Brexit: What can we learn?

Posted on July 11, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

We recently witnessed a referendum in Britain. The question: Should Britain remain in the EU? Britains voted to leave.

Now, there are all sorts of arguments with regard to trade and the economy etc that have been raised and continue to be raised. Here, I am not concerned with these; rather, I am more concerned about the two very telling issues that need to be addressed.

A Country Divided:

The most noticeable aspect of the this referendum was that it was a closely run thing. The end result was 52% to 48%. This I see as a major problem.

Whilst I firmly believe that, if we are to operate as a democracy, the majority vote must hold sway — My caveat is and always has been that democratic votes are only valid if God’s word does not speak to an issue — the reality is that sometimes that sadly lacking commodity of our day, wisdom, must be allowed to speak.

As a young man, I grew up in a congregation that was deeply divided. At one point, the call of a new minister saw a number of votes taken that were passed by a mere few percent. Those who won crowed, but the living reality is that the congregation in question is today a mere shadow of its former self and it is struggling for survival.

Such close numbers means that there is going to be a divide and that divide will be exploited for all kinds of reasons. In fact, we have already begun to see this process. In 2014 the Scots held a referendum as to whether or not they should remain as part of Britain. The decision was that Scotland should stay. Now, as a result of the Brexit referendum, the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is threatening to use this vote as an excuse to leave the UK.

This is little more than political expediency, exploitation, and prostitution at its worst. Of course, you will be flabbergasted to learn that the First Minister has always been a supporter of Scottish independence! So, what we have, in reality, is one situation being exploited to gain a desired outcome that was not achieved via a referendum. The obvious question then becomes, “Given this division, who else will seek to exploit it?”

Hence, maybe it would be wiser and thereby in the better interest of the nation for those in power to cease crowing and “pushing their own barrows” and set about looking after their people. The result cannot be undone, but wisdom and compassion can be applied to the implementation of the result.

2. The Death of Democracy:

Flowing on from our first major illustration, we are led to the conclusion that democracy is in its death throws the world over. Politicians talk this language, but their seething detestation at certain results belies the fact that they are angry that their agenda has been derailed.

Whilst it is true, for example, that Scotland’s remain vote was 62%, the reality is that Scotland was not voting in and for itself. Scotland was voting as part of the UK and it is that overall vote that counts.

To put this in context, here in Australia, in regard to Federal politics, Labor hardly wins a seat in Western Australia. Would this mean that a victorious Federal Labor government would expect the Western Australians to vote to leave the Commonwealth. Of course not. The vote is known to be that of all States and Territories.

Sadly, the posturing of the Scottish First Minister, shows all too clearly that modern politicians do not respect the will of the people in these so-called democratic nations and that they will use democratic results to enforce their personal agendas. Such truths are made manifest by the attitude of many in the EU who did not rejoice that a democratic result had been achieved and respected in the UK.

To this we could add the resignation of British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Whether or not he wanted to remain in the EU means absolutely nothing. The point is simple: The people were given a voice and they spoke. To resign and thereby hand over any future difficulties to another is to act as the spoiled brat who, using a combination of metaphors, throws his lollies on the floor the takes his bat and ball and heads home!

I believe the appropriate descriptor for this attitude would be “Tyranny”!

Referendum: The Only Way Forward

Posted on October 10, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us address these two points.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

[5] Isaiah 5:20-23.

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

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

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

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

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

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

[12] 2 Chronicles 20:12.

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

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

[15] 2 Timothy 1: 7-8.

Of Revolving Prime Ministers and Moral Decay

Posted on September 15, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

[2] Ibid. Emphasis added.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Leyonhjelm’s Lunacy: The Plot to Destroy Australia

Posted on September 11, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

The Weapon of Obscurity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Politics of Nonsense:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Tyranny and Subjugation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[9] See here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[14] Emphasis added.

Nonsense in the Name of God

Posted on July 15, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In the current debate regarding homosexual union, it is patently obvious that “truth has become the first casualty in this war.” Many are adducing arguments in support of homosexual union that are simply non arguments. We have written elsewhere in regard to such facile arguments as “Love is Love”. However, the greatest nonsense being spewed forth on this issue comes from those who, claiming to speak for God, tell lies in the Name of God.

At this point, we particularly single out those people who claim to be Christians, claim to love Jesus and at the same time claim that practicing homosexuals are acceptable to God, loved by God, and are therefore not required by God to repent of their sin and rebellion. It is not our intent to interact with their claims at this point, for that is just an exercise in futility. Rather, it is our purpose to show the folly of their position by looking at the Biblical evidence. Specifically, we simply intend to draw some parallels and then leave the reader to make the obvious conclusions for themselves.

The Older Testament concludes with these words:

“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the Lord of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” “But for you who fear My name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. “And you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord of hosts. “Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. “And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”[1]

In looking at this text, three things are to be noted. First, it is important that we understand the place of judgement. Throughout the Scriptures, salvation is always associated with judgement. God’s people cannot be saved unless God’s adversaries are judged. Thus, Malachi rightly begins with a stern warning to the evil doer. He, like his fellow prophets,[2] points us to the great and awesome Day of the Lord. Second, the line of demarcation is given in the words – for you who fear [or revere] My name. Both in Hebrew and Greek, the terms for name go far beyond simply being an appellation appended to a person in order to distinguish him from another. Rather, these terms point to character and being. This is why we see names being changed in Scripture. This is exactly why the Pharisees forbade Peter and John “to speak or teach … in the name of Jesus.”[3] Consequently, those who serve God, who love God, will reflect His character and being in their lives morally and ethically. Third, the text points us to the source of knowledge wherein we find God’s revealed standard – Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him – so that we may show our love in true, not feigned, obedience.

Now, some will immediately object that this is the Older Testament and that we in the Newer Testament are somehow under a different set of rules.[4] This is simply more nonsense; an objection raised in the hope that the guilty conscience may be eased. In truth, the points highlighted from the text of Malachi are all treated equally in the Newer Testament.[5]

In bringing these three points together, we learn the following:

a) As God judges the wicked, there are obviously behaviours which He disapproves of and condemns.

b) The truth of a) is found in the fact that those who are accepted by God are those who love and revere His holy name and therefore seek to abide by the characteristics of His eternal Being.

c) God, realising Man’s sinful estate, gave through Moses the revelation of His eternal Being so that Man would know what was and was not acceptable to God.

Therefore, if we want to please God we must obey those laws, given by God Himself, in which the holiness of His character and His right as Sovereign are manifest. It means that we, the creature, respect the parameters placed upon us by God, the Creator, and live by His rules. If we do not obey those laws or abide by His rules, we can never be said to “fear” or “revere” the name of God. If we do not “fear” or “revere” the name of God, then we must be considered as the “evildoer”.[6] This truth is superbly clear in Scripture. Yet, today, we have those who say that they “fear the name of God”, that they love Jesus, and that they are Christians; all the while they despise the laws and rules given by God.

This situation outlined is seen definitely and clearly in regard to the battle over homosexuality and homosexual union. Thus, it seemed appropriate to highlight the absolute inconsistency of those who speak nonsense in the name of God.

God’s law prescribes the death penalty for a number of sins; significant sins that attack either God or Man. Thus, God says that the following are to forfeit their lives:[7]

The Murderer (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 20:13; Exodus 21:12-14);
The Kidnapper (Exodus 21:16);
The Rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24);
The Adulterer (Leviticus 20:10; Exodus 20:14);
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10-13);
Bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23);
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16);
The Homosexual (Leviticus 18: 22; Leviticus 20:13).[8]

The point of this list is to highlight the nonsense spoken in the name of God by those who say that they are practicing homosexuals, fearing God’s name, and respecting God’s law. These twist the words of Scripture in order to justify their perversion and their false rhetoric is made apparent when a list like this is adduced.

Please, allow me to explain. Here is a list of crimes against God and Man that God so loathes that He, in His divine wisdom and sovereignty, has proscribed with the death penalty. Now, in our modern day, we have those, claiming to follow God, love God, and honour God, who say that the proscription of and penalty prescribed for homosexual behaviour is no longer of any consequence. They go on to add that they can practice their homosexuality and serve God without any detriment or compromise.

Now, arguments can be adduced to counter those claims, but we want to take a much simpler road – How welcome would categories 1-7 be in your local church or any church for that matter? Think about this! How welcome would be the unrepentant Murderer, Kidnapper, or Rapist? Would there be a general feeling that God loves this person so much that their sin, practiced openly and without remorse, should go without rebuke? How many would willingly send their daughters to Sunday school or on the church camp with men like this in their midst?

Which one of you would front up to church on Sunday morning eagerly awaiting a sermon from a Satanist or blasphemer? How eagerly would you attend the Bible study if these same persons were to be in charge and lead? How comfortable would you be with the Pastor conducting home visits when he is known to be an adulterer, unrepentant and on the prowl for his next conquest?

We could go on and give an example of bestiality, which would make you vomit; but there it is! How would you respond to any church that allowed the open practice of murder, rape, blasphemy, witchcraft, kidnapping, or bestiality? How would you respond to any congregation who refused to rebuke such sin and call for people to repent of it immediately?

To those who are of a more liberal ilk, “Where would you draw the line?”

The point here is simple. All of these behaviours are proscribed by God. Almighty God avows that those who commit these crimes should be put to death. Yet, in our day we have a number of people, calling themselves Christians, who want us to believe that one, and only one, of these heinous crimes is no longer either heinous or grotesque.

Yet, it would seem that they still want the other crimes to be considered as heinous. After all, we have not heard vociferous cries to stop discriminating against murderers and pedophiles. We have not heard calls to overturn various “Proceeds of Crime” Acts, as these intrinsically discriminate against the criminal element. No, here there seems to be contentment. Why?

When all these crimes are viewed consistently from the Biblical perspective,[9] we see that it is indeed sheer nonsense to claim or believe that practicing homosexuals have any place inside the Church of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Even more ridiculous is the claim by these people that practicing homosexuals should be allowed to hold office in the Church of Jesus Christ.

One may be more sympathetic to the claims of these people if they were to be consistent and assert that the murderer, rapist, and kidnapper should all be allowed to ply their trade without discrimination or consequence. However, should they do so, the veil would completely fall, we would see behind the mask, and they would be exposed as evildoers who do not revere the name of Almighty God or obey His law.

The last word must be that of Scripture – a text that shows that those who claim to be God’s whilst openly rebelling against Him are deluded liars! The Apostle John writes: And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.[10]

Footnotes:

[1] Malachi 4:1-6.

[2] Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Zephaniah. Importantly, Joel’s reference is picked up and used by Peter in Acts 2.

[3] Acts 4:18; See also Acts 5:28.

[4] This very supposition is indeed problematic. When this supposition is brought to the fore, there is a tacit implication that God has changed in His essential character. This tacit implication suggests that the God who spoke in the Older Testament has mellowed with age and no longer finds certain moral deviations from His law objectionable. This view is popular, but it lacks in one important detail – there is no credible Biblical evidence to support it!

[5] Judgement – Acts 17:30-31 – “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” John 5:22-23 – “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” The Name: a unity – John 5:43 – “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him.” John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one.” John 10:37-38 – “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” John 4:34 – “Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.” Obedience, law, Love – John 14:15 – “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” 1 John 5:3 – For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.” Luke 18:18-22 – And a certain ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. “You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

[6] Again, reference to the Myth of Neutrality must be made. There are only two types of Man – obedient and disobedient. As Jesus said, you are either with Him or against Him!

[7] This list is not exhaustive, but highlights the main crimes. For an exhaustive list, see Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 235.

[8] For those who do not like the Older Testament, we see that most of these crimes are denounced in the Newer Testament: I Corinthians 6:9-10 – “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 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.”

[9] These crimes are prescribed as crimes by God. They are all proscribed by death. They are all denounced in God’s law, particularly in the Torah. Many are said to exclude a person from God’s presence, heaven, if you will. Hope is in Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ means repentance and turning from sin, not embracing it. Thus, what is true of one must of necessity be true of the other. Therefore, it is a logical fallacy, if there be no Biblical evidence, to assert that one of these crimes is now wiped from God’s statute book while the others remain.

[10] 1 John 2:3-6.

Catchphrases of Doom

Posted on June 30, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Let us examine three Biblical examples:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Fornication: Heterosexual activity when not married;

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

[1] Genesis 27:3-4.

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

[3] Genesis 24:67.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

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

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

[7] John 3:19.

[8] John 14:15 & 21.

Marriage is Life: AP Version

Posted on June 23, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(God’s Shepherd alone has God’s Worldview)

The Biblical Worldview and its Implications.

Having laid down the basis of our contention with broad brush strokes, we now need to move to the specifics. Thus far, we have spoken of a clash of worldviews and of the fact that Christianity and Humanism share fundamentally different presuppositions. This means that the two systems are mutually exclusive. Consequently, as noted earlier, Humanism ‘not only should not, but it simply cannot inform the Christian’.

Here, we will seek to show why this exclusivity exists and why reconciliation between the two systems is unachievable.[1]

The Biblical worldview, simply summed up, can be stated in four tenets: 1) God is; 2) Creation; 3) Fall; and 4) Redemption.

1.) God is: Giving fuller explanation to these tenets, Christianity posits and believes that there is a perfect, holy, benevolent, and just God who has existed from all eternity.[2] This God is a communicative Being, Who, though One Being, exists in three distinct Persons. These Persons have and always will enjoy complete fellowship and unity within the Godhead. This perfect God is rightly the Absolute.

2.) Creation: Moving out from this basic presupposition, we see that this perfect and eternal God created the universe. This universe, being so created, was perfect precisely because it reflected God. For this reason, God could pronounce over his creation the benediction, “It was very good!”[3] This benediction naturally and obviously included Man. Further, Man was exalted above the other creatures when created by God and placed upon the earth because he was the only true Image Bearer in all of creation. By this we mean that, whilst all of creation bears the Creator’s mark, Man stands above all else in his abilities to actively and consciously reflect the attributes of God in the operation of his being. As such, Man was made perfectly, with all aspects of his being reflecting his subordinate position as God’s vice-regent. Truly, Man was the bridge between heaven and earth.

Man’s elevated status is shown in the Cultural Mandate.[4] God spoke with Man, giving both covenant and blessing. Man’s task was to populate and rule over the earth whilst operating under God’s auspices. Man was to exercise a limited dominion, that is to say, Man was to rightly rule that which was below him whilst being ruled by God, Who alone was the true sovereign. Hence, Man’s identity, purpose, and essential nature are intrinsically tied to God. This comes as the essential consequence of being created by God, for God, and in the image of God.

Man did not make his own rules; he simply implemented God’s rules. Man did not exist in isolation, he existed in fellowship. This fellowship was upward to God and sideways to the creation. Man ruled in peace and was ruled in peace. As a subordinate, Man always had a superior unto whom he could turn for counsel, wisdom, perspective, and the like.[5]

3.) Fall: When we enter upon step three, the Fall, Man sets himself on a self-destructive course. Man loses the clarity of his identity and being because he no longer enjoys a peaceable fellowship with God. Having rebelled against God, Man now finds the creation in rebellion. The peace is shattered and replaced with a persistent tumult; a tumult which reaches to the very core of Man himself! Rather than service in submission to God, Man now, conflicted and without direction, either demands to be served or becomes willing to serve anything but the Creator.[6] This puts Man into a complete spin.[7] Rather than serving God, Man becomes a hater of God.[8] Man – at this point the ultimate Humanist – wants to carve out a new existence for himself,[9] but he cannot escape the indelible marks of the Creator that are stamped forever upon his being.[10]

In this, Man is like the rebellious son who shifts into his own home to escape his parents. Only too late does he realise that he may have his own space, but that it is impossible to escape his parents completely. After all, he sees reflections of them in his mirror, he hears their sound every time he speaks, and he witnesses their standards every time he acts – for he either finds himself conforming to or self-consciously rebelling against their standard.

In the Fall, Man transitions from a position of dominion to the place of subjugation, and this by all aspects of his being, his environment, and the creation he once governed. He loses perfection. He loses harmony. He loses peace. He loses ease. He loses fellowship. He loses control. In this state, Man is under God’s judgement. His one path to restoration – seeking God and his forgiveness – is the one path that he will not and, indeed, cannot now choose. Consequently, Man simply rails against God more vociferously in the hope that he will drown out his conscience.[11] Man, to use the modern term, “gets busy” spawning idols after his own image and of his own making so that he can live in a world without God. Man creates his own philosophy to explain how and why he thinks as he does. Man creates his own history so that God is nowhere mentioned as the origin of the species or anything else for that matter. Lastly, and pertinently, Man creates his own diagnostic tools to measure and explain his seeming dysfunction.

4.) Redemption: Man knowing that something is wrong, suppresses that knowledge and seeks alternate explanations. He seeks restoration and rightness (wellness), but what he does not seek is (Biblical) redemption. Man wants to be made right, but on his own terms. Man therefore relies on his deceptive, self-made diagnostic tools to help explain his seeming deficiencies.[12] Man will not turn to God, so the seeming deficiencies must be explained or excused by another theory. Here, Man is like the rebellious son in the analogy above. He wants to make his own way, but he can never escape the marks of his upbringing and these constant reminders become to Man a source of continuous consternation.

Enter, Secular Psychology—the restoration of Man by Man using his own deceptive self-diagnostic tools—and the crux of the problem. Man was made by God for God. This is hardwired into his being at every point. From this fact there simply is no escape. Consequently, any interpretation of Man that does not reference the four simplified tenets, above, becomes an overt attempt to remodel Man according to an ungodly or apostate pattern. This is Man’s ultimate act of vandalism as he seeks to actively deface himself in a vain attempt to remove from himself every remaining mark that says, “Made in the image of Almighty God!”

Naturally, this is not only a painful process; it is a frustrating one, for it can never fully realise its goal. Imagine trying to remove a tattoo with steel wool. The image, ingrained in your skin, can only be removed by tearing away layers of yourself. Yet, the process never really satisfies. The removal of the image causes great mental anguish, as you suffer the pain of that steel wool incessantly gnawing at your flesh. This has to leave a mental picture that you will carry with you and which will undoubtedly be a reminder to you of your actions and aims. Then there is that painful abrasion. When you look to the site where the image was, you now see an open wound, bloodied, weeping, sore, and uncomfortable. This needs treatment. So there are trips for healing, procedures, dressing changes, and medications – all reinforcing the desperate nature of your act of erasion. After months, the pain subsides and the wound heals. Are you now satisfied? Not likely. Every time you look at the site where the image was, you are confronted with an ugly scar. Now you try to hide the scar with make-up and clothing – anything to make you forget! However, the very act of covering the site is in itself a constant reminder of both the removal process and your motives for that removal.

Linleigh J. Roberts[13] showed the futility of this approach with an even better illustration, akin to the following. You go out to your car one morning. After several aborted attempts the car finally starts. Yet, it is immediately evident that something is wrong, for the car sounds like the proverbial “chaff cutter” and after running for several minutes it is showing no sign of improvement. Frustrated you call the mechanic. He arrives and looks over the car. He politely asks you for the manual. The mechanic takes it in hand and begins thumbing through the pages. After so many pages he would put down the manual, change a few things, and start the car. Yet, nothing changed. The car still sounded like the “chaff cutter”. In the end, you see the frustrated mechanic take out his pen and begin to rewrite the car’s manual. Rubbing insult to injury, you are flabbergasted when the mechanic returns the manual and tells you that the car is working perfectly, as it now conforms to the manual.

Again, I sense spilt coffee and some muttered words along the lines of, “You have gotta be kidding me! No one would ever fall for or accept that type of practice!” Well, if that is what you are thinking, you are simply wrong. This is exactly what transpires every time we turn from God’s word and God’s appointed means. This is exactly what occurs every time we turn from the Biblical worldview.

Linleigh’s illustration sounds absurd only from the point of view that the owner knew that the car originally ran differently and, armed with this knowledge, he should not have accepted the mechanic’s remedy.[14] This granted, let’s modify the illustration slightly. Let’s say that this is the fifth owner of the car and that when he purchased the vehicle it ran like this. Let’s also say that this was the experience of owners two through five. What now? Owner five has only two viable options at this point. Option 1: Return to the first owner (or believe the Maker’s Manual), the only owner who knows how the car functioned when it was tuned to the manufacturer’s specifications, or; Option 2: Presume that the car has always, even from the assembly line, operated in this (defective) manner.

In essence, this is the quandary faced by all the Secular Humanists. When faced with a malfunction, a deficiency, the Secular Humanist does not return to the original owner or consult the Maker’s original manual. Rather, he amasses generations, owners two through five in our analogy, to support his supposition that Man has always operated in this particular way and that this model, homo sapiens, has always been attended by those particular rattles and clunks. However, it is important to note that this information is only based on the observation and experience of some of the owners. [15] No one has returned to the original owner and asked the question – “How did the car run when you owned it?” This distortion is then spread and confirmed by the mechanics who, having been taught to ignore the Maker’s manual, set about writing and disseminating a new manual which describes Man, with all his observed rattles and clunks, as normal.

Unpacking the illustration is very simple. God is the One Who wrote the Maker’s Manual – we call it The Bible. He knows Man’s vital statistics, so to speak. God made Man and God made Man to His standard. Therefore, asking any Man post-fall what Man should be or to what he corresponds is like quizzing owners two through five from the car analogy. All they know is the broken, fallen model, so they are of no use in finding out the original specifications. They simply cannot inform us as to Man’s original condition, for they are ignorant of that condition.

In terms of the four base tenets of the Biblical worldview, there is simply no agreement with Secular Humanism, nor can there be. The Secular Humanist does not accept that God is. The Humanist does not accept that Man was made perfectly in the image of this God. The Humanist does not accept the fact that man is a poor shadow of his former self because of the Fall. Hence, the Secularist will always look for auto-salvific means outside of God and rooted in Man.[16]

As a consequence, a Secularist can never arrive at the truth of God. Starting on the wrong road, he cannot reach the final destination. This is the key objection that must be noted. The Secularist may, as an image bearer living in God’s world, stumble across and observe certain of God’s truths. However, the Secularist can never see man correctly diagnosed or healed because he does not build upon the foundation of God and His Word. In essence, the Secularist sees counselling as corrective, not redemptive;[17] it is to bring inner peace, not peace with God; it is aimed at mitigation, not reconciliation.

Like the mechanic, the Secularist begins to re-write the Maker’s manual so that Man – the chaff cutter – is made to look normal. The process looks like this. Humanism’s basic presupposition is, God is not. Erasing God seems like an excellent start and it certainly helps to soothe Man’s aching conscience. Nonetheless, other issues are encountered. These can be summed up in the old chestnuts, “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” with the addition of “How did I get here?”

With God removed, we now must explain our origins. So a new religion is invented. This religion is Evolution. Man is no longer the product of an eternal, ordered, perfect God; he is but the product of random chance, time, and chaos. Okay, this helps explain how we got here without reference to God. Phew! How about, “Who am I?” Does that not now become a bit tricky? Well yes, as a matter of fact it does. If we are not image bearers, then what am I; what is Man? Well, the new theologians of Evolution come up with the answer. They tell us that we are just a base animal who currently resides at the top of the food chain. Cool! Now, can you explain why I am here? Oh yes. That one is easy. If I am an animal at the top of the food chain, then I simply must endeavour to remain where I am. I have two goals. I must remain the fittest and to do this I must eliminate the weakest.

Conveniently, questions about morals, faith, and these sticky questions get left out of the discussion. When someone feels that they need to engage in behaviour outside the norm, they are generally encouraged in that direction.[18] However, the Evolutionary religion cannot explain the internal struggle that many feel. Abortion is natural. This baby can threaten my body shape, my wealth, my attractiveness to men, and so on. What counsel does Evolution give to a mother who struggles to make the decision to kill her child or the mother who regrets killing their child? Honestly, the only counsel that they can give that is consistent with their religion is, “Wake up to yourself you stupid woman, you have no conscience, there are no morals, simply embrace your decision as that which secured your future, for this is your only concern, and move on!”

This response is harsh, very harsh, yet it is completely consistent with Secular Humanism’s religion and professed beliefs.

Humanism, denying God, must ipso facto deny Creation, Fall, and Redemption, especially as they are defined in Scripture. This Man does religiously and philosophically. What he can never do is achieve this goal empirically and experientially, for God’s “make plate” is stamped indelibly onto His creation, Man most of all. This is the dilemma and the source of the Humanist’s pain. Man lives as though God is not there, yet every shred of his existence tells Man God is there.[19] So Man rewrites the manual. Man scratches painfully at his own being hoping to erase any trace of the Maker or His mark, but all to no avail. Instead of a panacea, Man only creates a pandemic as he misdiagnoses and mistreats himself. Instead of ending the crisis, Man’s faulty presuppositions make sure his suffering, dissatisfaction, and hurt are endless.

It is for this reason that we counsel the Christian to have nothing to do with Secular Psychology and the Secular practitioner. The Apostle states: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”[20] Thus, our counsel is not opinion; it is given on the authority of God, His Word, and His Apostle!

When you seek out the Secular Psychologist, you are seeking out darkness, Belial, and idols. Therefore, only danger awaits if you choose to stand in the “counsel of the ungodly”[21] and ignore all the Biblical warnings.[22]

Put as plainly as possible: It must be understood that Humanism is a complete turning away from the Biblical worldview. Humanism is, therefore, Apostasy. Consequently, any science based upon such apostasy must of necessity partake of its poison. If we accept the science, we accept the poison. It really is that simple.

If you, as a Christian, baulk or are tempted once more to eject coffee from your oral cavity at these statements and the use of the term “apostasy”, then please consider this question: “Who, ultimately, are the Humanist’s rejecting?” Yes, that is right, Who, not what?

When the Humanist denies the basic tenets of the Christian worldview, this is not a harmless disagreement over what constitutes a worldview, it is, much rather, an obvious attack upon Who institutes your worldview. Thus, the Humanist does not start with the rejection of the material, Creation; rather he begins with the rejection of the Personal, there is no (personal, intimate, immanent) God! In rejecting God and His Personality[23] at the outset, the Humanist must continue to reject all of God’s Personal interactions with the world at every stage; Creation and Redemption. Thus, the Humanist is engaged in an outright and blatant attack upon God Himself, especially as He is revealed in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God’s only and beloved Son.

In each of the four tenets of the basic Christian worldview, as outlined, Jesus is of fundamental importance and plays an intrinsic role. Thus, the Humanist does not simply reject God; he rejects God’s Creator; he rejects God’s Judge; and he, therefore, ultimately rejects God’s Redeemer. Written out, in order to aid clarity, it would look something like this:

1) Who is God? Jesus Christ is God, the second Person of the Trinity;[24]

2) Who is the Agent of Creation? Jesus Christ is God’s Agent of Creation;[25]

3) Who is God’s Judge of the Fallen? Jesus Christ is God’s Judge;[26]

4) Whom did God appoint to be the Redeemer of His people? Jesus Christ is God’s only Redeemer.[27]

How then do we, as Christians, lie down with a system that blatantly attacks our beautiful and much beloved redeemer, Jesus? How do we claim to be obedient servants, if we are adopting and implementing a worldview, or parts thereof, that are built upon the explicit denial of Jesus as He is revealed to us in Scripture? How do we delude ourselves into thinking that such hostility and outright blasphemy can be baptised and then press ganged into service in the Church without detriment?

In conclusion, then, a denial of God, Creation, Fall and Redemption, or any portion thereof; a positing of another way of Salvation; an overt rejection of the fact that sin is separation from God and therefore lawlessness to be judged; or the adoption of any concept that denies that Man is made in God’s image, is nothing less than an explicit denial of the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ. That is a gross blasphemy. Therefore, if found in the mouth of a Humanist, it is sheer heresy; in the mouth of someone who claims to be a Christian, it is apostasy!

Footnotes:

[1] The only way that these systems can be united, generally speaking, is for the tenets of one of the systems to be erased, ignored, grossly misapplied, or misinterpreted. Generally, it is the Biblical standards that are washed of meaning. As we shall see later, Secular Psychology is adept at stealing Biblical concepts, reworking and rebadging them, and then sells them as something new of its own making—just like the triumphant explore who returns home victorious after naming a supposedly as yet undiscovered mountain. The explorer did not make the mountain, place the mountain, or magically cause the mountain to be manifest. No, he simply discovered something that already existed, that was possibly already known to others, that was already present, and that was already impacting the world.

[2] See Question and Answer 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is God? God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) infinite, (Job 11:7–9) eternal, (Ps. 90:2) and unchangeable, (James 1:17) in his being, (Exod. 3:14) wisdom, (Ps. 147:5) power, (Rev. 4:8) holiness, (Rev. 15:4) justice, goodness, and truth. (Exod. 34:6–7).

[3] Genesis 1:31.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] It is important for us to avoid the idea that because this relationship existed in perfection that it was a cold, automated relationship. Adam would have been in constant fellowship with God. Adam would have asked questions, gaining knowledge and wisdom through these interactions. This pattern is exemplified in Jesus. He knew His task. He knew what it was that He was born to do. Yet this did not create distance. Rather, it was the basis for a deep fellowship and mutual respect.

[6] Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

[7] Ephesians 2:12. Devoid of a covenant relationship with God, Man was without hope in the world. This lack of hope was the consequence of Man loosing / rejecting the one true guiding principle, God!

[8] John 7:7.

[9] Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 11:4.

[10] Romans 1:32.

[11] Psalm 2:1-2.

[12] We speak of “seeming deficiencies” because Man will not admit to sin and moral corruption. Nonetheless, Man spends a great deal of his day seeking the Utopian dream. He speaks often of the “human condition”, expresses a constant desire for “peace” and “harmony”, and is constantly disappointed by and expresses outrage at Man’s own inability to realise these because of Man’s own self-destructive tendencies. The UN, Greenpeace, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, to name but a few, as well as the whole psychological movement are a testimony to the fact that Man acknowledges that he has a serious problem, a deficiency. Yet, he still refuses to admit that he has a moral problem. Man repudiates the idea that he has, if you will, a deep seated wiring problem (sin) that God alone can fix. Consequently, all Man’s panaceas must be of his own design and according to his own diagnosis. Man is simply deficient, not corrupt, and deficiencies can be corrected with education or coercion.

[13] A poetically licensed version. See Linleigh J. Roberts, Let Us Make Man, Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh. p 43. As Linleigh goes on to state, we would not accept this type of practice from a doctor. We would be rightly indignant if our GP simply rewrote his text books every time we showed at his clinic with an ailment. Why then do we accept this in the areas of philosophy and psychology?

[14] In terms of this illustration, though, we must remember that most people are mechanically inept and would therefore accept the mechanics judgement. After all, he is the professional. Similarly, most people do not have a clue about worldviews, so when the psychologist, the professional, suggests a remedy, they will generally imbibe it without question.

[15] An example of this can be seen in Andrew Marr’s, History of the World. In this BBC DVD set, subtitled “An epic and definitive account of 70,000 years of Human history”, Marr is left to conclude that the only thing from which we have to learn is our own history. There is no revelation from God; hence Christianity is explained away as the invention of Saul who had a bit of an experience on the road to Damascus – something akin to heatstroke! With this denial of revelation, Marr, and thousands like him, commit themselves to an ultimate futility. We can only know what Man might be or become based on what Man has been throughout history. Yet, history does not show Man to have been particularly successful at anything but bloodshed. Marr himself speaks words similar to, “Homo Sapiens means ‘wise man’”. He then refers to us as apes made good, before ultimately concluding that we are “smart” not “wise”. If this is what our 70,000 year history teaches us, what hope do we have? From whence does Wisdom come? The answer is, “Nowhere but our own history!” We must simply keep inventing and applying ideas in the hope that one day we may strike the right formula. Then, we must hope that the rest of mankind, looking back to us from the future, will realise that we had the right solution and adopt it for the sake of humanity.

[16] To be clear, Man does not truly seek redemption, he seeks wellness or rightness. In other words, he does not like his deficiencies. So, he is on a quest to discover the panacea. However, it has to be realised that it has become very fashionable of late for the Secularist to use the words redemption and atonement. However, he uses both terms erroneously. Redemption implies the act of redeeming, which means to “to buy back” or “buy out”. This is a perfectly Biblical word, as it aptly describes God’s action of paying for the sins of His people. We are God’s because He purchased us with the blood of His beloved Son, Jesus. What does the Secularist mean when he uses this term? How did he pay for his sins or remit the payment? Whom did he pay? With what did he pay? Similarly, the Christian treasures the term “atonement” as that which paid for our sins or covered over our transgressions. The Secularist has to break this word apart and make it say at-one-ment, thereby implying peace with himself.

[17] Compare Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p67 – “Any such counselling that claims to be Christian surely must be evangelistic. Counselling is redemptive.”

[18] See this article and note how the girl was guided to the Humanist options. Any other concept was dismissed. http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1401-a-wonderful-story-jean-lloyd-the-girl-in-the-tuxedo-two-variations-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity. It is also worth noting that the Humanist hypocrites still cannot or will not explain, on the basis of their religion, why homosexuality and polygamy are acceptable but bestiality and paedophilia are not. This said, some Humanists have taken that leap, realising that for their religion to be consistent that all restraints are to be removed. These are generally ushered to the rear of the car and hastily stuffed in the boot – that’s the “trunk” for our US brethren – because their desire for consistency ultimately gives the game away.

[19] Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[20] 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

[21] Psalm 1:1.

[22] Psalm 5:9 – “There is nothing reliable in what they say; Their inward part is destruction itself; Their throat is an open grave; They flatter with their tongue.” Proverbs 12:26 – “The righteous is a guide to his neighbor, But the way of the wicked leads them astray.” Proverbs 10:32 – “The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, But the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.” Proverbs 14:7 – “Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.” — remember that the Biblical “fool” is not just a silly fellow, but the one that says “There is no God!” Surely, this is the Secular Humanist.

[23] That is, the Trinity. If God is rejected, then it follows that the Persons of the Godhead are equally denied.

[24] Judges 6:11-15; John 10:30.

[25] Colossians 1:13-17.

[26] Acts 17:31; Acts 10:42; John 5:22-24.

[27] John 14:6; Colossians 1:13-14; Luke 1:68; Romans 3:23-24. See also: Westminster Confession 8:1 – It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, (Isa. 42:1, 1 Pet. 1:19–20, John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:5) the Prophet, (Acts 3:22) Priest, (Heb. 5:5–6) and King (Ps. 2:6, Luke 1:33) the Head and Saviour of His Church, (Eph. 5:23) the Heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2) and Judge of the world: (Acts 17:31) unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, (John 17:6, Ps. 22:30, Isa. 53:10) and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (1 Tim. 2:6, Isa. 55:4–5, 1 Cor. 1:30)

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?

SRI Religion V religion

Posted on March 27, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Yesterday, the afternoon news carried a story about a banner being unfurled on a Melbourne billboard. My interest was initially piqued by the large picture at the centre of this banner. Here, being spread out for everyone to see was a picture of Jesus patting a dinosaur. Only after turning up the volume and having time to read the banner did I realise that this was actually a protest against Christianity.

The fist wavers (Psalm 2) were at it again. This time they were out to have SRI (Special Religious Instruction) banned from Victorian schools. For most of us, we realise that these campaigns are not new. Equally, we are aware that with the decline of Christianity, these demands are going to become common place and vociferous.

The truly disturbing aspect of this story was in listening to the ignorance and drivel of those demanding that SRI cease. Those familiar with our writings will be aware that we often speak of worldviews. This story is one more example of why we need to understand what a worldview is and the importance they play. (See here, and here, as examples.)

One of those interviewed stated, in essence, ‘that religion had no place in our schools.’ Interesting! What would they call Secularism, Humanism, or Evolution? In regard to Evolution, its own proponents acknowledge it as a religion. So what this person was really demanding, in our world of Tolerance and Equality, was that the Christian religion be excluded from our schools. They do not want all religions banned; only that religion which shows that they are idol worshippers.

Another example concerned a lady who stated that “the children go from a science class (read – absolute rational fact) to the SRI class (read – absolute irrational myth) where they are told that dinosaurs do not exist.” I have added the words in parentheses in order to highlight the intention of her words. Again, it is important to see the contrast. This woman is happy to subject our children to the religion of Evolution and to its god, science; but she is quite unwilling for our children to be subject to the Christian religion and the One Living and True God!

Equally, note the disparagement present when it is claimed, without substantiation, that these children would be taught that dinosaurs do not exist, simply because they are being taught by Christians.

At this point it is fundamentally important that we come to terms with how a worldview shapes a person’s outlook. Here, we see that those interviewed had imbibed the fallacious belief that a religion is equivalent to an organised system of belief rooted in a god. As such, these people typically take aim at Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Is Animism not a religion because it posits no belief in a god and has no system? Are Eastern religions in fact non-religions because, though organised, they strictly do not believe in a god (Buddhism rejects the notion of God as external; Hinduism has multiple gods, but they are all attempts at representing Brahman, the ultimate god that is beyond knowing)?

The answer is, of course, No! These are all religions. They are so precisely because a religion does not need of necessity to posit a belief in god, be organised, or, for that matter, codified. The essence of religion, like the exploration in Physics, looks for the god-particle, but it does not need necessarily to look for a god, personal or otherwise. In our day, the god-particle or god-idea can be reduced to searching for the essence of being or be the “central directedness [of a person] … toward the real or presumed ultimate source of meaning or authority.”[1]

The Christian has a religion based in God’s revelation. It is a religion “directed” to God as the absolute source of being. From this central tenet, the Christian’s worldview branches out to embrace and interpret all other fields and spheres. What needs to be seen here is that the same mechanics are at work in other ideals. God and revelation may be substituted, but there are still similar touchstones to be found. For example, the Rationalist seeks being / source / authority in the mind. The mind becomes as God and the mind’s projections become as revelation. At this point, he engages his worldview. The Evolutionist seeks being / source / authority in time and chance. The Humanist seeks these things in Man (capitalised, for Man becomes god). The Secularist seeks these things anywhere but in a God / god that cannot be manipulated.

So it is that, like the more comprehensive worldview, all men have a religion.

An anecdote I like to use in these situations is as follows: Many years back, I went with a farmer friend, a fellow Christian, to pick up some goods from another farm. Whilst there, it was disclosed that we were Christians. The owner of the farm trotted out the hackneyed, “Do not care for religion as it has caused so many wars!” Of course, this is offered as the final statement on religion and the conversation is supposed to end with respect and contemplative silence. Well, you should have seen the look on this guys face when I sympathetically agreed with his statement. I then went on to list the atrocities committed in those religious wars instigated by Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin and so on. Suffice it to say, his mouth was agape.

You see, all too often, Christians are not taught adequately about worldviews / religion and how to expose a person’s basic premise for understanding. Consequently, when they run into statements like those mentioned in this article, they are stumped. They have no answer. They are immediately on the back foot and usually end up relying on a subjective and erroneous retort. Ask yourself, honestly, ‘How many times have you had “the Crusades!”, or “religion (Christianity in particular) causes war!”, or , “if God is love, how can he send people to Hell?” type statements or questions cast in your way in order to silence your proclamation of Christianity?’ How did you respond?

My plea here is that Christians might be taught and be willing to learn about worldviews. Every accusation that can be thrown at the Christian can be thrown back manifold to the opponents of Christ. Ban SRI! Why? Crusades. Hmmm. How many died during the Crusades? Too many, yes! So we throw out Christianity. What, then, of Evolution? What is its death toll? One hundred thousand babies a year in Australia. Fifty million babies in the US since Roe v Wade! According to the World Counter for abortions, we have murdered 9 million babies so far this year alone.[2] I am not really sure that the Crusades came close![3]

We might even go so far as to ask a more mainline question, namely, “How many lives are lost to Evolution through despair, injustice, lawlessness, non-accountability, Racism, and the other evils that flow from mantras such as “survival of the fittest”? Unlike Christianity, where death is an intruder and life is the norm, Evolution posits that life can only exist through death. Thus, Evolution exalts death and its devotees desire to mask this obvious truth because they do not want it known that their religion is worse than the one they are seeking to abolish.

In the end, it is important for Christians to realise that the debate is never about the questions: Will we have religion? Will we have law? Will we have government? Will we have morals? or Will / Should religion be taught in schools? The debate is summarised in the question, “Whose religion, law, government, and morals will we adopt and have taught in our schools?

Thus, those unfurling this banner were not objecting to religion, but firing salvos in a distinctly religious battle. They were protesting against our God only in order to exalt their god.

[1] B.J. van der Walt, Culture, Worldview and Religion ; (2000) 11.

[2] http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

[3] Wikipedia suggests between 1 million and 3 million. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Culture

Brexit: What can we learn?

Referendum: The Only Way Forward

Of Revolving Prime Ministers and Moral Decay

Leyonhjelm’s Lunacy: The Plot to Destroy Australia

Nonsense in the Name of God

Catchphrases of Doom

Marriage is Life: AP Version

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Homosexual Paranoia

SRI Religion V religion