story-fnizhakg-1227236997936. We are citing this case because the USA is further advanced in capitulating to the homosexual agenda and it is hoped that the ramifications seen there might awaken us to action before we begin to see and experience the same here.

[6] This is of course an imposition of the Humanist god. The One living and true God says that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and that for life. God does not recognise homosexual unions as legitimate. They are viewed as rebellion.

[7] It is an interesting use of the personal pronoun at this point.

[8] If all discrimination is wrong, then open the jails. In fact, one must destroy all law. Any law, any compulsion, is intrinsically an act of discrimination or, at the very least, holds the potential to be discriminatory. Similarly, if Mr. Ferguson wants to remove “discrimination the basis of sexual orientation” and genuinely wants to be fair to all, why then does he only stand up for that which is Biblically and historically aberrant behaviour?

[9] Of course, the Humanists admit no such bias. They would have you believe that they were born in a vacuum and remain untouched by the world of ideas around them.

[10] A man whose religion sates that he is bound to obey a God who has revealed His will is going to have a very different set of practices to the man that sets himself up as god and believes that he rightly determines his own actions.

[11] It must be said that in Biblical justice the person wronged must be the complainant, unless that person is incapable of doing so. The Bible knows nothing of the State benefitting from cases of justice; the beneficiary must be the person wronged.

[12] We could even turn the question around and ask, “At what point will a customer be compelled to shop in a particular store against their will?” If the owner of a business is compelled to deal with everyone, when will he be able to compel everyone?

The Hypocrisy of Humanism: Stephen Fry and his Blasphemy

Posted on by
Reply

A recent news article brought to our eyes yet another example of Humanism’s hypocrisy and double standards.

Popular television presenter, homosexual, and atheist, Stephen Fry has appeared in an interview on the Irish television show The Meaning of Life. He was asked by the presenter, in essence, if it turns out that he is wrong and God does exist, ‘What will you say to “him, her, or it” when you arrive at the Pearly gates?”

His answer:

“Bone cancer in children”, what’s that about? “How dare you? How dare you create such misery in a world that it is not our fault? It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.” “Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain?”[1]

The article then goes on to add: “If the universe was created by some sort of God, Mr. Fry feels that divinity is “quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac. Totally selfish.””

Now, I have no track with Stephen Fry at all. In this household no program that he appears on is allowed to be watched. Categorise it as “hate speech” if you will, but I would encourage all Christians to follow suit. That said, my issue, is not with Stephen Fry, as such.

Stephen Fry is a homosexual and an atheist; one highlighted in previous writings.[2] Consequently, it is not surprising, in the least, that his mouth would spew forth disgusting blasphemies against God. Tragically, he will one day have to give an account for these blasphemous words when he meets God’s eternal Judge, Jesus Christ.[3]

No, the bigger problem here is that he is allowed by the Humanist tyrants to sprout this muck on television, and that without censorship. A further problem, and one more disastrous still, is the role that Christians play in spreading Humanism’s hypocrisy by giving tacit, if not explicit, approval to their demands.

Consider this, seriously please!

If I write, ‘Homosexuals create misery, they are utterly, utterly evil, capricious beings – selfish maniacs – who create pain’; how long do you think it will be before the hate mail arrives. More importantly, how long would it be before I came in for unwelcome attention from the homosexual activists and the Humanist tyrants?

If you would like to help me conduct a straw poll, please cut out the words in pale green above and circulate them freely across the web. Nothing needs to be added other than the reference to this article. Anyway, I digress

The question before us then boils down to this: “Why is it that I cannot, as a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, say these things, even though they can be mostly proven, yet the homosexual can lampoon the God I love with impunity?”

Recently, Saltshakers highlighted the fact that a homosexual activist here in Australia had successfully sued a political candidate and is now set to sue Bernard Gaynor.[4] I wonder if this same homosexual activist is willing to sue his comrade-in-homosexuality for insulting God and thereby offending Christians across the world.

The abhorrence of this hypocrisy and its complete insistence on demanding insanity from those over whom it holds sway is evident at every turn. Following the Charlie Hebdo shootings, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke some eloquent drivel about not letting the terrorists rob us of the fundamentals we hold dear. Among the few things mentioned – sadly nothing about Christ and His righteousness – he spoke of democracy and freedom of speech. I laughed!

Where is this freedom of speech when people are being sued successfully for speaking the truth? Where is this freedom of speech, and the democratic principle of “equality” so highly treasured by the Humanist tyrants, when it only applies to those who hate God? How is it that, in a culture prizing the fallacy of “equality”, some are more equal than others? How does freedom of speech work, when it allows some to lie with impunity, shelters them from question, and then gags those who hold the opposite view? What is this democracy, so treasured by the tyrants, when it leads to innocent, righteous citizens being harangued, harassed, and persecuted in the name of this wretched “equality”?

Then, we would ask, “Is there not even one who dares to ask why “the Emperor has no clothes?” Of course not. Those who are “milking the system” understand full well that the whole thing is a hypocritical sham. Their purpose is to “make hay while the sun shines”, so they are not going to point out the hypocritical nature of the system; no, they will simply use it to their ends.

Now, in asking these questions, I do not expect the hypocrites to all of a sudden gain a conscience, have pangs, and become moral. These questions are asked so as to highlight the current state of affairs and to provoke you – the Christians – to think about the situation in which you find yourselves.

Here, it is necessary, yet again, to highlight the absolute fallacy that is the Myth of Neutrality. Listening to the Humanist tyrants, like David Cameron and most Australian politicians, you will hear words like “all” and “everyone”. You will hear the deceptive phrase, equality for all. This is the Myth of Neutrality in action. People are conned into believing that this policy will create and give to each individual absolute freedom of expression. The individual is led to believe that his creed, colour, and flag will be to him both sacred and sovereign. Yet, this is simply not the case.

The best example to explode this myth is that of Communist Russia. Communism promised equality. Most interpreted that to mean equality in wealth, prosperity, and opportunity. In reality, it meant equality in poverty, mouldy bread, and oppression. There was a small ruling elite who possessed great wealth and underneath were the rest – the oppressed. All dissenters; all thinkers; all religions capable of mounting a rational challenge – i.e. Christianity – were mercilessly suppressed. Does any of this sound familiar? If not, you may need to get out a little more.

In similar fashion, our equality will be to the line and only that line drawn in the sand by the Humanist tyrants that govern. Why sand? Because it is flexible, removable, adjustable, erasable! Here is our first clue that we are being hoodwinked. When God wrote, God wrote in stone – solid, eternal, absolute, indelible!

Explained a little differently, we can sum it up in this adage: What the government gives, the government can take away. If we are given equal rights only by the government and the law of man, then that government or a subsequent government can take them away. Remember when Bob Hawke, Australian Prime Minister, so kindly held a referendum to give us religious freedom. What would have been the outcome of a successful “Yes” vote? Simple. It would have opened the door for the government to curtail your freedoms.

Whilst that particular referendum failed, the Humanist tyrants have not given up. They have been working tirelessly to explore and implement other avenues by which they will reach the same goal. Enter, Human Rights! Enter, Religious Vilification! Enter, Equal Opportunity! Enter, any perversion of law written an enacted by the Humanist tyrants.

Daniel Andrews, recently elected Victorian Premier, has vowed to push through his anti-Christian, God-hating equality laws. Please read the fine print and take careful note that politicians or political parties will be exempt. The hypocrisy of this is that, as a Christian, I cannot refuse employment to those who do not share my beliefs or the tenets of Christianity, but dear ol’ Dan don’t got to employ a Liberal! Daniel Andrews is therefore an absolute hypocrite of the highest order. Moreover, he is an absolute liar. Anytime he speaks of “all”, you now know that you will have to read the fine print so that you are fully aware of who the all are in that particular case.

Here is a second clue. The governments rail against God, when in fact they seek to usurp God’s position. You will hear, as with Mr Fry, all sorts of allegations against God. He is a tyrant and a dictator because He gave us holy and righteous laws to follow that were all appended with, “No correspondence shall be entered into! Such a dictatorial manner. It is completely unacceptable. “Away with Him!” they yell; having failed to learn the poignant lesson of Psalm two. However, what do we find the Humanist tyrants doing? Nothing less than enacting absolute laws that enshrine their desire for mankind. Thus, they do exactly what God did only without the benefit of omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness – and off course, the right and legitimate authority to do so!

As stated, the world will not change without Jesus Christ becoming the Lord of their hearts. So the real import of this message is for you, the Christian. The simple reality is that things will not get better or change so long as we stick our head in the sand and capitulate to the Humanist tyrant’s every demand. It is time that we were willing to suffer loss for the sake of Jesus and stand up to these tyrannical hypocrites. It is time that we began to refuse to acknowledge their laws and supposed freedoms that are nothing more than chains with which to bind us.

Let me ask, Where are the preachers of righteousness? Why are our pulpits so silent? Why is it that men like Andrew Bolt, who do not have faith in Christ, are left to lead the charge? Why is it that they can see what you as a Christian either cannot or will not see?

Hard words? Yes, but pertinent nonetheless. How many churches have complied with the Humanist demands on a whole range of issues from Mandatory Reporting to Equality issues? Why is it that a prominent Christian organisation recently circulated an “open letter” to our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, which lacked at four specific areas? What were those areas? Father! Son! Holy Spirit! Scripture! In a one page letter, there were no references to God or to His authoritative Word, yet the letter contained at least six references to other research or articles.[5]

There is no joy in pointing to these things, for in the words of Paul – I shall not praise you![6] These things are highlighted so that we Christians may come to see that we have imbibed the Myth of Neutrality for far too long.

You see, Brethren, it is a myth because the World, the Humanist tyrants, call them what you will, are not neutral and they know they are not neutral. Their cunning plan – sadly all too successful – is to make you think that you are at a fair game being played on a level playing field, when neither is true.

The late Greg Bahnsen correctly stated, in reference to the Humanists, that “they are not neutral and we shouldn’t be.” Yet, we seem to continue to trust these Humanists. We continue to ‘give them the benefit of the doubt’. All this we do contrary to God’s Word, wherein we are taught that the carnal mind is enmity toward God[7] and that these are not only unwilling but unable to obey the law of God.[8]

Thus, the really pertinent question is not, “Why do the heathen blaspheme God?” but “Why do we Christians condone their blasphemy by seeking to play by and uphold the anti-God rules decreed by the Humanist tyrants?”

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/stephen-fry-calls-god-a-stupid-evil-selfish-maniac/story-e6frfmyi-1227204789990

[2] https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/06/on-being-born-that-way/.

[3] Matthew 12:36 -37 – “And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. “For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.” Acts 17:30-31 – “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” 2 Timothy 4:1 – I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom.

[4] http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1393-being-sued-for-speaking-up-here-in-australia

[5] Cotton Mather, referring to the so-called uses of white magic against black magic, noted that it was “to use the Devil’s shield against the Devil’s sword”. Sadly, this is exactly what this organisation is doing. Without God’s Word, it is human reason against human reason; academic against academic. There simply is no authority, no absolute, no standard. Hence, we Christians lose the battles.

[6] See 1 Corinthians 11:22. The sad reality, as expressed in Paul’s words, is that Christians often stray from the principles of Christ’s law. They can think that they are doing well, as these Corinthians obviously did, yet the reality is that God’s hand of judgement is set firmly against them.

[7] James 4:4. Note James’ use of the term “adulteresses”. Remember, he is speaking to the Church.

[8] Romans 8:6-8.