Category Archives: Culture

The Love of Money Is the Root of All Evil!

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

My objections are in essence threefold:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Man is corrupt. Mega dollars only magnify that corruption.

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

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

 

Health Trumps Morals

Posted on by
2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Antidiscrimination + Equality + Political Correctness = Cultural Insanity

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Again, Cultural Insanity! When did happiness become racism?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Un-Australian – Ambiguity, Enigma, and Dinkum!

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

Ah, a misspent youth!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A Battle Plan (Pt. 5)

Posted on by
Reply

2. Counting the Cost.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

Of Firearms, Firewalls, and Stonewalls

Posted on by
Reply

In the wake of the Sandy Hook shooting in America, we have once again witnessed the call to ban guns or at least certain types of guns. The gun debate is not new and it will not ultimately be resolved in a useful manner until righteousness is brought to the fore. In fact, the whole debate will end badly and no effectual ground will be made so long as the argument continues based on a Humanistic and unBiblical point of view. No amount of political squabbling, bickering, badgering, or name calling will win the day. It most certainly will not carry us to Utopia, the mystical safe haven of which Humanists and politicians dream!

In order to unpack this topic, we will use our title as a guide.

Firearms: The problem with this debate is that, like a murderer callously and indiscriminately firing rounds from a firearm, so too many politicians, activists and others are apt to ‘shoot their mouths off’ with the same callous disregard. They are as indiscriminate in their reasoning, target choice, and motivation as the supposedly “crazed” gunman.

They are quick to enter the fray, guns ablaze, in order to promote their cause, political position, or worldview. In doing this, these people rarely, if ever, have a moment of clarity in which they sit down and ask if they are in some way responsible for what has transpired.

The point is very simple. The debate is not about guns! It has regard to what motivates a man to action or restrains him from action. It is, in essence, a debate concerning the fact that ideas have consequences.

Therefore, when these politicians and activists support the erosion of the Biblical worldview, are they not in fact inviting mass shootings as but one consequence of their ideas? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact a libertine standard, are they not promoting lawlessness within society? When these politicians and activists argue for a top-down governance of the individual rather than for a self-controlled individual, are they not paving the road to anarchy? When these politicians and activists argue for and enact legislation that, in essence, says ‘there is no truth’, are they not encouraging a constant display of all individual ‘truth systems’ or worldviews with all the attendant consequences?

In this there is utter and absolute hypocrisy on the part of the politician and the activist. On the one hand there is a demand for and acquisition to the very ideas that bring death and tragedy to our cultures. However, in an interesting dance of hypocrisy, when tragedy strikes, it is the very liberals who created the situation that then demand the government take control and do something. Thus, liberality begets tyranny.

We saw this in Australia after the Port Arthur shooting. Thousands of innocent, law abiding citizens were turned into criminals overnight. What was their crime? They owned a certain type of firearm. Like Hitler’s Gestapo rounding up Jews, orders were sent forth demanding that these people surrender their firearms.

Now, if you are not into guns, you may not find this a big deal. If that is your stance, then please be ashamed of yourself. Behind the issue of guns are principles, ethics, and many bigger questions. After Port Arthur, the item focused upon was guns. Many saw this as a victory. The big question is, “A victory for what?” Common sense? A victory for the gun lobby? A victory for a safer society? Did we see the death penalty reintroduced? Did we see a commitment to tougher sentencing for perpetrators of similar crimes? No, what you witnessed was a victory for tyranny at the hands of Big Brother.

What was established by the gun-buy-back was nothing less than the government’s ability to seize property and to compel citizens through random and tyrannical dictates. Even as one opposed to guns, you should at least be concerned that the government, without accountability, played with the Medicare / Tax system to finance the buy-back. Thus, they opened the door for future abuses by other governments.

Again, not into guns and your attitude is, “So what?” Well, the “So what?” is a phenomenal question. So, your children are killed when a car ploughs into them as they walk home (Sadly, based on a real happening). The driver is prosecuted. Okay, to this point. Then the government issues a nationwide ban on the make and model of the car driven by the offender as well on all other vehicles of the same capacity! Are you still okay? So, your children are at a sleepover at a well-to-do friend’s house. In the middle of the night a deranged arsonist attacks. All inside perish. In the wake, the offender is caught and sent off to comfy school – some call it, “prison”. Okay, to this point. Then the investigation concludes that the house was too big. It was a six bedroom house, which made it impossible for fire-fighters to successfully search all rooms in time. Consequently, the government retrospectively outlaws all houses that are above four bedrooms. Excess rooms must be permanently closed off or the whole house confiscated and destroyed. To remain in a house of modified capacity, you now need to be licensed and have the home open to government inspectors.  That which was built legally, is now deemed illegal. Home owners, who had done nothing wrong, are now criminals and face significant losses. Are you still okay? These are not silly illustrations. They are applications of the principles enacted after Port Arthur.

You see, what was endorsed was not a stance against guns, as such. Rather, it established the right of governments to outlaw and confiscate any item retrospectively and compel all citizens to pay for it, wanted or not. The pretext is unimportant now. The reality is that this principle has been set to work in our society. It can now be used against anything and anyone.

Therefore, as politicians and activists themselves indiscriminately fire into society with their godless ideas, they cause the deaths, literally, of multitudes and scores; a number that the “crazed” gunman has never come close to approximating. How so? Read on!

Firewall: A firewall is a device that is designed to save and protect. To the modern computer generation, it is a device designed to stop attacks on a computer from the realm of cyberspace. For us old people, it is probably most recognisable in your car. It is that solid panel that extends from your windscreen to your floor pan, located behind your dashboard. Its design is to protect you from the radiant heat generated by your motor and from the reality of flame should your engine catch fire. In buildings a firewall is usually seen as a brick dividing wall that is designed to stop the spread of fire.

In similar manner our governments should act to protect. Using the computer scenario, Government should provide a system that discards the offensive, stops the hostile, allows the beneficial to proceed unhindered, and all this without obvious intrusion upon the citizenry. Do they do this? Absolutely not!

As we have noted, Government is particularly hypocritical. Governments tend to speak of “right” and “wrong”, but of what do they really speak when they have no moral compass? What is right to a Humanist? What is right to an Atheist? What is right to an evolutionist? What is right to a Postmodernist?

An example of the Humanist’s concept of right can be seen in President Obama. In response to the Sandy Hook incident, Barack Obama, gave a stirring speech in which he stated that we, as a generation, would be judged by how we had treated our children. Wonderful, is it not, to see the President of America concerned for the children? What a load of drivel! In the USA, since Roe v Wade, over 50 million babies have been aborted! This year – all under President Obama’s rule – over 70 thousand children have died. This day, the day when President Obama is inaugurated for his second term, the clock is already at about 1700!

What an absolute liar and hypocrite! How dare he, especially as President, stand in public and make any speech regarding the welfare of children when this murderous horror is conducted each and every day against the most vulnerable and by those charged with their care. Not only this, but as a pro-abortionist, the President makes himself guilty of all of these atrocities because he openly fosters the practice. So once more we are faced with the position of the political animal. It is not acceptable to lose 20 children to gunfire, but it is acceptable to lose hundreds–of–times this many children to the surgeon’s hatchet! (My apologies to the real surgeons who save lives.)

Here then is the predicament. The Atheist, Evolutionist, Postmodernist, and Humanist have no standard of right and wrong. They only have a subjective concept that is as changeable as the wind.

Some time ago, there was a dog food advertisement. It was for the “Bush’s” brand. The punch line went, “Blah, blah, blah, Bushes!” In reality, that should have been the content of the President’s speech. It would have been as sincere; meant as much; and ultimately had the same overall impact. In fact, having listened to his words, I cannot help but think that they were a type of precooked mess from a tin. (Now, please understand, whilst the President is singled out for his gross hypocrisy, few Western leaders would be any different. We here in Australia suffer from exactly the same hypocrisy in our Government. I recently placed a submission on the “Exposure Draft – Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012.” The submission was accepted and covered by Parliamentary Privilege – that is, all but one sentence. That one sentence equated Julia Gillard’s stance on abortion with genocide.)

The problem is that although the Government seeks to act as a firewall, it is functioning on the wrong protocols. When you turn on your computer, protected by ‘GovernmentNanny’, you are directed to the pornography websites and to the seediest part of the web. Good and wholesome are filtered out and sent to the spam folder. Ugly and perverted are walked on through and even given a blessing.

The problem is that whilst God has ordained the government to act as a firewall, governments have essentially abandoned this task, precisely because they have abandoned God. Therefore, governments become the firewall product at the cheap end of the range that claims to keep your computer safe, but never really does. It is a travesty.

Sadly, both we the people and the Government seem to continue along in our deluded state, believing that the Government can abandon the wisdom of God and then somehow effect righteousness, law, and order. Talk of group cultural delusion!

The reason that the firewall is not working is precisely, to shift the analogy slightly, because they have the wrong software installed. The problem with modern Humanistic governments is that they do not accept that man is problematic, let alone defective to his core. The Humanists are trying to teach us that man, in and of himself, will be able to triumph over all adversity through his own resources and unified action because there is good in us all. That inherent and innate good simply needs to be released – bud needs to turn to blossom. The trouble for the Humanist begins when he opens his eyes, for what he sees in reality does not accord with his belief system. The humanist believes that each man has a seed planted within. The humanist also believes that this seed is a rose, which will bloom and fill the man with colour and fragrance. The reality is much closer to the words of U2: “Plant a demon seed, raise a flower of fire!” All men are not good to their core, which is precisely why some men pick up guns and shoot children and others fly aeroplanes into buildings.

It is also for this reason that the government cannot produce an effectual answer and why the firewall is defective. Our governments are Humanistic to the core – Yes, especially the American government. I wish the brothers over the pond would wake up to this en masse – consequently they are making laws to free man from the chains of Christian morality. In so doing, they are calling on man to express the individual tenets of his personal worldview. However, in this very call, you are inviting the establishment of the debauched, depraved, shocking, and abhorrent.

Thus, Government is powerless to act effectively and decisively for a righteous outcome and that for three reasons – particularly in regard to firearms. One, the government’s worldview is uniformly defective and therefore can never clearly identify the central issue. One may even say that it carries a bias against identifying the decisive point. Two, governments of our day only understand tyranny. They predominantly realise their goal and bring about conformity to their goal through force or coercion. Three, therefore, the government will breakdown any means by which you may resist their will – at any point and on any subject. Consequently, a populace equipped with firearms presents a challenge.

Guns are not the problem. The source of the deficiency is to be found in the inadequate worldview (firewall) of hypocritical Humanistic governments and agitators whose views actually promote mass shootings, directly or indirectly, as indeed they promote all kinds of evil.

Stonewall: The only answer to the situation is to return to the solid Rock, Jesus Christ. God’s Word revealed is our stone wall. It gives a solid barricade behind which one can take shelter. It forms a solid boundary between right and wrong. Equally, it supplies a firm foundation on which to stand and view the happenings round and about.

We can argue all day about firearms. Do we ban them all or allow some. If we allow some, which ones do we allow? The arguments are endless. So let us look at some solid Biblical principles.

            First, we must recognise man as fallen, sinful, and corrupt (Jeremiah 17:9; Matthew 15:18-19). Not every desire of his heart is pure, nor can it be without Christ. Humanism does not recognise this fact. Therefore, they throw off the chains of restraint imposed by Christian law, gleefully expectant that man will make right choices for himself and society. However, sinful man is selfish. He cares nought for his neighbour. So at the outset, it is obvious that the two worldviews lead in two distinct directions. Sinful man literally says, ‘to hell!’ with my neighbour (1 Kings 21:1 ff). Biblical man looks out and cares for his neighbour (Luke 10:25ff).

            Second, God gives freedom to man. It is only when man transgresses that he must be penalised. Therefore, to penalise the innocent is a procedure at law that is alien to Scripture (Exodus 23:7). To penalise the innocent is tantamount to blasphemy (Deuteronomy 27:25). It is to say that the Law-Giver does not distinguish right from wrong, innocent from guilty, and such is most definitely a lie (Deuteronomy 34:6-7; see also 25:1-4).

            Third, we must be willing to punish the transgressor. Because Government has rejected the Biblical view of man and has denied the operation of sin, government institutions, like courts, are being white-anted by psychological excuses. Punishments do not fit the crime, and that is if anything like a punishment is meted out! Just punishment exacts the due penalty, but it also acts as a deterrent (See page 11; Point B — Punishment and Retribution). One does not punish to deter. That is a road fraught with danger. One punishes for justice, but the execution of true justice helps to deter (Deuteronomy 17:11; 19:19b-20).

            Fourth, the application of true justice, including the death penalty, saves lives. I recently read of a pastor who killed a young woman in order to fulfil his fantasy of necrophilia. The sad reality is that he had a violent past. Had we a real justice system, the perpetrator would not have been with us to commit the crime. Similarly, some years ago I watched a documentary on serial killers. One person, who had killed around ten, I think, had, as a young man, been convicted of rape. In Biblical terms, he would have been invited to leave the land–of–the–living and, likewise, his future victims would have remained unharmed.

            Fifth, true justice is a communal responsibility. Scripture is very clear on this point. The community was to take its stand against evil. This was most clearly seen in the punishment of the transgressor. At this point the community had to come together as one (Numbers 15:35-26; Deuteronomy 21:21; 22:20-21; Leviticus 24:14-23). In exacting the punishment, people were reminded constantly of the need for obedience and conformity to the law. We can see the degradation of this principle as executions went from being a public display to that which took place behind closed doors.

A second issue here concerns the instigation of ‘police forces’. Whilst, I have nothing against a ‘police force’, as such, the instigation of such an entity with the direct implication that you, as an individual, no longer have a responsibility for or participation in the enforcement of law is questionable. A community that is aware of law, is involved in the execution of law, and participates in the sentence of the law, will be a community in which law and order are treasured. It will be a community that looks out for neighbour; a community that is aware of the bad apple; a community that will respond to crime and not one which will disengage from crime.

            Sixth, morality! In particular, God’s standard of morality. Some may ask what morality has to do with firearms. The answer is very simple. Moral men or moral and ethical men, do not gun down innocents. Thus, whilst morality does not speak to firearms in and of themselves, it speaks vociferously to the situation in which firearms are wielded as weapons of terror.

What we must see is that oft times the perpetrators of these crimes are the products of immorality. As an example, we quote the following from a Christian newsletter in regard to the Sandy Hook incident: “The story so far appears to have some grim echoes of the massacre in Norway last year perpetrated by Anders Breivik. Like Breivik, Adam Lanza (20) lost his father through divorce, which neighbours said was traumatic for the children. Anti-social and lonely, suffering from a personality disorder, Adam is said to have immersed himself in violent computer games for hours each day.” (Family Voice, January 2013. P.2.)

Here we see the rudiments of catastrophe laid bare. How many time of recent have we seen similar scenarios? Broken homes beget broken lives. Broken lives beget catastrophe. Whether it be the angry man who murders; the purposeless daughter that sells her body; the rejected wife that finds solace in a bottle or an abusive boyfriend; the dispirited teenager who cannot cope and turns to drugs or the disenfranchised lad, who never having had a real father figure, does not know how to really love a woman and conduct a meaningful relationship, the consequences are the same – pain, hurt, dysfunction, bereavement, destruction, and death.

From a humanist’s perspective, who would guess that a broken home or divorce could bring such devastation? After all marriage in their estimation is nothing more than a cultural convention. From a Biblical point of view it is a “no brainer”. Marriage is fundamental to family and family is fundamental to society. So what happens when marriage is ridiculed and trashed? The humanist would answer by saying, “Nothing!” In fact, his answer would probably be more along the lines of, “It is high time we ditched this religious hangover from a previous stage of our evolution!” Biblically, we maintain that to ditch marriage – in its true context and extent – is to invite disaster. Proof? Earlier, we cited the clock used to count the number of abortions in America. We may then ask, “Who has abortions?” On one website, they have this illuminating answer: “In 2009, 85% of all abortions were performed on unmarried women (CDC).” Does this not illustrate the point well? We could then add this statistic from the same site: “In 2009, 55.3% of abortions were performed on women who had not aborted in the past; 36.6% were performed on women with one or two prior abortions, and 8.1% were performed on women with three or more prior abortions (CDC).” The point? Very simple. It has to do with recidivism. In other words, 44.7% of those having abortions in 2009 were repeat offenders.

Morality matters. God’s standard of morality matters most. In God’s world, by covenant and design, there are causes and consequences. We cannot jettison God and His revealed standard and believe that as a society or as individuals we will get off scot–free. Such is but one more cultural delusion.

Conclusion: Whilst Sandy Hook is a tragedy in every sense of the word, it is not impossible to define the causes for the incident. The first one is that we live in a fallen world. Evil men perpetrate evil deeds. The second cause has to do with the predominate worldview held by most governments – it is a worldview that brings carnage.

As we have seen in this article, politician’s talk of one thing while their actions belie the true state of play. A president stands and mourns 20 children brutally gunned down in a school, yet that same president allows the mass murder of the unborn. A president mourns the loss of life via a rampage, yet that same president pushes on with a liberal agenda that will not see a cessation of such incidents.

Therefore, all the talk of banning automatic weapons with large magazine capacities is useless. All the talk of restricting the sale of firearms is useless. Why? Because the problem is not to be found in the gun, the magazine, or the bullets! Each one is an inanimate object. In and of themselves they are lifeless and powerless matter. The problem is the heart of man. The problem is that evil men do evil things. The problem is that our governments, when they capitulate to a Humanistic worldview, have no answer outside of depravation. In short, the Humanist worldview will not tackle the problem of the inner man. It cannot. So those holding this worldview will attack the external. They will ban or attempt to ban firearms of all shapes and sizes. All manner of foolishness will be put forth to aid their cause. The will gloat. They will pontificate. However, when the dust settles, one pertinent question remains, “Will the acts of evil men be stopped? The answer is, No!

If the answer is deprivation, where do we start and stop? Look at the world around us. USS Cole attacked by boat. 9/11 utilised planes. Timothy McVeigh used a Truck bomb. Ted Kaczynski (unabomber) posted or left small bombs for his victims. In a call for consistency, we should then ban boats, planes, trucks, mail, metal containers, and wire.

Why should we stop there? In 2009, there were 13,756 murders in the USA. Of these, 9,203 were committed with firearms. (Surprisingly, the vast majority were with handguns, not high capacity assault rifles (6,503).) So let’s ban guns, as well as planes, boats, trucks etc. Of course this is not the sum total, so we must continue our search for items to be banned. “Knives or cutting instruments” accounted for over one thousand deaths (1,828), so these should be banned as well, obviously.

Now I face a serious conundrum. As I looked at the statistics, I see a category of “Personal Weapons”. Hmmm? I would have thought that if you owned any of the aforementioned weapons, that they would have been personal. It was obviously very personal, if it was used to take another person’s life. However, none of these concepts fit appropriately. So, I turned to the footnote for a definition. A “Personal Weapon” is considered to be “hands, feet, fists, pushed, etc.” Deaths by these “Personal Weapons” accounted for 815 deaths. Now, let’s do the math. 815 divided by 20 equals 40.75. Okay, so death by these weapons accounts for 40.75 times the amount of deaths (children) recorded at Sandy Hook. Then it seems absolutely essential that these “personal weapons” should be banned as well! After all, these weapons are not regulated. They are readily available. Most people have multiples of the specified items. Very dangerous!

I apologies if sensitivities have been encroached upon. However, it is important that we not be distracted from the essential point of the argument. Evil men will use any means at their disposal to commit their evil deeds, right down the very limbs of their body. Therefore, there is nothing constructive to be gained by any argument that revolves around the instrument only – in this case the gun. The focus must fall upon the perpetrator and that which motivates him to evil.

If governments are going to make a ruckus over incidents like this, then let them respond seriously and in sincerity. Let them respond by examining the consequence of the ideas by which they govern. Let them begin by asking themselves why they deny God and His Law.

I’m Still Here!

Posted on by
Reply

Yes, I am still here! That news may mean different things to different people and will no doubt be met with varying emotional responses. My point is simple: The Mayan’s were wrong and the world continues.

This blog will not be long, but it will be stern, especially for Christians.

Fess up. Who thought the Mayan’s were right? Who was really good yesterday, trying to make up for past failures?

I am particularly perturbed by the number of Christians that get sucked into these apocalyptic delusions and indeed propagate them. Brethren, Scripture is very clear. When will we believe Scripture over fallen deluded men?

Jesus, speaking of the end of the world, said:

“Heaven and earth will pass away, but My words shall not pass away. “But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, nor the Son, but the Father alone.”

Note two things. Jesus first proclaims the surety of His word. As God’s true prophet, His word will never fail. Second, Jesus then says that no human or angel knows the day, but the Father alone! No man. No angel. Thus, any man who says he knows when the world is ending is deluded. At best, seen in the most positive light, he is guessing in the dark. Every other possibility from there on is from the pit! Equally, no angel knows. Thus, if you have an angelic encounter and during the conversation said angel lets the date of Christ’s coming slip, rebuke that being in Jesus Christ, for it is the demonic masquerading as light. The angels do not know, therefore their tongues cannot slip!

Prior to these words of Jesus just mentioned, Jesus had already warned people about not being fooled by those who claimed that Jesus was here or there. The Apostle John (1 John 2:18) says:

Children, it is the last hour; and just as you heard that antichrist is coming, even now many antichrists have arisen; from this we know that it is the last hour.

He then adds (1 John 4:1):

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God; because many false prophets have gone out into the world.

The Apostle Paul (Acts 20:28-30), speaking to the Ephesian elders, says:

“Be on guard for yourselves and for all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. “I know that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock; and from among your own selves men will arise, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after them.”

When all these texts are pulled together, without using Numerology or the Divinci Code, or the now highly embarrassed Mayan high priest, they spell: DO NOT BE DUPED BY THE FALSE BUT BELIEVE JESUS CHRIST THE SON OF GOD THE LIVING WORD!

Friends and brethren, all that we need for an obedient, fulfilled, and fulfilling life in Christ Jesus will be found in Holy Scripture. The Bible is but Jesus Christ written! If we will not believe what Jesus tells us of Himself through Scripture, messages from angels, demons, Mayans, tea leaves, or mediums, will prosper us nought.

The words of the Apostle Peter (John 6:68) – Please read them, understand them, and treasure them – Simon Peter answered Him, “Lord, to whom shall we go? You have words of eternal life.

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 4): Cultural Catastrophe

Posted on by
Reply

In our quest for understanding into the Slippery Slope, we have laid a basic foundation. We have noted that the Slippery Slope began centuries ago with Enlightenment philosophy, particularly the Rejection of the Bible’s God. We have shown that the only two epistemological standpoints are those of Revelation or Relativism. We have explored how the rejection of Revelation must lead to Relativism and to men groping in darkness. We have also looked at the stepping stones, however briefly, that brought us to the current issues of today. Particularly, we looked at the realms of Ecclesiology and Science and saw how the works of two men, Schweitzer and Darwin, moved us further down the Slippery Slope.

In our last article, we mapped out the steps, but we did not have time to fully explore the link between Relativism and Cultural disintegration. In this article, we would like to simply unpack this aspect a little.

Our starting point is a subjective one. It is you! Regardless of whether you are a Believer in Jesus Christ or a rejecter of Him, you need to understand that the world in which you live has been shaped by the abandonment of Revelation and the acceptance of Relativism. You also need to understand that you are living in an epistemological dichotomy. Most today do not understand this position or even realise the paradigm shift. Let’s illustrate this. In a previous life, I drove taxis. On one occasion I had a male passenger who expressed the view that the individual should simply do what makes them feel good. Immediately the thought passed through my mind – ‘Hmmm, let us test this theory. Grab him by the back of the neck and bash his head against the dashboard!’ Yes, a tad unsanctified, but what do you suppose his reaction would have been? Upon explanation that “I just felt like bashing him”, do you think this gentleman would have been calm and at peace with the fact the encounter was nothing more than another rational creature simply expressing himself as he desired? I doubt it. Here we have the dichotomy. This man expressed relativism as his epistemology, but in reality he would have expected applied revelation as an outcome. In other words, his expectation of outcome would have been toward justice and retribution against the assailant – a position supported only by God’s Revelation, not his stated relativism! Therefore, it is important to understand that today’s culture is totally exposed to disintegration. People within our culture, for the most part, are conflicted. Disintegration and conflict occur because, in Biblical language, they have ‘halted between two opinions’ (1 kings 18:21). Our culture wants an epistemology that worships each individual man as if he were a god (relativism); promulgating laws that see each of his desires are fully met. However, on the flip side, he wants all his rights and privileges protected on the basis of law, morals, and ethics that transcend the individual and move into the realm of absolutes. At this point, he wants to move from relativism to revelation!

To drive to the heart of cultural disintegration we must look at this conflict. To begin, we must look at some Biblical basics. 1. God is. 2. God spoke 3. In speaking, God created. 4. To His creation, God spoke Law-Words. 5. These Law-Words are covenant terms promising blessing and curse. 6. These covenant Law-Words are the basis for the happiness, prosperity, and well being of God’s creatures. 7. Therefore, these covenant Law-Words are to be obeyed, if a prosperous culture is to be experienced. Because God is an immutable, absolute being, possessing absolute power, He not only has the right to settle the terms of life for His creatures, but he has the will and the power to bring about all that He stipulates in His Law-Word.

Using marriage as an example, we see that God made man male and female. He called man to unity in the covenant bond of marriage. This bond He blessed with a command to be ‘fruitful and multiply’. Man obeyed because God had designed this life into man. Like the bow in the sky (Genesis 9:13), the child brought forth from the womb was nothing less than a covenant sign. The child proved the essence and reality of God’s design, purpose, and promise – fruitful, multiply, fill the earth and subdue it! As man obeyed this command, God upheld and sustained the marriage covenant at every step. Moreover, God hedged the marriage covenant with law to make sure that its sanctity was upheld (Exodus 20:12 & 14; Leviticus 20:10; Matthew 10:2-12); even extending laws to protect the child (Exodus 21:22; Numbers 3:11; Psalm 127:3-5; Matthew 18:10). Thus, from first to last, marriage is a covenant of life (fruitful), culture (subdue), and salvation (Genesis 3:15; Galatians 3:16) – eternal life and culture.

As God purposed for this marriage covenant to be the bedrock of society, God added penalty to law – thus truly indicating that marriage is a God-sanctioned covenant – so that man would respect this bond. When a person betrayed that covenant, the full weight of the law was to come upon them. There was to be guilt and innocence. There was to be bounty for the faithful; depravation for the guilty. Punishment of the guilty served the true end of justice, but it was also to be a deterrent (Deuteronomy 17:12; 19:19; 22:22).

By contrast, the relativism of finite man gives nothing but disintegration. Man has no real power and certainly nothing approaching the absolute. Man’s epistemology of relativism stands in stark contrast to The Immutable. There are no law-words of worth. Those that they possess, they have stolen! The heart of man does not give definitions of love, justice, goodness, holiness, etc. All these are terms borrowed, read stolen, from the Bible’s God. So man makes futile attempts to promulgate laws that are meant to give stability to culture and rights to the individual. They knock down in order to build, but their foundation is nothing but rubble. The edifice must collapse!

Again, let us illustrate this with marriage. Having jettisoned the Bible’s God, man was left to improvise. He could see some things of worth in the design of God, but they were bound too tightly to law and penalty. Man wanted freedom, not a lot, just enough to loosen the strictures – well that is how it began. So God’s Law-Word on marriage had to be replaced by man’s relative tenets on marriage. As man was a sexual creature, what did it matter if your slippers were parked, on occasion, under the wrong bed? So, of necessity, we must decriminalise adultery. This then opened the way for promiscuity. “No penalty, so what does it matter?” is the way man thought. The problem was that as a creature made in the image of God, promiscuity did matter. Innately, one or other of the parties felt aggrieved at the betrayal and wanted ‘out’ of the relationship. Because we had decriminalised adultery, what was the aggrieved party to do? After all, no harm no foul! So, we are given the Family Law Court that has a “no fault” policy. Question! How do you divide up a family, goods, and chattels without establishing guilt or innocence? At this point, man’s relativism has begun to destroy the very nature of law. With divorce increasing, the question then became, “Why get married?” Let’s “try before we buy!” Let us simply pretend to be married. Here, we have arrived at the place wherein “marriage” has become an absolute farce. Homosexuality, polygamy, bestiality, you and your grandmother – yes, be repulsed – is all on the table.

However, that is but the tip of the ‘iceberg’. Children, the fruit of the womb proving God’s covenant and design, are now openly attacked. Man hates God now. He is not looking for “wiggle room” but to throw off God’s rule (Psalm 2). Therefore, in true evolutionary style, the “live in lover” beats the child senseless because it is not his offspring. The couple want the pleasure of sex, but they have no interest in fruitfulness and dominion, so when the womb is bounteous they slay the contents as though of no more worth than a baked bean! The woman finds a new boyfriend and murders her children because he prefers that they were not around.

What happens to these slayers and child beaters? Nothing! Relativism has destroyed law. The fruit of the womb is no longer a covenant testimony to be honoured and treasured as life, culture, and salvation. No. It is now to be killed as burden and inconvenience; and the moral applied is “choice”. We still, hypocritically, take a dim view of child beaters and of the mother that kills her children, but we are slowly throwing of these shackles too! We now not only discuss abortion openly, but also infanticide.

Relativism is a culture of death and the death of a culture because it removes any and all meaning and therefore destroys purpose. Relativism limits everything to what it is. So, to the relativist, ‘marriage’ is nothing more than an agreement between two parties that gives some vague legal standing. It is for this reason that homosexuals, polygamists, and others push for the right to be married. To them, marriage serves no purpose beyond “recognition” or “equality”. The idea of covenant, blessing, fruitfulness, posterity, prosperity, dominion, covenant affirmation, and image bearing, are alien concepts.

Here, we have only drawn a few faint lines using marriage as an example, to show that the rejection of the Bible’s God must lead to Humanism and Relativism. The consequence of this shift must be Cultural Disintegration. We stepped onto the Slippery Slope centuries ago. We sowed the wind; we are now reaping the whirlwind! All that is upon us, all disintegration, stems from our rejection of God. Let us commit to restoration by once again embracing the One True and Living God that speaks through Jesus Christ His Son!

Of Kiddie Fiddlers, the Church, and the State

Posted on by
Reply

This week, Prime Minister Julia Gillard announced a Royal Commission into institutional child abuse.

As one can imagine, this announcement has set the cat amongst the pigeons. Long term advocates have been quick to vocalise the words “about time!” Representatives of the Congregation of Rome are trying to put on a brave face, but are Stoic in there denial that such a review is really necessary.

As Christians, “What should our reaction be to this announcement?”

My perfectly honest response is, first, a sense of shame, followed by the caution, “Be afraid! Be very afraid!”

The Kiddie Fiddlers:

Let me begin by absolutely denouncing true child abuse and especially sexual predation. I realise I do not speak for Christendom here, but it is to be said that this issue is directly attributable to the rejection of God’s Law as our only standard within the universal Church in general and certain denominations in particular.

God’s word is abundantly clear:

Orphans = Exodus 22:22-24 – “You shall not afflict any widow or orphan. “If you afflict him at all, and if he does cry out to Me, I will surely hear his cry; and My anger will be kindled, and I will kill you with the sword; and your wives shall become widows and your children fatherless.”

Could this be any clearer? God is here speaking to His own people. Yahweh declares that He Himself will avenge the oppressed and humbled orphan. One could not be more ‘oppressed’ or ‘humbled’ than to be sexually violated by a / the person charged with one’s care. One could not be more oppressed than to be the victim of a cover-up in such heinous circumstances.

Kidnapping = Deuteronomy 24:7 – “If a man is caught kidnapping any of his countrymen of the sons of Israel, and he deals with him violently, or sells him, then that thief shall die; so you shall purge the evil from among you.”

Again, we face some very specific details. The crime is literally that of “stealing the life/soul of a brother”. In using these terms, Moses is showing that “kidnapping”, as we call it, is not limited to children. It is a law governing and protecting all people. God values freedom. God created man to live freely under Him and His rule. Therefore, God proscribes the theft of that freedom. The added guilt is that of ‘pawning’ and ‘dealing roughly’ with or as a ‘tyrant’ would. By definition “kidnapping” or “man stealing” is to steal someone’s freedom and innocence. Those who have been, first, entrusted to an institution, and, second, maltreated by that institution, have most definitely had something very precious stolen from them.

This text tells us that the item stolen is nothing less than the life or the soul. This is not to be equated with murder. It is rather to be understood as stealing from a person a God given quality in and of life. The person is given this as a gift by God and they are entrusted with its care, nurture, and appropriate use. Like life, sexuality is both deeply personal and deeply spiritual (1 Corinthians 6:15-20). God gifts it to the individual with expectation that it be used appropriately. People are to be sexually active, but they are also to be sexually responsible. This gift, like life itself, is to be used for God’s glory and in accordance with God’s specific direction. It belongs to the individual. No one else has right and title to that gift. No one is allowed to steal it. When a person, especially a child, is broken into and robbed of such innate gifts, it is, in essence, soul destroying.

Nothing is probably more soul destroying to a minor than to be raped – to be broken into and pillaged by a brigand and a knave. In and of itself, rape is theft and something the Bible condemns (Deuteronomy 22:25-27). However, we must also see that the predominant deviancy is homosexuality. When it comes to the accusations against the Roman denomination and of institutions in general, it is not heterosexual, but rather homosexual behaviour that comes to the fore. Scripture is again vociferous on this issue. Leviticus 18:22 proscribes homosexuality with death. Paul condemns this behaviour in Romans chapter 1. The Apostle shows homosexuality to be the ultimate act of idolatry. It is a state of being that is not only under God’s judgement but also that which results from God’s judgement. Elsewhere, Paul states that the Kingdom of God is closed to such people (1 Corinthians 6:9-10).

Thus, when you examine the Biblical messages on these topics, it is to be understood that any truly Christian institution would never cover up or condone such crimes, let alone allow them to continue. The fact that some organisations, claiming to be Christian, have carried on this practice is shameful and abhorrent and is to be rightfully condemned. Jesus Christ would never condone or sanction such activity within His Church. True Christianity has and always will denounce such behaviour.

The Church:

In discussing this issue, it is fundamentally important that we note and understand some very relevant points.

First, I am tired of the Roman denomination always being labelled as “the Church”. Rome has not been “the Church” for six hundred years. Since the time of the Reformation, at the very least, the Roman denomination has been a part of the Church, but she has not been the Church. This misclassification is conveniently misunderstood by governments and popular media alike.

Two, the reason the Reformers packed their bags and left Rome, or in some cases were invited to leave, was precisely because the Roman denomination had become a self-serving rather than a Christ-serving institution.

Three, the reason the Roman denomination declined so radically was attributable in full to their refusal to live under the absolute authority of Scripture. (Yes, there is a massive lesson here for today’s Protestantism!) Whilst it is acknowledged that “the Church” is rightly the interpreter of Scripture, we must also acknowledge the wisdom of the Westminster Divines when they say: “The infallible rule of interpretation of Scripture is the Scripture itself: and therefore, when there is a question about the true and full sense of any Scripture (which is not manifold, but one), it must be searched and known by other places that speak more clearly (WCF 1:9).” That is to say, that every interpreter has a hermeneutical proposition. The Church is the interpreter. The hermeneutic is Scripture. This, Rome abandoned.

Four, the culmination of these points created a denomination that a) encouraged wrong, actively and passively, by its failure to comply with the ethical dictates of Scripture; and b) sought, at all costs, to cover up any gross sin; thereby saving face and allowing it to act, in a self-deluding manner, as society’s moral compass.

It is this fourth point that is at the heart of the current predicament. The Roman denomination has made itself into target because it has been seen to cover up very wicked behaviour whilst insisting that it has the right to tell people how they should live. Again, I am not saying that the evil should be covered to allow the pretence to continue. Rather, I am saying that had the Romanists dealt openly and appropriately with sin, more people might respect that denomination – and Jesus Christ – and be more willing to give ear to what they say.

Of equal importance, harking back to point one, it is time that Protestantism shook this concept that the Roman denomination is “the Church”. That there is still some intrinsic belief to that end can be seen by two obvious and shameful facts:

A) It is disturbing that there are elements within Protestantism that are in dialogue with Rome in the hope to bring about some reunion. (I must admit that as a Reformer, one side effect of the Reformation that I dislike is the constant splitting and dividing of the Church. Personally, I would love to see the concept of the “one” Church reappear. The benefits would be great. However, I equally acknowledge that any such reunion must be made a) on Biblical grounds and b) in the true fellowship that is Jesus Christ. Anything else is little more than a mixture of two like minded clubs.) The issue here is, “How do we seek to unite with a denomination that is so hypocritical, unethical, and Christ dishonouring?” Would Protestants, in general, strike up a dialogue with the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons, or the Branch Davidians? Not likely. So why would we try to enter into a true dialogue with denominations that are humanistic and who ultimately show a great disregard for Jesus and His teaching?

B) That Protestantism has not made a clean break in its thinking is witnessed by its general silence on the matter of institutional abuse. I am generally disappointed in this day with the lack of public voice from the Protestant churches. Divided though that voice it may be, it would still be nice to hear it! The institutional abuse of children should be one topic where the voice is heard, loudly and clearly! Why is it not?

Yes, Protestants broke with the Roman denomination. Yes, there is, in some circles, little love lost because of Rome’s persecutions. The question remains, however, “Why did not Protestantism honour her Christ by publicly joining the campaign for evil to be exposed and dealt with?” The answer is, I believe, twofold. First, we are still psychologically beholding to Rome in some way and have therefore failed to step out from her shadow. Second, and most pointedly, we have failed because modern day Protestantism has generally lost her prophetic voice because she is following in Rome’s footsteps.

The Roman denomination committed one fundamental sin; she betrayed Jesus Christ. She did this by denying the authority of the written Word, which is but a testament of the Living word, Jesus. When this happened, she appointed herself judge of all ethical matters and executioner of all histories that may expose her treachery. My brother had an interaction with a Romanist who was critical of Martin Luther because ‘he left’ Romanism rather than reform it. What a statement. Martin Luther did not want to leave Rome. He wanted to reform her. Martin Luther was persecuted by Rome and forced to leave. How is it then that a modern day Romanist believes such things that are contrary to history? It comes back to face saving! It comes back to exalting the institution above the One who formed the institution. It comes back to a “Bride” who proves unfaithful to her Husband!

The questions for Protestantism are these, “Why are we allowing our denominations to become self-serving rather than Christ-serving institutions?” “Why are we abandoning the authority of God’s word for psychology and sociology?” “Why are we accepting an anthropology based on the perspective of fallen humans rather than on a statements of a Thrice holy God?”

The further question is, “Does Protestantism’s silence on institutional abuse suggest that, as with Rome, she has begun to cover up her own “dirty” laundry?” “Has Protestantism begun to truly dishonour Jesus Christ by once again joining in practices that He would condemn?”

This brings us to the crux of the matter – the Glory and honour of God in Jesus Christ! Does the Church today treasure the honour and glory of God or does She pander to the whims and dictates of the world?

Let us hear from the Westminster Divines again, Chapter 25:

4.        This catholic [meaning “universal”] Church hath been sometimes more, sometimes less visible. And particular Churches, which are members thereof, are more or less pure, according as the doctrine of the Gospel is taught and embraced, ordinances administered, and public worship performed more or less purely in them.

5.        The purest Churches under heaven are subject both to mixture and error; and some have so degenerated as to become no Churches of Christ, but synagogues of Satan. Nevertheless, there shall be always a Church on earth to worship God according to His will.

Jesus Christ is about to be dragged through the mud because the Church has allowed herself to decline into a state of near anarchy. Those parts of the Church that have become more akin to “synagogues of Satan” have not been openly rebuked by the more pure. Here, we are not speaking of ‘one upmanship’ or ‘ecclesiastical bragging rights’, but of true righteousness. The Church was given the authority to discipline and this power is rightly wielded against the Church Herself, not just individuals within the Church. The end of discipline has but two purposes; the restoration of the sinner and the purity of Christ’s bride, the Church. These can be distilled to one purpose: The glory and Honour of God Almighty in Jesus Christ.

When denominations stray from God’s Word, they should be rebuked and called to repentance. They should not be allowed to sully Jesus Christ or His bride. Every effort should be made to bring them back to the truth. If they are unwilling, then they should be cut loose and denounced as not, in any way, belonging to Christ.

Some may see this as harsh. Yes, it is. However, it is nothing more than the extension of principles laid down in Scripture. Are their dangers? Yes, there are. Undoubtedly, some, full of pride, will commit themselves to pronouncing anathemas upon the slightest infraction. This notwithstanding, the resultant position would be better than the current circumstances where Christ is dragged through the mud and dishonoured. We have the Roman denomination, claiming to be the “true Church” yet acting like a harlot to Her Groom, Jesus Christ. How does Rome condone the practice of shifting on priests who have violated children? How convenient. You give the paedophile a brand new field from which to glean. What an absolutely abominable practice!! Then we would ask, “Why does Rome disapprove of homosexuality publically, but condone and cover it privately?” (See: Glennon; Hinch) Why is Rome partaking of dialogue with the Uniting Club (apologies, but I refuse to use the word “Church” in reference to this organisation), when said club openly supports homosexuality? (See: What we do) Then there is the really obvious question, “Why have not the Protestant Church at large and the evangelical element of Rome, motivated by a genuine love for Jesus, been vehement and clamorous in their denunciation of the apostate and abominable?”

In the almost forgotten words of Derryn Hinch, Shame! Shame! Shame!

The State:

In the similarly, almost forgotten, words of Pro Hart’s maid, “What a mess! Mr Hart.”

The Church’s failure to govern and discipline has led us now to a dark day in which the government will begin to troll through the Church looking for evil. Thankfully, we can rely on Julia Gillard’s unbiased position to assure us that there are no ulterior motives. We can equally trust to Julia Gillard’s expertise as a lawyer to obey due process and to be sure to exact justice where wrong is found. We can be thankful that this unbiased approach will not lead to the Church being held to ransom or placed under State control. We can be very thankful that the worship of God will go on unhindered and that Jesus Christ will be extolled with the State’s assistance.

I am sure of these things because we live in a “free” country that upholds the “rule of law” and respects to the utmost the democratic process. I am also buoyed by the fact that the government is always open and transparent. Equally, those in power have often affirmed the separation of Church and State, and would therefore, being honourable people, never, under any circumstances, abuse their power and wrongly intrude upon the Church.

Have you stopped laughing yet?

The reality is more like: the government will assume the mantle of ‘the teacher of righteousness’; it will profess to be the all wise and knowing oracle guiding us as though lost children; it will be to us our “superman”, who brings truth, justice, and the “Australian way”; it will deny Jesus, seek to set us free from the myths of religion all the while proclaiming itself as “saviour”; transparency will become universally opaque; State will walk all over Church; and, pathetically, true justice will never be served or realised.

In the Essence of War, we wrote about man having only two heartfelt motives: love for God or hatred of God. Governments are correspondingly ruled by this principle. According to Romans 13, the government is a minister of God. As such, it should be revered and honoured. However, as with every other institution, it can be corrupted. This happens when the government turns from its appointed function and becomes enamoured with its own reflection. By this we mean that the government is corrupt or becomes corrupt when it turns from being a Christ-serving institution to a self-serving institution.

The whole debate over the separation of Church and State is one that is muddied and sullied precisely because it is debated on the terms of the secular humanist. In reality, the Church and the State are two sides to one coin. Both are ministers of God. Both are obligated to obey God. Both fall under God’s judgement when due obedience is withheld or scorned. Both, and this may surprise you, are on the same erroneous page when discussing each other’s relevance. Therefore, both, in disobedience to God, have brought us to a very sad day.

I would like to quote from the original words the Westminster Divines: “The civil magistrate may not assume to himself the administration of the word and sacraments, or the power of the keys of the kingdom: yet he hath authority, and it is his duty, to take order, that unity and peace be preserved in the church, that the truth of God be kept pure and entire, that all blasphemies and heresies be suppressed, all corruptions and abuses in worship and discipline prevented and reformed, and all the ordinances of God duly settled, administered, and observed (23:3).”

I introduce this by saying “original” words because in most denominations that hold to the Westminster Confession as a standard, these words have been changed. They now generally read like this: “Civil magistrates may not assume to themselves the administration of the Word and sacraments; or the power of the keys of the kingdom of heaven; or, in the least, interfere in the matters of faith. Yet, as nursing fathers, it is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the Church of our common Lord, without giving the preference to any denomination of Christians above the rest, in such a manner that all ecclesiastical persons whatever shall enjoy the full, free, and unquestioned liberty of discharging every part of their sacred functions, without violence or danger. And, as Jesus Christ hath appointed a regular government and discipline in his Church, no law of any commonwealth should interfere with, let, or hinder, the due exercise thereof, among the voluntary members of any denomination of Christians, according to their own profession and belief. It is the duty of civil magistrates to protect the person and good name of all their people, in such an effectual manner as that no person be suffered, either upon pretence of religion or of infidelity, to offer any indignity, violence, abuse, or injury to any other person whatsoever: and to take order, that all religious and ecclesiastical assemblies be held without molestation or disturbance.”

The difference here should be patent. The first places the magistrate (government) firmly into a position as an ordained instrument of God. Its purpose is none other than to make sure that the truth of God revealed in His word is upheld. Moreover, it is to make sure that the Church, tasked by Christ as herald, maintains both truth and proclamation. Note well, the government is tasked with both purpose and standard, and they are singular.

By distinction, when you look at the second reference, we are introduced to pluralism, denominationalism, and confusion. The Divines knew that Church and State were governed by one and the same law being derived from one and the same God. Therefore, they could state positively the role of the magistrate without surrounding it in quid pro quos, sine qua nons, and a list of caveats as long as the proverbial “arm”!

When parts of the Church rejected the original wording of the Divines and substituted words like those above, they evidenced the infiltration of both pietism and pluralism. They began to see the world divided into secular and sacred, worldly and spiritual. Truth was not any longer One. It was now divided. The government was forced to realise that God was divided and that He spoke with a forked tongue – a blasphemy! Like all falsehoods, this process brought forth consequences. First, you see the Church adopting and acquiescing to the concept that Church and State are to be divided. (Granted it is not as extreme as the view of today, but it is there in seminal form.) Second, we see that the strong language about heresy, worship, blasphemy, and reform, smelt down to trite words about “protecting the Church”. With these steps taken, it was only a short walk before there was a total disintegration of the concept.

Consequently, we arrive at today. The government is apostate. It is totally committed to the God-hating Humanist agenda. It is so to its own shame. However, the Church must realise the part it has played in this. Instead of working with government as an equal and rightly sharing their spheres of sovereignty as ordained by God, the Church seems to have insisted on an arm wrestle to the death, winner-take-all type policy. The result of which was the active encouragement of government to become apostate and to, in disobedience to its call, accrue total power to itself.

Conclusion:

We are facing a dark day because the Church has been Biblically ignorant for too long! We have allowed too many falsehoods to arise and become entrenched. As we have shown, the Church has shifted ground and has thereby played its part in the secularising of the government. The Church has helped solidify the concept of the separation of Church and State by its unBiblical stance. Moreover, it has helped in the apostatising of governments by further allowing the concept – that God can be divorced from government – to take hold.

The Church has, for far too long, refused to call its own to account on atrocities such as the homosexual predation of children. It has been evident to all that there have been serious and protracted allegations with little evidence of justice for those wronged or a cessation to the practices involved. Again, the root cause is nothing less than failing to love Jesus Christ. Jesus welcomed the little children. We have abandoned them to wolves. “Jesus, please, forgive us – open our eyes and let our hearts burn with love for You that we may act!”

Now, because of this lack of action, the Church is faced with the prospect of a God-hating government forcing itself upon the Church, or parts thereof, with a view to bringing its form of justice. The irony should be obvious to all:

A. The State that tells the Church to “but out” of its affairs for there is no correlation or overlap between the two spheres is now going to “but in” to the Church!

B. The State that affirms homosexuality as a legitimate lifestyle, in contradistinction to the Church, now wants to purge the Church of homosexuals and homosexual predation!

C. The State that affirms the rights of “sex offenders” to live in public without being declared, now wants to name and shame “sex offenders” within the Church and other institutions!

D. The State that affirms the rights of people to indulge in homosexuality and other perversions in the privacy of their own residences now wants to declare that Church residences are open to scrutiny!

E. The State that writes and polices the law which bind the Church, like “working with children” legislation, now needs to be investigated because its policing has failed.

The sticking point for this author is to be found in the fact that the government is being totally hypocritical at least as far as investigations into the Church are concerned.

The congregation of Rome needs to be held to account and they need to reform, of this there is no doubt. However, the same can be said of our government. Rome betrayed Christ by turning from His service to self-service. Our government has betrayed Christ in exactly the same manner. The government has refused its calling to be a servant of God and has become self-serving. As such, it could well be argued that they have forfeited any and all authority as well as the right to govern.

When Rome turned her back on Christ and turned to humanism, people suffered. Children today are still suffering. Is our government any different? No. People are suffering through unjust taxation; laws that give the criminal rights and privilege; the gagging of free speech; the foolish notion of “multiculturalism”, and many things beside. What of the children? The children surely suffer. It is estimated, conservatively, that as a nation we abort about 80,000 children per year. Rome, with all her perversions, added together with all other institutional abuses, could not come close to the numbers set by our government. This is without raising all the other harms inflicted upon people by poor and unrighteous government.

Then we must consider the track record of governments when it comes to justice. It is appalling. I am always sceptical of the government when it sets out on these tasks because they have a history of failure. Years ago, a little chap by the name of Daniel was killed in Victoria. He was abused. In the light of his death, all the weirdos climbed out of their holes and began demanding that the government ban smacking; that they label smacking as “abuse”, and so on. The simple and sad reality, which later came to light, was that every government agency that could know, did know about the situation in which this little chap lived. What was the outcome? They sat on their hands and let him die. In this, the government has more blood on their hands, in regard to child abuse, than any mentioned in this blog. It has always been their obligation to pursue and prosecute abusers of all shapes, sizes, and religions. Whilst the Church at large may share guilt for not speaking out more loudly, She has never had the power and authority to prosecute paedophiles. That is the right and obligation of the State.

Last, we must wonder what sort of investigation we are going to endure. As noted above, people and governments are motivated by one of two heartfelt motives – love for God or hatred of God. Our government hates God. It has shown this by its apostasy and by its continued anger with Christianity. I for one, therefore, would truly like to know what the “Terms of Reference” will be in the final analysis. I am also concerned that there is talk of this Royal Commission lasting as long as ten years. I would also like to know that the timing of this Commission has nothing to do with an upcoming election in which the Leader of the Opposition belongs to the Congregation of Rome. Is this Commission the “real deal”, a political stunt, or some combination of the two? In our opening, we used the term “true child abuse”. This was used purposely because there are proponents in government who would label many things as “abuse” that in reality are not. Are we going to be subjected to altered and spurious definitions in what turns out to be, not a quest for justice, but one more attempt by a humanist government to rid itself of the last remnants of true Christianity?

In short, kiddie fiddlers must be dealt with; but so must all the relevant sources and issues. One cannot look at abuses in Roman institutions, or any other for that matter, without looking at the issue of sexuality, homosexuality, justice, corruption, and other perversions. Likewise, I have not heard anything yet in regard to penology.  The Church needs to repent of its acquiescence to false ideas and its silence on subjects like child abuse. She needs to regain the Biblical perspective on a good many issues, amongst which is calling the government to fulfil its genuine God given task. As to the government, the hypocrisy must cease. Our government is out of control. It has become a juggernaut. It must be reformed or it will implode. Thus, it is not really in any position to be pointing out the failures of others.

Deuteronomy 24:7, quoted above, ends with the words, “so you shall purge evil from among you”. Our nation needs purging. The kiddie fiddlers need to be purged; but what of all the other evils? What is overlooked is that the task of purging our nation belongs to both the Church and the State. They are to approach this subject in unity; they are to act together; and they are to do so according to God’s standards as His instruments.

Bring on true justice! Bring on the purge that will expel evil from our nation! Oh, glorious day! Before that day is reached, however, there must be the realisation that both Church and State are crippled by essentially the same sin; they have together turned or are turning their backs on the God who instituted them, called them, and equipped them!

What is needed in our day is swift punitive justice throughout our whole land against all evils; the voice of God thundered from pulpits pointing out these evils and condemning; not a protracted investigation that is little more than an ecclesiastical ‘witch hunt’.

The War was not Won – The Battle Still Rages!!

Posted on by
Reply

Of recent we have been writing in regard to the vote to retain the current definition of the Marriage Act. These writings have been in the form of an email and an addition to a blog. The essence of these communiqués is to ask Christians not to lose sight of true reality of what has transpired in the Providential winning of this vote.

 

It must be understood, and understood well, that the vote was only in regard to the definition contained in the Marriage Act. It was not a denunciation of homosexuality. It was not a recognition of God’s sovereign rule through and over marriage. It was not a promotion of Christian morality. It was nothing more than a vote concerning the current definition of marriage as made by our parliament!

 

Why do we labour this point? Very simple. If we do not grasp this fact, we will find ourselves blindsided by a renewed attack on exactly the same topic. Let me go one step further and remove this from the realm of possibility and place it in the realm of probability by saying, ‘When the renewed attack comes!’ Christians have gained nothing through this recent vote but a momentary reprieve. That is all. The war was not won. The battle still rages!

 

Why is this? It is because parliament voted on only a definition. Let me explain. When this vote was won, did we see more legislation introduced to make sure that this definition could never be changed? No, we did not. Did we see an effort to add a clause recognising that God alone is the Author of marriage and that the definition must be what He has commanded? No, we did not. Was there an effort to introduce legislation that would repeal homosexual rights and send these people back into the closet from whence they came? No, there was not. Rather, what we heard was conciliatory comments. Tony Abbott sacrificed Cory Bernardi on the altar of humanistic political correctness for the heinous crime of “speaking the truth.”  Julia Gillard made noises about bringing the “gay games” to Australia. So, we arrive at today.

 

What is important about today? Well in the current context it is the following news headline “Gay dads eligible for paid parental leave”. Here is the proof of the pudding, so to speak, illustrating that as a nation we are morally conflicted and on a path that will see us implode. In a matter of weeks we have gone from upholding the current definition on marriage to paying homosexuals to raise children. Well, actually, it is worse than that; far worse! We are now putting them on an equal footing with true fathers – the fathers who follow God’s pattern and take to themselves a wife that they may know the blessing of God by being fruitful.

 

During the recent debate on marriage, a number of emails crossed my screen asking Christians to write to Members of Parliament and oppose the proposed changes. This I could support. However, I was critical of some of the content, specifically the urging to tell these people that children need a “mum and a dad.” I was critical of these inane arguments because, in essence, they mean nothing. Let me illustrate it this way. When the issue of homosexual marriage was first raised, politicians trotted out the current definition as though it were a defence. I argued then that such was no comfort because all that was required was a change to the “definition”. In other words, the politicians did not have a solid moral position from which to argue. All they had was a political definition that was open to change. What did we eventually see? We saw a proposal to change that definition. Similarly, the “mum and dad” argument is flawed in the same way. What is a mum or a dad? The Christians reading this probably think that I have lost the plot. ‘Of course we know how to define a mum and a dad!’, they would exclaim.  This is true, but it is only true because they understand these terms, not from tradition, but from God’s revelation. What does the modern humanist make of these terms? To him they are as malleable as those definitions in the marriage act.

 

Consider these statements from the news article cited. First, even though we have just had “traditional” marriage upheld, we nonetheless find nonsense statements like; “It is the exact scheme which will be used by fathers in conventional households from January 1.” Pray tell, what is a conventional household? If we break the words down to their base meaning, we must understand that we are talking about a household defined by common consent. However, note also that it is a “household” not a family. Thus, we are immediately confronted with a redefinition. The language used belies the fact that there is an open effort to obscure truth in order to parallel the Biblically defined family with the “conventional household” – as defined by finite man in the present.

 

Second, we note these words: “In a same sex household one of the men will have to nominate as the primary carer if they want the 18 week parental leave, and the other as the “dad”.” So let us cut through the speech of Political Correctness and get to the heart of the matter. In a situation where there are two men, one must identify themselves as the Primary Care Giver – please read MUM – and the other as the DAD. So, there you have it. Within a few weeks of supposedly upholding the current definition of marriage, we see moves from the Government which push vigorously in the opposite direction. We see the terms “mum”, “dad”, and “family”  being redefined. As stated earlier, the issue concerning the appropriate definition of marriage is not over. The battle continues.

 

Please, take up the fight. We cannot be lulled into a false sense of security, thinking that we have won something when we have gained nothing. Be on the lookout for abuses in the media where they yet again introduce obscure language to the masses so that the abominable may become acceptable. It is this type of “watering down process” that must be indentified and rejected. Write to politicians asking them to shore up marriage against attacks. Point out to them the hypocrisy of supporting “gay rights” and true marriage – it is akin to those who try to combine evolution with creation. Point out that every perversion, homosexual or heterosexual, is an attack on marriage and the family. Last, but by no means least, may I ask you to argue Biblically.

 

I know a good few Christian organisations who have fought hard in this and other battles. I do not in any way wish to detract from them or their work. However, I would posit that the events of recent years have shown us that the so called “logical” arguments are of little value. As illustrated above, we are witnessing a war based on definitions. Unless we come to the table armed with God’s word, then we will simply be trading “logic” for “logic” or human understanding for human understanding. The only thing that makes the Christian’s argument impenetrable is the very fact that it is God’s word! We have no magical ability bestowed upon us. Our faculties are not made magically better than other men. Our strength lies in the Word of God. Our “magical ability” is in fact a Divine ability – the Holy Spirit. The blessed third Person of the Trinity teaching us of Christ and the Father as they have revealed themselves in the Bible. This my friends is the Power of God. We should not so easily abandon the weapons that God has entrusted to His Church nor make light of their effectiveness. The weapons of our warfare are divine and effective for tearing down strongholds. They are not shaped or fashioned after the wisdom of this world. Not at all. They are of the Age to come. Fashioned, shaped, and appointed by God Himself.

 

Marriage, Men, Women, Mum, Dad, Family are all terms that have become interpretable to the modern mind because that mind is neither governed by God nor instructed of God by outward means such as preaching or law. Thus, we must make every effort once again to inject, as in the days of old, the Word of God into every sphere, including the way we as Christians think and act.

 

May I urge you to ‘strike while the iron is hot.’ Write to Mr. Abbott and ask why he treated Mr. Bernardi so poorly. Write to your local member and ask them what they are doing to ensure that attacks on marriage cease. Write to Mr. Bernardi and encourage him. We need men to speak such truth in the halls of parliament. Write some letters to your local paper. Point out the incongruity of things like “gay dad”. Most of all, pray the Father in heaven through Jesus Christ to grant wisdom for the fight, opportunity to carry the fight to the enemy; and victory in this battle. As mentioned, we need to grasp that the path to victory here means repealing Acts and Legislation that go back to the early Seventies – and that is for starters. It is for this reason that, we must also be praying for the Revival of Christ’s Church in this nation and beseeching God to send forth His Spirit. Truly, it will only be when the Holy Spirit brings heartfelt conviction of error that we will see change in ourselves and in our nation.

 

May God be with you in this task and endow you with courage.

“This post was originally circulated as an email on October2, 2012.”