Homosexual Paranoia

Posted on April 30, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34)! So says God. Scripture clarifies this statement further by noting that “Sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). The Westminster Divines ratify this definition of sin, stating: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature” (WLC 24).

Some of those “rules” given to the “reasonable creature” are:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog[1] into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.[2] (Revelation 22:15)

When we, as men, in whatever capacity we serve, break these rules, we “reasonable creatures” are qualified as “sinners”. We become the proliferators of sin. Consequently, we are both a “disgrace” and a means of disgrace.

Is it any wonder then that, as homosexuality is forced upon our society by a clamouring minority, we have begun to see more and more disgraceful acts? By this we not only mean individual acts, but also corporate acts.

Two such stories have come to light in recent days. The first is a case of a mother who murdered her young son because she believed he was a homosexual. [3] The second is in regard to the joining of forces by certain Australian sports codes to take a stand against “homophobia”.[4]

In regard to the first story, many people will be quick to scoff and jeer and that for a multiplicity of reasons. However, I think some reflection is in order. Homosexuality, despite the rhetoric, is not normal. Everything about it runs contrary to our true natures. It evokes very strong feelings indeed. People will talk politely about it in public because that situation is forced upon them by the State. Take them aside and the story changes. Proposition them in a homosexual manner and the reaction will be akin to a volnado (a volcano and tornado combined).

As such, are we surprised to find people acting violently when they are confronted by this disgraceful evil? Are we surprised at violent outcomes when people are forced to accept as normal that which they find repugnant and disgusting? Add to this the “born that way” nonsense and you really have a recipe for disaster. What I mean by this is that the “reasonable creature” knows that homosexuality is a choice and that it is wrong choice. Yet, the modern propaganda makes people believe that homosexuality is a genetic mutation that must be accepted.[5] It is no different, in essence, to that of eye colour – it is a genetic predisposition over which the individual has no control.

The result of this volatile mix is that parents begin to believe that it is within the realms of possibility and probability that two perfectly heterosexual people will give birth to a homosexual child. Thus, these parents are challenged at a visceral level. They do not want a homosexual child any more than they wish for a palsied child. So how do they react when they think[6] that they are the recipient of a genetic mutation?

The mother in this news article reacted in anger. She murdered her child. For this action, she will be condemned by many. Another couple, not that long back, raised their son as a girl because they believed him to be a homosexual or at least transgender. Many people condemned this couple. Yet, there is a commonality. Whilst the parents acted very differently in respect to their children and their situation, they both acted in respect to the same lie, namely, that homosexuals are born that way.

This is the disgrace spoken of earlier. Here, two families are ruined. Multiple lives are destroyed. Why? They believed the prominent homosexual lie. They were brainwashed into believing that homosexuals are born. They were forced to capitulate to the modern Humanist dogma that has become de rigueur. As a consequence of this disgraceful lie and its jackbooted propagation at the instigation of the State, two children are lost. Two families are or will be in disarray.

Friends, this is the power of lies and ignorance. This is a lesson in politics. This is a lesson in regard to sinful man being “hell bent” on his rebellious and destructive path. This is the result of the denial of God’s truth: Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people!

You see, the homosexuals are desperate to have their burning consciences eased. They believe that by legalising their debauchery their conscience will be set free. Thus, they badger, harass, demand, and deceive in order to see their dream fulfilled. What happens? People begin to believe their lies. Worse, people begin to act upon those lies. Enter homosexual paranoia. Parents begin to look at their children differently. Thoughts that were never present now begin to be entertained. Behaviours are scrutinised and reinterpreted in light of the lie. Innocent actions are now perceived as aberrant behaviour and indications that the lie is present in the child. Under this conviction, parents, and others, act and the result is devastating!

The second article deals with the major sporting codes uniting to fight homophobia. We will not spend much time on this article as we have written about this sort of nonsense on previous occasions. Here, we simply want to point out the hypocrisy of the situation and the utter nonsense that is “equality” in its current format.

Equality is indeed a Biblical ideal. What is not appreciated by the Moderns is that it is an ideal firmly rooted in the being of God. All men are equal on a very basic level precisely because they are created in the image of God. No life is worth less than another. A female is not worth less than a male. A black person is not worth less than a white person. God does not discriminate on this basic level.

Now come the caveats. To state these things is not to say that God considers all people and all activities of equal value and worth. God does not hold the murderer on the same level as the innocent. These are not equal in His sight. God does not hold the thief and his victim in the same esteem. God is a God of justice. God demands a verdict. God demands a separation between the guilty and the innocent. Similarly, God is the God of truth. God loves the one who speaks the truth and He despises the lying tongue (Proverbs 12:22).[7]

If we look at Psalm 15 we will see God’s discrimination:

O Lord, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the Lord; He swears to his own hurt, and does not change; He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

It is at this point that the Christian must come into conflict with the Modern. The Modern, like the homosexual, demands that all men accept and abide by a lie. This time the lie is that every action deemed to be legal by Man must be accepted by all men as valid. Some would widen this definition to the point at which all actions are to be accepted as equally valid and above the designation of good and bad or right and wrong. Thus, the homosexual sides with the Modern to propagate the lie that every belief and all people are equal.

As can be seen, these two theories espoused by two camps use the same term, equality, but they mean very different things when they invoke the term. If you are a Christian and you subscribe to the Modernist theory, please, go back to the Bible, read God’s word, repent, and join the fight. We must oppose this Modernist rubbish. We must openly call it a lie. We must expose it.[8]

How? Very simple. If equality is the key and they are out to “eliminate discrimination”, we should ask:

Why did ‘Test matches’ in cricket once have a “rest day” on Sunday? When the decision was taken to abolish these rest days, did that discriminate against Christian players? Did this decision discriminate against the Church and the one day of worship appointed by God? After all, we have historically always worshipped on Sunday. To no longer recognise that fact is to discriminate against all, spectators, players, and officials, who hold to the idea that Sunday is a day of rest and worship. It is tantamount to forcing them to make a decision to compromise or to lower their standard.
When the AFL introduced football matches on a Sunday, were they considering the welfare of all? Was equality and non-discrimination at the fore front of their minds? Why did a trial match on Sunday not only become reality but a multiplicity? Equally, for several years now there has been a hot potato in the AFL as to whether or not there should be a game on Good Friday.[9] Discrimination? Fairness? Equality? Any thought given to the negative impact upon society? Any thought given to the impact upon those who worship on Sunday? Any respect shown for the Christians of this nation or the Christians in the AFL? Will orthodox Christians be invited to this game to declare the true meaning of Easter or shall we simply be subject to the pagan rituals of the Aboriginal community? Respect? Equality? Inclusiveness?

These are but two examples of the current hypocrisy. The simple reality is that to stand for item A is to automatically stand against item B. To stand for homosexuality is to stand against heterosexuality as unique. To stand for homosexual marriage is to stand against heterosexual marriage. To stand for de facto relationships is to stand against marriage. To stand for paganism is to stand against Christianity.

It is probably not a great theological stride to quote from a child’s movie, but here we go. In “The Incredibles” the bad guy, Syndrome, states, “When everyone is super, then no one is!” That is exactly what is happening here in these arguments. When all are equal under the law any can be discriminated against by that same law. By claiming that all people and actions are equal, the Moderns are claiming that nothing is unique or special. They are claiming that nothing is right or wrong. They insist that nothing is moral or immoral. They require that truth and lie become one in nothingness.

Under the guise of equality, the Moderns are out to brainwash people with a second lie, namely, that all is nothing. However, the conflict is immediate. Men know that there is something and that nothing is impossible. For example, Ryan Harris and Mitchell Johnson are going to champion the anti-homophobia cause for cricket. If all is nothing, I wonder what they are doing when they run up to the white line with a red ball in their hand. Why do they stop at that line? When they have tossed the ball, why do they get all excited and turn to this austere gent near the stumps with an enquiring, “How is that?”

Here is the hypocrisy. Both of these men know that there is something, not nothing. They both know that they cannot transgress that little, white, line without bringing a penalty. They know that there is a rule that guides their action. To deny those rules is to destroy the game and bring themselves into the realm of nonsense. Why stop here? Indeed, every code that has signed up to the “homophobia” nonsense represents a game that is based in law. There is a code! There is an umpire. There is, usually, a judiciary. There are penalties for breaching the laws of the game. Let us be honest. Let us face the simple fact. Without rule and law there is no game. Without rule and law there can be only chaos!

In a similar manner, the current call for the end of discrimination and the establishment of equality, based in Secular Humanism, is nothing short of a call for our nation to be plunged into nothingness and despair. It is tantamount to saying that we can have life without rule and law. It is to say that the Government alone is the giver of morals. It is nothing short of a declaration of war upon God and His revealed standard and, as a consequence, it is a declaration of war upon any and all who believe God and His revelation.

The hypocrisy and the hatred of God should be evident. If not, please allow me to spell it out. The Moderns hide behind the Government. They push and lobby until the Government caves to their position. They use words like “moral” and “right”, but these are simply smoke screens. If a Christian Government came to power, these moderns would not be happy with the idea that the Government has the right to make the laws that it sees as fit – particularly if these were Biblical laws. Thus, in reality, these Moderns hide the fact that they are anarchists and hypocrites. You see, in the end, these moderns will only be content when the goal of having all law and constraint neutralized unless it serves their purposes!

Look at homosexuality as a prime example. As a child growing up, I well remember the news stories about demands to decriminalise homosexuality. They claimed that they should be free to do whatever they wanted in their own bedrooms, behind closed doors. Then they demanded the right to open expression in broad daylight. Now, these same activists are using law to see that their opponents, who once enjoyed the daylight, are driven indoors with no right to speak. They want them locked securely in their bedrooms like naughty children. Eventually, they will argue that their opponents should not be free to practice their religion even in the privacy of their own home. So, are they really open, affirming, and tolerant? Not on your Nellie!

Therefore, it should be plain for all to see that the arguments about total freedom for all are nothing but barefaced lies. The homosexual lobby is about suppression. This begins with the suppression of truth as a general concept. It then turns to an expressed hatred of God as the objective standard and embodiment of Truth by demanding that His revelation to and for the “reasonable creature” be suppressed. As the old adage says, “The first casualty of war is truth!”

It is in this climate that Homosexual Paranoia increases exponentially with devastating consequences. People cannot tell truth from lie (having denied God’s objective standards). People react to a perceived truth (murdering their son because he was born homosexual) only to find out they have acted on a lie. People are bullied into acting and living as though the lie is true (sports codes uniting against the mythical ‘homophobe’).[10] Those who uphold truth are pilloried. The freedoms willingly given to those on one side of the debate are explicitly and forcefully denied to those on the other side. The end result of this is tyranny and fear.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in modern North Korea or to live in Russia of yesteryear? Wonder no more. Simply step out your front door and express your heartfelt opinions on all topics PC and you will get to experience these despotic regimes firsthand. We live today in a society that is manipulative, fearful, subdued, and apathetic. For all the talk of truth and freedom there is little of either. You are free to do what the Government tells you; free to believe what the Government tells you; free to be tyrannized by Government sanctioned bullies; free to have your “freedoms” trampled upon because you do not hold to the Government’s position.

Nobody is sure of anything anymore. People are confused. Principles are situational. Long held mores mean nothing or sometimes something, but you have to guess when and which. The law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion; yet the Christian religion is discriminated against on a daily basis – and every week by certain sports codes! People are cagey. People are untrusting. People are distant. Does this sound like certain countries previously mentioned?

Why is this? It is all due to a state of paranoia. In particular, a state created by Homosexual Paranoia!

[1] The “wages of a dog” is a reference to homosexuality in the context of temple prostitution. See Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Keil and Delitzsch, David Chiltern, Rousas Rushdoony, Langenscheidt, Brown, Driver and Briggs.

[2] The term “dog” is a derogatory word used throughout Scripture. Its specific meaning needs to be gauged from the immediate context. Here, I take the term “dog” again as a specific reference to the homosexual and his practice. This designation is based on several facts. First, given the general list included at this point, “dog” must mean more than simply a non-Christian or someone who is disobedient. Second, whilst the term “immoral person” had its roots in homosexuality, its meaning became much more general. Hence, the “dog” must be something more specific. Third, some commentators speak of a sevenfold classification at this point. To achieve this they included the terms “love and practice lying” in the list. I tend to think that the ‘love and practice of lying’ qualifies the five sins listed. In other words, these five sins have at their heart that which is equivalent to blasphemy, namely, the mocking of God by mocking His true standard. As such, the “dog” mocks God as the Creator and Designer of man; the “sorcerer” mocks God as the sole Revealer; the “immoral person” mocks God as law giver; the “murderer” mocks God as Sovereign life-giver; and the “idolater” mocks God as the Sole Object of man’s worship. Thus, at every step, there is the practice of lying and a love of that practice. This accords perfectly with Paul’s statement in Romans 1:32: “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.”

[3] http://www.news.com.au/world/jessica-dutro-killed-son-zachary-4-because-she-thought-he-was-gay/story-fndir2ev-1226874066760?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180.

[4] http://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/major-australian-sports-unite-against-homophobia/story-fndukor0-1226878438434.

[5] Please see our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Reformation-Ministries/156961371169115) and the entry on January 20.

[6] “Think”, here, is an important word. Remember, there is no test for homosexuality. So the determination rests purely on the subjective opinion of the parents. As the news article shows, this mother thought her child walked and talked funny. Nothing objective. Just a mother’s hunch. The truth is the child may have walked and talked “funny”, but there are a number of real medical possibilities on the list before the imagined “born that way” concept!

[7] Consider also Proverbs 6:16-19: “There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.”

[8] Ephesians 5:11-12: “And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.”

[9] Today, 30 April, 2014, saw the new AFL chief appointed. He has signalled that Good Friday games will be up for discussion. So, several weeks after joining the “homophobia bandwagon” on the basis of equality, the AFL steps up to take a swing at Christ’s Church.

[10] How many of those public faces had an option? How many were willing to put million dollar deals on the line for the sake of truth or conviction? Could anyone in any of these teams objected for conscience sake without being penalised? Was there “choice” and “freedom” or simply obligation and coercion?

Praying in Difficult Times: A Response

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

[One of our readers asked for some guidance in regard to knowing how to pray in this time of chaos. The following is a reply to that request. It is by no means all that can or should be said, however, we hope that the basics given will help you to establish a strong and confident prayer life. For those interested in additional reading, can I please recommend Andrew Murray’s, Waiting on God.]

Introduction:

In answer to your question, Nina, I believe we need, as always, to take our guidance from God’s word. I understand the despondent tone of your question. Sometimes it seems as though we are about to be swept away in the flood because God appears distant or unaware of our circumstances. At other times, it may seem as though our prayers bounce of the ceiling. What is important, at this point, is to discern between our subjective perception of the situation and the objective reality. In other words, we need to distinguish between our perspective of the situation, based in our feelings, emotions, and limitations and God’s perspective, based in His immutability, promise, and sovereignty.

In all such cases, we must remember the promises of God – “Then the Lord appeared to Solomon at night and said to him, “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. “If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. “Now My eyes shall be open and My ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place. “For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that My name may be there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually”(2 Chronicles 7:12-16); “And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13); “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:14-16).

God is listening and is attentive to the prayers and petitions of His people. These prayers, imperfect and stuttering as they may be, are corrected and amplified by the Holy Spirit and by Jesus (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25). Thus, we should have great confidence in prayer. We should not hold back from prayer because of uncertainty. We must pray – even if our prayer is, “Lord, I do not know what to pray. Please, teach me.”

So, the first thing that I would encourage is prayer itself. This may seem silly, but it is a necessary exhortation. I have personally witnessed the decline of prayer in the Church and have seen prayer meetings fold when a congregation has run into strife. Such actions would tend to indicate the lack of a substantial prayer-life in that congregation in the first place. However, the real tragedy is that, in the heat of battle, the cries of the saints fell silent. The warriors were severed from their General when this important line of communication was cut. When this happened men began to rely upon other men rather than upon God, the Rock of our Salvation.

So it is that I reiterate: the first point in praying successfully is committing to a regular time of prayer. We cannot be held back by any excuse. Prayer is communication with our God and Father through communication with Jesus, our Lord and Saviour. To make an excuse for not praying is to say that the … is bigger than or more important than God. It is to say that you desire God less than …! This should never be.

So pray. This is where we must start.

Second, let me say a few things in general about prayer. Prayer is communication with God. It is the essence of communication in our familial relationship that is our redemption in Jesus. As such, it is fundamentally important. We would not accept the overtones of a wife who asserted that she loved her husband even though she had no desire to talk to him. So why should we accept the protestations of the Christian who asserts this same reasoning in regard to God?

Nothing should stop us from expressing our desire for God and coming to Him in prayer.

This said, it is also important to continue the analogy. There are many successful marriages, but most are conducted differently. There are essential aspects that are the foundation of these marriages, but they are no doubt implemented differently. In a similar way, our prayer lives will differ from person to person, but they should nonetheless display the same essential qualities.

Therefore, I am not going to say that you should lock yourself in a prayer closet for X minutes a day or that you should pray X times a day. What we must do is make sure we incorporate all the essential items into our relationship with God. So, using marriage again, there are aspects of the husband / wife relationship that are on display to all;[1] there are aspects that are intimate and private. By this I mean that there are times when prayer should be spontaneous – it happens on the spot and in response to an event. It may be an audible, “Praise the Lord!” It may be an audible, “Forgive me Father! for I have sinned.” It may be the cry of the heart at news that saddens. Each is acceptable. However, we should also aim at intimate times with God; special times that are just ours – times when we pour out our hearts in adoration, praise, and request. Times when we place before God a request made known only to Him—so that when it is answered we may yet have more reasons to magnify the Lord for His goodness and sovereignty which is directed toward His children.

For young Christians, and even seasoned Christians who have not been mentored adequately, the thought of an intimate prayer time can be daunting. Questions flood the mind. What if I say the wrong thing? What if I use the wrong word? What if my mind goes blank?

My response is theologically stunning – Who cares? God desires to fellowship with you. He has loved you from eternity in Jesus Christ. You are now His newly born child. He loves you immensely and wants to be the significant part of your life and to fellowship deeply with you. Do you think for a moment that the Father of all fathers is going to ‘switch off’ because a word is mispronounced or faltering?

Do you know of any earthly father that was repulsed at his child’s first stammering effort of ‘dada’? I would think not. In fact, most parents engage in fierce rivalry to see which can evoke the ‘dada’ or ‘mama’ first. Then they crow over these faltering words. Therefore beloved, do not ever bring to mind such thoughts. Your Father in heaven knows you are but a new born child and that your words will falter. He cares not. He too will crow (in a non-proud, holy sense) that His newly born child has uttered His name, no matter how imperfectly.

Equally, remember that when these words fall from your mouth, you are not alone. Not only do you speak to your Father, but you sit upon the knee of your elder Brother, Jesus. Like all elder brothers, he will understand and make known for you the desires of your heart, even if your words are inadequate.

So please, beloved brethren, do not let such thoughts cloud your mind and prevent you from starting that intimate, familial conversation, “Abba, Father …!”

If these concerns are not eased by this inadequate advice, then pick a passage of Scripture. The Bible contains many prayers. Maybe the Lord’s Prayer.[2] Maybe Moses’ song.[3] Maybe Mary’s prayer.[4] Then, of course, there are the many Psalms that could be prayed. Each of these can provide a basis for building a vibrant prayer life.[5]

Advice on Prayer:

So how and for what should we pray?

First, I believe sincerely that we need to get “fair dinkum” with God. When we pray, as in all things, God knows the true desire of our hearts. It seems that in our modern world, we pray nicely, politely, conveniently, shortly (for we do not wish to disturb God too much), and ineffectively.

Yes, our prayers should be reverential. We most certainly should remember “the Fear of the Lord” when we pray. However, such truths should not lead us to sterile prayers. Learning from Biblical men and women, we must learn to wrestle with God. The Psalmists’ prayers were not sterile. They poured their very hearts out to God. Jesus is shown to wrestle greatly with God in the garden, asking that the “cup” may pass from Him. We see the prophet question God concerning His tactics in whom He would use to judge Israel. Nowhere do we see a rebuke for such prayers.

So not only is it important that we pray, it is important that we pray earnestly and honestly. We need to tell our Father that we do not understand; that we are confused; that we do not feel that we can hang on much longer. We need to go to our Father and say, “You have promised …! I am not seeing this promise fulfilled. Help me understand.” We need to positively express what we are feeling so that we are not guilty of trying to deceive God – thinking one thing but praying another.

Equally, we need to express to our Father our desire. We need to be willing to ask God to act (Psalm 119:126) and to do something. I am convinced that we do not see many prayers answered today because we do not actually ask God for anything. We are too trite and polite to really get to the crux of the matter and to ask God for specifics.

Second, we need to own our guilt. When we come to prayer, we often look at the mess “out there” and look at the failings of others. Biblically, we seem to get a different picture. When Isaiah saw the vision of the Lord (Isaiah 6:5) he exclaimed, “Woe is me!” He started with “I am” before he got to the people. Similarly, we see Jeremiah pen these words, “For we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, since our youth even to this day (3:25)”.

Taking these lessons, we need to begin by asking the Lord to forgive any personal shortcomings and sins. We need to sincerely ask the Lord to show us our failings and the areas in which we need to improve (Psalm 139). This is the prayer equivalent of taking out the log so that we can see the speck. The Lord will not hear us if we are praying hypocritically.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves the potent questions in regard to obeying God, before we demand answers from our politicians. What are our attitudes to the purity of God’s worship? How will a pagan government respect God’s day, if the Christian and the Church do not? What are our attitudes to God’s word? How will a pagan government respect the authority of the Bible when Christians and the Church do not? What are our attitudes to sexuality and its correct expression? How will a pagan government uphold the sanctity of marriage when Christians and the Church are silent on ‘sex before marriage’, fornication, divorce, and homosexuality? What are our attitudes to God’s rule? How will a pagan government submit to God’s rule when Christians and the Church do not?

Third, when we pray nationally (for or concerning our nation), we need to pray toward a Biblical end – the glory of God! Here, instruction can be gleaned from passages such as 1Timothy 2:1-2: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”

At once, we need to note, highlight, state, and reinforce the fact that civil government is a minister of God. Too often, it would seem that Christians do not know how to pray in regard to the State because they have been led to believe that the State has the right to do whatever it wants. Apparently, in the New Testament we have a realisation of Psalm 2:3-4. Apparently, the kings of the earth have successfully thrown off the fetters of God. This is exactly what we should believe given the proclamations of the moderns.

However, this is nonsense and it borders on heresy. In Psalm 2 God was victorious having established His Son upon the throne. The nations, as a consequence, were issued with an ultimatum – kiss the Son or perish! Where in the New Testament do we see that this message is any different? Nowhere! The New Testament writers quote Psalm 2 to show that Jesus was the One begotten of the Father and given rule over the nations.[6] Revelation 19 clearly picks up this picture given in Psalm 2 and again applies it to Jesus. So, the kings of the earth are still under an obligation to yield to King Jesus.

This fact is even evident from the text of 1Timothy 2:1-2, quoted above. Why are we to pray for those in authority? Is it not so that we can lead peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness? Pray tell, how do we live a peaceful and Godly life if the “authorities” are rightly entitled to impose chaos and ungodliness? The obvious intent of Paul’s instruction is to the end that the “authorities” would be godly and God-honouring.[7] To be this, they must self-consciously submit to God’s rule; ipso facto they must obey the Biblical principles that lead to peace and godliness!

A similar principle is found in the Lord’s Prayer. What are we praying for when we utter the words, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Are we to believe that there are calls for homosexual recognition in heaven? God forbid. I gag just writing those words. Therefore, if the perfect righteousness of our God, the standard prescribed and upheld in heaven, is to be “done” here on earth, should we really be saying to the government that they are free to rule as they see fit? May it never be!!

Consequently, we should never be afraid or unwilling to pray against governments and government officials. If it is right to pray, “God’s will be done!” then it is also right, read ‘mandatory’, that we pray against anything that would exalt its will against God. These, we are to destroy (2 Corinthians 10:5), not prosper.

Therefore, if we pray for the inviolability of marriage as God ordained it, we must pray against those things which attack it. As such, we would pray against homosexuality, fornication, adultery, divorce, try-before-you-buy, and the like. If it is right that God’s law be the standard for our nation, then we must pray for this and pray against any other false standard. If we would see revival in the Church and reform in our nation, then we must pray for those men who preach and proclaim Christ truthfully and pray against those whose speak falsely.

Fourth, when principles like these are brought together we must see that our prayer life, when broken down into its constituent parts, consists of two things: Positively, prayer for God’s glory and those who seek and act to His glory; Negatively, prayer against all that oppose God’s right to seek His own glory.

As noted in What a Ruddy Mess, I am currently asking God to decimate the Labor Party, the Greens, The Democrats, and those independents who gave Julia Gillard power. I do so because, in terms of Psalm 2, these people conspired against God and His Christ. The untrammelled desire for power on the part of some meant giving into demands to foist unrighteousness upon this nation, moving us further under God’s judgement. Their banding together in unrighteousness has created untold suffering. Therefore, I pray against them. I do so that God would be glorified. I do so that God would be vindicated. I do so to prove before God that not all have bowed the knee to Baal. I do so that these would be held to account and thereby be a practical demonstration of the fact that unrighteousness is a fool’s errand.

However, along side of this prayer is a prayer that God would also do some cleaning and clearing within the wider Church. There are too many pulpits occupied by windbags whose efforts amount to nothing more than them being oxygen thieves. These stand in pulpits and actively disown God’s word. They spend 20 minutes denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. They encourage godlessness and disobedience by proclaiming false messages. Then there are prayers to teach other pulpiteers the meaning of courage; others to teach them the meaning of humility; and more still that they would rightly distinguish between a God-anointed calling and a vocation!

This I do because the Scriptures teach me that a strong nation is a nation squared away in the things of God. So judgement and renewal must begin with the household of God.[8] It is the revival of the Church that will lead to the reform of our nation.

Thus, my bedrock prayer is that we would have a true Spirit filled revival of Christ’s Bride in this country. Not a fluff and bubble supposed revival, but the genuine article such as this nation has never seen before. I pray for true men of God to be raised up. Men whose only fear is God. Men equipped in God’s word and ways – men who know righteousness and how to live it.

For me, the end is not just political reform. My goal is the rule of Jesus Christ over every institution; the individual, the family, the Church, and the State. God’s word reveals that this path is tied inextricably to the Gospel of God, which is the power of God unto salvation. This Gospel alone can save every one of these institutions. However, it is all but useless if it be not faithfully proclaimed.

As Paul says, “How will they hear without a preacher?”[9]

Therefore, as stated, my bedrock prayer is for a true movement of God’s Spirit to the Revival of the Church in this nation so that there will be a true, powerful proclamation of Jesus Christ, the King. In this not only will paupers, but princes and kings, once more be authoritatively issued with the Divine decree to yield to Jesus Christ. Then, and only then, with hearts, minds, and wills subdued by God’s Divine power, will men act in obedience to Jesus Christ. Then will God’s grace restrain evil and prosper righteousness. Then will men and governments bow the knee to Jesus and accept His rule.

Then, contrary to popular opinion, will true righteousness be legislated and act as a protection for the righteous and a restraint to the ungodly. Then our children will once more play in the streets and our wives and daughters walk alone without fear. Then we will lead peaceful and tranquil lives. We will do so because “Godliness” will be the standard and not fallen Man’s “mannishness”.

Conclusion:

Prayer is not as complicated as some would make out. It is a simple matter, at heart, of going to prayer and earnestly praying for God’s glory in Jesus Christ. As noted, there is also a clear implication that we would also pray against that which does not bring glory to God or to Jesus Christ.

Problems are usually encountered when various Christians express their opinions as to what does or does not glorify God. Here, again, the solution is reasonably simple – turn to the pages of Scripture! What lessons do we learn? What is proclaimed to glorify God? What things are said to dishonour God?

Once we have exercised the “Berean Attitude” then all that remains is to implement that knowledge in our lives and our prayers. Pray! Pray often. Pray earnestly!

Then we have the last essential ingredient. Pray expecting that God will keep His promises to hear your pleas and act. Pray the promises of God, not only expecting Him to keep His word, but asking Him to do so. Pray confidently knowing that the same elder Brother who helped your first faltering words still willingly aids and magnifies your prayers in the Father’s throne room.

Dear Sister, I hope that this has given some direction that will be of benefit in your current situation. God bless you as you pursue faithfulness in His service.

Might I also add that those who read this article will need to do some extrapolating. What is said here is applicable in many areas. Thus, we may refer to Governments and Politics; yet one could equally say Businesses, Bosses, Water Boards etc. Equally, we could speak of Fathers and Families. So, please, do not take this article as being a treatise on “Imprecations against the Government”. I urge you, by the mercies of God, to look at the principles exemplified and apply them to the situation you may face.

Addendum:

I am aware that the question will be raised in regard to praying against people or asking God that people be brought low under His judgement. Thus, I will attempt a few words in explanation.

A. We must be wary of our modern era. Too many niceties have been added to God’s account; niceties that we do not find in Scripture. Therefore, we must be extremely careful that we are not countering God’s desire by actively expressing a common falsehood. As one example, many Christians today are more concerned with the sinner than they are with the glory of God. Such a switch leads to all kinds of errors. So, when asking questions concerning persons and God’s judgement, we must always view the issue from God’s perspective. His sovereignty and holiness demand nothing less.

B. What do we do with the imprecatory Psalms and the many other imprecations found within Scripture? This is a particularly curly question for those who believe that such imprecations are unchristian. Sadly, many in the Church today express this exactly sentiment because they have not heeded the warning of the first point – they have been seduced by the philosophy of the world.

C. It is not wrong for the Christian to pray against people or to seek God’s judgement upon them. Admittedly, this must not be done hot-headedly or without humility. Nonetheless, it is a perfectly acceptable part of the Christian walk.

I would like to continue in point form to hopefully make understanding these points easier:

A. The Bible is God’s word. All Scripture is God breathed. This includes all the imprecations.

B. Many who disapprove of the imprecations attempt to drive a wedge of some sort between the Biblical Testaments.

C. Such a view is false precisely because there are imprecations in the Newer Testament.

D. Jesus quotes from Psalm 69 in John 2:17; John 15:25. Psalm 69:21 is applied to Jesus in Matthew 27:34.

E. Paul quotes Psalm 69:22 in Romans 11:9-10.

F. The quotations of this Psalm by Paul and Jesus do not give it validity; they simply confirm and reinforce its existing validity as God authoritative word.

G. Then there are the clear New Testament imprecations.

H. Paul: “If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.” 1 Corinthians 16:22

I. Jesus: “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.” Matthew 11:23-24

J. Jesus: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! …“Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” Matthew 23:29 & 36. (And they did!)

K. Whilst not exactly an imprecation, we see that John, echoing Jeremiah, forbids prayer for certain sins: “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.” “As for you, do not pray for this people, and do not lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with Me; for I do not hear you.” 1 John 5:16 c.f Jeremiah 7:16. See also Jeremiah 14:11ff.

L. On a more personal level, we see two instances in the New Testament in which imprecations of a type are enacted. In Acts 13:4-12, we read of Paul’s encounter with “Bar-Jesus” a magician who was hindering Paul’s preaching. The salient verses are 10-11: “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” The other, also in Acts, is Peter’s interaction with Ananias and Sapphira. In Acts 5:9 we encounter the significant text: “Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well.” In both cases, the Apostles uttered words that had an immediate effect upon those to whom they were spoken. In both cases these parallel the imprecation in that the effects were negative.

M. Lastly, let us throw in a really curly one. Psalm 35 is an imprecatory Psalm. In verses five through eight we read: “Let them be like chaff before the wind, With the angel of the Lord driving them on. Let their way be dark and slippery, With the angel of the Lord pursuing them. For without cause they hid their net for me; Without cause they dug a pit for my soul. Let destruction come upon him unawares; And let the net which he hid catch himself; Into that very destruction let him fall.” Please note the role of the Angel of the Lord. It is almost universally held that the Angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ. The moderns will no doubt find such a link offensive. Those who believe the Bible will simple see it as consistent with the New Testament’s affirmation that Jesus is appointed as God’s judge (Acts 10:42; Acts 17:30-31).

N. This is the testimony of God’s one Word revealed in Jesus Christ and authored by the Holy Spirit!

O. Practically, we must be responsible and humble in dealing with this knowledge. It is not ours to simply waltz around the place calling down curses. However, what we are shown clearly is that such an action is not wrong given that it is done in appropriately.

P. The appropriate measure seems to entail persistent rebellion and opposition to the proclamation of the Gospel message.

Q. Importantly, and this to reinforce the point already made, imprecations are not a means of personal vengeance. They are an avenue for the vindication and establishment of God’s glory. (Please also remember, when dealing with such issues, the hatred with which a holy God views sin.)

R. In light of this, I personally have no issue asking the Lord to deal with our treacherous Government and particular politicians who have openly waved their fists at God; who have ridiculed His people for bidding them “repent and live”; who have mocked those who have asked them to yield to God’s command; who have scorned Jesus Christ and the path of life; and who, in terms of Romans 1, have actively encouraged others to sin all the more and “hang the consequences!”

S. In fact, in such circumstances, I fail to see that there is any other legitimate path for the Christian. In Psalm 139:19-22 David says, “O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against Thee wickedly, And Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.” When we analyse these words, we are forced to ask, “What is David’s intent?” If we can get past the emotive language, what we see is a man seeking nothing more than conformity to His God. If we look throughout the Psalms, let’s take Psalm 119 as an example, we see David laud God’s law. It is His life (vv 81, 97). He loves this Law so much that he would rather be dead than be without it. In this context, David concludes, “Therefore I hate every false way” (vv 104, 128).

T. Is this not our goal? Romans 8:29 states categorically that the end result of our salvation is that we would be “conformed to the image of His Son”, Jesus. Hence, we should be willing to identify with our God in all things. That means loving what He loves and hating that which He hates.

U. Lastly, this conformity must be expressed in all our desires and aspirations – lived and prayed!

[1] No, I am not suggesting any type of Pharisaic mimicry.

[2] Matthew 6:9 ff.

[3] Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32.

[4] Luke 1.

[5] Here, I would add an exhortation and a caution. If you adopt this practice, you must commit to praying two other prayers. 1. Lord, teach me to pray. 2. Lord, teach me from these examples in Your Word. The caution, do not refuse to grow in prayer! I know Christians who have walked with the Lord for many years and their prayer life is stunted. They pray pre-written prayers out of such booklets as “Daily Bread” and their graces are those rote learnt as children. Again, these are acceptable starting places, but they make for an inadequate and pitiable finish line. Thus, these two prayers must be attached, like training wheels, so that the novice is upheld. However, like training wheels, the rider cannot rely on them forever. The rider must develop skills so that the training wheels can be discarded. If this does not happen, the rider is forever limited by the restriction imposed by those wheels. At this point, the aid becomes a hindrance and a limitation.

[6] See: Acts 4:25-26. It is also worth noting, in the context of Christ’s dominion, how often Psalm 2’s statement that “He shall rule them with a rod of iron” is picked up in the New Testament. See: Revelation 2:26-27; 12:5; 19:15

[7] Paul’s argument in Romans 13 clearly bears out this point. In that text, Paul calls the magistrate a minister or servant of God.

[8] 1 Peter 4:17.

[9] Romans 10:14.

The High Court and Homosexuality

Posted on December 28, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In the last weeks, we have witnessed the High Court of Australia hand down a decision in regard to homosexual union. This ruling had particular reference to the attempt by the ACT government to introduce its own legislation allowing homosexual union.

What do we, as Christians, make of this ruling? What are the ramifications? Should we rejoice or should we weep? What must our attitude be moving forward?

Well, if you are up for it, let’s take a look together. I cannot guarantee that this work will be short. I can guarantee that it will be provocative. I have no idea of your current stand on the issues that will be presented. I do know that if you will read and consider the ideas presented that you may well find yourself with a need to abandon one or many of them.

1. A Wake-up Call.

The first thing to say is that this ruling by the High Court of Australia should be and must be a wake-up call to all Australians, but particularly to the Christians of this nation. For a long time, various people and organisations have been alerting us to an ever creeping and thus ever growing darkness that is pervading our land.

Many have ignored these warnings. Some have dismissed the warnings because a bit of darkness has allowed them to indulge in pet sins. Others have dismissed the warnings as the paranoid ravings of the lunatic religious fringe. Then there are those whose sleeping ears have not been alert to the warnings.

After this ruling there simply is no excuse for not believing and not acting positively upon these warnings. Here, a right parallel can be drawn in regard to the “gun debate” that has long endured in this nation. As a shooter, it was not uncommon to hear derisive comments when certain arguments were made for owning guns. The scorn was at times palpable. Then came September 11. This was followed by the Bali bombings in 2002. Then, in 2005, there were the London and second Bali bombs. People no longer pour scorn and derision on these same arguments.

The simple fact was that the critics had to concede that what was once, in their estimation, nothing more than the ‘outlandish speculations of the fringe dwellers’ had now become a distinct possibility in our ever changing world.

So it is that this ruling should be considered as a cataclysmic event that has not only justified all the previous warnings, but which awakens us from our slumber and encourages us to take a stand.

2. God is the standard of Truth.

The issue of homosexual union has become a massive debate in this country. The question that is rarely, if ever, asked is, “On what authority do we stand?” This is very problematic for the Modernists and Postmodernists who have no belief in objective truth. All they can argue is feeling, opinion, or brute desire. They have no ground for a moral or ethical argument. Nor do they have ground for a timeless argument.

For example, in the current debate we hear a lot about “traditional marriage”. What then, if we pose the following questions — What is this convention? What does traditional mean? What is a marriage? What constitutes a marriage? Who performs a marriage? What makes a marriage binding?

How shall these questions be answered without an objective reference? The simple response is that they cannot be answered or they must be answered by contrivance. If I do not believe that truth is knowable or that objective truth exists, how can I argue the merits of anything? You see, at this point, I not only have no framework for deciding right or wrong, I do not even possess a framework for knowledge, understanding, or communication.

So may laugh at this. Nonetheless, the fact remains. Without a belief in the Bible’s God as the source of all truth, one is simply guessing in the dark. One of the greatest examples of this is the doctrine of Evolution. How does order come from chaos? How does cognition come from the incognisant? The very core doctrine of Evolution demands that something which is today, will not be tomorrow. No consistent evolutionist could be a mathematician because in his world twp plus two may equal four today, but tomorrow it may equal grapefruit!

Thus, when the Bible’s God is removed as the source of truth, a person, a nation, a culture cannot help but enter a state of flux and requisite confusion.

3. God is the Standard of Truth.

To borrow a line from Red Dwarf, “I am aware that it is technically the same point, but it is such a big point, I thought it was worth mentioning it twice!”

My charge to my brethren and to my countrymen is this, “Do you believe in objective truth?” Now, let’s make it simple. When you hold your wife in your arms are you holding a real woman or are you embracing a figment of your imagination? If you choose the first, then you believe in objective truth. The simple reality is that we all operate on the fact that objective truth exists each and every day. We simply could not function if we did not.[1]

Regrettably, when it comes to morals and ethics, we like to pretend that this absolute and objective truth ceases to exist – yes, even Christians are guilty at this point. We like the stipulation of God’s law, “do not commit murder / steal”, but we are wont to become hazy on “do not commit adultery / covet.” Now, the salient point: As we have become hazy on the stipulations regarding sexual deviation and perversion we have become more apt to compromise on the murder and theft issues as well.[2]

This illustrates the fact that we cannot deviate from God as the source of truth on one or two issues and stay faithful on the rest. When we turn from God, we turn completely from God. Man’s rebellion against God is not half-hearted or timid. It is complete. You see, when Man starts to turn from God, he does not start with “thou shalt not murder / steal”, he starts with, “I am the Lord God, have no other gods but Me!” Once this command is jettisoned, the rest become cultural hangovers and social mores that are malleable, plasticine, and ephemeral.

Therefore, we must understand that these issues are inextricably linked. The glue that binds them is Almighty God. As James says, we cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. God gave them all. If we contravene one, we, in essence, contravene them all.[3]

The lesson here is that we, especially we Christians, must be consistent. If you wish not to obey God’s law, then put your hand up and identify yourself as an anarchist. Start driving on the wrong side of the road. Cross on the red light. Do not pay for your groceries, and make your neighbour’s wife your own.

What you cannot do is feign obedience. You cannot, as it were, sit on the fence. You cannot say that you will accept the position outlined in God’s law at X, Y, and Z, but deny it at A, B, and C. This is the same challenge as that thrown down by Elijah on Mount Carmel – “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”[4]

God’s word alone is truth. All else is a subjective morass of opinion, speculation, and brute desire. Our people, our nation will be, and are, bogged down, unable to move. Having been robbed of the True foundation, they stand in this quagmire, slowly and surely sinking. Each move, each demand for yet more Godlessness only hastens the body’s submersion in the muck.

At this point, I particularly appeal to my brethren. Let us stop arguing figures, surveys, and science, and start arguing, unashamedly, for the whole of God’s revealed truth to be applied to our lives and to the statutes of our nation.

4. Peace, Prosperity, and Happiness.

Over the years, I have seen and heard many Christians become excited at the news of this ‘survey result’ or that ‘court decision’. Sadly, however, this joy is fleeting.

I understand the desire that these sincere brethren display. They believe that Jesus is King. They believe that Jesus has the right to be heard. They understand the nature of spiritual warfare. All this is very good.

However, we must realise that a single court case or survey result means very little. The content of that survey or court decision must be unpacked and explored. As an example, I have heard for years and years about the proportion of Americans who believe in “God”. On the surface, this is wonderful news. However, when we begin to think it through we quickly find problems. In what God do they believe? If so many believed in the God of the Bible, why is America on a downhill slide? If so many Americans believe in the One living and true God, why does it seem as though God has abandoned that country?

One does not need to be a great theologian to discover that the Bible teaches that God only blesses obedience. Equally, one does not have to be a great theologian to see that the Bible also illustrates clearly that people are apt to go through religious motion when the heart is far, far from God.

So let us not mistake an action or decision, which seems to go in the right direction, for heartfelt, God-honouring obedience and true reform.

5. The High Court – Our Response in Summary.

Whilst many in this nation rejoiced at the High Court’s decision to overturn the ACT’s law on homosexual union, the simple and harsh reality is that there was no cause for joy in that decision.

The High Court did not act for God. The High Court did not act in obedience to God’s word. Neither did the High Court act from heartfelt obedience nor a right sense of obligation to strike down this attempt to normalise homosexuality. The Court simply came to the decision that two laws were in conflict and that the Federal law had priority. As such, this decision was not a win for God or for Christians. It was nothing less than a technical decision that maintained the status quo.

On the other hand, there are many diabolical elements contained in this decision that few in this country understand. These elements should place fear in the heart for they are the fulfilment of all the warnings that have been issued thus far. That is why we termed this decision as a “cataclysmic event”.

It is clear that the High Court favours the normalisation of homosexuality. One even gets the impression that they wished that they could have given the whole thing a green light there and then. However, they were constrained by technicalities at law, not by morals, to overrule the ACT’s legislation. [5]

This conclusion can be illustrated, in part, by the High Court, first, deferring a decision and, second, allowing unions under the ACT law while the court deliberated. This led to the provocative situation of some 20 odd couples going through a ceremony that was annulled a few days later. This was an unmitigated stunt on the part of a body that should know the meaning of integrity.

This said, the real devil was certainly in the detail. When the High Court explained itself, we were led into the Postmodern conundrum of decision without foundation. We were introduced to meaningless drivel being served up as the basis for law. In fact, we can go further, the High Court eradicated any foundation or standard for law, meaning, and governance outside of the brute will of the elected government.

Some may be hesitant at the statements made. If so, continue with me, please, as we explore and unpack some aspects of the High Courts decision.

6. The High Court – A State of Flux.[6]

One of the reasons that the Church and our nation – indeed, nations around the world – are experiencing upheaval and discontent can be directly attributed to the concepts embodied in the modern adage of “Change for changes sake!” When this maxim was embraced and coupled with the Postmodern denial of truth and absolutes, it made for a deadly combination.

These philosophies of decay, embraced in the 19^th century, meant that change was not only good, but possible, for there were no longer any moral absolutes or objections standing in the way of change.[7]

The philosophy that change for no reasons other than change was good and change was possible bred discontentment. It allowed sin to take the reins. If people did not have something new every so often, they were unhappy, unsatisfied, and often considered themselves as somehow less than others. You know this to be true. How many people do you know, especially in the younger generation, who have to have a new mobile phone as soon as the next model is released? There is nothing wrong with their current phone except that it is superseded.

When we think in these terms we can see the principle. However, when we speak simply of gadgets we can be tempted to see this purely in terms of consumerism. To show how this state of discontent has wide ranging ethical implications, let’s apply this theory to marriage. What happens when you see the next model? It comes in a new case and is of a more attractive design. It may also be a bit lighter than the current model. It has certain assets that get you excited. They may be nice to play with. At this point your imagination is running wild with the possibilities offered by the new model.

So let’s pause for a minute. Let us approach it differently. Let us start with this question, “What is wrong with the current model?” Truthfully, the answer is, “Nothing!” Then we can think back to the days when we first received this model. It had great assets. It too got us very excited. We were intrigued with it for quite a while. Then we ask, “Has it failed us in some gross way?” Again, we must answer, “No!”

So at the end of all this, the only reason that you have for tipping out your current wife and obtaining a new one is that she has aged. Newsflash. Stand in front of the mirror buddy. I bet you ain’t so hot anymore either! Anyway, I digress.

Can you see how this discontentment is easily spread? “Change for changes sake” when coupled with the abandonment of truth and morals is a dark adage that has spawned great evils. It has pandered to the selfish desires of the masses and created untold damage. It makes people think only of what might be, not what is or what was. It causes you to live in a fantasy world free from moral restraint.[8]

In opposition to this, The Bible talks about contentment. Proverbs 5:18-19, speaking of marriage says this: “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.”

The simple reality of life is that we grow old.[9] Discontentment will easily creep in to a marriage if we are only thinking of ‘what might have been’ or ‘what might be.’ This is particularly true if you have imbibed some foolish, worldly, and ephemeral view of marriage that looks only at the needs of the individual.

One of the doctrines that can help us most at this point and one of the doctrines most hid from view in our day, is the Doctrine of the Immutability of God. This doctrine states that God, in His essential nature, plans, purposes, and powers does not change. Why can I believe the promises of God? God does not change!

In this current debate – and many beside – this doctrine gives us a solid foundation. When we return to the book of Genesis, we find a whole lot about marriage.[10] The first thing that must be noted is that marriage is founded by God and for His purposes. God made Man in His image and He made this Man male and female. We also see that this Man was given a mission – he was to take dominion over this world in God’s name. Furthermore, we see that this dominion was directly related to the sexuality of Man as male and female. God designed Man to marry and through marriage to bear children in order to take dominion.

The importance here is that marriage is immutable for it was founded upon and given purpose by the One living, true, and immutable God. This is precisely why laws protected marriage. In times past we spoke of the “sanctity” of marriage. In short, we acknowledged that marriage was more than a social construct or tradition. We acknowledge that it was holy, that is was set apart, that it was not to be trifled with. We did this because we understood that marriage in its design and purpose rested upon the immutable, the unchangeable and unchanging God of Scripture.

December 12, 2013 and the High Court of Australia rewrites history and takes a pair of scissors to the Bible. In section 16 they state:

The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable.

In this statement, the High Court has revealed the single reason that marriage has been systematically attacked and undermined in this country. It reveals the reason that has led to the current demands that homosexuals be allowed to marry – in the Court’s opinion, there is no absolute standard for marriage![11]

From this point, the High Court goes on to give various illustrations of how marriage has been reinterpreted over time, especially since federation.[12] The problem is that they are guilty of a logical fallacy or of “straw man” syndrome. In short, they presuppose that marriage is mutable – changeable. They presuppose that marriage is a social status that may have different forms at different times in history. Thus, they bring in illustrations to show these changes and thereby legitimise their decision.

Let’s illustrate the problem with this analogy. As a Christian it is not wrong to undertake any lawful vocation. Conversely, those vocations that are illegal or immoral are excluded. Now we must ask, who decides on the legality and morality of a vocation?

It is Victorian England. Murray’s daughter comes home all excited. She announces to her father that she has gained employment. He excitedly asks, “What is the position and for whom shall you be working?” His daughter then states that she is going to be a prostitute and that she would be working at the local brothel. Victorian Murray would not rejoice at this news and would most likely toss his daughter out of his house.

Fast forward. It is 2014, Murray’s daughter comes home. Same exuberance. Same conversation. What is modern Murray’s response? He rises from his chair, embraces his daughter, and congratulates her on choosing and old and enduring profession. What else can he do? After all, brothels are now legal.

Modern Murray must accept his daughter’s decision, if we are to believe that morality and ethics are transient and not immutable. Modern Murray has no ability to rebuke or criticise his daughter’s decision because the government has said that brothels can now operate legally.

This is the quagmire entered into when morality is removed from it foundation in the immutable, eternal God and placed upon the ephemerality of finite Man’s opinion. Everything must change. What was yesterday will not and cannot be the same tomorrow.

Therefore, what the High Court has declared is that marriage is a social construct that is completely malleable. Marriage can and must be formed or shaped by the social needs of any nation, at any time, in any place up to and including the abolition of all marriage. The institution of marriage has no link to the Bible’s God. It has no moral basis. It has no reference to Man as male and female. Marriage is not the immutable creation of God, but rather the social construct of fallen Man.

7. The High Court – The God of the Bible is Dead!

The repercussions of the High Court’s decision and reasoning are immense.

Some in this nation have been warning about the consequences of Australia becoming a Secular nation. Those people have been ridiculed and persecuted. As with the “Gun Debate” analogy above, we hope that those rumblings will now settle down. We hope that people will see the monster that has been released by the High Court.

Now, let me be clear. The anti-God philosophy displayed in the High Court’s decision is not new. It has been slowly but surely building both momentum and followers for some time. The point is that now the ramifications of that anti-God philosophy should be clear.

When people call for a secular Australia, when politicians refer to decisions good for us as a secular state, understand that they are speaking code. When they use these terms they are calling for nothing less than a concept of government that is completely uniformed and untouched by the God of the Bible. Implicit in these statements is the tenet that God is Dead – if not in reality, then as an exiled son, cast out and no longer welcome.

This is why Christians have been given less and less voice. This is why other minorities have been encouraged. This is why Christmas is attacked. This is why ridiculing Christians and Christianity is acceptable.[13] This is why free speech, particularly, true speech is gagged. This is why PC is a one-way street – leading away from God’s immutable and eternal decrees.

The reality is very simple. We are not arguing about whether there should be a God for this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have law in this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have cultural structure and rules in this nation. No. What we are arguing over is Who is the rightful God and the determiner of law and morality in this nation! That is the battleground.

The High Court has declared the One living and true God of the Bible dead. However, this cannot be construed as the High Court denying all sovereignty. When God is pushed aside, a void is created. Man cannot live with this void. It makes him uncomfortable. Being formed in the image and likeness of God, Man likes rules and government. Man, in general, likes order. The sticking point is, again, the question of, “Whose rules are to be obeyed?”

Fallen Man cannot abide the governance of God, so he must declare that God is dead. Man must clear the path for a god of his own making to be established, worshiped, and obeyed.

8. The High Court – The Elected Government replaces God.

Consequently, the High Court had to focus upon the Federal Parliament’s right to make rules regarding marriage without reference to God.

In section 9, we read:

This Court must decide whether s 51(xxi) permits the federal Parliament to make a law with respect to same sex marriage because the ACT Act would probably operate concurrently with the Marriage Act if the federal Parliament had no power to make a national law[5] providing for same sex marriage. If the federal Parliament did not have power to make a national law with respect to same sex marriage, the ACT Act would provide for a kind of union which the federal Parliament could not legislate to establish. By contrast, if the federal Parliament can make a national law providing for same sex marriage, and has provided that the only form of marriage shall be between a man and a woman, the two laws cannot operate concurrently.

What is being said here can be simplified to this – Does the Federal Parliament have an absolute right to decree what marriage is to be up to and including, but not limited to, homosexuality?

The High Court answered with a, Yes! The supposed dilemma that the Court faced was this – if the Federal Parliament could not make legislation in this area, then the ACT’s law could stand. However, if the Federal Parliament did have the authority, even though they did not exercise it, the ACT’s law could not stand.

Therefore, context aside, the High Court has ruled that the Federal Government is to replace God as the source of morality. The Federal Parliament can now make any law that is deemed to be within its right, regardless of the dictates of God.

Speaking Biblically, the above court case should never have got off the ground. A judge true to his oath and calling would have struck this legislation down as he would have realised that the proposition was contrary to God’s law. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into, by governments or lesser judges.

Yet, as we have seen, what the High Court did was to foster the God is Dead philosophy by paying homage to the rights and power of the Federal Parliament. In taking this stand, the High Court has declared the Federal Parliament to be omnipotent. The Federal Parliament can now rule with absolute surety that all is within its power.

We have witnessed this type of government many times throughout the ages. It is called tyranny! When the law makers refuse to acknowledge that they are themselves men under authority, the only possible end is tyranny.

The High Court has now handed to the Federal Parliament the very thing it has been champing at the bit for, carte blanche! It now has the power to terrorise every Christian and dissenter. It has now been given entry into your homes and to the very essence of your being.

“How so?” you ask. It is a matter of warfare and of equal and opposites. If the Federal Parliament establishes laws in favour of homosexual unions, especially if it is termed as “marriage”, it automatically attacks every authentic marriage. Just as counterfeit money disturbs the genuine currency, so a fake marriage must disturb the genuine marriage.

As the Federal Parliament only knows cooperation through force, people will be coerced into complying with the new definition of marriage. You should not be shocked at this statement. You already witness this tactic – Racial Vilification laws; Equal Opportunity laws; Anti-Discrimination laws. All these have one real aim – to force all to comply with the Federal Parliaments ideals of a harmonious and just society. The only real difference is that homosexual unions will bring the issue closer to home.

Therefore, once marriage is redefined, wholesale changes will need to be made to a range of official documentation, dictums, and conventions. For example, I already resent the term “partner” that appears on forms instead of husband / wife/ spouse. What terms will be presented for our enjoyment with the redefinition of marriage? What happens to terms like Mum and Dad? Rewrite the dictionaries! Ridiculous? Not at all. We have already seen this. Consider this dictionary definition of marriage:

the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: [Examples deleted]
(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
[mass noun] the state of being married:[14]

Note that the second point has been inserted already as relevant to “some jurisdictions”. All that needs to happen is to delete the first definition and elevate the second and voilà the secular revolution in regard to marriage is complete.

What then of education. You believe marriage to be as God intended; a man and a woman for life. How do you object to this at the school council? What happens when you insist that your child answer contrary to the State’s position? What is your response to a please explain from the education board?[15]

What of the Christian marriage counsellor. What will happen when homosexuals turn up for counselling? Will you turn them away? Will you capitulate to the State and recognise them as legally married? Are you willing to risk your business and even jail by turning these people away?

These are but a few examples of the situations that will arise, given current examples, if the Federal Parliament legalises homosexual union.

Oh please, do not be the ignoramus par excellence and claim that the Government will add caveats or exemptions for certain Christian organisations. What the Government giveth the Government can and will taketh away![16] The Government, having been granted unlimited power, will not be slack in using that power to enforce its will.

When the Government supplants God as the final arbiter on morality, we are in for a sticky end. It is no accident that every culture that has embraced homosexuality has faltered and slipped from the pages of history. We often hear about the glory of Rome and her system, but few speak of the fall of Rome as a consequence of her debauchery.

Enamoured with her own power and authority, Caesar claimed to be a god. From this point, totalitarian rule and tyranny became the order of the day. Men were slaughtered for pleasure and entertainment. Sexual perversion abounded. Children were left to die. Life was both honoured and cheapened.

It is a dark day when the Government believes that it can rightly sit in God’s seat and rule by its own power.

9. The High Court – The Ramifications.

When Man usurps God, the consequences are incalculable. All that can be said is that there most definitely will be ramifications and that those ramifications will be negative. We have noted some ramifications already. We have hinted at the definite possibility of others, based on current practice. Still others come to light in the High Court’s reasoning.

Disturbingly, the High Court, in section 33, states:

Once it is accepted that “marriage” can include polygamous marriages, it becomes evident that the juristic concept of “marriage” cannot be confined to a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde and other nineteenth century cases. Rather, “marriage” is to be understood in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution as referring to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.[17]

The reasoning at this juncture is once more questionable. That the Family Law Act recognises polygamous marriages is a fact. However, it does not do so permissively, but rather functionally. In other words, the Act recognises polygamous marriages from outside Australia for the sole purpose of enabling the Court to deal with them.[18]

Regardless of this fact, what we need to see is that debauchery begets debauchery. The High Court introduces the practice of polygamy only to enable the Biblical view of marriage to be maligned. By introducing a heterosexual distortion, it is but a small step to utter perversion.

Hence, this section does not speak about a man and a woman, but of “natural persons”. The whole point is to deny sexuality as a criterion for marriage. Also note, please, that the High Court’s definition is numberless. Having used polygamy as a jimmy bar to pry open the door, it cannot now limit the number of persons to that marriage.

What now? Well, my advice is that you go out and by one of those rain suits that covers you from top to bottom for things are going to get murky and filthy.

First, if Postmodernism were not so popular, the High Court would be a total laughingstock. When the theory of the Court is analysed it becomes clear that they have absolutely no objective criteria for marriage and no objective or absolute foundation on which they base the form and content of marriage. The best that they can establish is ‘marriage is what Federal Parliament says it is.’ As there is no objective basis for this decision, the power of the Federal Parliament is established by the power of the High Court. Thus, one entity validates the other in reciprocal acts of “back patting” and authentication.

What this means for every Australian is that the concept and definition of marriage will now be subject to complete change at the will of the Federal Parliament. As marriage is but a social construct, the Parliament will be able to issue its own decrees as to what form and content marriage should possess.

This is the precipice to which relativism and the denial of absolutes leads. You have forty people in a room and forty opinions are shared. Truth is not established on an objective foundation, nor by consensus, but by the person holding the highest office.

Just the other night, I came across a television show in which Tony Abbott’s assertion that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman” was shot down by a reference to a Roman emperor who had two husbands. Triumph for the homosexuals!

The point here is not to bat for or against Tony Abbott, but to show that appealing to culture, science, or past happenings is not a valid means for establishing truth or ethical principle. It is for this reason that I have often been critical of brethren who use these methods. We cannot establish ethical principles for tomorrow based on what is or what was.

The weakness in Tony Abbott’s arguments is also shown to be present in the High Court’s reasoning – because both are secular rationalists who deny God’s revelation as truth. The High Court has no objective standards, so they are reduced to a set of arguments concerning this case or that case or what happened when, particularly limiting the time frame to Federation. Consequently, we are introduced to statements like:

Observing that, at federation, English law would recognise as a marriage only a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde, and would not provide matrimonial remedies in respect of any other kind of union, accurately describes the then state of the law. (Section 28.)
The great conflict of laws writer, A V Dicey, described [43] the rule which was adopted in the cases as an “instance of the principle that the rules of (so-called) private international law apply only amongst Christian states”. The rule treated some, but not all, forms of marriage contracted according to other laws as either not worthy of recognition or not able to be recognised because their incidents were not compatible with English law. (Section 29.)
These being the bases for the nineteenth century decisions, those decisions did not then, and do not now, define the limit of the marriage power (or the divorce and matrimonial causes power) in the Constitution. Decisions like Hyde v Hyde reflect no more than the then state of development of judge-made law on the subjects of marriage and divorce and matrimonial causes. Subsequent development of both judge-made law and statute law shows this to be so. (Section 30.)
First, it was established in 1890 by Brinkley v Attorney-General[44] that, despite the frequent reference found in earlier decisions to “Christian marriage” and “marriage in Christendom” as distinct from “infidel” marriages[45], a monogamous marriage validly solemnised according to the law of Japan between “a natural born subject of the Queen … having his domicil in Ireland” and “a subject of the empire of Japan”, though not a Christian marriage, would be declared to be valid in English law. (Section 31).
More particularly, the nineteenth century use of terms of approval, like “marriages throughout Christendom”[47] or marriages according to the law of “Christian states”[48], or terms of disapproval, like “marriages among infidel nations”[49], served only to obscure circularity of reasoning. Each was a term which sought to mask the adoption of a premise which begged the question of what “marriage” means.[19] (Section 36).

I realise that such quotes are not easy to read and can induce tedium. I would appreciate it if, despite this, you could ponder these texts to see how standing on shifting sand is both dangerous and ultimately futile. The High Court begins with what was the accepted standard for marriage and introduces excuse after excuse as to why those definitions or terms are no longer valid. Please note how section 36 takes to task the usage of the term “Christian” in making a distinction in marriage and ultimately asserts that all these law-makers were guessing in the dark – “obscure(ing) circularity of reasoning” and “begged the question of “what” marriage means”.

This is astounding, for these judges have basically stated that all (well, most) of the law on marriage is a guess by their predecessors and the lawmakers of the day as to what marriage is to be. Horrifyingly, in making this assessment, they have laid the foundation for their own interpretation of marriage to be accepted as the standard for our day – as they too guess in the dark!

You see, these men argue from no foundation in law to the relative laws of various jurisdictions today and at every turn they simply shoot themselves in the foot. The quotations show how the Court has argued for its point of view from and through a limited time period. Yet, the real kicker is their opening gambit – “The cases commonly referred to as providing a definition of “marriage” in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution must be read in the light of the issues decided in those cases. Each case dealt with a particular question about either succession to property or the jurisdiction of the English courts to grant a decree of dissolution in cases concerning a marriage contracted in, and governed by the law of, a foreign country.”

What the Court admits at this point is that none of the cases cited were actually looking at the questions of the source of, form of, and essential constitution of marriage. Rather, these were cases of property settlement or divorce. Thus, at best, these cases can only be cited in a cursory way.

Similarly, after the Court’s little tour through history and its arrival at tacit approval for polygamous and homosexual unions, we are granted this little gem – “Other legal systems now provide [50] for marriage between persons of the same sex. This may properly be described as being a recent development of the law of marriage in those jurisdictions. It is not useful or relevant for this Court to examine how or why this has happened.”

Excuse me! Not useful or relevant to consider the how and why of these current decisions!! How can that be? A building falls down and there is an enquiry into the “how” and the “why” immediately. All attempts are made to make sure that these things do not happen again in future. So why is the High Court of Australia not interested in the “how” and “why” of the “recent development” of this issue?

It is very simple. If the Court opened that particular door and chose to walk through it, they would first have to admit that they are the Biblical fools of Psalm 14, who have ‘said in their hearts “There is no God.”’The Court would have to admit that there is only one foundation for marriage – God! The Court would have to admit that outside of Scripture there is no other basis for the institution of marriage. The Court would have to admit that there is only one type of marriage – Christian marriage – for marriage was ordained and commanded by God for all men. The Court would have to admit that marriage is timeless, ethical, purpose driven, and is founded upon absolutes. The Court would have to admit that marriage is not a social or cultural construct. Lastly, and importantly, the Court would have to admit that it was mistaken and that it too is bound by the authority of God Almighty. This the Court will not do.

In other words, the Court dismisses this necessary investigation precisely to guard its own premise – God is Dead (See footnote 18). If the court undertook this investigation, it would be obliged to highlight the correlation between the decline in moral standards and the acceptance of homosexual union. It would be patent that a moral shift had taken place within the culture and that the adoption of a new morality or paradigm for morality had led to the acceptance of these aberrant practices.

By now you will be tired of the words “absolute” and “objective”, but I hope that you can see more clearly the diabolical nature of modern relativism. We have before our eyes the High Court of Australia making fundamental decisions based on a foundation with less tensile strength and integrity than packaged custard!

When absolutes and objective truth are denied, relativism must take over. As we have said already, the consequences are enormous. Every man – including the High Court and every politician – will do what is right in his own eyes and chaos shall ensue.

Second, having established the Federal Parliament’s right to state what it will concerning marriage; having opened some doors to dubious behaviour; and having established these concepts on the all conquering principle of relativism, the Court is now reduced to contradictions and hypocrisy as they continue to argue their case. Truly, if it were not so disastrous and serious, I would be tempted to wax lyrical.

Think this through. The High Court have set out a point of law which states that the Federal Parliament alone has the right to determine what marriage is in this country. Having done that, it continues to argue its point by elucidating its thought process. The trouble is that the process utilised, as we have seen, is fundamentally flawed.

According to the High Court, a marriage is a “consensual union between natural persons”. If this is so, then all manner of abominations are possible. How many are too many in a marriage? Then it is not only plurality that is courted but homosexuality. Marriage could be six men, six women, three men and three women. As long as these are “natural persons” – no nestene duplicates[20] – and the relationship is consensual, there can be no limit! Moreover, as this is the Court’s reasoning and that reasoning has no terminus or restrictions in morality – the only terminator being the Parliament’s will – then whatever the Parliament allows is not only right but must be obeyed and instituted.

At this point, it would seem that bestiality is ruled out, though I have nagging doubts. After all, evolutionary theory states that Man is just one of the animals. I have also read some weird stuff on what constitutes “personhood”. Placing these two together with the High Court’s ridiculous definition could mean that ‘Dolly the sheep’ is popular again and that for the abominable reason.

Equally, we cannot let the “consensual” part of the definition go unnoticed. What of pederasty? What of incest? What of those laws that have prohibited consanguineous marriages?

Now, to be fair, the High Court states, in section 43:

Eligibility to marry is fixed by the two Acts with only one difference. Under the Marriage Act, a person aged between 16 and 18 years may marry [63] if certain consents are given or judicial authorisation is obtained. Under the ACT Act, an adult person may marry [64]. Both Acts prohibit [65] marriage between persons within the same prescribed degrees of affinity or consanguinity.

However, if marriage is mutable, without an absolute definition possible, then how do the High Court and the framers of the ACT legislation decide that these limitations should remain? If polygamy and homosexuality are legitimate by way of reasoning that there is no absolute definition for marriage, then marrying your son, daughter, sister, cousin, and /or aunt – remember, no limitation on numbers – should also be legal.

Once more, from where were the limits on consanguinity derived? They are Biblical.[21] Yep, that’s right; you will find them in the Bible and only the Bible. All other writings are simply playing “catch up” or are seeking to apply or interpret what the Bible has stated. So, here on display for all to see, is the High Court’s hypocrisy. The very Court that denies God any place in marriage, the Court that tells us that marriage cannot be absolutely defined, also turns out to be a court that insists on certain Biblical standards for the marriage covenant.

The parallel here takes us back to the beginning – we will accept ‘do not murder / steal’, but we do not want ‘do not have false gods or commit adultery’. Rebellious Man enjoys God’s command when it affords him protection, but he despises God’s command when it limits his rebellion. This principle has just been clearly demonstrated by the High Court.

When God is denied, all becomes a state of flux and guessing in the dark! If the High Court were consistent, in the slightest, they would admit that the only right application of their reasoning means that there is no limitation to marriage outside the words “consensual” and “natural persons”. Thus, restrictions on age could only be governed by the term “consensual”; that is to say a court would need to adjudicate on the question, “At what age does a person understand the concepts implied in marriage?” Outside of this, there can simply be no restriction.

Third, and this is a change of topic, but there is an unseen and unspoken ramification that is rapidly coming to the surface. It is a ramification that will affect us all. It has the possibility to be momentous in our nation’s history.

I speak here of the dissolution of the Federation of States that constitutes this nation.

One of the truly disturbing aspects that has come to the fore through this whole debate is the rancour of those arguing for homosexual union. So rabid are those people that they will stop at nothing – even, it seems, the destruction of our nation.

What is clear from the process with the High Court is that this has been a deliberate venture. Those bent on destroying marriage have launched the ACT legislation as a test case. Right now, highly paid lawyers will be looking through the High Court’s ruling seeking loopholes. The ACT sought to have their legislation stand alongside of the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act. The High Court has said that in its current form it cannot.

In Western Australia there is another piece of legislation being presented. They hope that by framing things slightly differently that the result will be a piece of legislation that will stand beside the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act in a way acceptable to the High Court.

What this means in reality is that this nation is going to see a series of High Court challenges. Tax payer’s dollars will be wasted by this anarchistic minority who will not accept any other decision but the one that gives them legal right to debauchery. These people agitated for and were given a vote in Parliament. They lost. They were soundly defeated. Then came the excuses. They were offered a referendum; that was not acceptable because the outcome was unknown and permanent. So now they relentlessly hassle the politicians and clog up the courts. For what? The destruction of our nation.

Please, think this through. At Federation the States surrendered certain aspects of governance to the Federal Parliament. Now, at the behest of a debauched few, that Federation is under attack. If a state finds a piece of legislation that is acceptable to the High Court as an adjunct to the Marriage Act, then it will have the ultimate effect of nullifying the Federal Parliament’s authority.

This being the case, how many court cases are going to be presented before the burden causes the Federal Parliament to cave? If the Federal Parliament does not cave, at what point are they going to, if ever, say, “Enough!” When homosexual and polygamous unions are legalised by the States, “What is next on the agenda?” Put another way, the current question is a Constitutional one. Therefore, if a State can find a way of negating the Federal Parliament’s sole right as the authority under the Constitution, as with the Marriage Act, what effect will that have for the very existence of Federal Parliament?

Stating it as plainly as possible, if any Sate can legitimately take on a function of the Federal Parliament, once the loophole is found, then each State will be able to bypass the Federal Parliament at will. What then? What will happen to our nation as a federation of States?

Again, some may see this as the stuff of doomsday prophecy. I assure you it is not. I have said many times that there are few, if any, Western countries that have not had a civil war. Australia stands out as one that has not been down that road. However, how long will it be before some in our society become tired of being bullied by this anarchistic minority? How long before the relativism and lack of truth spoken of in this article breeds contempt for law, indeed nullifies law altogether? After all, if there is no objective truth, the opinion of the highest office or biggest stick rules!

So please, give some thought to the possibility of this ramification. With the High Court officially embracing and endorsing relativism there is no objective answer. There is no right or wrong. There is only what the law allows or the law forbids. If the law allows adjunct law by the States, “What will happen to our nation?”

Conclusion:

The decision of the High Court is disturbing and that for many reasons. In this article we have simply tried to pin point the fundamental error in the Court’s thinking, or, if you will, in their premise or presupposition. We have also attempted to outline some of the ramifications of this decision. Some have to do with marriage. Others go far beyond that topic.

In the end, we must simply restate the old maxim, “Ideas have consequences”. The idea that “God is dead” will have consequences. The idea that Federal Parliament can rule without reference to God will have consequences.[22] The idea that marriage is nothing more than a social or cultural construct will have consequences. Allowing homosexual and polygamous unions will have consequences.

It may have been appropriate to add some words on the hot topics of “God and government” and “morality in law”. These topics need to be addressed for they have many people confused, including a good number of Christians.

Let me then add some help here. Church and State are separate institutions, but they are not the only institutions. These institutions exist because God created them. Therefore, they owe their full allegiance to God. The separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of “God and government”. God made government. Romans chapter 13 informs us that government is a minister of God and that it is bound to do His will. Therefore, laws must reflect morality – God’s morality.

Allow me to close with an apt quotation from the late R.J. Rushdoony:

The other night, a prominent lawyer, appearing on television, asked for the repeal of laws against abortion, narcotics, sexual perversions, and a number of other things. “You can’t legislate morality,” he said, “and it’s about time we stopped trying to do it.” The man was lying, and he knew it, because all law is about morality. When you legislate against murder, theft, libel, and the like, you are legislating morality. When you institute traffic laws, you are again legislating morality: you are penalizing traffic behavior which may endanger the life and property of another man. In other words, you are enacting specific forms of God’s law: Thou shalt not kill, and Thou shalt not steal. Legislation about the forms of court procedure is in terms of the law banning false witness; the purpose of such laws is to further true testimony. Even the salaries of public officials have moral implication: “[T]he labourer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18).

At every point, the law deals either with morality directly or with procedures for its enforcement. All law is enacted morality. Every criminal law says that a certain thing is right, and another wrong. Every law is thus a piece of legislated morality. Moreover, all morality represents a religion, as that every system of law is an establishment of religion. Thus, there can be a separation of church and state, but there cannot be a separation of religion and the state, because every system of law is a religion and a morality in action.

What the lawyer was actually saying was that he hated a Christian law system and wanted to replace it with a system of humanistic law. This is exactly the nature of our legal revolution today. The courts are changing the law by changing the religion behind the law.

What all law does legislate is morality, and you had better believe it before it is too late before you wake up to find the revolution is over, and you are the new outlaw in terms of the new morality, the new law, and the new religion. This has happened elsewhere, and it is happening here.[23]

[1] These are trite examples, but they illustrate the point. You would always return home from work with apprehension because the wife you left in the morning may not be the one you return to at night. Similarly, it will take you a long time to get home each night as you will need to drive all over town looking for your home because you cannot guarantee that it will be in the same place.

[2] Abortion and Euthanasia are but two examples. These were rarely heard of in the days when marriage and sexuality were esteemed. As to theft, where do I begin? We all know that the burglar has more rights than the victim. Need anything more be said.

[3] See James 2:10-11. I have adapted the point of James argument and applied it to the topic at hand.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21. Note well that the question or challenge is rhetorical. Elijah demonstrates concretely that Yahweh is God and that Baal is nothing.

[5] The High Court’s decision is one more in a long line (of decisions by various courts) that displays the erroneous belief that morality and law have nothing in common.

[6] All references to the court’s reasoning come from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html.

[7] Thus a man could leave his wife and children and “move on”, as it were. People could say that this was a poor decision. They might say it was selfish. What they could not say any longer was that it was a wrong or morally corrupt decision.

[8] This is one of the truly great dangers of pornography. It is not so much the pictures, but the combination of words and images that creates the belief that there is a greater perfection than what you currently possess.

[9] I am using marriage as an example because of its relevance to the High Court’s decision. This discontentment can come into other areas of life also. Discontentment is bound to rise amongst those who refuse to see themselves as limited, finite creatures.

[10] Please see our work, Marriage is Life!

[11] In section 37 we find these words: “The boundaries of the class of persons who have that legal status are set by law and those boundaries are not immutable.” Note that the High Court once again states that marriage is not immutable. At this point they are seeking to establish that the class of persons to be married is to be determined by the “the law” but that such law is changeable.

[12] For example, Clause 18 says, in part: “More generally, it is essential to recognise that the law relating to marriage, as it stood at federation, was the result of a long and tangled development.” (Italics added.) There are references to Federation, the Council of Trent, and to Roman law, which are dismissed. Interestingly, the words of Jesus are never quoted, “And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He [God] who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”( Matthew 19:3-9.) Please note Jesus’ reference points: God and from the beginning! Federation, Trent, Rome! They are all superfluous and irrelevant. In the beginning God is the only reference point that matters and it is the one reference point the High Court a priori ruled out of the discussion.

[13] Have you noticed that for a Christian to condemn the homosexual and his practice is to be guilty of hate-speech and holding them to ridicule. However, it is acceptable for homosexuals to march in a Mardi Gras each year dressed mockingly as Fred Nile, nuns, priests etc, and to be openly blasphemous. Read Romans 1:32 for some insight!

[14] Found at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage. Viewed 32/12/13. Interestingly, my Little Oxford from 1986 does not mention the second definition! Understand well, even our dictionaries are rewritable at the dictates of PC.

[15] Some years ago, Homeschoolers in Victoria were required to register. As a part of that decree, certain topics were set out as mandatory. How long before this sinister element is used to force secular doctrine onto our children? It is already happening to some degree in State schools.

[16] In section 21, this quote by Higgins J is cited: “Power to make laws as to any class of rights involves a power to alter those rights, to define those rights, to limit those rights, to extend those rights, and to extend the class of those who may enjoy those rights.” What the Government giveth, the Government can taketh away! This fact is cited in the document discussing the Marriage Act. In short, any exemptions given by a Government can be altered by a Government, whether that be extension, diminution, or revocation.

[17] Bold added.

[18] It does not seem at all appropriate to argue from this perspective that Australian law gives explicit approval to polygamy. This is what one would term as “drawing a long bow”. Equally, it is another example of evil begetting evil. One does not need to legally recognise polygamy to deal ethically with the fallout of a failed polygamous marriage.

[19] This statement is interesting. It notes that these citations were attempts to “mask the adoption of a premise”. Nothing new here! Those familiar with the pages of Post Tenebras Lux will know that we have spoken previously about presuppositions and basic ‘faith’ positions. The real point of interest is in the question, “What premise is the High Court of Australia 2013 seeking to mask?”

[20] Just for DW fans!

[21] See Leviticus 18:6-18. Thus the Westminster Divines can say, “Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. (Lev. 18, 1 Cor. 5:1, Amos 2:7) Nor can such incestuous marriage ever be made by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. (Mark 6:18, Lev. 18:24–28)” Unlike the High Court’s ramblings, the Divines had no problem going straight to the source to find out what form and content were appropriate to marriage.

[22] You may wish to ponder the implications of Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-7.

[23] By R. J. Rushdoony. Taken from A Word in Season: Daily Messages on the Faith for All of Life, Vol. III, p. 66. Emphases added.

Losing my Religion 2

Posted on September 12, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who exactly is Benny criticising here?

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

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

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

So says the Humanist Manifesto 1933:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Jeremiah 17:9.

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

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.3)

Posted on August 24, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.2)

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

Enter the abuse of language and the courting of hypocrisy!

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

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

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

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

A worldview in action looks like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so you ask? Consider the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Part 3 for the Application)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.1)

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Christians are currently involved in a titanic struggle. Our whole existence is currently being threatened by a noisy minority who have the ears of our politicians.

These God-haters, à la Psalm two, want to throw off every semblance of God, His Son, Jesus Christ, and His revealed Law-Word. They are done following the Maker’s commands and they are demanding absolute autonomy for themselves. These are the Secularists complete with their desire for the Secular State.

Consequently, we hear a great deal in regard to the separation of Church and State. We hear that the concept of God is passé. We hear that people can freely have and practice their religion. However, there is an explicit quid pro quo. We can have our religion (Christianity) as long as it stays a private matter.

Along with Secularism comes its bastard child, Political Correctness. This spawn from the pit starts to make even more demands. However, the cleverness of this corrupting child is that it seeks to mask its corruption by feigning equality. Thus, one is no longer a ‘lowly housewife’. One becomes a “domestic engineer”. Speaking of a former life, I was not a “Garbo”, but a “sanitation engineer”.

Insidiously, this spurious mongrel makes people believe that they are being elevated in importance and rank when in actual fact nothing changes. Indeed, in many instances, degradation and regression are deliberately masked.

The last example of the “garbo” is particularly pertinent, for sanitising is exactly what Political Correctness sets out achieve. It does this by destroying language, terminology, and meaning. The Secularists use it with great skill in the war that has been unleashed upon our nation. They have been so successful, that they have managed to have a variety of terms introduced into common parlance. More importantly, they have had legislation passed to fortify their position and silence those who would oppose.[1]

Regrettably, we Christians have been a bit thick. We have been all too eager to jump on this Bastard’s bandwagon and adopt its perversions without engaging our brains or engaging with God’s word.

Just as many Christians have given up on the physical discipline of their children for fear of being “dobbed in”, too many Christians have adopted the language of Political Correctness in an effort to conform and not stand out.

This acquiescence has only worsened the situation we face. It has made our enemy stronger and it has substantially weakened our cause, the cause of Christ. As a result, we face a very dire time. There is a growing voice of opposition. It is vociferous at times. At times it is an incoherent rant filled with sheer hatred for God and his people.[2]

However, take heart. All is not lost. First, we serve the Lord Jesus Christ. In case any are in doubt, His job description and title goes something like this – King of kings and Lord of lords; Prince of peace; Son of God, Mighty God; on whose shoulders rest the Governance of the nations; a King whose Kingdom cannot end; A King who sent His servants to “teach the nations to obey all that He commanded”. In the words of S.M. Lockridge, “Yeah, that’s my King!”[3]

Second, Christians can arm themselves for this battle. It is a battle that must be self-consciously fought in the Name of the King and in His power, but it can be fought and won. Indeed, I would contend that it must be fought and won.

Please allow me to outline, in brief, a bit of a battle plan.

1. Christians must quit the fuzzy thinking. Listening to Christians argue their case, I hear too much baptised humanism. In other words, the Christians are arguing with a Secularised worldview rather than with a Biblical worldview.

2. As this is the case, Christians have no effective weaponry. Cotton Mather, speaking of the use of so-called ‘white’ magic against ‘black’ magic, remarked that such an enterprise was “to use the devil’s shield against the devil’s sword”. It was an endeavour of futility.

3. Consequently, Christians need to arm themselves with the “Sword of the Spirit” and the “mind of Christ”. What is meant by this is that we must use the Biblical weaponry, but that, equally, we use our minds and the wisdom God gives through Christ Jesus.[4]

When these simple points are brought together, the Christian must realise that Jesus Christ did not come to reveal “doormat theology” or the view that we Christians are to be the poverty stricken whipping boys of all other belief systems. On the contrary, Jesus revealed to us the system of life and victory.

By taking our stand in God’s word, we stand upon the immovable Rock that is Jesus Christ. When we clothe ourselves with the mind of Christ, we are able to think God’s thoughts after Him and outthink our opponents. In 1 Corinthians1:20 & 25 we are encouraged with these words: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Therefore, let us do everything within our power to take the fight to our opponents by following the Wisdom of God. “But How?” you ask. Well, let’s see if we cannot give a few pointers to help you.

A. Do not let the enemy set or force the agenda. Too often Christians awake from their sleep just long enough to fight this or that battle. However, when the urgency subsides, the Christian’s hibernation continues. In opposition to this, we need to be awake and on the job 24/7. We need to be the ones in the politician’s ear giving sound counsel.

At present the battle ground is the issue of homosexual union. However, I do not hear too many arguments against homosexuality, full stop! How did we arrive at this point? Honestly, there are a number of answers. Amongst them, though, are things like Christians being distracted by silver and gold; Christians being more interested in trying to figure out the date and time of Jesus’ Second Coming than “teaching the nations to obey”; and Christians being concerned that their children get a good (State based) education, rather than being concerned that their children receive a Christ(ian) education.

B. Adopt the Christian or Biblical worldview. This is really the critical need of our day. Too many Christians are unable to think Biblically and critically – the second because they lack the first. Yes, Christians often use the terminology of ‘believing the Bible’ or ‘standing on God’s word’, but in reality, very few do.

Let us look at the issue of homosexuality. In a few sentences I will present a ‘no holds barred’ assessment that will offend many. The offence comes from the fact that we do not hold to a Biblical worldview. In short, we do not view issues from God’s perspective or take God’s statements seriously.

God, in the Bible, calls homosexuals an abomination. God states that their immorality is worthy of death. These are very serious charges. Despite the moderns desire to reinterpret these texts, the simple reality is that God situates homosexuals among that which disgusts Him most. Thus, He decrees that they should die.

No doubt, you will counter with, “Oh yes, but that is the Old Testament.”[5] So, let us look at the New Testament. In Romans 1:26-27, Paul, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, declares homosexuality to be both the pinnacle of rebellion against God and of God’s judgement against Man. Note, please, Paul is expressing God’s absolute distaste for homosexuals and their practice. Then, in verse 32, Paul speaks of these as “being worthy of death”.

In Paul’s argument, there is a complete unity with what God has said in previously in the Law and the Prophets. Yet, modern Christians read over this explicit statement. They re-interpret the term “death” as meaning ‘spiritual death’ or as a euphemism for Hell.

With this reinterpretation complete, the average Christian then speaks of God’s love for the homosexual. They tell us that we are to tolerate these people, even if we do not condone their sin. In the worst cases, we have Christians (??) refusing to even label homosexuality as sin! Yet, the question must be posed, “How is it, given the Scripture’s unified statements to the effect that God is disgusted with homosexuals and that He decrees that they should be struck from the earth, that Christians come forth with statements that say the exact opposite?”[6] How does the Christian sanitise that which God labels disgusting?

Now, many / some will not agree with what has been said, but the challenge then is, “Does your disagreement come from the Biblical dictates of a Biblical worldview or does it originate in the Worldly dictates of the Secularist’s worldview?”

In any case, the point is simple. Modern Christians are, at times, found to be calling good that which God has called evil; they try to tear asunder that which God has brought together or bring together that which God has torn asunder. They do so because a miasma of Biblical illiteracy has descended upon the Church.

C. Do not be fooled by the language. As we noted above, the illegitimate offspring of Secularism, Political Correctness, seeks to mask evil by changing language. Thus, the Biblical concept of fornication[7] is toned down into sleeping together;[8] Husband/wife/spouse becomes partner; Adultery becomes an affair; Sin/Evil becomes sickness; Sodomy becomes homosexuality/gay; Murdering infants becomes pro Choice; Murdering the elderly becomes euthanasia;[9] Corporal punishment becomes child abuse; and stating a fact becomes vilification / slur.

Secularism also seeks to invent and apply stigmatised labels[10] as a weapon in this war. People who will not yield are labelled and through labelling are shamed into capitulating – you are judgemental; homophobic; intolerant; bigoted.[11]

By adopting this language, Christians give ground. We begin to subtly imbibe the Secularist’s worldview. More importantly, we actually impugn our God. We do this by our abandonment of the Christian worldview, but also by the implicit denial that God gave us morals and terms[12] that both encompass and express those morals.

D. Do not be fooled by false claims. The Secularists will claim that they hold the moral high ground on many issues. However, when light is brought to bear, the Secularist is found to be naked with naught but a smile to hide behind. Hence, he manipulates the situation through language and fortifies his position with legislation. Again, by buying into this practice we actually support and abet the ungodly desires, notions, and goals of the secularist.

This brings us to the heart of the current debate, namely, the obvious hypocrisy and deceit by the Secularists as they push their anti-God agenda.

(For the examples, please read Part 2 of this article)

[1] We will talk about hypocrisy later, but even here the Secularist is seen to be a hypocrite. He justifies his cause on the basis that God is dictatorial, suggesting words mean a certain thing and that any lack of conformity will be punished. In response, the Secularist demands that words mean nothing – until he puts meaning into them – and if you do not conform to this new usage, you will be punished!

[2] See Bill Muehlenberg’s No Tolerance for Dissenters.

[3] http://thatsmyking.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/sm-lockeridges-my-king-2007-high-energy-remixed-version/

[4] Colossians 2:3.

[5] There is another discussion to be had here in regard to God’s immutability. Those who argue OT v NT are implicitly, if not explicitly, stating that God has changed His moral standing on issues like this. Regrettably, this attitude smacks of a return to the Marcionite heresy.

[6] The counter to this is, of course, the fallacious statement that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Room does not allow for a full discussion, so we will make two points: A. The Bible never, in the judicial sense, separates a man and his sin; B. Why does God send men to hell and not just their sin?

[7] For a thought provoking read, see RC Sproul Jr’s, Sexual Destruction.

[8] It is fundamentally important that we grasp the point being made. Search the Scriptures and you will not find a moral imperative that would forbid an unrelated, unmarried couple of the opposite sex from actually sleeping together. The Bible may ask us to be wise because such a situation, if indulged too often or in the wrong circumstances, may lead to that which is forbidden. However, I repeat, the Bible has no moral imperative against two people “catching some Z’s” together. On the other hand, the Bible does have some strong words and presents a moral imperative against sexual congress outside of marriage. The masking, is at heart, an attempt to destroy God’s moral imperatives by changing the connotation of the act, removing the stigma attached to immorality, and, in essence, removing morality from the action. Hence, we encounter the sanitising effect of Political Correctness.

[9] For those not aware, the term euthanasia literally translates to good death. Here, again, the sanitising crew of PC has done their best to wipe the muck off this term and mask the reality. In what sense is this death good? What or who is the determiner of a good or a bad death? After all, we are all dying, are we not? So whilst I live, I hasten to die? So at what point and on whose authority does the process of dying converge with the death event? What qualities make this convergence good or bad?

[10] Here, again, hypocrisy comes into view. It is wrong of Christians to stigmatise homosexuals with their Biblical language and moral objections, but it is right and acceptable for the Secularist to stigmatise Christians with their invented language and labels of shame.

[11] This was the same approach used by the Feminists in their war. If you disagreed with them, as a male, you were labelled as a misogynist.

[12] It is important that we understand that terms apply to certain things. We work with this fact every day. Yet, as we have shown, the Secularists are keen to destroy these terms when they are detrimental to their agenda. Elsewhere, I have addressed this issue with the illustration of a child wrongly naming an animal that he was shown.

Murder and Monogamy: Lessons in Presuppositions

Posted on August 1, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Readers of these pages will know that we often refer to worldviews and presuppositions. What are these creatures and why are they important?

1. Worldviews and Presuppositions:

A worldview is exactly what it says. It is a lens through which you interpret and make sense of the world around you. It is a lens through which you view your world; a lens that makes your world intelligible.

Just as a lens would gather light from without and transfer that light to the eye manipulating that light as it moves through the lens, so to a worldview acts in much the same way.

For example, if you place dark lenses over your eyes, you see less in some circumstances and more in others. If you place coloured lenses on your eyes, you may see things that were previously hidden to the naked eye. If you put a patch on your eye, you obscure your vision totally, regardless of the degree of light available, because you have placed a barrier over your eye.

If a worldview is like a lens, then a presupposition, to continue the analogy, is like the prescription in that lens. When we have our eyes tested, the optometrist moves through a range of lenses to ascertain which will give the clearest vision. Having established the best arrangement for our eyes, he gives us a pair of glasses with the appropriate lenses. Built into those lenses are the specifications that enable us to see – the right thickness of lens; the right curvature of the lens; even down to multiple lenses to give our eyes flexibility.

These specifications are the equivalent of presuppositions. They are simply there. They are assumed in that they are inbuilt. We do not need to adjust them each time we pick up our glasses.

Of course, worldview and presuppositions belong to the realm of philosophy and epistemology – the realm of knowledge, ideas, and concepts. However, they work exactly as the lens analogy shows. When you look out to the world, you are faced with observable facts. How you choose to interpret those facts depends entirely upon your worldview (lens), which in turn rests on certain presuppositions or faith assumptions (prescription or type of lens).

2. Purpose:

Why do I raise this topic? I do so in order to try and help my brethren by equipping them. Too few Christians today understand these concepts and, as a consequence, are often bamboozled by scientific claims or supposedly rational arguments that are presented. These arguments sometimes cause distress to Christian’s because the new claim runs counter to a Biblical doctrine or statement.

Thus, my intent is simply to help Christians to better navigate the world in which they live for Jesus Christ – always being prepared to give a reason for the hope that is in them.

3. Neutrality:

Having outlined briefly what worldviews and presuppositions are, we need to address the most fundamental point in regard to these concepts – everybody has one! Worldviews and presuppositions exist in every person, whether they realise it or not, whether they are formed in detail or not.

In this regard, worldviews and presuppositions are like eyes. Everybody has them.

Understand this point well, please. It is extremely important. Oft times when you speak up for the faith, you will encounter someone who will tell you that you are biased whilst they feign neutrality. Do not believe them. There simply is no neutrality.[1] As the late Greg Bahnsen said so well in regard to the myth of neutrality, “They [the world] are not and you [the Christian] shouldn’t be!”

Therefore, when you hear censorious claims concerning Christianity, your first question or task should be aimed at discovering the presupposition of your critic. They have one, though they will, as stated, try and hide it and feign neutrality. There is, in a philosophical sense, not one person in this world who does not wear glasses!

Please grasp this. Please work to understand it. Every person wears glasses. All begin with the prescription of sin and rebellion. From that point, they may take on a further definition or prescription (set of presuppositions). Some of those glasses carry the prescription of Humanism. Some carry the prescription of Evolution. Thankfully, some of those glasses carry the corrective lens of Jesus Christ.

The point is simple. Do not believe anybody who seeks to feign neutrality. That very insistence on their part shows them to be a charlatan and a deceiver.

4. Basic Presuppositions:

When we consider a person’s presuppositions they can be myriad. However, they all begin from one fundamental presupposition – the existence of God. This is the initial presupposition that gives rise to all others.

Atheists and God-haters are prone to throw out the challenge, “Prove that God exists!” Many Christians pale at such demands and usually respond with some incoherent rant concerning faith. This gives the opposition the upper hand as they then denounce this faith – a choice to believe in something without proof[2] — and posit they stand upon that which is proven. The Christian’s response should be a simple, “Prove … (whatever it is that they are peddling)!”

In reality, both people adopt a faith position. The Christian cannot prove God. He can point to proofs for the existence of God, but he cannot prove the existence of God. This is primarily because the opponent is wearing his prescription glasses that block out all light on this subject. Similarly, the opponent cannot offer concrete proof for their position. They have started with the presupposition that God does not exist and built from that foundation. Thus, they will interpret the observable facts through their prescription lenses.

Let me show you what is meant with a Biblical example. John the Baptist was questioning whether Jesus really was Messiah. So he sends his disciples to Jesus to ask, “Are you the One?” Jesus’ response was very simple and empirical in nature – ‘Go and tell John what you see. The lame walk, the blind see, the deaf hear, and God’s Gospel is preached!’[3] Now, we are not told anymore in regard to John’s response, but presumably he was comforted and settled by the answer and the testimony of his disciples who had witnessed these miracles. John wore God’s glasses and understood these happenings as a sign that Jesus was the Messiah.

Then there was another group of lads with whom Jesus had many interactions. These were the religious rulers of the day. They got their Pharisaic “knickers” in a huge twist when Jesus came along and began to set a few things straight. They too wanted to know if Jesus was the Messiah. So they asked Jesus, “to show them a sign from heaven.”[4] What was Jesus’ response? In essence, He denied them a sign and told them that no sign shall be given but the sign of Jonah. Was this a bit uncooperative on Jesus’ part? Not at all. These Pharisees and Sadducees had witnessed and heard about all the miracles that Jesus had completed. They had seen the signs. They had witnessed great acts of power. They had, in truth, witnessed the proofs for God and His Messiah come in the flesh, but they did not receive these proofs. They chose to deny them and reinterpret them – even attributing Jesus’ works of power to the devil!

Then there is the case of the people amongst whom Jesus moved. At one point, we see Jesus speaking to the crowd and making comment to the effect that these people had sought Jesus because He filled their bellies, not because of the signs. Their comment, ‘What sign will you show us that we may believe?”[5] Now the irony here is that Jesus had just fed the five thousand with but a few loaves and fishes. However, they did not consider this a “big deal” because their forefathers had eaten manna in the wilderness.

What was the difference between John the Baptist and these other two groups? It was their basic presupposition. John believed God. John believed that God had promised a Messiah that would come to save His people eternally. Therefore, when he was confronted with a specific set of works, he understood clearly what those works declared.

The others, whilst belonging externally to the covenant community, did not truly believe in God or His promise. They beheld the same miracles. They benefitted personally from the signs. They even knew about the promised Messiah. However, the lenses that they had constructed for themselves perverted what their eyes beheld. These lenses blinded them to the truth.

Jesus Himself speaks to this issue:

To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. … “Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. “And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says, ‘You will keep on hearing, but will not understand; And you will keep on seeing, but will not perceive; For the heart of this people has become dull, And with their ears they scarcely hear, And they have closed their eyes Lest they should see with their eyes, And hear with their ears, And understand with their heart and return, And I should heal them.’ “But blessed are your eyes, because they see; and your ears, because they hear.[6]

These Biblical examples clearly show us how basic presuppositions will shape our outlook on life and eternity. Two people can behold the very same proofs and do vastly different things with those proofs.[7]

Therefore, I encourage you to begin to think more in these terms. Understand the basic presupposition of your enemy and you will go a long way to silencing their poisoned tongues.

5. Logical Consistency:

Another aspect of a presupposition, at least a good one, is that it will have a logical consistency in which it never contradicts itself. To put it simply, a good worldview must verify itself. That is to say, if the worldview has to appeal to another source for verification, then that source is, in fact, the true root of your worldview.

It is at this point that the Christian worldview, based in the existence of Almighty God, shines through when all others fail. The Christian appeals to the existence of God as his presupposition. Then, if he is consistent, he constantly returns to God as the touchstone which gives both authority and verification to the claims made.

God exists. Who made the world? God. Who made Man? God. Why does Man speak? God. Why does man love? God. Even on the flip side, where we would explore the darker side of human nature, the answer still reaches back to God as the touchstone. In this case, God’s revelation explains that Man rebelled against God and fell under God’s judgement – just as God had specified.

Evolution, as an example, cannot answer these questions by appealing to itself. If Man is the product of random chance, then there simply is no reason, no justification, or ability to explain aspects of Man’s being. Thus, when the evolutionist opens his mouth in an attempt to explain his position, he does nothing but place his foot into the open cavern.

In the last weeks, I have heard two evolutionists speak of design. Random chance becomes design! What of the designer? This is but one example of how evolution steals terms and concepts from the Christian worldview in an attempt to make itself intelligible.

6. A Practical Example:

The following news piece was published recently. Please read it. As you do consider what we have discussed regarding presuppositions and worldviews.

MURDER is the main reason why humans and other primates mate for life, according to scientists.

Infanticide was the key driving force that caused us to evolve into a monogamous species, it is claimed.

Males of some animals, including lions and brown bears, kill the young of unrelated females to improve mating opportunities.

The practice arises when females nursing slowly developing and vulnerable young are forced to delay further conception.

Monogamy both provides extra protection for the infant and, by sharing the burden of care, shortens the period of infant dependency.

Females are then able to reproduce more quickly, and can afford to have more costly young that mature slowly.

A long childhood appears to be necessary for growing a large brain, making monogamy distinctly advantageous to humans.

It could explain why, uniquely among primates, humans have both a very long childhood and mothers who reproduce quickly.

Scientists explored the evolutionary pathway that led to human monogamy by gathering data from 230 primate species.

The information was used to construct a family tree of inter-species relationships.

Analysis of evolving traits revealed that male infanticide was the chief reason for the switch from a multi-male mating system to monogamy.

The findings are published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences.

Lead researcher Dr Kit Opie, from University College London, said: “This is the first time that the theories for the evolution of monogamy have been systematically tested, conclusively showing that infanticide is the driver of monogamy. This brings to a close the long running debate about the origin of monogamy in primates.”

Colleague Dr Susanne Shultz, from the University of Manchester, said: “What makes this study so exciting is that it allows us to peer back into our evolutionary past to understand the factors that were important in making us human.

“Once fathers decide to stick around and care for young, mothers can then change their reproductive decisions and have more, brainy offspring.”[8]

These are the obvious presuppositions:

God does not exist;
As God does not exist; revelation to explanation of our world is also non-existent.
As a consequence, study of the world in a closed system is the only possible means by which understanding and explanation may result.
Studying the world, it is obvious that Man stands apart.
Therefore, it is necessary to explain Man’s otherness.
Enter the theory of evolution; an explanation of Man’s origins and progress up to the present.
Man is not separate from the animals, but is simply a more evolved form of animal.
Therefore, to explain Man’s behaviour, we study other animals, bears and lions, to understand Man’s practices.
Studying these animals, it is noted that a practice of infanticide is present.
Studying these animals, it is noted that males, wishing to dominate, will kill the offspring of other males in order to procure mating rights.
Therefore, the logical conclusion is that Man evolved the practice of monogamy, to combat this infanticide.
Similarly, by adopting monogamy it meant that smarter, but more dependent, offspring could be raised.

As a consequence of placing the “God is dead / Evolution is alive” lenses in their glasses, these deluded scientists have not only wasted their time, but money from the public purse, in a futile quest that proves absolutely nothing.

We have tried to outline, in a basic way, the presuppositions in the article. These presuppositions have formed for these scientists a set of lenses that cause them to view the world as nothing more than a closed system of animalia. In essence, the earth is just a cosmic zoo. Man is simply an animal at the top of the food chain. For now, he is dominant. In eons, who knows? His practices are just hollow actions. They have no consequence and no meaning outside of the purely pragmatic.

The tragedy before us is that these scientists, in order to form these conclusions, had to deny substantial parts of themselves. These people had to deny their own rationality, morality, eternity, being, and status.

7. Some Obvious Holes:

When we look at this piece of scientific research, there are a number of glaring inconsistencies that are immediately apparent. Let’s look at some:

Murder. The very first word is unwarranted. Murder is the unlawful killing of a human. Those other primates studied are not Human and they have no law-code. This term cannot apply.
Infanticide. This too is a word properly reserved for the offspring of humans. Whilst there is a zoological category, it is a recent taxonomy.
Evolution. This term is mentioned several times. It is assumed to be factual and thereby a correct interpretive worldview.
Evolution knows nothing of anything. In short, evolution knows naught of absolutes. A thing is what it is. There is no compulsion for it to advance or retreat, for no judgement can be passed upon its current form, its lack of progress or regression.[9]
As evolution knows naught about absolutes, from where did the conscience and the morals derive? If the male had to change his behaviour from infanticide based on ego to nurture based in “care”, from where did this rational ability to moralise originate?
Why have lions and bears been so slow to catch on?
Prepare for the Feminist backlash. Monogamy is only a mechanism to allow women to “spit out babies” on a regular basis. Women’s Lib just got shot down by evolution. There it is ladies, of with the shoes, back to the kitchen – baby bump and all!
The article claims to have studied 230 species of primate. Wonderful. When did they study them? In recent living history or over the 50 million years or so since Primates appeared? If it is the former, then what you have is an exhaustive examination of current practice and not an explanation of how that practice came into being. Of course, option 2 is not really possible. If you find me a 45 million year old zoologist, I will apologise.
Beside the miracle of thought and morality that the male bears spontaneously developed, there is the amazing ability of the female, not only to have rationally worked out that a longer childhood would result in a superior child, but to actually be able to recode the DNA of her offspring to allow them to follow that pattern.
Why are Humans still set apart as the only ones who have adopted this concept? Research is based on 230 species. Obviously, 229 of these species have short childhoods and mothers that reproduce slowly? The article is built on the scientific presupposition of sameness between ape and Man, yet what seems to be proven is dissimilarity.

In this short list we have highlighted some apparent inconsistencies. Some are subtle, some more obvious. If you are struggling with some of these, then you will be helped by returning to the presupposition. Evolution adopts several presuppositions that are unprovable and contradictory. First, evolution is pure chance. Second, time equals improvement. Third, evolution rises to meet challenges.

Now, if you look at these three, you will see that the first contradicts the second and third. If evolution is chance and chaos, you cannot guarantee that anything will improve, even if you give it billions of years. Similarly, chaos and chance militate against transcending obstacles.

Think this through. Evolution gives no viable basis for either rationality or morality. Let me put it bluntly. How does a house brick begin to think, feel, and behave in a correct manner? How then does a primate begin to rationally make moral choices that result not only in a better external arrangement, but also in radical anatomical changes? From where did they glean the necessary data to understand that these changes were in fact improvements? If all is chance, then there are no absolutes, morally or otherwise; so how did the primate know what an “improvement” was and that this concept was for one’s betterment?

8. The Glaring Holes:

Whilst this article is all about proving where monogamy came from, it is interesting that the report does not seem to deal with the present. Upon first reading this article, I was struck by substantial questions:

Monogamy, heterosexuality, and family are declared to be the best option for Human existence and success.[10] These are the pinnacle of evolution, thus far. So why do current human primates clamour for promiscuity, homosexuality, and singleness?
Infanticide gave rise to monogamy. In short, Monogamy was embraced to “provide extra protection for the infant”. So why do the current human primates indulge in abortion and infanticide? Is this evolutionary regression? Have the recipients of this evolutionary marvel, monogamy, now grown tired of long childhoods and speedy reproductive systems allowing again for the wholesale slaughter of their offspring?
Why is it that the current human primates have systematically attacked monogamy in the last five decades? Why is it that, in the current climate, antimonogamic ideas abound and are regularly propagated?
One author is quoted as saying, “This brings to a close the long running debate about the origin of monogamy in primates”. ‘Game, set, and match!’ to the evolutionist. Not likely. The hidden invective is aimed at Christians whose worldview gives another explanation for monogamy and family. So let us throw out a real teaser for them. Why does the human primate have such an innate sense of God? Most evolved humans worldwide, gathered into their respective tribes, have a sense of religion and of God / a god? If God does not exist and has never existed, how do you explain this phenomenon which is also unique to humans? When will this study begin?

Conclusion:

When you break these ideas down, you can see that evolution as a worldview simply does not stand up to scrutiny. In this current case, monogamy for the protection of the young is hailed as a great evolutionary advance. Yet, these same advanced primates now seek to kill their young; turn their back on monogamy, and, in a startling turn of events, give up on reproduction altogether by turning heterosexuality to homosexuality.

The evolutionist must provide us with an answer for this turn of events from his own worldview. The problem is he cannot. Evolution is all about breeding and reproduction. Listen to any naturalist with an evolutionary worldview and you will hear often about sex and reproduction. So why are the advanced primates, after hitting such a high note, regressing in their evolution? Why is it that the evolutionary wonder of monogamy is now passé? Why is it that this marvellous primate, who wrought such marvellous rational, moral, and anatomical changes, is giving up on reproduction and simply settling for meaningless sex acts by adopting homosexuality?

Evolution cannot answer these questions. In one sense, it is not even in a place to proffer an answer or a hint of an answer. Let us be frank. In terms of an evolutionary worldview, this research and subsequent paper are illegitimate. After all, how do you study rationally and make sense of random acts, accidents, coincidences, and chaos?

Man is monogamous because God made Man to be such. God made Man male and female. God instituted the family. God gave Man the ability to reproduce after his kind. It is rebellion against God’s order that brings us trouble; abortion, infanticide, and homosexuality.

“Forever, O Lord, Thy word is settled in heaven.”[11] “The sum of Thy word is truth, And every one of Thy righteous ordinances is everlasting.”[12] “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth.”[13]

[1] Jesus Himself dispels the Myth of Neutrality in Matthew 12:30, when He says: “He who is not with Me is against Me; and he who does not gather with Me scatters.”

[2] This is not a Biblical definition of faith. It is, however, the commonly held view. Faith is perceived by most as a personal choice. Thus, it is conceived of as completely subjective and without empirical substantiation.

[3] Luke 7:18-23. See also Matthew 11:2-6.

[4] Matthew 16:1-4; See also Mark 8:11-12.

[5] John 6:26 ff.

[6] Matthew 13:11-16

[7] It is for this reason that I often ask people to argue Biblically rather than rationally or scientifically with those who would oppose us. God’s word alone breaks down false presuppositions and worldviews. Christ alone removes the false lens and grinds them to powder.

[8] http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/murder-linked-to-mating-for-life/story-e6frfkui-1226687842442?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180. Accessed 30/07/13.

[9] Evolution rarely speaks of regression as evolution. Typically it is all about “onward and upward”. However, they whole concept of chaos and development by need means that regression is as much an evolutionary possibility as progression.

[10] This is implied in the article. It addresses males and females and their offspring.

[11] Psalm 119:89

[12] Psalm 119:160

[13] John 17:17

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In Part 1, we attempted to lay a solid foundation on which we might stand and from which we might argue. As we discuss the possibilities in regard to our future as a nation, it is of vital importance that we first comprehend both the standard and the goal.

Too often have Christians and the Church gone to battle without a clear vision before their eyes of what they are seeking to achieve. This lack of a precise goal is a manifestation of them using the wrong standard.

So let us be clear. In this particular battle our goal is not to stop homosexual union. Our goal must be nothing less than the eradication of homosexuality.[1] This may seem ultra-radical, but it is the position demanded by our Standard – the eternal, abiding, authoritative Word of God!

Be assured, the goal of our enemies is not just homosexual union; it is the eradication of God, Jesus, and Christianity – at least as a force to shape culture, and preferably in totality. We should have no less a goal. Shocked again? Why? Are we not at war in a “winner takes all” battle? Is not our motivation conformity to the image of Jesus in all things?[2] Does this not mean thinking God’s thoughts after Him?[3] Does this not mean loving God and the things He loves and hating that which He hates?[4]

I can already hear the clamour of the moderns. They will speak of love, tolerance, and turning the other cheek. Thus, I pose one question: Whom do you esteem more, God or the rebellious sinner?[5]

We will never win these major political and cultural battles as long as we hold to these two erroneous beliefs: A) The Church is not called upon to fight / the Church only fights when attacked; B) God is not interested in either politics or culture.

Option A, let’s call it “Christian Pacifism”, robs the Church of any opportunity to take back lost ground or to conquer. The Church is either decimated and loses everything or it fights when attacked in the hope of hanging on to the little that remains. Thus, once the din of battle subsides, these Christians lay down their arms and go back to sleep. This group never think of staying in their armour and launching attacks against the enemy in an effort to win lost ground, fortify the front line, and prepare for another advance!

Option B, the position of the Individual Salvationist,[6] means that we Christians have absolutely nothing to contribute to any political or cultural battle. It is that simple. Sadly, such a position is not only a denial of Scripture; it is a denial of Jesus Christ.

More importantly, however, is the fact that if you hold these views and you walk onto the battlefield, you will be aiding and abetting the enemy by hindering the army of Jesus Christ.

Blunt? Yes. Necessary? All the more so.

Without a standard and a goal, the battle is lost before we begin. Therefore, we have sought to say some things which need to be said so that we can genuinely put our shoulder to the plough knowing both the task and the goal. This is done in order that we should not fail and turn back.[7]

With this said, we are now in a better position to discuss the question of a referendum on homosexual union and the appropriate response to that proposal. The following discussion will look at a number of issues and attempt to give guidance for these difficult times.

A. God Has Spoken: The first point is very simple. A referendum on the part of the Government in regard to homosexual union is invalid and illegal. God has spoken and man has no right, ability, or authority to overturn the clear statutes of God.

We argued at length in Part 1, not just concerning homosexual union, but in regard to homosexuality itself. What we must see is that, regardless of the flag flown, successive Governments have ventured outside of their God-given authority and begun to legislate and call for opinion on matters where no discussion is warranted. God has spoken. Our simple task is to obey through implementation and conformity.[8]

In the context of a looming election, we are no doubt bracing for the inevitable speech by the victor in which they will speak of having a “mandate”. Again, in the current humanistic political sphere, where Man reigns supreme, it seems that the “man-“ is interpreted as meaning, ‘Man has spoke, so it is commanded!’ In truth, all a Government ever receives is a “God-date”. It is not the wish of Man for Man that is to be observed. It is the command of God for Man that is to be obeyed at all cost.

Therefore, calling for a referendum on homosexual union is a gross error. It is to fly in the face of God. It is nothing short of our nation writing another Humanist Manifesto: “We the people of Australia totally reject the Bible’s God and His sovereign governance over us. Our hatred of Him is so vast and so thorough that we chose to live under His divine wrath and inimical disposition toward us as a consequence of this rejection, rather than humble ourselves and obey. Signed – The Citizenry of Australia.”

A referendum on homosexual union is a haughty act on the part of man and Government, to say the least. Yet, it is no less so than all the decisions taken by successive Parliaments, which gave homosexuality credence and standing in the public eye and before the courts.

God has spoken. Man and Governments must render obedience in all things. We must note provoke God by overstepping our authority and making decisions that run contrary to His command.

All that a referendum will do, at one level, is cause all Australians to share the Government’s guilt. This referendum is akin to David’s numbering Israel.[9] That was a haughty act that intrinsically denied the command of God and His sovereign protection of that nation. It brought a devastating judgement.[10] Now we seek to be equally pretentious by denying God’s clear command and, in essence, state that we are capable of ensuring our own prosperity into the future.

This is our stand. A referendum is morally wrong because God has clearly spoken.

B. Australia 2013: Now comes the difficult part. We live in a fallen world and ethical choices need to be made. How do we respond if this referendum should go ahead? What should our stance be if we are compelled to vote? What impact can we have during the campaign? Is voting a sin? These are just a few of the many and, no doubt, prevalent questions in people’s minds.

It is beyond me to give concrete or absolute answers here. What I seek to do is help you think your way through some of the issues and to arrive at a Biblically reasoned response.

1. No Concrete Answers: I am unable to give concrete answers and firm direction on these issues. This is not because I seek to “wimp out” on my brethren when they are in a difficult situation. It is simply because, at this point, there are too many unknowns and too many variables. Equally, the only thing able to bind our consciences is God’s word. Here, then, I seek to serve my brethren by giving direction where possible; by laying down principle, by urging you to think, pray, and act; and by laying out, as best as it can be anticipated, some of the issues to be faced.

2. Christians Must Think and Act: As noted already, the question of a referendum has divided Christian commentators. In light of this many Christians will be tempted to place this issue in that proverbial basket labelled “Too Hard!” Therefore, it is essential that, while we have time, we try to understand the situation into which we have been placed. We are obligated to do this.[11] The Christian way should never be to simply “opt out”. Donkey and informal votes are not, at least should not be, the accepted or argued way for the Christian. God gave us a brain.[12] God gave us a new heart.[13] God gave us His Spirit.[14] God welcomes us into His throne room in order to hear our prayers and petitions.[15] It is ours to use our renewed minds to think our way through the possibilities in light of God’s wisdom found in God’s word.[16] Surely, this is what it means to be transformed so that we can be Salt and Light to the glory of God!

3. Be Prepared: “Robert Baden-Powell explains the meaning of the phrase: The Scout Motto is: BE PREPARED which means you are always in a state of readiness in mind and body to do your DUTY. Be Prepared in Mind by having disciplined yourself to be obedient to every order, and also by having thought out beforehand any accident or situation that might occur, so that you know the right thing to do at the right moment, and are willing to do it. Be Prepared in Body by making yourself strong and active and able to do the right thing at the right moment, and do it.”[17] This is sound advice for the Christian, even if the application needs a little tweak. Too often Christians are defeated because we refuse to be prepared in advance. We have time. Are we using that time to equip ourselves?[18]

4. Action: When it comes to the idea of a referendum, there are three options, roughly speaking, for the Christian. 1. Do not vote on moral grounds. 2. Decide to vote, even if under sufferance, in order to deprive the enemy and magnify God. 3. Decide not to vote, but to be active in campaigning. Okay, a little explanation. At no point do I say, “Do nothing.” That is not a Christian approach. If you decide not to vote, action should still be taken. Whether it be prayer or some other action of a militant nature; we should do something. I urge you not to complete a “Donkey Vote”. Neither make a typical informal vote. If you vote informally, do not mess up the form incoherently. Write something positive like, “Jesus Christ is Lord! – not KRudd”; “God has spoken, man must obey!”; or even write out a Biblical text. Whatever path we do choose before God in light of His wisdom, we must act, we must shine, we must glorify God. Whatever our path, it cannot be inaction. Similarly, if you are convinced to campaign, do so righteously and to God’s glory. This is not to say that you “soft-pedal” or be all “airy-fairy”. Speak truth. Speak it vigorously. Speak it vociferously. Speak it in love. Speak it with integrity. Speak it unashamedly.

5. Some Variables:

A. Referendum v Plebiscite: We need to understand the difference. A brief explanation of these two terms is: A referendum is binding and alters the constitution. A plebiscite is nothing more than a gigantic and expensive opinion poll – it is worth about the same as a politician’s promise![19] If we are forced to vote, then we should argue for a referendum. Why? A referendum will result in a change.[20] A plebiscite will do nothing, particularly if the motion is defeated. A plebiscite has also now been rendered utterly useless and nothing more than a gross obscenity for, as we speak, the Labor Government has said that they will implement homosexual union at some point.[21] So what is the point of a plebiscite? Mr Rudd has set his sail – who cares what the people think! Thus, if a vote comes, it must be a referendum. It must deal with the issue. It must clear the air.

B. The Question: Importantly, any referendum must ask the right question and it must provide for a just outcome. If the question is put in terms of recognising God’s view of marriage in the constitution, then there is a lot to gain. If said motion is defeated, we return to the status quo of relying on an Act of Parliament. This option at least provides for the possibility of a better outcome. If, however, the question deals specifically with homosexual union and it is unanimously defeated, then, as I understand it, the majority voice will gain nothing and we are back to the status quo of relying on politicians and an Act of Parliament. This is simply lose / lose. We can either be subjected to homosexual union or listen to their endless banter until they browbeat Parliament into granting their request.[22] This is raised because, as we noted in Part 1, the evil agitators gained the desire of their hearts and the politicians voted. They Lost!! Yet it did not stop them. Thus, the question posed must be fair, accurate, just, and aimed at ending this issue positively. Equally, we must remember that Labor has now promised to implement homosexual union. Thus, even if Mr Abbott finds himself in the Lodge after the election that, in itself, is no guarantee that this issue will be laid to rest. Imagine a day in which Malcolm Turnbull “knife’s” Mr Abbott and the leadership changes. What then? Remember that, although not having any time for Julia Gillard, she did oppose homosexual union and that would have made some in her party stand with her in the last vote, regardless of it being a conscience vote. So whilst I oppose the concept of this referendum, I equally acknowledge that it may also be a glimmer of light.

6. Democracy and Politicians: I have some dear and respected brethren / colleagues who are convinced that this issue should be settled by the politicians. I agree that these people have been elected and that they should do their job. The trouble is, they do not!

We had a vote on legalising homosexual union. It was resoundingly defeated. Upon its defeat did any politician seek to ensconce the outcome by fortifying marriage? No! Were any measures taken, given the positive result, to sure up marriage, to make the agitators cease, or to insist that no more bills be presented on the topic? No! In Part 1, I argued for a view of limited democracy? I did so because the whole process of democracy in this country is a farce. Yes, the people vote in an elected official. Then what? That individual goes about doing what they think or what their party tells them.

Mr Rudd is trying to make a huge issue out of the fact that the Coalition members were not allowed a “conscience vote” on the issue of homosexual union. This is just farcical. On how many of Mr Rudd’s policies were Labor politicians given a “conscience vote”? If Labor politicians had been able to have this freedom on the “mining tax”, “carbon tax” “pink bats” and other policies, would Labor have been in its recent mess? Would any or all of those schemes have seen the light of day?

Then there is the even bigger question. Is a conscience vote in keeping with the democratic principle? I will answer, No! If a democracy is that – a rule by the people – then the freedom to express a particular point outside of Party politics is indeed necessary. However, it is not the freedom of the politician’s conscience that should be in view. Rather, it is the freedom of the politician to represent the views of his constituents.

Seriously, friends (even enemies), think about this. Our modern form of democracy gives us the right to elect a representative. At the cessation of that process, our democratic right is obliterated by party politics, and a “two-party-preferred” system. Some argument can be made that our democratic right does not even go that far, being truncated by preferential voting.

Consequently, with all due respect to my colleagues who hold this position, “What do we really expect from these elected officials in this corrupt democracy?” Mr Rudd talks up a conscience vote on homosexual union, but then tramples on the very concept of democracy by announcing that Labor will make homosexual union a reality. Do people not see this glaring inconsistency?

Consequently, on one side of politics there is a leader fully dedicated to homosexual union, who despite his promise not to take a “national lead” on this issue, has committed his party to making homosexual union a reality. Even with a conscience vote the leader’s attitude is going to sway votes in their direction. On the other side of politics, the leader has said no to homosexual union and will not let (for now) his people have a free vote.

Whilst Mr Abbott’s position is the correct one – though I suspect for all the wrong reasons – the simple, stark, cold reality is that neither side is representing a democratic position. Both transgress the simple principle of representing the people. Neither side are really listening to the people.[23]

Mr Rudd is whipping up the issue of homosexual union and broadband for one reason – he sees these as the point of connection with younger voters. So, even at this juncture, Mr Rudd is not listening to the people, but to a subset of people. Thus, he is not arguing democracy, but demography. Mr Abbott, for whatever reason, has refused to allow a vote, which equally strikes at the democratic principle. I mean, truly, if we accept the conscience vote as a form of democracy, then we should be demanding that Mr Abbott change his mind and allow such a vote. After all, the elected representatives should be able to represent, feigned or genuine, their constituents.

The current situation should really call for pause and a complete rethink of what we mean, particularly as Christians, when we speak of democracy and of elected officials doing their job. Can we trust people who lie? Can we trust the adulterer? My federal member believes whole-heartedly in homosexuality and in maintaining the “traditional” view of marriage. Can I trust her? Not on your Nelly! Why, because she, like most, is guided by pragmatism and not absolutes.

7. Conservative Australia: Some Christians, whom I respect, are wary of a referendum because they wonder whether God’s truth would be voted in, even if the right process is allowed and the right question posed. My belief is that this position underestimates the general clime of our nation.

One of the reasons many homosexual protagonists have backed away from the idea of a referendum on homosexual union is because they know that it does not have public support. Whilst Australia may not be a righteous nation, it is to some degree “politically conservative.”

This conservative nature was highlighted with the rise of One Nation. Regardless of your particular feelings concerning Pauline and that Party, you should morn over what happened to her and the One Nation Party. This marked a dark day in Australian politics and showed that democracy, whilst touted, was simply not welcome. This political party became popular very quickly. It began to poll better than most other minor parties and it became a real threat. Thus, the big boys banded together and set out to destroy this fledgling party before it could become a real power, thus extinguishing the heralded democracy of our nation.

Why? Very simple. One Nation began to put forth different policies that had credibility. They did not offer the same, old, tired, lame excuses. They were willing to try something different. They were willing to recognise morality in governance. Moreover, they were advocating a change.[24] As a consequence, they gained a real following. For whatever other lack may have been present, the rise and demise of One Nation showed that Australia has a conservative outlook. It showed that people were sick and tired of only having two choices – Dumb and Dumber!

For this reason, the homosexual lobby has focussed on changing the minds of politicians rather than changing the mind of the people. This is why Tony Abbott has come under so much pressure for not allowing a “conscience” vote on the issue. The proponents of homosexual union want to deceive people into thinking that the only reason that the last vote was unsuccessful was because of this limitation.

Thus, they continue to add pressure to the fickle politicians who want to be re-elected. So we see Mr Windsor[25] and Mr Rudd both changing their mind on this issue. Did they have a moral change or a political change of heart? In other words, could they see the writing on the wall and so make a decision in order to gain the votes of a vocal minority in order to save their political careers?

Having moved amongst my countrymen, I do not believe there is anywhere near the support for homosexual union or homosexuality that is touted in the media. People feel they must support things in public because they fear Big Brother. However, take them aside and have a quiet chat and their view is very different.[26]

8. PC – A Dangerous Thing: The simple reality is that Australia is being held to ransom at the barrel of the PC gun.[27] People are simply not free to state what they believe and to discuss the topic. People are constrained and restrained by legislation, workplace policies, and employment contracts; all of which is nothing short of the forced Governmental indoctrination of its citizens.

When a Government cannot present a reasoned debate that convinces its citizens, it turns to tyranny, force, and coercion. The irony found in our tyrannical Government is that they claim to be rationalists who subscribe to reason as the basis of their belief system, yet they are unable to give a credible reasoning for their actions. How bizarre!

Anyway, the point is this: the Government has no rationale for the implementation of homosexual union. Therefore, it will readily stifle debate and enforce its will through the abhorrence that is PC. So, in looking toward the future, we must be willing to attack PC, to stand against its insidious methods of gagging, and to risk its weight falling upon us. Make no mistake, if we get to a referendum there will be a campaign and there will be debates. If we argue as I have urged – arguing against homosexuality in general – or simply against homosexual union, we will be opposed by all the legislation enacted to the honour of the pagan god “PC”.

9. Girding the Loins: In times like these we cannot afford to have a spirit of timidity. We cannot back away from the fight simply because it seems that we are opposed by the many. Remember Gideon. Remember Jericho. Remember Joshua. Remember, it is Yahweh Who fights for us. It is in Yahweh’s army that we march.

This army must fight at the command of its Captain. However, the army must remember that its Captain is not constrained to “save by many or few!”[28] When God is for us, who is there to oppose? With the Psalmist should we not also exclaim, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread?”

Conclusion:

Whilst I oppose the idea of being compelled to vote on a topic on which God has already spoken vociferously, I am equally open to the fact that God may be presenting His people with a great opportunity. I realise that some will see that position as “confused” or me as having a “double standard”. If that be the case, I guess I will have to cope.

Such issues aside, it is necessary that the Christians of this nation not miss a God-given opportunity. Many issues divide Christians for many reasons. On the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union there is a greater degree of unity. Therefore, at this present time, we have been granted an opportunity to garner support for Biblical reform. It would be a pitiable situation if this opportunity were not seized.

As is clear from this article, our problems as a nation go far beyond the issue of homosexual union. That topic is nothing more than a spiritual and cultural barometer. What it clearly shows is that the needle is pointing to a deep low; that is if the needle has not already fallen from the hub in disgust, lying dormant at the bottom of the dial!

My aim is to stir people’s hearts for Revival and Reform. Yes, highlighting inadequacy and error can be seen as pessimism or an overly critical spirit. However, I count such terms as naught. The simple, basic truth is this: Honest appraisal must come before any attempt at renovation! You would not buy a house on the basis that it had an expensive, solid-timber, hand crafted door, complete with a costly stained-glass inset, while the rest of the house was desperately in need of repair. You would not sit there, shivering as the icy wind blew in through cracks in the wall, simply admiring the door, convinced that the house is in excellent condition. So why do we seek to unleash such deception upon ourselves at a national level.

Having pointed out the deficiencies, we need to now set about taking whatever opportunities we have to rectify the situation.

Imagine, the referendum is fair, the question just. God hears the cries of His people and marriage between one man and one woman is enshrined in the constitution. Wonderful. Then the fallout. We would have a constitution that is at loggerheads with international treaties and other “Human Rights” garbage. Our Equal Opportunity Commission would be in a conundrum. How can we be had up for vilification if we are being but constitutional?

Imagine the public declaration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that could take place during a campaign. Yes, there may be / will be opposition. Nonetheless, we would have just cause to publish Christ’s word daily in our newspapers; daily opportunity for Christ’s word to be spoken on radio. Any attempts to gag would simply furnish us with more material on which to comment. Gagging would provide us with more opportunities to speak Christ’s word to yet one more godless situation. It would further enable us to point out man’s natural hatred of Christ and His standard. It would provide us with plentiful opportunities to command, Cease, Desist, Repent, Live.

As stated, our consciences are to be bound to God’s word and by God’s word. Thus, my number one encouragement is this: Do not give up searching the Scriptures in these difficult times. It is God’s word alone that will furnish us the necessary wisdom to fight appropriately and succeed.

Secondly, do not give up on prayer. Pray often. Pray vigorously. Also, pray wisely and pray toward something. Let us prove to God that we are convinced that there is a particular course of action that is right. Encourage your brethren to pray, even if their ideas and convictions are different. The point is that we should swamp God’s throne with our ardent prayers; thereby showing that we are engaged and interested participants in the establishment of His Kingly rule over his Kingdom. As to the fact that our prayers may differ – tis naught. A perfectly wise God can adjudicate that situation most adequately.

Let us approach this situation with courage in Jesus Christ and with a positive outlook. Whilst the situation may be chaotic and less than perfect, that by no means translates to the fact that God cannot work or that He will not work. In fact, Scripture shows us that it is at times of greatest despair, when man’s resources and hope are expended, that God often works the greatest.

Salt and light. If we will not preserve and shine, who will? Tis our task to work for the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom. Whether the days be good or evil is not ours to choose. It is ours to live faithfully in every age. To live to God’s glory and to proclaim that it is God’s right to rule all institutions and all nations through Jesus Christ.

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.” “And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.”

Eschatologies and prophetic views may differ, but these words sum up our raison d’être. This is that to which we are obliged to work and to which we have been called. This is our cause in Australia in the year of our Lord 2013. Will you join with me in this fight for the glory of Jesus Christ our King?

Footnotes:

[1] Let us also be clear on this point. I focus on homosexuality because of the topic and context. However, all institutions have a responsibility to eradicate everything that is sinful. We need to bid homosexuality, “Be gone!” Along with this, we also need to include abortion, euthanasia, murder, divorce, de facto relationships and the like. Equally, we need to oppose theft in all its forms – excessive taxation, unjust weights, manipulated dollar, manipulated fuel prices, and so on. We need to remove tyranny and bring freedom. We need to re-establish justice. Our society needs to undergo transformation through the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In short, we need another Reformation.

[2] Romans 8:29.

[3] “How precious also are Thy thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them!” 139:17

[4] “Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128. “Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth.” Psalm 73:25.

[5] “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29; “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.” Deuteronomy 30:19-20; “And He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment.” Matthew 22”37-38.

[6] These are those that believe the Gospel is only about saving individuals. Politics and Culture are but unholy distractions. These will only get involved in these battles if they are constrained by external forces.

[7] Luke 9:62.

[8] Allow me to draw an Ecclesiastical analogy. Some years ago the congregation I then attended was vacant. A meeting was held by the Interim-Moderator in order to expedite filling the vacancy. One of the questions posed was, “What do you want in a minister?” This opened the door to all sorts of ridiculous statements, including, “We do not want anyone dogmatic!” (If the desired candidate is to believe nothing and have no convictions, we may as well have stayed vacant!) My point here is very simple – Scripture tells us absolutely what an Elder / Minister must be. We did not need a popular consensus or a democratic vote on the principle qualities that the Elder / Minister must display, for they are codified in Scripture. Neither do we need Governments holding opinion polls on homosexuality. Our perspective on that has likewise been codified in Scripture.

[9] 2 Samuel 24: ff c.f 1 Chronicles 21:1 ff.

[10] Both accounts record that 70,000 died in the ensuing pestilence.

[11] “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” Ephesians 5:15-17.

[12] Without getting into a debate regarding Eschatology, we would point out that the book of Revelation contains two challenges for people to think and apply their minds. Revelation 13:8 and 17:9.

[13] Jeremiah 31:33: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” John 14:1: “Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.”

[14] John 16:8-11: “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.”

[15] Hebrews 4:16: “Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.”

[16] Romans 12:2: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Paul, at this juncture, insists on the renewed – Biblical – mind so that we may in fact understand God’s will, which is always acceptable and perfect.

[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Motto

[18] We would do to remember and heed Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to be “ready in season and out” 2 Timothy 4:2.

[19] A plebiscite would be useless. The Government is well aware of the numbers who oppose this change, just as it is well aware of its own agenda and treaty obligations. As such, a plebiscite would be a colossal waste of money which would do nothing to turn back the tide in this nation.

[20] Again, there are many variables. However, in an effort to be constructive I assume a number of issues, such as a fair question and a victory for God.

[21] “LABOR has given a strong indication same-sex marriage will be legalised, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s righthand man declaring the party will make it happen. Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made the declaration while being interviewed on a youth radio station. But Mr Albanese later sought to clarify his comment, saying the issue was still a matter for a conscience vote and that history showed the Labor side of politics had always been the one to reform gay and lesbian rights.…

Asked on Triple J’s Hack show if Labor would make gay marriage happen, Mr Albanese, restricted to one-word answers, said: “Yes”.” Read more:

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/albanese-signals-marriage-equality-8216will-happen8217-under-labor/story-fnho52ip-1226673375150

[22] Space does not allow for a full discussion, but I believe that any referendum should come with a “sunset clause” or moratorium. We had a vote on this issue. The homosexuals lost. Yet, as we have noted, that vote did not put the issue to rest. Thus, if homosexual union is again defeated, there needs to be a stipulated time before it can ever be raised again. If this is not done, the political circus will continue.

[23] Let me illustrate with two examples, both from the supposedly conservative side of politics. Jeff Kennett allowed a “conscience vote” on legalising marijuana, yet at the same time ruled out ever allowing a vote on the reintroduction of the death penalty. John Winston Howard turned tyranny to an art form with the “gun buy-back”. The real tragedy in this saga was seen when “backbenchers” began to speak up for their constituents. They were told publicly to go back and silence the voters. So where is democracy? What voice do the people really have? Put this to the test. Walk down the street – any street – and I guarantee you can start a conversation with a complete stranger on this issue in no time at all. I equally guarantee that the response will not be positive. It is a sad reality, but the depth of despair is summed up in the old joke, “How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move!”

[24] How many times have you heard a politician in opposition tell you how ridiculous certain government policies are, yet, when the opposition gains power, they do not rescind or repeal these policies?

[25] This was penned before the recent announcement that Mr Windsor would not contest his seat at the next election.

[26] Before leaving this point, let me highlight just how our political landscape is radically altered by our corrupt system. In the election that saw One Nation decimated, they had hoped to win 12 seats. As we know, they did not win a single seat – or did they? My memory is a bit hazy, but, at that time, I smelled a rat and spent hours trolling through election results. If memory serves correctly, on a first past the post result, One Nation won 15 seats. Again, I cannot remember the exact number, but I believe that Pauline Hanson was something like 10,000^{^[26]} votes in front at the end of primary voting.

Analogy time! Imagine the outcry if, at the end of the horse race, the winner was relegated to last place because of a straw poll conducted amongst the jockeys as to who they thought should have won. This is what is happening at every election in Australia. How different would Australia be if we had a system that recognised the first past the post or the majority primary vote?

[27] Dr Ben Carson spoke at the Nation Prayer Breakfast in the US this year. His speech is worth listening to in its entirety. May I encourage you to listen to the first six minutes of his speech, in which he says some very salient things in regard to people being easily offended and the impact of PC. If time is short, simply listen to one minute of this speech. Between 5:05 and 6:02, Dr Carson, speaks directly to the PC culture. He labels it as a “horrible thing” and as “dangerous”. He notes that it “muzzles people.” View at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA

[28] 1 Samuel 14:6.

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)

Posted on July 6, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

[This article was begun some months ago when the issue of a referendum was first raised. Due to circumstances, it has been worked on in an ad hoc fashion over that time. I feared that it had become irrelevant with Kevin Rudd taking back the Prime Ministership and that it may end up in the bin. However, Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union and his statements of recent show that this issue is still very much alive. Some aspects may be dated. We now know that Tony Windsor will not be standing for re-election. However, it is hoped that the bulk of the article will still prove helpful. RM]

The issue of homosexual marriage refuses to go away.[1] Why is this? The simple answer has to do with, a) agitators who will not give up until they achieve their goal and, b) Christians who will not engage in this fight in an appropriate manner.

Those in favour of homosexual marriage managed to have a bill introduced to Parliament in 2012, which sought to rewrite the Marriage Act by changing its definition. After months of debate throughout society, the vote was taken and the democratically elected officials voted the bill down. Not only was the bill defeated; it was significantly defeated (98-42).

Did this stop the agitators? No, it did not.[2] Why did it not stop them? The answer here is twofold.

First, it must be understood, and we have made this point in previous articles, that the vote taken by the Parliament was only a vote as to the definition of marriage. It was not an in principle vote against homosexuality. In other words, the vote was not a total rejection of homosexuality as an invalid and unacceptable lifestyle. Rather, it was a vote concerning the extent of homosexual recognition.

Second, because the aforementioned vote was not a complete rejection of homosexuality, the agitators have continued to be buoyed by Government policy and world events. We have highlighted the fact that the Gillard Government has made major concessions to the homosexual movement.[3] In recent months, we have seen both the New Zealand and French Parliaments vote to accept homosexual marriage. The consequence of which was to once more fuel the issue here in Australia.

Given the inability of our elected officials to deal satisfactorily and morally with this issue, we must ask, “What now?” The most recent proposal came from the Independent MP, Tony Windsor. His suggestion is that an additional question be added to the referendum planned to be held at the upcoming election.[4] Naturally, the additional question would deal with homosexual marriage.

This is a very simple plan. It is an effective plan. It is a definite plan. It is also a plan that has well and truly placed the “cat amongst the pigeons.” Thus far, we have seen some Christians support the idea[5] and some Christians reject the idea.[6] Certain political parties embraced the idea and then distance themselves from it. Social commentators have raised concerns about what effect a referendum and the associated advertising may have. Then, amusingly, certain homosexual lobby groups have shied away from the proposal.[7]

“Referendum or no referendum?” that is the question.

As noted, I would agree with certain aspects of Mr Windsor’s proposal. A referendum should put this issue to bed once and for all. The proposal is simple. The proposal is democratic. This proposal would tell us what the Australian people are actually thinking in contradistinction to what the news polls suppose we are thinking. A referendum would put the issue beyond the reach of politicians and political speak.

The question, however, that must of necessity be asked is, “Are these aspects the right and only issues in this debate.” The answer to that is a resounding, “No!” Here, we enter the heart of this debate. Here, we must look at the issues that are being pushed aside by most, if not all, in this debate.

1. Man’s Logic v God’s Authoritative Word:

One of the constant irritations in debates of this nature is the way in which Christians seek to argue logic and trend rather than God and His word. In The War was not Won, I noted:

I know a good few Christian organisations who have fought hard in this and other battles. I do not in any way wish to detract from them or their work. However, I would posit that the events of recent years have shown us that the so called “logical” arguments are of little value. … We are witnessing a war based on definitions. Unless we come to the table armed with God’s word, then we will simply be trading “logic” for “logic” or human understanding for human understanding. The only thing that makes the Christian’s argument impenetrable is the very fact that it is God’s word! We have no magical ability bestowed upon us. Our faculties are not made magically better than other men. Our strength lies in the Word of God.[8]

It is time that we Christians came to these arguments armed solely with God’s word – the sword of His armoury![9] There is a place for secondary arguments; but they are just that, secondary. Such arguments must follow as an adjunct that witness to the truth of God’s word. They can never be allowed to supplant the primacy of God’s word either as the foundation from which we speak or as the content of that speech.

Allow me to attempt to elucidate. In theology we speak of “Natural” and “Positive” penalties when speaking of judgements upon sin. Berkhof explains:

There are punishments which are the natural results of sin, and which man cannot escape, because they are the natural and necessary consequence of sin. … The slothful man comes to poverty, the drunkard brings ruin to himself and his family, the fornicator contracts a loathsome disease, and the criminal is burdened with shame and even when leaving the prison walls finds it extremely hard to make a new start. … But there are also positive punishments, and these are punishments in the more ordinary and legal sense of the word. They presuppose not merely the natural laws of life, but the positive law of the great Lawgiver with added sanctions. They are not penalties which naturally result from the nature of the transgression, but penalties which are attached to the transgression by divine enactments. They are superimposed by divine law, which is absolute authority.[10]

It is fundamentally important that we grasp this point. When we as Christians wade into battle, we do so to glorify God and to stop sin. We go forth in the name of Jesus Christ and cry out, “Cease. Desist. Repent. Live!” Concerned for the holiness of our God, we seek to stop every action that robs Him of His glory or besmirches His great name. The implication of this is that we are dealing with sins specifically proscribed by God as Lawgiver. Consequently, there is no logical link between the sin committed and the negative covenant penalty imposed by the sanction of God.

Lost? Let me explain. What logical link is there between neglecting the worship of Jesus Christ, poverty and famine? What logical link is there between sexual promiscuity and exile (loss of sovereignty)? What logical link is there between familial adultery and childlessness? To our modern and Humanistic way of thinking, we would reply, “Nothing!” However, if we explore God’s word, we will see clearly that in God’s Law these are the exact positive penalties attached to each of these transgressions.[11]

Whilst it is evident that there is indeed a system of cause and effect, the effect is not a logical consequence. In terms of homosexuality, we may see that the natural penalty of homosexual activity may be a divorce or the acquisition of a “loathsome” disease. What we do not see, what we refuse to see, is that the prosperity of our nation, its ability to produce, the stability of the seasons, the moral clime of the nation, the safety of our wives in their beds and our children on the street, and a myriad of things beside, are all linked to the acceptance or rejection of homosexuals and homosexual practice.

Everyone is aware of the current agitation on Climate Change.[12] Around the world there is a constant outcry about the dangers of Climate Change. I hear all sorts of reasons being advanced. Do you know what I do not hear? This admission: “For we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, since our youth even to this day!”[13] We hear nothing in regard to the fact we are being punished and chastised for our rebellion against God.

Australia is toying with homosexual marriage as is Britain and America. France and New Zealand have legalised it – as have other countries. Heretics are crawling out of the woodwork—like the false prophets of old crying out “Peace! Peace! When there was no peace”—telling us that homosexuality is a “gift of God” and that people are “gay by divine right.”[14] This bemuses me. If all this is “so right” in the sight of God, why are our respective nations “so messed up”? If this is right before God then it constitutes righteousness. God says He will look to the “righteous” and that He will bless “righteous” behaviour. So, where is the obvious covenantal blessing (positive command for our good) of God upon our respective nations?

How do these false prophets explain Australia’s drought? How do they explain New Zealand’s earthquakes? How do they explain America’s ever decreasing prosperity and plunge into unpayable debt? How do they explain the downward spiral of Britain from ‘world power’ to third-world war zone?

The short answer is, “They cannot!” At least, not without denying God as sovereign Lawgiver all over again and admitting that we are products of chance; that our prosperity and the rise and fall of nations is just a “per chance” or “happenstance” on the timeline we call history. (Oops! Sorry. My bad. Of course they do this. They call it Evolution, Humanism, and Post Modern Thought, to name but a few.)

There is no human logic, research, or empiricism to be argued here. The only logic (right judgement) is to believe the revelation given by God and accept that, by God’s standard, all is not “rosy in the garden”; and this precisely because we have sinned and are therefore experiencing the application of the covenantal penalty to the covenantal transgression.

We can front our politicians with the so called “logical”. We can quote statistics. We can cite papers by PhDs. Yet none of these things says that the acceptance of homosexuality is an abhorrent deed that should not be practiced because it is an offence to Almighty God. None of these simply says, No![15]

More importantly, none of these papers speak with authority. None of these papers have the ability to command the consciences of sinful men and to tell them to stop suppressing the truth of God. None of these papers have the authority to either rebuke the conscience or liberate the conscience unto Jesus Christ. In short, none of these papers can transform. That process can only be worked by Divine authority and that authority is God’s word.

Dr. Joe Morecraft III is absolutely correct when he states that arguments of logic and empiricism are a ‘denial of the Christian faith.’ Says he, “Knowledge and morality are absolutely impossible unless we presuppose the truth of the Lordship of Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible over every area of life.”[16] Spot on! However, beware the pitfall. We cannot have a half-baked cake. We cannot give mental assent only and say that we believe in accordance with Brother Joe and then forsake that principle for research and the words of men.

It is for this reason that we must go into battle with the offensive weapon of the Lord – The Sword of the Spirit.

Brethren, the first point is a very simple one. If we are going into battle with any expectation of victory, then let us throw down our piddly pen-knives and go armed with The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.[17]

2. Morality v Equality:

Beginning with the Word of God is essential for a successful Christian defence because it helps us to cut through the extraneous material thrown up by our opponents. The lens of God’s word helps us to see through the smoke and mirrors. Armed with the Sword of the Lord, we are enabled to peel back the layers of lies and deceit and expose the true condition we face.

In the battle regarding homosexual marriage, we must be sure of the true enemy so that we can apply the full force of God’s word to that point. Taking on God’s word and wisdom will ensure that we are not distracted and led from the path chasing tangential arguments and ideas.

Of priority, we assert that the idea of homosexual marriage is an argument of morality and not equality. Hence, from here on in, reference is made to homosexual union.[18]

Homosexuality is illegitimate. Homosexuality is an abomination and a depraved activity. Homosexuality is condemned by God.[19] Homosexuality is the pinnacle of man’s rebellion against God and therefore falls under the full weight of His righteous wrath.[20] So says God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Therefore, any discussion in regard to homosexual practices or homosexual rights is first, foremost, and only a moral issue!

Yet, we do not hear this anymore – even from the Christians!! We Christians have become so focused upon the “logical” refutation of the particular point before us that we have forgotten the bigger issue. The question before us is not, “Should homosexual union be legalised or recognised?” but “Should homosexuality be recognised or accepted?”

These are very different questions. The first merely feeds the rebellious desires of the homosexual lobby. The second places the homosexuals back in the closet and then pushes the closet of a cliff!! Oh dear! How un-PC of me. Well, in the words of Sgt Major “Shut Up”, “Oh dear. So sad. Never mind!”

The longer we Christians (and our nation) refuse to acknowledge, preach, proclaim, and insist on God’s order, the longer we will suffer the plague of homosexuality with all its attendant and destructive ills.

As a moral issue, homosexuality can only be discussed under two words and from one perspective. Those two words – two very unpopular words today – are, “Right” or “Wrong”. The one perspective is God’s. If we begin at any other place, we have lost the battle before we have even begun.

My friends, please understand this. As a moral issue, the discussion is only in regard to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and nothing else. If we begin to discuss the ancillary, then we fight on the enemy’s terms.

Let me illustrate this point for you. Recently, I heard a discussion on this topic in the context of a proposed referendum. A female was interviewed as part of a panel. She began her discussion and in the space of no more than two sentences changed her language three times. She started with “homosexual marriage” moved to “marriage equality” and then ended with the passionate “Australians just want everybody to be happy”.[21]

In these two sentences there was a transitionary move from the moral / ethical, to the cultural / legal, finishing strongly with the emotional – the modern god of happiness. Note this well, please. These transitions are used all the time. They are used to disarm and confuse. They are nothing short of Psychological Warfare. These terms are used to disguise reality and to deliberately lead people away from discussing homosexuality on moral grounds.

Asking Joe Average whether he wants “everybody to be happy” is a very different thing to asking him, “Do you believe homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle?” Yet, this is exactly what happens in order to bluff and beguile the average person on the street.

Footnote four contains a link to the interview with Fred Nile on this issue. I would now encourage you to go and view that link. Note this same attempt on the part of the interviewer to use language that distracts from the real issues. Note how that language makes any who oppose seem to be “Draconian”, “half-witted”, or just part of the “religious lunatic fringe”. Also note, please, how Fred Nile fails to indentify the real issue and continues to talk only of homosexual union.[22]

At this point, we must also highlight the current desire to speak of “marriage” as a mere tradition. Again, by taking this route the proponents of homosexual union are trying to remove the topic from the realm of morality and place it into a cultural context. As such, marriage becomes no more than choice, culture, or habit. They attempt to move it from the realm of God’s jurisdiction to that of Man’s; from Divine commandment to cultural choice.

Brethren, the second lesson is also simple. We must come to this argument armed with “Thus says the Lord God…” because this is a moral issue. It is a case of right or wrong based in God’s revealed Law-Word.

This issue is not equality. The issue is Morality!

3. Democracy v Theocracy:

Here, we arrive at the real thought provoker. Here, we arrive at one of the greatest problems in the modern Church – Epistemological Hypocrisy. Wow! Big word. So let’s explore.

Epistemology is, in general, the “theory of knowledge”. It looks at how we know, why we know, and what we can know. It is fundamentally important that the Christian grasp and understand the significance of this. It is so because the Christian believes, or should believe, that one can know. The Christian does not believe that they are in an unintelligible world that has no reality or purpose and which is naught but a transient dream in the mind of the individual. On the contrary, the Christian believes in a world created by God. Therefore, there is knowledge of order, purpose, justice, morality, right and wrong.

In contradistinction to this is our current world – the world of the “Postmodern” era. In this world, knowledge and the ability to know are questioned or denied. The ramification of this is that the predominate philosophy of our day, the theory that guides the people in power, is one in which there are no absolutes and, therefore, no right or wrong. In such a world, democracy and the collective choice of the individuals is hailed as supreme.[23]

This brings us to discuss the Epistemological Hypocrisy of the Church. If we went to church this Sunday and conducted a straw poll on the questions, “What is the Church’s authority?” and “Where do I find God’s instruction?” I am sure we would have high percentages tell us that it is God and the Bible. In short, Christians would affirm that their epistemology is based in God’s revelation of Himself. This has led the Church, throughout history, to affirm that the Bible is the only rule of life and faith for all.

The problem is that we have become Epistemological Hypocrites. What we affirm with our lips, we do not affirm with our actions. This was made clear two decades ago at a church I then attended. A group came to the church with a questionnaire. It had, I believe, twenty questions. Ten were asked positively. Ten were asked negatively.

When asked the positive question regarding Scripture, the answer was around 90% in the affirmative. In other words, the majority of respondents believed that the Bible was our only source of authority. However, when the practical question was asked – a question along the lines of, ‘When people ask for advice you give or seek guidance from …?” – the percentage of those who used the Bible plummeted dramatically.

This is Epistemological Hypocrisy. We Christians say that we believe God. We say that we live by God’s word. We say that we obey God’s commands. We say that we desire obedience to God’s Law. We go into our church services and pray lofty prayers asking God for guidance, for wisdom, for discernment. We are even emboldened to ask for God’s blessing upon our obedience. Yet, we walk from the building and begin to implement that which seems good to us. We enter into cultural and political debates armed with the toothpicks of human research rather than the Sword of the Spirit.

This leads to the challenge. Christian, why do you support an unbridled view of democracy? Whilst it has become an unpopular view and a word to be shunned, the simple reality is that this world and our nation must be Theocratic.[24] We must live under, by, and for the rule of God.

The best that a Christian should say is that he believes in Limited Democracy. This is a view in which man has some ability to vote into being certain rules. Yet, intrinsically, it also sets up a very high and strong fence around a range of issues and sets a banner on that fence: “God has spoken. Man may not encroach!”

In regard to the question of a referendum, I object, not because I fear the outcome, but because God has spoken. Consequently, the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union is beyond the determination of man – either as an individual or as a parliament. This is the same with Euthanasia, Abortion, Taxation, Property Ownership and a whole host of things. God has spoken. Man’s task is to listen and obey.

Here, then, is the quandary. The Church has fallen for the modern mood of Individualism. The idea of “having a vote” and “expressing our own opinion” has become a joy to us (research v Word). We see this in the modern desire for choice. Man simply wants to be free to choose his own destiny. This sounds okay, but at heart it is once more a return to the Garden and a grab for God’s throne. It is to visit Psalm Two and see the kings and judges of the earth conspiring to throw off God’s rule, and therein, God’s Law and God’s Christ.

Sadly, the Church has become complicit in this gross sin. She has desired Her own path. As such, She has played the harlot. She has not remained faithful to Her Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ. In modern parlance, She has become a Feminist and joined the noisy chorus demanding freedom from Biblical headship.

If we are to have victory, we Christians and the Church, must confess this sin and repent. We must live our epistemology consistently. We must deny Democracy and call for Theocracy. We must remember that we are not members in a club with voting rights, but citizens and ambassadors from a Kingdom. Our job is to live out and declare the message of the Great King.[25]

When we grasp this point. When we affirm, on the basis of a Biblical conviction, that we subscribe to a limited democracy that sits below the Theocracy, then we will be more inclined to say, “Thus say the Lord God…!” and to understand issues from the point of God’s morality and God’s sovereignty.

4. Homosexuality v Heterosexuality:

God’s revelation shows that it is one man and one woman who are to be joined in a legal unification – a legal unification that we have termed as marriage. Even if we take into account the times we witness multiple wives in Scripture – something tolerated, not commanded or sanctioned – it is exactly the same pattern, man with woman / women! The number of the wives may change; their gender never does.

Here we must once more throw out the challenge by use of analogy. Your child is shown, by you, a picture of an animal. That animal is large, grey, four-footed, has a trunk, is equipped with tusks, eyes, mouth, and has very large ears.

You now ask your child to name the animal. Your child studies the picture and jubilantly exclaims, “It’s a donkey!” Bewildered, you ask, “Why do you say it is a donkey?” Contemplatively, your child replies, “Well, it has large ears. It has a mouth. It has eyes. It has a tail and it stands on four legs.” Continuing, your child confidently asserts, “It must be a donkey because a donkey has all these!”

You see, like the child, the homosexual and the homosexual lobby try to justify their perverted view of gender and sexuality on the basis of similarity. Yet such is absolute nonsense. We would not let our child call an elephant a donkey based on similarity. Rather, we demand that our child call an elephant an “elephant” based on its unique qualities that set it apart. In essence, the label “elephant” cannot be applied willy-nilly to any animal. The term brings to mind an exact representation. The label and the form go together.

So it is in terms of marriage and sexuality. Marriage is a term that applies to the covenantal union of a male and female with the implication of all that God intended for and through that covenantal union. Marriage is the label. Male and female is the form. This is the majestic, mighty elephant – powerful, strong, and robust.

In comparison, you have the donkey that is homosexuality. The similarities in form do not entitle it to appropriate to itself the label. It is that simple. Sharing big ears and having four feet does not transform a donkey into an elephant. Likewise, the fact that homosexuality is one side of the gender coin; that some travesty of sexual exchange may take place; that some type of relationship may be present, in no way qualifies this parody to appropriate the label “marriage”.

Form and label go together. Alter the form and the label does not apply. To use the label for a different form is theft. It is the path to confusion and anarchy.

5. Life v Death:

At this point we are going to be, to the modern mind, rather provocative. No excuses are made. No apologies issued. These things must be stated.

The Dominion / Cultural Mandate[26] clearly shows that Marriage is God’s design for life. God placed male and female together in covenant union – marriage – in order to be fruitful and bring God’s rule over the earth. This design fit perfectly with God’s blueprint for life. God planted seed in man. God deposited eggs within woman. He gave to the woman a womb – a secret place within her wherein God would knit life and bring forth posterity. These create generational family. They provide nurture, care, love, and discipline. They train. They sacrifice. They live.

Homosexuality cannot copy this pattern. Homosexuality is, by definition, barren and dead. Eggs without seed and seed without eggs. Life cannot be brought forth by these relationships without intervention or further depravity. Historically, nations that have embraced homosexuality have died out. One does not need to be a genius to figure out why.

Homosexuality is death. Its form is death. Its label is death. Heterosexuality is life precisely because God gave a form that could be and is fruitful. God placed a man and a woman together – form. That form is called marriage – label. This form and this label are life.

Now to be really provocative, but, nonetheless, truthful. Homosexual union is an impossibility. It is so because homosexuals are abominations proscribed under pain of death. The union which they seek is “until death do us part”.[27] Biblical fact – their dead!! The dead do not marry. The dead cannot marry.[28]

You will now tell me that such a statement is unpalatable. The slaves to modernism will tell me that such statements are harsh, unloving, intolerant, and not in keeping with Jesus’ philosophy, and so on ad nauseum. These are the same people who have rejected the term and concept of Theocracy in order to be comfortable in the modern world. These are those who simply reject the order God Almighty in His holiness has imposed.

Remember, the issue is not equality or happiness. It is Morality and Righteousness. It is life or death; blessing or curse. It is nothing less than the Righteousness of God revealed as Law that flows from the essential holiness of His character; the Law given to us in the totality of Scripture.

When viewed correctly, the unpalatable and intolerable is found in those who would vindicate, approve, and accept that which God rejects as abhorrent!

God’s Law-Word states:

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Deuteronomy 23:17-18: “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.”
Romans 1:24-27 & 32: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error … and, 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.”
1 Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:8-11: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Revelation 21:25-26: “And in the daytime … its gates shall never be closed; and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”[29]
Revelation 22:14-15: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.”

Whilst the moderns try to reinterpret Scripture and make God to be as a babbling fool with no coherence, the simple reality is that God speaks clearly, consistently, and unequivocally in and through Scripture. Homosexuality is death! This is God’s verdict. Homosexuality, in any form, is death. It should be punished with death here. It will certainly be punished with the “second death” in eternity.

There is nothing ‘God-like’ in homosexuality. There is nothing noble in homosexuality. There is nothing righteous in homosexuality. There is no life in homosexuality. The Bible unanimously condemns this practice as rebellion. The Bible issues forth one sentence upon homosexuality. It is a lifestyle deserving of death.

In light of such evidence, how is that Christians and society today can accept homosexuality as not only legitimate but as having more right than the Law of God? How is it that we so comfortably speak of loving a practice that God hates, which He calls an abomination, and which He proscribes with death? Indeed, there are unpalatable and intolerable things stated in regard to homosexuality. However, such things are not present when God’s truth is declared. Truly, the unpalatable and intolerable are realised when men, and particularly Christians, proceed to call “good” that which God has called both an evil and an abomination.

To continue with this type of speech in favour of that which God has soundly condemned is to invite God’s vigorous judgement upon our nation. It is to bring death to our nation and to our culture. It is to say goodbye to peace, prosperity, and fertility and to invite calamity, debt, and death.[30]

Conclusion:

Brethren, I would ask you to think upon these issues – deeply and at length. In Part 2, we will attempt to look at the issue of a referendum in regard to some of the practical aspects. However, at this point, please consider the issues raised. Are you thinking God’s thoughts after Him or are you a conduit of Humanistic philosophy? Is your political theory founded in the “whole counsel of God” or on a few texts scattered here and there with which you are comfortable or, even worse, upon some wayward humanist’s theory?[31] Do you believe that it is God’s right to rule our nation here and now? If so, how are you seeking to implement that rule? If not, why do you deny the sovereignty of God in Jesus Christ?

These and many other questions must be asked and answered. For our part, we are only too happy to stir up the hornet’s nest of theological beliefs. Why? We are in this mess because the Church in this nation has subscribed to the many modern philosophies that have destroyed truth. Now we seek to bury any point of difference. We seek to side step any issue that may mean heated discussion or see our popularity take a ‘2 point’ dive in the weekly “popularity” contest.

If we would have an impact for Jesus Christ, a lasting impact, then we must ask and answer the hard questions. It is only in wrestling with those questions and seeking God’s answer to them that we will be in any way equipped to fight and to win. It is this wrestling that Paul commended. It is this procedure that leads to “the equipping of the saints.”

Therefore, before we can proceed to any sort of practical lesson, we must first learn the theory. We must first wrestle with God’s word of truth and seek His wisdom as to His standard and how that standard should be appropriately implemented.

Continue reading: Part 2

Footnotes:

[1] Many, including myself, pondered what motivated Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union. I am now of the belief that it was a necessary condition imposed by some for their support in his reclaiming the leadership of the Labor Party and, thereby, Lodge. In one of his first speeches he raised homosexual union alongside of “broadband” as issues dear to the young of this nation. Yes, that is it, all our problems will be solved by faster internet speeds and homosexual union. This is a man peddling an (imposed) agenda, not a man bent on fixing the things he broke in Kevin Mark 1.

[2] This is in itself interesting. The agitators made much of the idea of “democracy”, yet when the democratically elected officials voted, they were unwilling to live with the outcome of the vote that they had sought. Note this well, please. The homosexual lobby sought this vote. The homosexual agitators sought this vote. When the vote was taken, they lost. So it is very reasonable for the populace to now ask these people to “shut up” and to “go away”. They achieved the vote they so desperately wanted; yet, like children in the playground, “they took their bat and ball and went home” when the decision did not go their way. So much for democracy!

[3] Please see The Battle Still Rages, The Essence of War (Pt. 1) and especially, The Essence of War (Pt.2).

[4] See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html. Accessed 07/05/13

[5] See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/nile-calls-for-black-and-white-choice-for-voters-20130429-2ip0m.html.

[6] See: http://www.saltshakers.org.au/component/content/article/85-front-page-news/1078-our-response-to-calls-for-a-referendum-on-same-sex-marriage.

[7] This is very amusing as these same people seem to be constantly telling us that the majority of Australians support homosexual marriage. If this is true, why not embrace the referendum? After all, it is a “dead cert” if what they have claimed publically is true.

[8] Available at: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2012/11/the-war-was-not-won-the-battle-still-rages/.

[9] See Ephesians 6:10ff. It is interesting that most Christians know this passage by heart. Ask them about the sword and they will say a good many things. Yet, frisk them as they go into battle and said sword is conspicuous by its absence. It is high time we believed God’s Word and trusted to it. Not just in the comfort of our theoretical Bible studies, but in the heat of battle. Christians, if you are tired of fighting and losing, take Ephesians to heart. Put on God’s battle armour. Stand firm. Swing the sword and watch the power of God at work.

[10] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Banner of Truth Trust (1939) p 255.

[11] See: Deuteronomy 28:15-19: “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. “Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. “Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.” Deuteronomy 28:23-24: “And the heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. “The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed.” Deuteronomy 28:36: “The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone.” Leviticus 20:20-21: “If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.”

[12] This is but one issue. All the countries to be mentioned have major law and order issues. They all murder their own children in genocidal acts. They are threatened by a rising tide of false religions, not least of which is Humanism. Their governments are all unable to produce a quality countermeasure to the problem. Why is that if it is simply a logical case of cause and effect?

[13] Jeremiah 3:25

[14] Please see the “High Priestess” Oprah sowing her perverted view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBnzUVFTOek.

[15] These papers and statistics may state things that are true. Yet, as they are not authoritative, the homosexual lobby will rally its statistics and its PhDs to counter these claims. Again, it becomes “logic” against “logic” and “opinion” against “opinion”.

[16] See” Refuting Abortion from the Bible. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEszNTt1R3U.

[17] See: Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12.

[18] Please do not understand this as a statement in favour of “civil unions” or “registers”. It is simply a statement that we need to recapture the language. Marriage is God’s covenant term for a man and a woman. Not only should it not be used of others, it cannot be used of others. Please see: The War of Words at: http://againsttheworld.tv/?p=614.

[19] See: Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

[20] See Paul’s argument in Romans 1:26-27. It is important that we understand all these texts on homosexuality as the Bible presents them. These acts are not denounced because they show a lack of hospitality or they are abusive of younger persons (pederasty). These comments are just the “smoke and mirrors” of sinful men. Homosexuality is condemned because it is, 1. A deconstruction of the image of God in man; 2. A deconstruction of God’s order in creation – God made man male and female; 3. A deconstruction of God’s marriage covenant – one man with one woman. 4. A deconstruction of God’s creational institution – the family. 5. A deconstruction of God’s appointed order for His rule and His glory in the earth. Being these things, it is the consummate symbol of man’s rebellion against God. Being thus, it is also God’s consummate judgement against man – He gave them over! (Romans 1:24, 26, 28.) Man wanted freedom from God’s rule and law, so God gave man over to the depravity he so craved. Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of man’s rebellion against God and of the futility into which man is plunged as a result. Homosexuality is the clearest expression of the futility of life to which sin leads.

[21] It is probably worth highlighting the obvious fallacy in this statement. I for one do not want everyone in Australia to be happy. I truly desire that the murderers, rapists, and paedophiles suffer for what they have done and pay the appropriate penalty. This is called justice. If you can murder and be “happy”, then true justice is, of necessity, absent.

[22] Please understand, I support Fred. He is a true unsung hero in this nation. He is one of Christ’s true champions. However, it seems that there is a failure to grasp the crux of the matter or, as has become the case, people are afraid to state the truth lest they fall foul of the evil vilification laws that have been introduced to this country. Thus, in the attempt to choose words carefully, the content is watered down. This is a secondary issue to do with language, but one worth noting. The evil doers are able to “flower” their language to the point of lying, knowing that their opponents cannot tighten or firm their language to the point of truth without crossing a boundary enforced by the law of the land. Yet, these have the audacity to speak of equality!!

[23] Please see: Of Designer Babies and Murderous Acts for comments upon the “right of choice”.

[24] As stated, the term Theocracy has become an unpalatable word in our day. Thus, I boldly ask, “Christian, if you despise this term, what form of governance do you aspire to see?” Do you really believe in Democracy? Do you believe that 51% makes for right every time? Do you believe we should have votes by the people on topics such as homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, adultery, witchcraft, divination, and the like? Should we live our lives content to ebb and flow with the desires of our society? Are you going to allow your family to vote on whether your daughter should be allowed to move in with her boyfriend? Do you propose a democratic vote on abortion should she fall pregnant to said boyfriend? Would this perspective be in keeping with Ephesians 4:14-15 or 2 Corinthians 7:1? What do we do when we encounter texts like: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path. I have sworn, and I will confirm it, That I will keep Thy righteous ordinances” (Psalm119:105-106). “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Thy word. With all my heart I have sought Thee; Do not let me wander from Thy commandments. Thy word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against Thee” (Psalm 119:9-11). “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Christians have come to despise the term Theocracy because they have been led captive by the nose to a false belief. The simple reality is that when you pray the Lord’s Prayer – Thy will be done of earth – you are asking for the Theocracy to be realised here and now. When you utter any of the texts cited above, and a myriad besides, you are asking for the Theocracy. When you pray for obedience, you are asking for conformity to the rule of God – Theocracy!! Friends, it is time we got over this hurdle, embrace the legitimacy of the term, and went about our Master’s task of teaching the nations to obey all that Jesus, King and All Powerful Sovereign, has commanded.

[25] The term theocracy receives a lot of bad press in our day because too many Christians have been seduced by the world’s views and have been taught that the Old Testament is outdated and obsolete. If you are one of these, then let me put before you some “New Testamenty” type texts that spell “theocracy” in a different way. Do you believe in the Great Commission? Yes! Okay, please go and re read it. Yes, read the text, please. Note that there is nothing there of the modern view of saving individual souls (Qualification needed, but that must wait for another time?) What you will see is “teach the nations to obey all that I have commanded!” Is this not Jesus stating the Theocratic principle in different language? We might also add, in this context, Jesus’ words, “all authority Has been given to Me … on earth.” 1 Timothy 6:15b-16: “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.” Here, the Apostle proves the case. God is absolute King. It is His to have dominion forever! Jude 24-25: “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” Please note Jude’s timeline. Some admit to Theocracy and to God’s rule over the earth, but they make it a future thing; something that happens only after Jesus returns. Such a perspective is not shared by Jude. He ascribes dominion to God in Christ “from all the ages”, “now”, and “to all the ages”. Ephesians 1:20-23: “He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” Please note Paul’s agreeance with Jude. Jesus is given dominion over all, not only in this age, but also in the age to come. The clear implication is that Jesus is King and all other authorities must yield to His Lordship. This means that all authorities on earth, whoever they may be, are obligated to obey all of God’s commands in Christ Jesus. Theocracy, New Testament style; Old Testament style; Biblical!

[26] Please see: Marriage Is Life!

[27] Once more, in viewing these words, we see how the marriage covenant has been attacked and eroded. Marriage is life and it is for life. The moderns, even when accepting the institution of marriage, still agitate against God’s design by railing against this phrase. They prefer gooey out-clauses like, ‘as long as we both shall love.’ Thus, even these fail the test of true marriage. They want the label, but they are still subtly seeking to alter the God-ordained form.

[28] The point here is very simple. If the magistrate followed Biblical law, homosexuals, along with murderers, kidnappers, rapists, to name a few, would be put to death. It would therefore be a physical impossibility for such people to demand anything, let alone proceed to a covenantal union that was “for life” and which terminated “at death”.

[29] Scripture here affirms the deathly quality of homosexuality. These persons are banned from the Kingdom. They are outside in the darkness. This is what Jesus and other Biblical writers call the “second death” – “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (See also: Revelation 2:11, 20:14) The clear implication is that these people are dead once and proceed to the second death.

[30] Morality demands that we as a nation complete a rethink on a number of topics. Not only is it high time that we Christians reject homosexuality, full stop, but it is time that we also began to reject all heterosexual perversions that encroach upon the sanctity of marriage. For too long have we remained silent on topics such as fornication, sex before marriage, adultery, and de facto relationships. These are all baby–steps to the acceptance of the ultimate perversions of God’s order as realised in homosexuality and bestiality.

[31] You may recoil from this approach, but it is necessary. I remember only a few years ago having a conversation with a relative who attends a supposedly conservative denomination on a similar topic. This was his position: Marxism most closely approximates the Christian position! Sadly, too many Christian leaders have recoiled from Biblically critiquing such theories with the consequent result that young minds are lead captive to falsehood.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Christian Warfare

Homosexual Paranoia

Praying in Difficult Times: A Response

The High Court and Homosexuality

Losing my Religion 2

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.3)

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.2)

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.1)

Murder and Monogamy: Lessons in Presuppositions

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)