Category Archives: Culture

The Slippery Slope (Pt.3): Revelation or Relativism

Posted on by
Reply

We have been looking at the issue of the Slippery Slope. Our starting point was the question, “Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage lead to polygamy?” We have argued that polygamy is a possibility regardless of the approval of homosexual marriage. Our argument is based on the very simple premise that when the Bible’s God is rejected as the only objective and absolute standard, ‘Relativism’ must reign. There simply is not any other possibility. When God is removed, finite man exalts himself so as to become the measure of all things. Thus, Man begins to grope in the dark. He has set foot upon the Slippery Slope.

Some will see this as demeaning to man. If that is the case, good! Man needs to be humbled and realise his place. The simple reality is that Man is a finite being. Whether we take into account the Fall or not, Man was never God. Even in the Paradise of God, Man had (will have) limitations. Even if we momentarily go insane and allow for evolution to be accepted as a valid worldview, we are still faced with Man’s finite nature. The evolutionists still ‘guess’ because the evolutionary process has failed to pass on brains that can remember back to the beginning. Evolution has failed to develop sensory perceptions that will allow us to accurately predict the future. Consequently, Man needs instruction. He needs revelation. The only question is, “What will be his source?” Will it be based in Man – looking to the world around him and hoping to find some clues – or will it be based in God – God revealed in Jesus Christ and Scripture?

Our task, in this article, is to look at how the rejection of God demands a change in culture and cultural standards. Specifically, we would like to look at the path that has led us to this point of discussion and thereby reinforce the thesis that what we see today is a consequence of the Slippery Slope and not an initial stepping upon it.

To understand this, we must first grasp the fact that Fallen Man simply will not have anything to do with God, so he will reject the reality of God or the fact that God has spoken (Psalm 14:1; 2 Peter 1:20-21). This is Fallen Man’s a priori position. Thus, Fallen Man demands for himself a closed system; a system without revelation. As stated, this rejection is the Slippery Slope. From this point on, everything is to Man relative, subjective, and transient. The outward effects of this rejection may, at first, seem to be of little consequence, but in time it will have a radical culture altering impact.

Let us begin by examining two people and their contribution to our current cultural decline. These men are chosen at random and represent the sacred and secular – please allow the latitude in terminology. The first of these men is Albert Schweitzer. Known in the West for his book, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer was the son of a Lutheran pastor, an ordained man, and the holder of a PhD in Theology. The book mentioned was a “best seller” and had a huge impact on the Church. People all over the globe were influenced by this book, and why not? Look at the title. Surely any good Christian wants to know the Historical Jesus! The problem was that the “quest” began with a faulty premise, namely, the rejection of authoritative revelation in which man submits to God. What was the conclusion of this Quest? Says Schweitzer, “The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.” ¹

The second person to be considered is Charles Darwin. Well known for his On the Origin of Species, we need to also understand something of his thought process. Darwin was raised a Unitarian. This means, in essence, that he believed in one God. Not in the Biblical sense of one God in Three persons, but essentially one God in One person. Thus, Jesus was not God. Jesus may have been spoken of in exalted terms, but He was not ascribed His rightful place as the Son of God. They only way to arrive at such a position was to clearly and systematically deny the explicit teachings of Scripture and the claims made by Jesus Himself therein – including the fact that Jesus was God’s agent of creation.

What was the impact of these men’s denial of God’s revelation? Essentially, it robbed them of meaning and purpose. The conclusion of Schweitzer’s quest was mere subjectivism. Says Schweitzer, “He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him … He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.” In Schweitzer’s mind, Jesus was not the God-man, revealed by God at the appointed time for salvation (Galatians 4:4-5). No, he was just a spiritual symbol, unknown, unnamed, that one may encounter upon life’s journey. In true existential terms, Jesus then became to you what you needed him to be or what you believed him to be.

For Darwin, His crisis of faith was apparent from the start. As a Unitarian, he did not believe that Jesus was the exact representation of God (Contra Hebrews 1:1ff). Thus, revelation was removed from the beginning. Consequently, by the end of his life Darwin described himself as an Agnostic. He was not prepared to totally give up on the idea of God, but he certainly was not prepared to embrace the God revealed in Scripture. BB Warfield makes this point, “The History of the drift by which Mr. Darwin was separated from faith in a divine order in the world, divides itself into two well marked periods. The first of these … ends with the loss of Christianity. During the second, which extended over the remainder of his life, he struggled … to retain his standing as a theist. At the end of the first he no longer believed that God had spoken to men in his Word; at the end of the second he more than doubted whether the faintest whisper of his voice could be distinguished in his works. He was never prepared dogmatically to deny his existence; but search as he might he could not find him, and could only say that if he existed he was, verily, a God that hides himself.” (Selected Shorter Writings vol., 2.)

Please take careful note of Warfield’s summation and note the epistemological circle – applicable to both Darwin and Schweitzer. The first stage ended with the denial of revelation. The second stage concludes with Darwin essentially blaming God as one who ‘hides himself’. Darwin’s problem was simple. He refused to look in the one Book and to the One Person through Whom God had made Himself known. In opposition to Darwin’s ‘god-whisperer’ theory, we should adopt Schaeffer’s “He is there and He is (most definitely) not silent!”

When these men rejected God’s specific revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ as canonised in Scripture, they had nowhere to turn but to the subjective, transient, and ephemeral dream that is fallen finite man. They condemned themselves to grope in the dark and hope that they might stumble upon God or hear that ‘faint whisper of his voice’ in His works.

In terms of our discussion, the question is asked, ‘How have these men influenced our day?’ The answer is, Completely! In society, you cannot go anywhere without bumping into the God-denying theory of evolution. People now believe it to be absolute fact. It is so entrenched that people do not question its validity. The impact for culture can be seen in the realm of science. Men, denying God, look for ‘little green’ men on distant planets; they spend trillions on telescopes and rockets, but cannot feed their hungry neighbour; they spend billions on weapons, but cannot fund life saving medicine. In the Church, the theories popularised by Schweitzer and others, denying Biblical revelation, have spawned denominations that no longer believe the literal truth of the Bible and question the historicity of Jesus. This then opens the door even further to auto-salvific discovery – find your own god and saviour wherever, if you think you need one! These teaching have even infiltrated the majority of main stream denominations, causing people to doubt God’s revelation. These denominations still hold to the core doctrines, but examination shows that they have been savaged in many areas.

Let us fine tune this. Darwin and Schweitzer existed in the mid- to late- 1800’s. For sake of argument, let us say the Enlightenment began around 1700. What we have here is a three stone path. We look at the philosophies of the Enlightenment and the essential questioning of the notion of or need for an Absolute God who Speaks. 150 years later, we encounter Darwin and Schweitzer who have now all but denied God. Some vague concepts may remain, but they have denied the Historical Jesus as revealed in Scripture. 150 years later, we arrive in our day. Who believes in an absolute God who speaks? Who believes that this God gave Law? Who believes that the Law revealed is binding? Who believes that Jesus Christ is the epitome and embodiment of God and His Law?

Stone one: Step onto the Slippery Slope. Stone two: Revelation to Relativism. Stone three: ‘There was no king in that day and everyone did what was right in his own eyes!’ Voilá, the path to cultural disintegration!

The Essence of War: Part 2

Posted on by
5

In your minds, right now, you may be asking, “Why all this warmongering?” That is an excellent question. The simple answer is, if I might quote Aragorn, “Open war is upon you whether you would have it or not!” The battle lines are drawn and there is no neutrality. Every man, woman, and child, is in an army that wars with Christ or wars against Christ. This is the big picture. This is the cosmic battle shown to us clearly on the pages of Scripture. (Genesis 3:15; Ephesians 6:11-12; Revelation 19:19; Luke 11:23)

This said; let us try to bring this cosmic battle to the reality of our everyday lives. We have noted that men will live out the desires of their heart. We have noted that men are motivated by only one of two absolute, heartfelt passions – love for God or hatred of God. This means that when you encounter a person on the street you are engaging one of these heartfelt motives.

This means, in terms of concrete, life affirming, life altering, or “rubber hits the road” application, that when:

  • You interact with a politician you are engaging one of these heartfelt motives.
  • You write to the editor of your local news paper you are engaging one of these heartfelt motives.
  • You watch a television show you are witnessing the expression of one of these heartfelt motives.
  • You vote in an election you are choosing one of these heartfelt motives.
  • You educate your children you will subject them to a curriculum based in one of these heartfelt motives.
  • You give forth an opinion you will be giving rise to one of these heartfelt motives; or
  • You give forth an opinion that is a compromise because it is a policy that runs contrary to your heartfelt motive.

The absolute failure of the Church to grasp this most elementary principle and to inculcate it into Christians as a core belief is a, if not the, fundamental reason Christianity is in disarray today. Christians and Christianity are being defeated, befuddled, battered, and bewildered because they operate on a basis that denies this essential truth.

Let me illustrate this with reference to the recent Presidential election in the United States. One Christian social commentator created a stir by saying that, although he was a republican, he would not vote for Mitt Romney. He did this, not on policy, but principle. Mitt Romney was a Mormon and therefore would not receive his vote. This stance brought a degree of criticism. Now that Barack Obama has been re-elected, he has received communications blaming him and others like him for the resultant state. I find this sad. How blind we have become! Mitt Romney is an apostate Mormon. Barack Obama is an apostate Humanist. In essence, what is the difference? They both lie, cheat, and steal “candy from babies”! Neither has a God-loving spirit. Neither are going to produces works of righteousness. Neither are going to lower taxes, increase employment, outlaw abortion, abolish poverty, or cut government spending. In terms of our discussion, both of these men are sided against God and His Christ. Thus, whilst there may be some policy differences, either reign will still ultimately result in a culture of death. Out of the overflow of their dead hearts, policies of death will flow forth to implementation. Reform will never be seen. As for righteousness …?; no statement is needed!

The same can be said of our own country. I remember well, during the time of Paul Keating’s Prime Ministership, Christians being dismayed at certain proposals and outcomes. Why? The man was a self-professed atheist. He was a God-hater to the core. Why would you ever expect a man whose “heartfelt motive” was venomous vitriol against God to bring forth righteous laws that promoted true life?

We, in Australia, will be going to the polls soon. What is our choice? None! We have a fornicating, self-professed atheist currently holding the Prime Ministership. What will Julia Gillard ever do to promote God’s righteousness as the only standard for this nation? On the other side we have Tony Abbott. What can we expect from this man? Well, he belongs to the Congregation of Rome, but that is a very different thing to being a Christian. It means that he may be influenced on some moral decisions in a direction that approximates the Biblical standard. However, we must be aware that an approximation, even a close approximation, is not the “real McCoy”!

Equally, Mr Abbott is on record as denying the essence of religion in public office. Says he: “We are all influenced by a value system that we hold, but in the end, every decision that a politician makes is, or at least should, in our society be based on the normal sorts of considerations. It’s got to be publicly justifiable; not only justifiable in accordance with a private view; a private belief.”

What Mr. Abbott here espouses is sheer nonsense. It runs contrary to the declaration of Scripture. Men will always act in accord with their ultimate motive (religion). Yes, men can be hypocritical. However, ultimately they will act in accord with and be faithful to their one true heartfelt motive. The truth of this is seen in Mr Abbott’s use of the phrase, “normal sorts of considerations”. What, pray tell, is this animal? Let us illustrate. Mr Abbott, as a congregant of Rome, has certain moral perspectives. He stands against euthanasia and abortion. However, as Minister for Health and Ageing, did Tony Abbott outlaw abortion? No, he did not. He was content to see numbers reduced. Herein is the problem. His moral compass may direct him toward certain positions that mimic Scriptures’. However, as a Roman Humanist, he is equally governed by the “normal sorts of consideration”. As a politician, one of these considerations is being elected. Thus, to quote one of my favourite phrases, he will do the “expedient, not the right”! God says, do not murder. This is the absolute position of the heartfelt motive that loves Jesus. Mr Abbott’s version is, murder fewer. This is the position of “normal considerations” and the relative position of the heartfelt motive opposed to Christ.

In the end, we ask, “What is the difference between Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott?” The answer is, very little. The best that can be said at the moment is that a Liberal government will do better monetarily. That is it. Labour governments have never been able to balance a cheque book. (This is no criteria for election!) Outside of this there is almost no difference. Why is this? Precisely because both are governed by a “heartfelt principle” that is at war with Jesus Christ.

As with America, so in Australia, there will be Christians who will bicker over candidates based on what flag they serve under, rather than based on the heartfelt motive of the individual candidate. (We do not have room to comment on Party Politics and some other associated points.) There will be Christians who are disappointed with political stands and outcomes. Christians will be confused and bewildered by the contradictions, lies, and deceit of politicians and this will continue to happen until we indoctrinate ourselves with the true Biblical picture.

This brings us back to our definition of war; to the constancy of this war; and to the application of these principles to our day.

Australia, whilst not currently a Christian country, was founded upon Christian principles. Our culture was derived from and based upon the Law-Word of God. It is very hard not to see this fact; indeed one would need to be wilfully ignorant, not to see the similarity between the Decalogue and the foundational values of this country. The application of God’s law restrained evil. It had the benefit of guiding our society in a better way, whether or not the members of our society were overtly Christian. The honour of God in worship, the acknowledgement of God’s right to rule in civil ceremony, and the civil obedience to His covenant stipulations gave Australia a “leg to stand on”. It did so precisely because these elements combined brought a blessing from God that restrained evil.

Thus we rejected the murder of infants, the infirmed, and the aged, no matter what wonderful modern label was used to disguise this evil. We rejected homosexuality, bestiality, fornication, and all other sexual perversion, recognising that God made male and female and these alone he blessed with fertility in covenant relationship (marriage). We honoured the family as the chief building block of society. Thus we protected it from adultery. We supported it with tax breaks and concessions. In these practices, we were like a careful gardener who tended his plants attentively. We weeded. We fertilised. We watered, and all this in the hope and belief that our culture would flourish.

Now we find ourselves as Christians and as a culture battered, bruised, and dying. Sexual perversion is no longer a relevant term. Anything is seemingly legitimate or ‘give it long enough’ and it acceptance is assured. Marriage is threatened by whoremongers and their self-fulfilling prophecies. The family is attacked in a myriad of ways including, but not limited to, the erosion of parental authority, Statist calls for discipline to be labelled ‘abuse’, and by a “User Pays” system for utilities and health care. People are confused. Uncertainty reigns. Evil is not restrained; nor are men. Why is this? It is because the ungodly are epistemologically self-conscious in this war and the Christians, seemingly, are not. By this we mean that the ungodly are very much self-aware of their hostility to Christ and the pursuit of their agenda. They are aware that they are fighting to throw off God’s rule.

In short, the ungodly hate the Godly restraints that our society has historically enshrined in law. Consequently, as our nation has deepened its connection with Secularism, the war has become more obvious. It has become an imperative that additional mores need to be overthrown. These will not rest until, in Nietzsche’s words, “God is dead” and every thought of Him has been eradicated.

Man, under the tutelage of Secular Humanism, has decided that they must express their hatred of God by insisting that man be given ultimate freedom to choose for himself right and wrong, good and evil, moral and immoral. Man in his unregenerate state realises that God’s righteousness, the only appropriate “measuring stick”, limits man’s preponderance for evil and debauchery. Thus, man has gone to war to get what he wants – autonomy to destruction. If you doubt this, please go and read the first chapter of Romans. Then read it again and again. Do not read your words into the text, but let Paul tell you of man’s war against God.

Brethren, let us grasp this point so that your frustration, disappointments, and therapeutic head-banging may cease.

We can illustrate the need to change our perspective by referencing current political happenings. Recently, by the mercies of God, our Parliament voted to retain the current definition of marriage, rather than open marriage to homosexuals and other perversions beside. We have already written about the need for Christians not to look upon this vote as the end of the war, but merely a skirmish in the battle. We have also noted that this decision was nothing more than a vote on the definition of marriage. It was in no way a rejection of homosexuality or heterosexual perversions. It was not an assertive statement concerning the centrality and importance of marriage as God commanded. It was nothing more than a vote on a definition. It was a vote devoid of morality, theology, and essence.

What we would like to highlight is the tenacity with which the homosexual agenda (war) is being pursued and the way this pursuit has shown many politicians to be walking contradictions. Did you note that Julia Gillard crossed the floor in this vote? With this action, she voted to retain the current definition of marriage. Yet, as you know, she is not married, but lives with a man. It was also her alliance with independent candidates that brought our nation to this situation. Now, ask yourself this question. “What would Julia Gillard have done if the definition of marriage was changed? The simple answer is, she would have accepted it. Her heartfelt motive is antagonistic to Jesus Christ. If as a nation we had walked further from God, she would not have been concerned.

This also explains why, so soon after this vote, we saw the government grant homosexual couples assistance to raise families. In this, their so-called ‘family unit’, was given the same status as the God ordained and sanctioned “ridgy-didge” family unit. There is no delineation between reality and travesty. How can this be? Well, it goes back to the statement of Mr. Abbott above. This is the relative position of the “normal consideration” of the heart opposed to God. It is an expression of our nation’s and our culture’s war against God.

Understand this point well, please. The government is happy to allow the definition of marriage to stand because they have effectively nullified God’s order in other ways. Homosexuals have obtained equal rights under law at almost every point. Equally, while the nation was looking at this issue, what other sinister nasties passed by unnoticed. Consequently, the proverbial ‘fly on the wall’ might hear a conversation such as, ‘So, the marriage definition was retained. No big deal. We will just use our power to add in other benefits and thereby establish homosexual rights anyway. We will give them family assistance etc., etc., and so on.’ This is what, in times of war, would be called a ‘covert operation’. Neither should it be forgotten that our country is led by a Prime Minister who has been caught lying on more than one occasion. What do words of bond, oaths of promise, or a simple handshake mean to such a one?

Christians are rejoicing in the fact that the retention of the current definition of marriage was ‘a magnificent win’, yet, because they do not realise that open war is upon them, they do not see that it was but a hollow victory. Nothing substantial was gained. The homosexuals are still being courted by the government and it will only be a matter of time before we see another challenge to the legal definition of marriage. Thus, Christianity in this nation is like an army that repels a feint without realising that a large enemy force nears from another direction. Christians are duped because they do not realise or accept the vehemence, hostility, and tenacity of their enemy.

Just as the man argues for and establishes his reality according to his heartfelt principle, so do governments! Do not expect righteousness from unrighteous governments. Do not expect an unrighteous government to be fair, ethical, open, and above all, Godly. You may as readily expect David Attenborough to enter a pulpit and extol the wonders of Jesus Christ as God’s agent of Creation!

Brethren do not be deceived nor deceive yourselves. One war; Two sides! Individually and politically!

The war continues!

Today, we awaken to news that the unreality show, Big Brother, an abomination if ever there were, has this time around been won by a homosexual who used the opportunity to propose to his partner. The second paragraph of this article reads: “In a gesture that has instantly made him a flagbearer for the cause of gay marriage, Norris said he had always planned to use the show’s publicity to express his love for Williams.” Further into the article we are granted this commentary: “Ex-housemate Michael Beveridge said he hoped that Norris and Williams’ marriage would inspire others. “Hopefully, now he’s in a famous gay couple, he can forge a path for other people to think about starting a family and getting what every other Australian gets.””

In the context of self-awareness, please note the comment, “he had always planned to use the show’s publicity…” The whole occurrence was not an accident. It was planned. More pointedly, the whole happening was essentially and exercise in futility, but it was an exercise in futility to further their war against God. Confused? Let me break the statements up. It was an exercise in futility in that homosexual marriage is illegal. It has no basis in law and is excluded by definition – as the nation has seen of recent. As such, Mr. Norris’s proposal was a proposal to naught and an exercise in futility. Thus, Mr. Norris may have just as easily invited Martians to attend his next birthday party or proposed marriage to a unicorn! This said, we must realise that this nonsense had a point — to reassert his personal hatred of God and His standard. It is also to be doubted that the producers of the show did not know that this stunt was about to be unleashed. Here again, the heartfelt motive of hatred for God comes to the fore. The homosexual wants what he wants regardless of God’s Law. The producers are willing to allow this as they want the ratings and publicity that such a stunt will bring. The homosexuals and television producers gathered together against God and against His Anointed!

The world has gone to war to get what it wants. So desperate is it that it respects nothing and will destroy any obstacle in its way. A bit of an over statement? Not at all. Think this through. It was only a few months ago that Parliament voted to retain the current definition of Marriage. Why is it then that, in this great democracy, none seem to respect the outcome of the vote? Keep in mind also that recent figures show that homosexuals comprise less than two percent of the population. Now, I admit that ethics is not about numbers. However, in this instance, ethically, the current definition of marriage is correct, yet a change is being demanded by an extreme minority. If we follow this logic and this is our version of “democracy” then, get ready for Sharia law and any number of other possibilities!

The point here is that the war against God realises some very strange bedfellows. People who, on another issue, may be at loggerheads readily abandon their differences to war against God. Here, we see the homosexuals not willing to respect the law of the land or the democratic principle on which it is established. Yet, at another point, they will argue their case in terms of ‘democracy’. Worse, we see that the government is not willing to uphold its own process. The government votes to retain the current definition of marriage and then, almost immediately, gives homosexuals access to benefits designed for families. In so doing the government elevates the homosexual travesty to a position of equality with a real family. Seemingly, the government does not believe in ‘democracy’! (I think we all knew this. It is just interesting that the veil of pretence is beginning to crack.) What is the common denominator? They share a heartfelt motive. They together hate God and wish to throw off His rule.

What then is the Christian’s response? In this instance, it is truly a case of fighting fire with fire. The Christians of this nation must go to war in order to protect what they have, but also to take back what has been lost. Moreover, we should see this as an opportunity to extend our warfare so as to obtain what we want or, more precisely, what Jesus has commanded. In short, we must remember that Yahweh instigated this war. This means that we must not only fight for Him, but also that we fight for that which He went to war—summarised in the person and work of Jesus Christ!

So my friends, here is the war. Here is the battle line. The Humanists have waged a war to get what they want. They are tireless and unceasing in pressing this war and pursuing their agenda. We must likewise be as aggressive in our war against their ungodliness.

We must understand that Christ and Christianity won little but a reprieve in the recent vote. We must understand that the Church has lost a lot of ground precisely because She has been, colloquially speaking, “asleep at the wheel”. A major part of this slumber is due to the erosion of sound doctrine which has left Christians without an identity and totally confused. We have been led to believe in a God that accepts everything and rejects nothing. We have been led to believe that Christianity has had a good run and that it would be a simple act of greed or selfishness on the part of Christianity if it desired to retain or regain its position. We are told, again in Aussie parlance, that it is time for a “fair suck of the sav” religiously speaking. We are told that we must be open and affirming; that true community is an amalgam; that Christianity’s demand of exclusiveness is ruining the ideal of a Utopian brotherhood of man. All of this modern rubbish has infiltrated the Church, weakened her stance, and encouraged attacks from the enemy. Like a nation who has let her outer defence collapse, She is ripe for the plucking.

Brethren, the war is upon us. The propaganda machine is at work. It is part of the world’s war. We can expect more stunts like that on Big Brother. The world is going to war to get what it wants.

The question I direct to you, Brethren, is, “Do you love Jesus enough to go to war not only to keep what you have, but to gain more for your King?”

The Essence of War: Part 1

Posted on by
7

Have you ever stopped to ask yourself the question, “What drives a war?”

The answer to this question can be argued from many perspectives. However, when we boil it down to its constituent elements we are left with only two answers. People initiate war to get what they want or people go to war to protect what they have.

As we have noted before, Australia is at war. We are involved in a religious war which, by its very nature, means that we are involved in both an ethical and a cultural war. In short, the essence of what is believed by our society must, by necessary consequence, become the reality of and for our culture. Christians must realise this fundamental point. It is illustrated Biblically by texts such as Matthew 6:21, Proverbs 23:7, and Mark 7:21-23.

These texts, and many beside, point to the fact that what a man believes in heart must be (unless he is overtly hypocritical) and will be lived out in practice. This essentially means that man will live out his one, true, heartfelt principle or motive.

Therefore, when man goes to war “to get what he wants” or “protect what he has” he will be motivated by his one heartfelt principle! Nothing more. Nothing less.

This point is raised for your understanding because it is so absolutely important that you, as a Christian, see the relationship and consequence of this principle when it is engaged by two other foundational principles regarding spiritual warfare. The other two elementary principles in regard to spiritual war are:

1. It is total war! It involves every man, woman, and child on the planet. No exceptions!

2. There are only two sides in this war. In the words of Scripture, “He who is not with Jesus is against Jesus.” (Matthew 12:30)

Christian, do you believe this? We are not talking about simple assent to an idea. We are talking about a visceral belief. Do you believe these two points in your very heart of hearts?

These are pointed questions. However, they are necessary questions. If you do not believe these two points, then you will be delinquent in your duties as a soldier in the army of Jesus Christ. Just as a sloppy soldier who does not pay full attention in “boot camp” compromises both his fellows and the cause on the battlefield; so too the Christian who adopt beliefs that are other than Biblical.

Let’s expand on these two points.

Total War: When we read the Scriptures we are faced with the stark reality that this world is at war and that the war is total – it involves and envelopes everything. God made man and He made him in righteousness (Genesis 1:31). Man was to live upon the earth and rule over it as God’s viceregent. In this manner, God’s righteousness was to be seen in and rule over all of creation. Man, however, had some contrary and egoistical ideas. He thought that a promotion was in order and that it would be good to be “God” and so he rebelled (Genesis 3:1-6). This rebellion brought the negative covenant sanction of death upon man (Genesis 3:14-19). Importantly, it brought death and curse to all of creation.

At that point, creation was plunged into turmoil. It was estranged from its Creator and was therefore cut off from life. This caused great upheaval in that all of creation was confounded by a great conflict. Man wanted to continue in rebellion and so strived at every point to destroy the image of God that he witnessed in himself every day. Man continued in his desire to be “God.” He was even so beguiled by his own abilities that he believed he could build a tower that would reach to the heavens (Genesis 11:1-9). Man’s perpetual rebellion only brought further judgement from God.

We must also grasp that this futility of purpose went beyond man and into the creation itself. The apostle Paul has this to say: “For the anxious longing of the creation waits eagerly for the revealing of the sons of God. For the creation was subjected to futility, not of its own will, but because of Him who subjected it, in hope that the creation itself also will be set free from its slavery to corruption into the freedom of the glory of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groans and suffers the pains of childbirth together until now” (Romans 8:19-22).

Into this sea of misery, confusion, and death, God injected Himself in grace and mercy to manifest, institute, and consummate His plan of salvation – a plan to save His creation and a people for Himself. This began with the protoevangelion of Genesis (Genesis 3:15); it continued to the choosing of Abraham and Yahweh’s covenanting with him (Genesis 12:1-3; 17:1-8); and it ultimately finds its fulfillment in the arrival of the promised Messiah, Jesus Christ (Isaiah 53; Galatians 4:4-7).

What must be underscored at this point is Yahweh’s declaration of war. That is right; Yahweh’s declaration of war! In Genesis 3:15, noted above as the protevangelion, the first declaration of the Gospel, we also witness God’s declaration of war. Yahweh says, “I will put enmity between” the two seeds. Yahweh, in effect, says, “I am establishing war” between the two seeds. God has initiated a war! God has gone to war to get what He wants!

This necessarily leads to the next point:

Two Sides: For far too long, there has been a popular, if unwritten, teaching in the Church which I label as “The theology of the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.” It basically posits that there are three types of people in this world. A) There are those who are the redeemed of God; B) There are the rebels who continue to fight against God; C) There are the innocents, the neutral, the unconcerned, and the uninvolved. It is time that category “C” was eradicated from our thinking for it is utterly unBiblical. Establishing this third and fictitious group of people has only led the Church into dangerous waters. It has encouraged Christians to “swim between the flags” in supposed safety, all the while ushering the Christian into shark infested waters. The end result of this self-imposed deception is that Christians are devoured or emerge from these tumultuous waters bloodied and bruised. If they survive their ordeal they are often shocked and bewildered and struggle to get a handle on the moment. They are left wondering why these events have happened and what has transpired for such a catastrophe to beset them or their generation.

We asked a very pointed question above. We did so for a reason.  Hopefully, the reason is evident. If not, allow us to explain. The person who truly believes that a) man is motivated by a single heartfelt principle; b) we are in a total war; and c) there are only two sides in this war with no possibility of neutrality, will never be in the position of being caught by surprise. He will never wade into the waters unaware that the sharks are already circling. He will never be left with questions and uncertainties. If he is wounded, he will understand that it is a true battle scar, which is the direct result of his enemy lobbing a grenade or firing a bullet. He will realise that he is not the innocent victim of some misguided prank or of some well-meaning person whose good intentions were exploited in an unforseen way. No! He will realise that he has been the object of a deliberate hostile act.

Equally, because he knows that there is no neutrality, he is awake to the schemes and plans of the enemy. He arms himself (Hebrews 4:12). He puts on armour (Ephesians 6:10-20). He builds defences. He is ready to receive and obey orders. He is willing to surrender all for the cause and his Captain (Hebrews 12:1-3; Revelation 19:11-16). In short, he understands that he has been born in a warzone and that his calling is nothing less than to be a warrior (2 Timothy 2:3-4). Therefore, he prepares for and welcomes the war. He does not run and hide. He does not invent mythical places of peace. He does not allow a self-delusion, in which his enemy becomes a neutral non-combatant, to take hold and diminish his skills in or desire for battle. He will rest only when his King is triumphant and all the King’s enemies have been vanquished. This is his high calling. This is what it means to be a disciple of Jesus Christ.

Christian, do you believe this? Do you see this as your job description and calling? Are you willing to engage in this war to protect what you have?

“What is the relevance of all this?” I hear you ask. It is quite simple. We have made and highlighted three intertwined points. First, man is motivated by the principle he holds at his very core. Second, this world is at war. Third, there are only two sides involved in this war. Combined, this means that every person on this planet is either fighting for Jesus Christ or is fighting against Jesus Christ! There is no other option. As the apostle James says, ‘friendship with the world is hostility toward God’ (4:4). One cannot sit on the fence, precisely because there is no fence upon which to sit!

Put as simply as possible, a man and all men will be governed by only one overarching principle or heart desire. His actions will be motivated either by love for God or by a total hatred of God. There is no third group. There is no third option. This is the Biblical picture and we ignore this fact to our own detriment.

The simple reality for Christianity today is that we have failed, for too long, to understand these points and conduct ourselves accordingly. We have tried to treat the world as though it is little more than a misguide child who throws the odd tantrum, rather than understanding that it is a hostile force that hates us precisely and only because it hates our Christ, Jesus! Do you doubt this! Then listen to Jesus’ words, “If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you. “If you were of the world, the world would love its own; but because you are not of the world, but I chose you out of the world, therefore the world hates you (John 15:18-19).”

My friends, I speak stern words. Yet they are stern words spoken in love and of necessity. In the cultural war that rages all around us, Christians often suffer loss, are bewildered, and puzzled, because they have not been taught and convinced of the truth that has been here outlined. Consequently, they often expect ungodly people to act with integrity, honesty, and a genuine desire to honour and obey God. Via this avenue, they are led to compromise, to hurt, to loss, and, ultimately, to disobedience.

Creation is at war. Yahweh has declared a war and placed enmity between the seeds, Jesus Christ and Satan. The ungodly, instead of surrendering and in retaliation, have gone to war to get what they want! What is that? It is explained best in Psalm two. They have gathered against the King and His Anointed in order to throw of His fetters. In other words, they have gathered together in the vain hope that they can destroy within themselves the knowledge of the One True God. They seek to deface creation and thereby remove every trace of God and His Christ. It is for this and this alone that the world wars. It is what they want and it is this for which they fight.

The Christian calling and obligation is to go to war to protect what we have. In the greatest extent, we fight to keep the knowledge of God, of His Christ, of His salvation, and of His absolute right as Sovereign to rule this creation by His Law-Word. In a lesser extent, these things will take on common cultural forms. We fight for marriage; Christian education; truth in knowledge; absolute as opposed to relative law; for ethics, morals, right and wrong; for a bias to God; for freedom; for the right to life and peace; for the death of tyranny; for justice; the right to worship the One True God; the right for God to be heard and obeyed in the public square; and a myriad of things beside.

The world has gone to war to get what it wants. Brethren, are you prepared to go to war to protect what you have?

(Please note that the term world is predominately used in the sense of “an ethical force that opposes God.” Where it is used in this manner, the term world appears in italics.)

 See: The Essence of War: Part 2

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 2): The Door was Ajar

Posted on by
Reply

In our first article, we looked at the specific question of whether or not the legalising of homosexual marriage would lead to the legalising of polygamy. Our answer was both “possibly” and “definitely maybe”! The more erudite answers came as a twofold response. First, we needed to understand that legalising homosexual marriage would not hurt the cause of the polygamists. Second, and of greater importance, is the fact that the polygamists have the same opportunity now, regardless of what happens with homosexual marriage. We saw that the “potentiality” for all types of perversion had been introduced long ago. What we are experiencing now with homosexual or polygamous marriage, is not the beginning of a journey upon the Slippery Slope, but a siding along the way. Exactly how far along that journey we are will only be known with hindsight. The important aspect to grasp is that the journey has well and truly begun.

The aim of this particular blog is to try and build upon the foundation already set. Space simply did not allow for a well rounded treatment of the main principle in the former blog. The main point of the previous blog was “Relativism” and its impact upon culture – poorly defined though it may have been. Here, we intend to pick up this point and attempt to illustrate it more fully.

We must understand and grasp the fundamental principle that Relativism begins with the dumping of the Bible’s God as in any way relevant to salvation, life, and culture. Once God is denied, we simply have no objective reference point. At this instant, we have essentially committed ourselves to grope in the dark. At this point, we have set foot upon the Slippery Slope. Our journey begins at this point and no other. We do not wait for the first hiccup to present itself and then search for the big, mushroom-shaped, red button labelled “panic”! No. We should have panicked at the very thought of jettisoning the knowledge of the One, True and Living God. This is the scariest thing possible for man (Deuteronomy 4:24; Romans 1:21-23; Psalm 10:4). After this, everything is a cakewalk.

This principle can be well illustrated by looking at Israel’s history. In Judges 21:25, we read these disturbing words: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Most would interpret these words as referring to an earthly king. This seems a little redundant as a monarchy had not yet been established in Israel. The more potent interpretation would be to understand these words as stating that Israel had broken covenant with Yahweh by denying Him as their true King and Monarch. When Israel rejected God’s Law–Way, they reaped the negative covenant sanctions and they began to grope in darkness. They had no answers to the cultural torment of the day. Only when Yahweh had mercy and raised up a Judge did light appear to the land. Further proof for this position can be found in 1 Samuel 12:12 – “When you saw that Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon came against you, you said to me (Samuel), ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ although the Lord your God was your king”; and Deuteronomy 17:18-19 – “Now it shall come about when he (a king) sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law … And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes.” In these texts we are clearly instructed, a) that Yahweh was always Israel’s true King; and b) that even when an earthly king reigned, he was to be nothing less than an analogue of Yahweh. He was to learn and know Yahweh’s Law so that he could govern Yahweh’s people appropriately. Scripture shows Messiah as Yahweh’s true King, established in God’s place of rule, Zion, and ruling as Yahweh would and does rule (Psalm 2:6). Thus, abandoning God as the absolute touchstone is nothing less than setting foot on the “Slippery Slope.”

With this established, we need to ask the pertinent question, “Have we rejected the God of the Bible as our objective standard for salvation, life, and culture?” One would hardly think that an answer is required, but just in case you are unsure, we answer, Yes! Absolutely! Most Definitely! Of course, some will not be happy with such a weak and compromising answer, but it would seem that we are faced with incontrovertible evidence that support such statements. As noted previously, we live in a Postmodern world. Although some may debate this term’s legitimacy and definition, it has nonetheless passed into common usage. I prefer ‘Applied Modernism’ as a term. However, at the end of the day the label is redundant. What is important is that we understand that we live in a world that denies, from an epistemological and philosophical perspective particularly, that anyone can know anything, that reality is, and that absolutes exist. In such an environment, language, knowledge, and concepts are relegated to the scrap heap. We cannot even begin a discussion because there is nothing to discuss, no prior learning to inform us, no means of communicating, and no mean of verification. Thus, the question concerning the rejection of God answers itself. In such a milieu, to talk of an absolute God that reveals knowledge and seeks man’s obedience to His Law is to speak “molecules to moo cows”!

One further observation is requisite. At any one time, there is going to be a variety of worldviews in the public square. The parable of the Tares and the Wheat (Matthew 13:24-30) indicates that there will be a mixture. The deviant belief, by extrapolation, is the false belief sown by the enemy. That the false belief exists is not necessarily the problem. The setback is encountered when the false belief dominates. It can only have one detrimental consequence, namely, that God is robbed of His glory. This happens because God is not gloried in by His creation, thus requiring God to impose the negative covenant sanctions, which in turn results in God not being able to glory in His creation. This results in a necessary downward spiral (See Romans 1.). Therefore, when the Enlightenment came and effectively caused, not one nation, but a hemisphere or a globe to reject the knowledge of God as their epistemological standard, the final product had to be relativism – decisions made by the finite, for the finite ,in the finite.  The conclusion of the matter? We are well and truly on the “Slippery Slope”.

The consequence of this is that we must understand that any perversion is possible. In rejecting God, we have left the door unlocked and slightly ajar. We can blame the Homosexual Lobby for the current dilemma, but that would be a mistake. Just as it would be foolish to blame them if polygamists were to be encouraged by any gains they make. Again, understand well, the door was ajar! When the Homosexual Lobby came knocking on the door labelled “Equal Marriage”, they did not force it; they did not jimmy the locks. Not at all. The energy of each knock imparted, opened the door wider until there was no impediment. It would not have mattered what perversion arrived at the door or what “barrow” they were pushing. Once that “barrow” impacted the door, it would have swung open. The rejection of God unlocked and set this door ajar a long time ago.

Who is to blame for this mess? The Enlightenment? The homosexuals? The polygamists? Well, essentially the Church is, for she has abandoned Her call to be herald, watchman, teacher, and preserver. We have arrived at this point precisely because the Church failed to proclaim the One Word (Jesus) as the rule of the One God over this earth and that in its (His) fullness. Therefore, it is futile to play the blame game, in terms of worldly agendas, and it is futile to speculate concerning what perversions may walk through this open door. Our only valid response at this point is to ask, ‘How do we stop this cursed slide?’ For the tradesmen among us, the question would be, ‘How do we seal the doorway and reattach the locks?’ It is in answering these questions alone that we can find the right remedy.

As the Church has left the door ajar by Her failure, so it is encumbered upon the Church to remedy the situation. That remedy calls for the Church Herself to abandon relativism and to return to the prophetic utterances given Her. The Church must cease with the uncertain sounds of compromise; with the platitudes that desire peace at any cost; with the voice that whispers because She has no confidence in the content of Her speech; with the anti-covenantal view that says that She can be happy and prosperous while living in open rebellion to Her Lord, Jesus! This She must abandon for the clear, confident, and uncompromised proclamation, “Thus says the Lord God!”

This alone “places the wood in the hole” and locks it tightly. This alone will secure the door against whatever perversions may come a knocking. This alone will lead us back to the place of covenantal blessing in which the gracious mercy of our God will establish for us peace and security from without and within (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). This alone will seal the door and lead our nation from death to life.

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 1): Homosexuality to Polygamy

Posted on by
Reply

Due to the work of Peter Stokes and his merry band at Saltshakers, I became aware of a debate that is beginning regarding the “Slippery Slope!” As most are aware, Australia is in the throes of debating the issue and legitimacy of homosexual marriage. This has led some, in particular the social commentator Andrew Bolt, to question where we may end up if homosexual marriage is passed into law. Once we step upon the Slippery Slope, what will be our terminus? Typically, those who disagree with the rightly concerned come forth with the classic, hackneyed drivel and proceed to label their opponents as “scaremongers”, “panic merchants”, “the ill-informed”, and a number of less flattering terms. As I was well ‘edumacated’ in playground politics, I know that sticks and stones may do a little damage, but names are of no consequence. In point of fact, life has taught me that when your opponent must resort to name-calling, he no longer has anything legitimate to say. Thus, we must not be distracted from the question by name-calling and labelling.

Our priority must be to address the concerns raised. Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage lead to polygamy? The very real and simple answer to this specific question is: We must wait and see! The more categorical answer is: Be absolutely convinced that this change of legislation will open the door further, if not remove and discard it altogether, and allow all types of relationships to walk through! That is an absolute given. The only question is, “In what guise shall they be?”

I would like to discuss this topic and prove the point by looking at the whole concept of the Slippery Slope under three headings; Rednecks, Marriage, and Relativism.

1. Rednecks: First, let me note that I do not care for this term. I use it because it has been popularised and invokes an immediate and vivid picture in a person’s mind. Second, I am one. By the world’s standards, I am a misogynist, redneck, homophobic, right-wing, religious fundamentalist. Personally, I prefer the term “Biblical”!

Anyway, we country folk grew up accustomed to having firearms in or around our general vicinity. This was normal. No panic. No big deal. Then as the world progressed, such activities became frowned upon. The governments began to steal legitimate items owned by law abiding citizens. Naturally, some people objected. They made cogent arguments regarding the right to defend themselves and the foolishness of disarming the general populace in case our country found itself at war or being invaded. Naturally, these cogent arguments were met with solid, well–researched replies that went something along the lines of “Na na Na na na; Conspiracy theorist!” When those being robbed pointed out that there was a small Muslim country to our north that was vastly populated and who may, one day, desire to expand their living room, the replies came in the form of scorn and ridicule.

Anyway, the scorn and ridicule continued for quite a while. Today, I do not hear this scorn and ridicule. The vociferous voices have grown strangely quiet. Why is this? What changed? Did people all of a sudden come to understand that firearm ownership was legitimate? Did the government realise that it had overstepped the bounds of its legitimate power? No, nothing so heartening. What happened? Listen closely and I shall tell you a tale. ‘In the year of our Lord, 2001, Osama gave up on using a gun; for a more sinister plan in his head had begun. Fly planes in to Towers, ‘Yes! That is a plan!’ Planes into towers, reducing them to rubble, to dust, and to sand! When the dust and the smoke had settled that day, three thousand souls had been taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2002, the terrorists Paddy’s bar in Bali they blew; Killing bystanders, tourists, and folk, who had gathered for naught but a drink and a joke. In this much smaller and lesser display, still two hundred souls were taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2005, other acts of terror for which they did strive; this time in London and Bali once more, people did see the blood and the gore. Suicide bombers had mounted attacks from which sixty odd souls would never come back! Here in Australia the grief you could see, for all of these events impacted on We.’

What changed? People received what we colloquially call a reality check!” In this instance, the term “reality check” may be a misnomer. For, in essence, nothing concerning reality had changed. People had simply been woken up to the potential that had been present all along. Scorn and ridicule ceased because we were made to see that we were vulnerable. The Enlightenment view of man as the noble savage and the modern view of man as polite and always seeking his neighbour’s welfare were shattered in an instant.

Lesson One: You must look not at what was or is, but at what may be! It is to look not at reality as we know it, but at potentiality.

2. Marriage: The lesson of potentiality is clearly seen when we take marriage as an example. Marriage is given and designed by God and it is to be between a man and a woman. When we look at marriage over the last century, what we see is the Slippery Slope in operation. Slowly, but surely, marriage was redefined. Its absolute nature as God framed it was eroded and this happened in many forms. The first was the removal of God as the definer of man and marriage. I wrote recently to my local Federal Member on the issue of homosexual marriage. Her response was confusing, but enlightening. She started by saying how proud she was of the many homosexual causes that she had supported. Then came the back-flip and the statement that she did not support homosexual marriage, because marriage was traditionally between a man and a woman. What tradition? Where is the cosmic law of “traditions” written down? It is traditional only in so far as it was authored by God, designed into man, and, therefore, innately drives man in that direction. This alone explains why cultures all over the globe honour marriage.

Once the absolute had gone and marriage became a “human” tradition, the brakes were released and the slide began. Past and present did not matter. The key was potential. Having begun the slide, ‘What would be the terminus?’ Thus, divorce was modified. As marriage was no longer based upon God’s word, so the grounds for divorce also shifted from those stated in His Word to those accepted in the traditions of men. We were also introduced to “de facto” relationships. Just as society wanted “fast food” and food without substance – no sugar, fat, or taste, that is, food without consequence – so we were given mass produced marriage without substance or consequence. Last came the rewriting of vows, not based in the Covenant Law of God, strong and binding, but based in the emotions of men; weak, insipid, and transient. We no longer pledge to love for life; we pledge to hang around while we experience an emotion called ‘love’ – whatever that may be? (A change from what “I can give” to what “I can get!)

Lesson Two: We must understand history. When our forefathers changed the definition of marriage, did they believe it would ever lead to homosexual marriage? We would be fools to believe that this issue of homosexual marriage is the first to ever threaten the Biblical definition. It is not. Each of the things mentioned above laid another stepping stone in the path that brought us to this point. Homosexual marriage, if approved, will simply be one more stone leading further from God and broadening the acceptance of things once thought impossible.

3. Relativism: As we know, we live in a Postmodern word. A world without truth. A world where all is relative and there are no absolutes. Did this state of affairs simply materialise from nowhere? Not at all. There were a string of events. The Enlightenment, Rationalism, and Modernity. Stated differently, “Kill God!”, “Think without Revelation!”, and “Oops, is anybody there?” All of these regressions made our society susceptible to disease, just like a weakened immune system in a body. In the context of marriage and the Slippery Slope, let us look at one example: “The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of no-fault divorce in Australian law. This means that a court does not consider why the marriage ended. The only ground for divorce is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is, that there is no reasonable likelihood that you will get back together.” Do you see the shift? God’s word outlines fault. God demands justice even in marriage. However, the Family Law Court has a no-fault policy. A law court without justice!!?? There are no innocent parties, declared so at the bar of justice, free to marry again unmarred and unsullied. No, there are just casualties – people whose social contracts failed. The adulterer is free. There are no consequences for the wandering party. It is like a morning after pill for marriage!

Conclusion: If homosexual marriage is approved, it will certainly make polygamy more likely. However, understand well, that polygamy may well be on the cards even if homosexual marriage is rejected. The point is this: By rejecting God’s standards, we have already put in place the mechanisms to utterly destroy the concept of marriage we have all known Biblically or traditionally. The door is open. Anything is now possible. The “potentiality” for this began with the rejection of God as Supreme Law Giver!

Marriage is Life!

Posted on by
Reply

There is little doubt that, in Australia today, we are experiencing a clash of worldviews. Over the last decades, the Secular Humanist attack upon Biblical Christianity has gathered pace. However, in 2012, Secular Humanism is presenting a challenge to this nation such as never before. The attack is of such intrinsic importance that both Christian and Secularist alike must be made fully aware of its implications.

Christianity, both as a belief and a worldview, has been systematically attacked in this country for at least fifty years. In that time, attacks have been mainly focused against the application of Biblical law. Examples of this may be seen in the erosion of (traditional) marriage. The concept of both “de facto” relationships and divorce were popularised and de-stigmatised. By stealth, therefore, marriage was undermined. Its significance and importance was devalued. Marriage was relegated to the status of a cultural relic from the bygone age of “religion” and non-enlightenment. With the devaluation of marriage, came the subsequent depreciation of the family. Families were no longer the building block of society. They were no longer afforded protection, assistance, and honour.

All of this is attributable to Humanism’s attack on the application of Biblical law. Of course, all of this stems directly from the fact that the Secular Humanist has denied the existence and importance of the Bible’s God (Psalm 14:1). With God removed, the Secularist believes himself free to set about making this world after his own laws. Consequently, the Secular Humanist has sought to erode any law that was explicitly based in Scripture. Well, not quite. He has eroded any law that means he must restrain himself as far as carnal appetite and pleasure are concerned. He is rather keen to keep the laws regarding murder and theft as he wants to live long enough to enjoy his greed and hedonism.

The question for us all is, ‘What is next?’ What is Humanism about to redefine after its own making? The answer is already before our eyes. 2012 has seen several bills introduced to parliament with the express purpose of changing the definition of the Marriage Act so as to allow for homosexual marriage. The thing that must be impressed upon all, at this point, is that this is an escalation in the war. No longer are the Humanists simply attacking the peripheries in the application of Biblical law, they are insisting on nothing less than a redefinition of man. This battle is not about the institution of marriage as a standalone item. No. This battle is about marriage as an essential part of Man, his definition, and his purpose. At heart, it is an argument regarding Man and Marriage as life.

When Christians argue against homosexuality, they typically turn to texts such as Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” or Romans 1:26-27. These are good texts. They teach us much. Yet we must press to the crux of the matter, if we are to argue the best case in our day.

The question that must be asked is, “Why is homosexuality and homosexual marriage Biblically wrong?” To answer this, we must return to the book of Genesis and to the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28). There we find the incontrovertible evidence. The Cultural Mandate reads: Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

In this text there are some fundamentals that simply cannot be ignored. First, let us start with the simple but important fact that Man is made in the image of God. Of priority, we must grasp and understand that God made Man. God Almighty, in Trinity, determined to create and Man was part of that creation. Man is not, therefore, a creature from the black swamp that one day “got smart” and decided to crawl out of the primordial slime and make something of himself. Man is not the Mk 4 in monkey design – as though each new version of monkey could self-assess and rationalise what further improvements would be beneficial and then will those changes into being as the next model. Man is not chaos, chance, randomness, coincidence, or accident. He is not a cosmic virus virulent upon the earth as some type of intergalactic plague – with the earth hoping for vaccine! Man is not the meaningless, unknowing, unintelligible, transient dream of the existentialist! Man is the product of nothing less than the perceptive, absolute, unmistaken, determinative will of Almighty God. No mistake. No design flaws. No errors. Made in fullness! Made in perfection! Man, made as God intended him. Man, endued and imbued with every power, grace, gift, talent, ability, faculty, facility, and function that God intended him to possess. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Second, we note that there is “Deflation” and “Inflation”! A) – Deflation: Man is not God! He is like unto God, but he is not God. Hence, man is not a demiurge or demigod; We are not god’s trapped in mortal wrappings; We are not, as Jesus, partakers of the Divine nature. No. We are human. Our nature is human. Yet, our human nature is God like. B) – Inflation: We are more than animals. Man is not just the best of animalia. Man stands above the animals. He stands above the creation. He is God’s vice-regent over creation.  Thus, we understand that Man is elevated above creation, but we must also see that the elevator does not travel all the way to God’s throne. We are shown the magnificence of Man, but also his limitations.

Third, and this point must hit home, God’s Man was created in plurality! Man is made in God’s Image and he is made male and female. Like a coin, Man was made with two sides. Both image bearers. Both endued with God’s gifts, talents, and purposes. When the two are brought together in the marriage covenant, the whole becomes far greater than the sum of its parts. Thus says the Lord God (Genesis 2:24)!

This point must be understood, for it is the essence of any and every rebuttal to all schemes which attack Man and particularly the relationship of man to woman. In Genesis 1:28, God pronounces a blessing upon Man. Part of that blessing is that Man should be fruitful and multiply. God’s Man, made in plurality, covenanted in unity through marriage, can receive this blessing and bring it to fruition.  Humanism’s Man cannot. It does not matter how much semen you pour into a man’s rectal cavity or how many attempts are made to fashion the perfect phallic symbol, Man’s futility can never replicate or replace God’s fertility! The only reason these contemporary perverts claim any right to success is because of modern scientific advances and perverted moral behaviour. God did not need a test tube! God did not need a surrogate womb! God did not need to hatch a foul plan to inebriate some poor unsuspecting; just so the lesbian could steal his seed and claim to be fruitful! No, God made Man male and female. God gave them perfect fertility and bodies designed and equipped to fulfil Man’s assignment within God’s purpose and plan.

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

Marriage, as we have seen, is not a human institution, statist or otherwise. It is not a convention or human cultural tradition. Marriage is the inherent consequence of Man being created male and female in the image of God. Marriage, therefore, is not only bound to Man as male and female, but it is bound up in the essential nature of Man as male and female. You cannot remove marriage from Man anymore than you can remove the male and femaleness of Man. Any attempt in that direction ends in the destruction and death of Man. Therefore, homosexual marriage must be repudiated as a travesty.

God made Man in His image. God made Man in plurality as male and female. God blessed Man in his plurality. All this meant that Man could come together in the union of male and female and bring forth life. God’s design had included every aspect necessary mentally, physically, and spiritually. God also gave to Man marriage; the covenant bond in which plurality became unity. Here, two halves met as rain meets a parched land. The result was an explosion of life, effervescent and vibrant. Life as God intended.

Therefore, marriage is life! That is, one man and one woman in covenant union before God. Marriage is life!