Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.8)

Posted on March 4, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Sterling Shepherds)

8.0. Elevating Elders.

The last issue that must be addressed with the closing words in this series is the critical deficiencies that exist within the Eldership today. As a Reformed Christian, time has been spent in different Reformed denominations and the one thing that they all have in common is a deficient Eldership.

In one major Reformed denomination, it is not uncommon to find unbelievers and unskilled men holding the office of Elder – something contrary to the Word of God – which leads to poor pastoral care and shepherding. In another denomination, there is great organisation of the Eldership, but little effectiveness in reality. In other words, there is a really good system, but there seems to be little substance to the system. However, what most Reformed denominations seem to have in common is their inability or unwillingness to take seriously the Biblical instructions in regard to Elders and Eldership. By this we specifically refer to the Biblical criteria for elders, their Biblical character, and their charter.

Some years ago, we found ourselves in hot water for insisting that prospective elders be measured by the Biblical standards. You would not think that such a request would have brought such vehement responses, but it did. On one occasion, we were hit with everything from, “Why don’t you leave?” to the guilt-trip-inducer of “You realise that you are judging God!”

Now, we are happy to admit that in those days our zeal outweighed our tact and verbal articulation. However, we must also admit that as we have grown a little wiser, understood Scripture better, and continued to raise the same objections, the opposition has not lessened one iota! This is tragic because it is really the fundamental cause of many of our current problems within the Church.[1] Biblically speaking, a people are only as faithful as those who govern them. Thus, if we are truly serious about reform in the Church, we must begin by addressing the deficiencies within the Eldership. This can only take place effectively when the Elders clothe themselves in humility. This is so because the Elders are the ones who have the greatest ability to bring substantial reform, but that reform needs to begin willingly from within their own ranks.

We have no desire to turn these pages into an exercise in “Elder bashing” or to simply create a catalogue of disasters. Yet, it is also important that people understand what these deficiencies look like, how they come to the fore, and how they present themselves. Thus, we will try and give a few varied examples:

In one instance, the Elders found themselves in a vacancy. After several months, these Elders announced that they would not be doing any pastoral visitation because it was, in essence, beyond them. To highlight this betrayal of their role, you need to understand that there was something like twenty of them. The problem was not that they were stretched for resources; they were simply stretched for talent, willingness, and a genuine understanding of their role.
A second instance concerns the election of Elders. In this denomination, the church order added a few qualifications to the criteria for eldership, namely age and sex. Consequently, when the voting form was produced, every member of the congregation who met those two criteria was listed. Can you guess the number of candidates? We will give you a hint. They wanted to fill eight positions. No, you are probably not even close. The finished list exceeded eighty names. Yes, 80, just for clarification.
A third instance involves a visiting VIP. In the worship service children, and possibly women, read the Scriptures. This was a new event in this congregation, not witnessed up until this time. Upon viewing this, a concerned citizen who was due to preach, and whose identity will be kept secret to protect the …, wrote to the elders raising this issue, insisting that, according to Scripture and the Confessional standards of the denomination, qualified men alone should read the Scriptures in worship. Their response? The concerned citizen was disinvited to preach 36 hours before worship and upon turning up to worship was confronted with an elder’s wife reading Scripture. The concerned left. The next week another woman got up and read the Scriptures. The association was terminated soon thereafter.

Of importance, though, is the reaction. It was antagonistic and ungodly. Rather than talk, instruct, counsel, or listen, these Elders responded with vitriol and hostility and then began to parade their error in a manner not heretofore seen. In short, they acted from pride and were simply happy to see a family driven out of worship, rather than act in a Biblically sound manner.[2]

The fourth instance is a general instance. In a certain Reformed heritage, it is commonplace for ruling elders to do a “reading” service if the teaching elder (minister) is absent. This means that the Elder must read from a manuscript prepared by a minister. This practice is raised for two reasons. First, it has the tendency to turn the Reformed view of Eldership into an Episcopalian view. Second, this practice cuts the heart out of the Scriptural instruction which says that an Elder must be a “faithful man, who will be able to teach others”; able “both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.”[3]
Lastly, we return to the statement above, wherein we were accused of “judging God”. In this discussion, the elder who opposed us was greatly displeased that we had dared to criticise the Elders’ stand. Discussions turned to all sorts of fancy – Who is perfect? So and so did not really stack up, but he turned out to be a good elder! Then, the words etched in our mind for good came to the fore when the standard of an elder’s family was raised. This elder responded with a “come back when you’ve got teenage children!” which seemed both then and now as though he wished that our family would fail just so that our stand would be proven wrong. This conversation only came to a close when we put before him this question – Does the Bible state that a prospective elder must meet certain criteria to be worthy of office? This chap was like a dog with a toffee. His mouth went round and round; lips pursed and danced, then came the affirmation, “Yes!” This man knew enough to know that the Bible did list the criteria for office, yet he fought tooth and nail to defend an indefensible position and an Eldership that had together abandoned the Biblical principles.

Okay, let’s move on. We have no desire to focus on the people herein represented. Sins offered, sins committed, we pray sins confessed, are all in the past and have all been dealt with by Jesus’ all powerful and cleansing blood. Rather, the intent is to look at the fallout of these “instances” and to make sure that we learn the lessons.

Ask yourself these questions: Are the eighty men in one congregation all Biblically qualified? On what authority does a Session / Consistory vote to “opt out” of their calling? Why would an elder who knows the Bible’s teaching in regard to an Elder’s qualifications fight that teaching? Why would a Session / Consistory react to a congregant with antagonism and in essence provoke that person publicly, so much so that they cannot worship and eventually leave the congregation? Lastly, why would denominations, knowing God’s instruction to Elders, limit their calling and thereby passively create a divide within the Eldership?

The one common answer to all these questions is: a defective view of Elders and Eldership! In the current context of our discussion on Biblical Counselling, we then must ask, “What is the outcome of this deficiency? Answer: The sheep suffer!!

Not properly vetting the candidates for Eldership means that the standards are not upheld and that ungodly and unable men are elected to office. When a Consistory / Session votes not to fulfill their calling, then there are no guardians of the flock. When Elders argue against the clear teachings of Scripture in order to hide their errors, it is an act of pride that robs the sheep of protection and blessing. When a Consistory / Session acts in an antagonistic fashion, then they are guilty of driving sheep into the dangers of the wilderness.[4] Lastly, when denominations adopt practices that divide the Eldership in an unBiblical manner, why are we surprised when the bulk of the Eldership are viewed disparagingly as second rate and are, therefore, not esteemed by the sheep? Similarly, why are we surprised when the ‘exalted’ ones end up burnt-out or on stress leave because the “workload is just too much!”

In all this the sheep suffer. In all this the cause of Christ suffers. In all of this the very Elders and Elderships themselves suffer. Each failing is of great concern because it plays into the hands of those who argue that Eldership needs supplementation by the university trained.[5] These deficiencies help to give rise to the “Christian Counselling” phenomena that is rife at the moment.

As anecdotes alone prove little, let us explain the detriment of these anecdotes by relating them to the commands and instructions given in Scripture—our ultimate and only authority. Regarding Elders and Eldership, Scripture states:[6]

1 Timothy 3:1-7: It is a trustworthy statement: if any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires to do. 2 An overseer, then, must be above reproach, the husband of one wife, temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable, able to teach, 3 not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money. 4 He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity 5 (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); 6 and not a new convert, lest he become conceited and fall into the condemnation incurred by the devil. 7 And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church, so that he may not fall into reproach and the snare of the devil.

Titus 1:5-9: For this reason I left you in Crete, that you might set in order what remains, and appoint elders in every city as I directed you, 6 namely, if any man be above reproach, the husband of one wife, having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion. 7 For the overseer must be above reproach as God’s steward, not self-willed, not quick-tempered, not addicted to wine, not pugnacious, not fond of sordid gain, 8 but hospitable, loving what is good, sensible, just, devout, self-controlled, 9 holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict.

1 Timothy 5:17-20: Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. 18 For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.” 19 Do not receive an accusation against an elder except on the basis of two or three witnesses. 20 Those who continue in sin, rebuke in the presence of all, so that the rest also may be fearful of sinning.

“If any man aspires to the office of overseer, it is a fine work he desires” – How many elders are selected and elected on the basis that they genuinely “aspire” to be an elder? How many assent simply because it is their turn and it is expected of them? How many accept the role because they are interested simply in status? How many of the eighty had this aspiration?
“Above reproach… temperate, prudent, respectable, hospitable… not addicted to wine or pugnacious, but gentle, uncontentious, free from the love of money” – My wife tells the story from her youth in which several elders were drunk at a wedding – no censure. How many elders do you know who are truly wise (prudent)? When was the last time an elder invited you home for a meal or showed hospitality simply because he cared? Pugnacious and uncontentious – we know of more than one situation in which an elder failed this test. Havoc was wreaked, yet the one not measuring to the standard was left in office, in some cases while others around resigned because of stress and the unworkable situation. What of the “love of money”? How many elders put their businesses before their calling and duty? How many elders try to “keep up with the Jones’” and therefore find themselves less inclined to put in the necessary time to pastoral care?
“He must be one who manages his own household well, keeping his children under control with all dignity (but if a man does not know how to manage his own household, how will he take care of the church of God?); having children who believe, not accused of dissipation or rebellion” – This criterion is crucial, yet how often is it insisted upon? How many are elders with young children? Have they displayed adequate evidence to be qualified for the position of Elder? What of the old adage, too often true, that “the minister’s children are the most misbehaved”? How do we think we will find blessing at the hand of God if we are disobedient to such a fundamental criterion? Equally, if family is such an important marker with regards to eligibility for Eldership, why does the job often strain those families? What then does this say in regard to families having a sense of call and duty?[7]
“Holding fast the faithful word which is in accordance with the teaching, that he may be able both to exhort in sound doctrine and to refute those who contradict; able to teach” – In our experience, this would have to be one of the most disobeyed commands when dealing with Eldership. This is also one of the practical failings associated with the divide in the Eldership – when we call one ‘minister’ and the others ‘elder’. One is expected to know at a higher level, the others can be “also-rans” because they have someone to fall back upon. If Elders and the Eldership are to be a true collective, then there needs to be obedience to this command. The Elder must be able to teach sound doctrine and refute error. He must be able to preach and construct a sermon or a series of instructions. This is his job! Why is this so important?—“For there are many rebellious men, empty talkers and deceivers, especially those of the circumcision, who must be silenced because they are upsetting whole families, teaching things they should not teach, for the sake of sordid gain”(Titus 1:10-11). Likewise, this divide robs and debilitates. Why do we ring “the minister” when we have a problem? Why do we not call our Elder or any Elder? Subconsciously, and maybe not so subconsciously, we have created a divide within the Eldership, which cuts against the very principal of “the plurality of Elders.” This divide, as noted, has relegated some to the status of “also-rans” and in so doing has robbed them of the ability to have true pastoral input. Such a situation defeats the whole point of having a “plurality of elders” and in essence relegates these men to the position of administrators or “rubber stamp” applicators.
“Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching.” – Several issues are raised here. First, why is it only the minister who, in our modern world, is paid? Why do we never consider paying Elders in general? If an Elder must make a living from other means, it stands to reason that he must then have limited time to devote to being an Elder. In one denomination, this irony was marveled at—the church rules allowed for an organist to be paid, but never mentioned anything of this sort for the Elders, outside of the minister! Second, does this teaching undermine the point above? No. All Elders stand on an equal footing. Their roles may differ, but when honour is due, it must be given. Note the plural, please – the elders who… are worthy of double. Not just the minister or an Elder who preaches or teaches, but all Elders who do their job well. Now, the word for honour can and often does mean “money” or “price”. Interpretations vary, but the context cannot mean that monetary considerations are excluded, otherwise Paul’s analogy of the ox and labourer are irrelevant. Equally, if the excellent Elder is worthy of double, does this not suggest that they already receive, or, at least, should receive something? Might this also be a reason for Paul’s caution that the Elder be “free from the love of money?”
“Not a new convert, lest he become conceited” – At this point, we would like to take a different tack. If the Elder is to be able, then he must be one who has grown through instruction into Christ’s likeness. The question often pondered is, “How many Elders are “new converts” even though they have been in the Church for decades?” In other words, how many have been elected to office because they have been in the Church for decades, yet, practically speaking, they are new converts because they have not grown and blossomed?[8]

The closing point, relevant to our whole discussion, comes from James. There we read this instruction: Is anyone among you suffering? Let him pray. Is anyone cheerful? Let him sing praises. Is anyone among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer offered in faith will restore the one who is sick, and the Lord will raise him up, and if he has committed sins, they will be forgiven him. Therefore, confess your sins to one another, and pray for one another, so that you may be healed. The effective prayer of a righteous man can accomplish much. Elijah was a man with a nature like ours, and he prayed earnestly that it might not rain; and it did not rain on the earth for three years and six months. And he prayed again, and the sky poured rain, and the earth produced its fruit.[9]

This text is important for our discussion because it provides a Biblical framework for our understanding of Biblical psychology and, in that context, an understanding of healing and wellbeing.

Let us look at the constituent parts of this text. James first refers to someone who is suffering. The remedy? Turn to God and pray. Next James addresses the cheerful person. His counsel is to sing praises to God. Please note, at this point, the place that God holds. Both prayer and praise are to be unto God. In other words, we must see that life, all life, ups and downs, is directly connected to God. In affliction we turn to the One, and only One, who is able to rectify or change that situation. We turn to the only One who can provide patience, endurance, steadfastness, and victory.[10] Similarly, recognising that this world of sin has many dangers and discouragements, we should sing praises unto God when we are able to be of a cheerful disposition by God’s providential care.[11]

Next James addresses sickness. It is necessary to grasp the fact that the term for sickness means “weakness” and can, therefore, be thought of as any malaise or precursor to sickness. It is used of those who are physically ill as well as those who are spiritually ill. This is important for us in that it divorces this current discussion from some of the more perverted views on “healing” and places the discussion fairly and squarely in the realms of genuine pastoral care.

In advancing our understanding, we need to begin by comparing the cases presented. In the first instance, the “suffering” one encounters the trials and tribulations of life. This “suffering” or “hardship” is a physical reality, but it is one that does not penetrate the person, so to speak. For example, Paul speaks of this “hardship” in the context of his imprisonment.[12] Whilst wronged and confined, Paul was still well, physically and spiritually.

In these cases, James instructs the person to pray. The Christian in such circumstances is called upon to apply his energies to resolving the situation or overcoming the situation through prayer; through his personal prayers.

By comparison, the “sick” one is obviously infirmed in body and soul. His malaise is of a greater degree and has evidently impacted body and soul. This seems to be shown by the fact that he is “to call” or summon the elders to himself. Apparently, he is unable to make his way to them. This interpretation is also backed up by the phrase “and the Lord shall raise him up.”

Here, then, we view an individual who is weighed down and is oppressed to such a degree that they are bedridden or housebound. They are in need of added help.

What is that help? It is prayer! Is this not a marvelous statement? The cure, if you will, in both cases is identical. Prayer. The only difference is in who is and how many are praying. When it comes to the “weak” one, the “big guns” are called in to help in this situation. Now, we are not saying that this individual is not to pray for himself; indeed he should and he must. What we are saying, however, is that the elders add something that is missing. We could speculate, but let us be content to stand on this foundation – the elders are called to prayer.

Before moving on, we must ask the pointed question: Do our elders pray? No, I am not talking about the five second verbiage that is required by constitutions to open and close a meeting; I am talking about serious, earnest, wrestling before the Throne of Grace. Let me ask another pointed question for clarification: How often does your eldership meet specifically for prayer? Indeed, does your eldership ever meet just to pray?

These questions are raised precisely because the text raises them. This whole pericope, verses 13-18, focus on prayer. Prayer is the key to understanding. People get hung up on the “oil” or on the verb “to save” or on the “raise up”, but these are really side issues. “Hardship” sufferer – pray! “Weak one” – pray! Elders – pray! ‘Oh yes, just in case you still don’t grasp the importance of this “prayer” concept,’ says James, ‘consider this dude Elijah. He was pretty big stuff in his day. He prayed and shut the heavens. He prayed and he opened the heavens. So successful was his prayer that the earth brought for its produce.’ James then adds, ‘Well just in case you are tempted to say, “Oh, but he was a mighty prophet!” consider the fact that he was a man, just like us.’

Please read and reread this text to note this point. The whole pericope hinges on prayer. The Christian is to pray. The elders are to pray. Encouragement in this area is drawn from the prophet Elijah. But wait, there is more …! Note even the example of Elijah has a bearing upon the need for prayer. Elijah shut the heavens. Life and vitality dwindled. Hardship comes upon all the people of Israel. Food was scarce. Water was not in abundance. The land withered.[13] Is this not a picture of the “weak” or “sick” one? Vitality is sapped from the bones. Life withers. In essence, death awaits. However, when the prophet prayed, the rains came and the earth produced its fruit in abundance. Similarly, when the elders prayed to their Lord,[14] He heard from heaven and raised up the weak one. The prayer of the righteous brought an abundance of life.

In finishing with this text, we need to make one further statement. Because there are perverted views on healing abounding in the Church today, it is important that we back up our statements with other Scriptures. One in particular springs to mind: “This kind cannot come out by anything but prayer.”[15] In this text, Jesus’ disciple met a challenge. They had tried to “cast out” a demonic force – a feat Jesus completed – but they failed. In giving instruction to His disciples, Jesus noted that “this kind” had to be prayed out, not cast out.

This text, and its parallel in Matthew 17:14ff, are instructive in that there is some correlation with the teaching of James. In Matthew, the disciple failed because of faith.[16] James refers to the “prayer of faith”. In Mark 9:27, Jesus, having rebuked the evil spirit, takes the boy by the hand and “raises him up”. As we have already noted, whilst the elders pray, it is the Lord Who raises up the weak one.

Thus, it seems to this writer that James is doing nothing more than applying His Master’s teaching to real life. James is not urging flights of fancy, but obedience to all that Jesus commanded. James is not dealing with the ethereal and the contents of the “too hard basket”, but with the everyday reality of powerful pastoral care in a fallen world.

To round out these comments even further would be to add unnecessary tedium. However, some words of application are in order.

We have argued that the Church does not need “university trained” experts. On the contrary, the Church needs to return to a Biblical understanding of pastoral care and of those primarily responsible for pastoral care. We need nothing short of godly, obedient, faithful men who will implement the Master’s teaching. We need men who are genuinely called by God, who have a sense of this calling, and who are willing to live up to that calling.

University training may fill the head, but it rarely fills the heart.[17] In short, university does not train men in the knowledge of God, practical godliness, personal holiness, or the art of spiritual warfare. The psychology texts will not mention the Armour of God or the necessity of prayer.[18] They will not mention Satan and his hatred of God’s people; yet, these so called “trained” ones will dare to step into the arena and demand to be heard because they have the goods! Not likely. These have been deceived by the father of lies and if they are allowed to peddle their wares they will but deceive others. Indeed, they have deceived and are currently deceiving many. One of those deceptions is – Elders are passé!

To meet such a challenge, the Church of Christ must reform. She must return to a diligent study of God’s word and be prepared to learn from God. In short, listening to the whole counsel of God, the Church must allow the Head of the Church to do the teaching and instructing on these issues.

First, when Jesus walked this earth, He did not need a psyche degree. Jesus did not insist that His followers go to Ichabod University and gain a degree so that they could serve. No, Jesus gave something far greater. Jesus gave His Word and His Spirit! Thus, when we insist that the Church needs something newer and greater – especially something designed by the world – we are displaying a haughty spirit of the most grievous kind; a spirit that essentially says that God does not know what He is doing.

Think here of the woman at the well. How different would the account of that interaction be if we allow for the moment that Jesus was a psychologist instead of the Saviour? The psychologist would not have upbraided her. That might impact upon self-esteem. The psychologist would not have passed comment on the multiple husbands, for that is really a moral judgement and outside the scope of the discussion. If comment were made in regard to the husbands, it would probably have been to explore the links to a derelict father who gave her such a poor view on men or some such.

You see, Jesus the Saviour stopped her at every turn and confronted her with the reality of God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption. It was through this paradigm that Jesus was “perceived to be a prophet” and that the door to further discussion was opened. This in turn led this woman to approach the men of the town with the result that many believed.

Would Jesus the psychologist have changed this town in like manner?

Second, Jesus knew that Man’s plight is spiritual and that it is based in warfare. Some years ago, praise be to God, R. C. Sproul Junior was used to open my eyes to this when he focused upon those words in Genesis – I will pit enmity …! These are God’s words. It is our God who issued the war cry and it is this holy war cry that defines human history and human eternity. This whole concept is probably best captured in the title of a book by the late Henry Morris, The Long War Against God. Thus, when the moderns come to the fore with their theories, do you ever ask, “Whose side are you on?” Do we take Scripture seriously and “test the spirits”[19] or do we just take “his word for it”?

Now this may seem a bit too Charismatic or Pentecostal for some, if so, please read John. Why do we test the spirits? “Because many false prophets have gone out into the world!” If we do not put forth the test, how do we know if we are dealing with a false prophet or not?

Third, this brings us directly to the need for qualified and obedient Elders. Another name for Elders is “shepherds”. The term shepherd is really a job description.[20] As such, it tells us that the shepherds should be out to shoot the lions, bears, and wolves that come to attack Christ’s sheep. The shepherds are to feed and care for the sheep. Here, again, we are brought back to the Biblical criteria. To feed the sheep, the shepherds must be able to teach. To bring cure and ward of harm, the Elders must be able to exhort in sound doctrine and be able to refute error. The Elders must, as good shepherds, be able to pick up and carry those sheep that are week and ill so that they are removed from danger and placed in a position in which they can fully recover.

Fourth, to come anywhere near to achieving these outcomes, our Elders must be godly, faithful men who have the right Biblical experience. For example, if war breaks out, we do not rally behind the lowest ranked private who has just arrived in boot camp, do we? No, we look for a man who has years of experience and preferably experience in battle.

Thus, we need to take a long hard look at our practices in regard to electing Elders and we need to ask some tough questions. Here is a little list:

Is term Eldership Biblical? Now, my brothers will be on the defensive, but here is the curve ball. Most who practice term Eldership expect that the teaching elder accepts his call as a permanent obligation. They do not allow him to have a year off after every third year of service. Hmmm! So, do we have a consistent view of the plurality of elders? Equally, such a system puts a strain on the talent pool within a congregation and will lead to men being ‘tapped on the shoulder’ when they are not really qualified. Similarly, this pressure tempts congregations to fiddle with the Biblical criteria.
How serious are we in regard to the Biblical criteria? St Angus of Garvoc used to speak often of “having runs on the board”. In other words, there had to be evidence. Do we look for the evidence that the men for whom we are voting have met the Biblical criteria? How many of the eighty, mentioned above, were Biblically qualified? Did the Session / Consistory responsible for that election make any effort to find out? No, they did not.

Did the elder, mentioned above, who argued over Biblical criteria have God’s perspective or Man’s when he argued so? Obviously, Man’s. The question then becomes, “Why?” The answer seems to be the old catch 22 situation. Elders who were not elected according to Biblical criteria do not know that criteria or understand the importance of that criteria, therefore they fall back upon “their experience” rather than God’s command. Consequently, these men, well-meaning though they be, are either unable to raise the bar or simply do not see the need to raise the bar. In a worst case scenario, it is more than probable that pride plays its part. These men are unwilling to lift the bar because it is a tacit admission that they have not measured up. Either way, the simple reality is that if Elders in Elderships do not see the need for change, and personal change at that, then we will not see the reforms that we so desperately need.

Therefore, it must be asked in all solemnity, “Are we as Christ’s Church willing to take the Biblical criteria for Eldership seriously and demand that our shepherds be measured by and comply with these standards?” This is the only question that really matters.

Yes, you can fire the: “Oh no one’s perfect!” or “He is looking for the ideal or perfect Church!” etc; yet the reality of the situation remains the same – these are God’s standards for God’s officers in God’s Church! This writer did not invent these standards so that he could write an article; they are God’s revealed will for His people.

Consider this a little more. Did God give impossible standards to His Church? Surely God, of all beings, knows only too well that all Adam’s sons of natural progeny are imperfect. Jesus was well aware of the imperfections of His disciples. Yet, the Godhead wrote these standards to imperfect, but sanctified and holy, men for the betterment of His Church and people.

Similarly, we know that there will not be an “ideal” Church this side of glory. However, there is not one passage in Scripture that tells us that because this reality is not attainable now that it should not be our goal or ideal! Unless the Bible I read is faulty, there are no passages that say, “Give up. It is all futile!” The text reads, “I can do all things through Him who strengthens me” not “I cannot do a thing for no one strengthens me.”

Much rather, Scripture says, “Be perfect as your heavenly Father is perfect”. We are encouraged to “run the race” and to persevere so that “no one takes our crown”, and just like Jesus, we are to be “overcomers”. All this is possible because, “greater is He who is in you than he who is in the world.”

Therefore, any and all negative arguments that are used to halt the progress of the Church must be dismissed. This is especially the case when these arguments are used to justify the Church’s noncompliance to Her Biblical obligations. God’s word is clear. Elders are appointed by God to shepherd His blood bought sheep. They are appointed to shoot wolves. They are appointed to clean up fly strike. They are appointed to search out the lost sheep. They are appointed to carry the lame. They are appointed to trim the dags.

This is the calling of the Elder. If, therefore, you are not willing to pick up a gun; deal with the nauseating; burn up some shoe leather; bend you back; or get your hands dirty, then do not put up your hand or the hand of someone equally unwilling when they call for nominations. If you are an Elder and you realise that you are not suitably qualified, you have two choices. First, ask forgiveness of God and then pray earnestly that you will live up to and exceed criteria. Second, resign – but only after you have made your case so that those who remain will not repeat the same mistake.

Brethren, a look around the Church, no matter what denomination, shows that we are in serious trouble. We do not see the blessing of God and the forward progress of the Church. The reason for this is manifold, yet certain trends can be discerned. Chief among these is that the Elders or, if it is more acceptable, the office-bearers have abdicated their responsibilities in regard to being guardians of the sheep. That is to say, the teaching Elders no longer preach the whole counsel of God. Many have become mere ear ticklers.

Let me give a very recent example. Locally a Creation Seminar was run. Approach was made to a minister to see about hosting the event. He commented that while he supported the idea a number in his congregation did not. Therefore, he declined. Question. If he is the preacher and he believes in the literal account of Genesis, then how will the sheep in his care ever be taught this truth if he will not preach on it? If the preacher never preaches on a Biblical topic because of a few dissenters, how will the truth be proclaimed? If Biblical topics are avoided because of a few dissenters, then how long will it be before the Church is bereft of all orthodoxy?

Brethren, the point is simple. If the preachers do not preach the whole counsel of God and call God’s people to belief, we will wither and die. If the Elders will not shepherd God’s sheep to this same standard, then the sheep will be torn by ravenous animals, will fall ill, will fall into snares, will remain lost, and will die of exposure – for there will be none to care, none to aid, none to warn!

We must, therefore, repent and return to the ideal of God’s word and insist that Elders meet the criteria laid down in Scripture.

Lastly, a few words to the non-elders. Whilst this article aims at seeing a radical change in the Eldership through the strict implementation of the Biblical criteria for those to be elected as Elders, those who are not and will never be Elders are not exempt from this challenge. In most systems, it is you who will cast a vote. So, are you voting correctly?

Similarly, like a political election, we may say a few prayers around polling day, but do we continue to pray for our Elders. It is easy to knock when things go awry, but have we been praying? Do you pray for the Elders that have charge over you? Do you name them before God’s throne on a regular basis? Do you regularly pray for the Consistory / Session as a whole? It may be worth remembering how Aaron and Hur held up Moses’ hands so that the battle went in Israel’s favour.

Thus, do not underestimate your role in this reform process. You too need to be acutely aware of the Biblical criteria for Eldership. You need to be willing to ‘stick to your guns’ and ask that only qualified men be put on the voting list. You need to resist popularity contests, family and political cliques, and the pressure to maintain the status quo. If you agree with the thrust of these articles, then begin to pray that these reforms will be realised in your midst and before your eyes.

Conclusion:

This series was sparked by comments in a Reformed publication suggesting that the Elders of the Church needed to be supplemented by the university trained. This led us on a journey to explore worldviews and to explain why, on the basis of worldviews, the Church could not embrace any form of Secularism.

In the end, the conclusion of the matter is that the Church of the Lord Jesus Christ does not need anything new and it most certainly does not need the latest proffering from the World. What is needed is Reform! We must repent of our failings and return to the standards specified in God’s word. We must stop making excuses to condone our sin and we must begin to seek blessing through righteousness. In other words, if there are no suitable candidates in our midst, we do not fiddle with the Biblical requirements; we get down on our knees and ask God to provide someone suitable.

The words of Paul are apt here – there is no authority but from God and those who oppose the ordinance of God will come under judgement![21] These words are not to unbelievers, but are addressed to all. Hence, we must take the warning seriously. Just as Peter was rebuked because he argued contrary to God’s desire,[22] so we too will be rebuked and judged if we stiff-neckedly pursue our own agendas. There is no excuse for disobedience. Faith is the mark of the Christian; disobedience is the mark that faith and belief are missing.

Therefore, let us return to the position of faith and obedience. Let us only put men into Eldership who are worthy according to the Biblical criteria. Let us resist all efforts to supplant God’s Elders and God’s order. Let us wait on God alone and stand in awe as we behold His marvellous benefits and His manifold answers to the prayers of the righteous.

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Whilst these words are specific to Reformed denominations, they also hold an element of truth for all denominations. The simple reality is that the Biblical data has been set aside and most in Church government have been measured by an alternative form. My father had a conversation with a gentleman from outside the Reformed camp who stated that his “denomination was now turning out administrators, not pastors.”

[2] See Jeremiah 44:15-19 for what seems to be an excellent parallel. When these people were confronted by the prophet they stubbornly defended their idolatry rather than repent.

[3] 2 Timothy 2:2 and Titus 1:9.

[4] Jeremiah 23:1.

[5] It must also be said that these malaise make for a weak and feeble Church that does not adequately fulfil her mission in obedience to Jesus.

[6] These are not the only texts that relate to Elders and Eldership, but they are among the most well known and will be used because they speak directly to the issue.

[7] Though there is some debate regarding the translation of 1 Timothy 3:11, it seems, in the context, no small thing that Paul addresses himself to the wives of office-bearers. The “two shall become one” says God, yet how often is Eldership “his thing” and the wife remains detached?

[8] It must be remembered that time does not equal growth. It is hoped that it would, but it is by no means a certainty. Therefore, we must truly investigate to see that genuine growth in Jesus Christ has taken place. We need to become “fruit inspectors”!

[9] James 5:13-18.

[10] Psalm 23; Psalm 145:18; Psalm 46:1-3; Psalm 70:5; Psalm 121.

[11] Romans 12:15.

[12] 2 Timothy 2:9.

[13] 1 Kings 18:2b.

[14] John 16:24.

[15] Mark 9:29.

[16] The words “this kind can only come out by prayer” are considered to be an addition to Matthew.

[17] This is not a head / heart distinction popular in many circles. Rather, it is aimed at highlighting the difference between knowledge and practice; the difference between learning about God and learning God; the difference between academia and practical and personal holiness.

[18] Ephesians 6:10-17.

[19] 1 John 4:1.

[20] Acts 20:28.

[21] A paraphrase of Romans 13:1-2.

[22] Matthew 16:23.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Rebuilding Esteem and Belief in Eldership: God’s Authority)

5. God’s Authority:

The next relevant aspect in regard to the Office of Eldership is that these men, being instituted by God, act with God’s authority. This point is critical, yet it is overlooked and often despised today.

To drive this home, let me ask this related question, “What makes preaching powerful?” The moderns will tend to answer this question by focusing on personalities, oratory, word skills, and dynamism. The orthodox and Reformed Christian will answer, “Authority!”

Why does the preacher preach? He is commissioned to that task. What makes the preacher’s voice or words any more relevant, convincing, or convicting? The answer is power through authority! To be specific, it is Jesus’ authority. The preacher is commissioned of God, thus, when he speaks, he speaks with the very voice of Christ. This it is that rouses dead hearts and brings rebellious hearts to heel. This it is that pierces seared consciences and makes them responsive. This it is that makes the Christian yield to sound counsel.[1]

Please understand, it is authority and authority alone that marks the preacher as different. Nothing else! He has no special quality in and of himself. His words are powerful because the Holy Spirit works through him so that his voice is Christ’s voice and his words Christ’s words.

In the same way, the commissioned elder rightly wields God’s authority. That which sets his administration apart – his rule, counsel, deliberations, intercession, and judgements – is not his qualities as a person[2], as such, but the fact that he speaks and acts not only with the authority of God, but as God Himself.[3] This means that the elder must be humble in his use of this power, but it equally means that we who sit under the elder must be humble so as to submit to God’s authority administered through the elder. The relevance of this for pastoral care is almost unfathomable, however, fathom we must.

The Word of Authority: This is to say, as we have suggested, that the elder speaking as elder is speaking authoritatively in the name and as an ambassador of God. This means that his counsel immediately stands above the counsel of others. It is not to say that it is necessarily different in kind, rather it is different in degree. Where one may readily dismiss a brother with a hasty, “That’s your opinion!” one cannot do so with the elder.
The Action of Authority: The above aspect is made all the more pertinent when we look at the concept of discipline. In Matthew 18 we note that the issue begins among the brothers. It then extends to the brethren as witnesses. At this point, we observer the difference in degree. The brethren may have sound counsel, but it goes unheeded. However, when the issue is escalated to the Church, to the elders, the ballgame, as they say, changes. Now the Word is spoken with Christ’s voice and authority. It is backed by the possibility of severe punishment and eternal consequence, all of which are sanctioned by Christ Jesus. Here, the counsel changes from a positive suggestion to an ought!
The Need of Authority: This then leads to the crux of the matter. Man is spiritually dead. Man can only be brought to life by the Divine command issued by the commissioned man. Illustrative of this is the text in which Ezekiel commands the dry bones to live.[4] Equally, as God’s children, we can still, in varying degrees, fall into sin and become hardened to the things of God.[5] In such circumstances, we too need the voice of authority to command us to awaken and repent. So it is that often the difference is not in the quality of the counsel given, but in the authority with which it is given; not kind, but degree. Importantly, it must be understood that we need the authoritative voice.[6] Sound counsel is not enough. Sound counsel given authoritatively is what is most necessary.[7]

Let us take these points and transfer them to the real world. Bill Bloggs, Christian and local member of the Church, goes to a Christian counsellor. Let us grant that the counsellor is indeed sound. He counsels Bill to leave his sin. Session after session he pleads with his brother to forsake this sin and be reconciled to Christ. Bill refuses. What next? The counsellor has no ability to sanction Bill. The counsellor does not possess the keys of the Kingdom. The counsellor has no juridical power. The counsellor cannot cast him out of the Church for his rebellion. In point of fact, the counsellor cannot even truly implement the process of Matthew 18.

Moreover, depending on how the counsellor operates, he could not take the matter to the Church, even if he desired to do so, because he would be in breach of privacy laws enacted by the State. In some cases, there would even be other factors in play that protect Bill’s indiscretion from finding its way to the Church.

In another scenario, Bill’s rebellion and unrepentant heart may lead to depression. As the counsellor has no other means at his disposal, he is left to simply medicate the symptoms. Bill is left in his rebellion and the consequences of that rebellion are simply masked by the application of medicines.

Therefore, we need to grasp the serious reality that when we step out from under God’s order and authority, we step into impotency. The so-called ‘Christian counsellor’ may counsel, but in the end he is impotent. The counsellor only has as much authority or power to realise change as the so-called patient will give him or the State allows. Thus, it is the sinner who effectively sits in the pilot’s seat and guides his craft to the destiny of his choosing. He hides behind State protections and only allows inputs to the craft’s control column that will not alter his desired course. The counsellor, Christian or otherwise, is ineffectual in these circumstances.

Now, as we have noted, some will find this difficult, but that does not alter the truth of the matter. If we look around us, we will already see that counsellors, Christian and otherwise, are being constrained by the secular laws under which they operate. This has clearly come to the fore in regard to those who counsel homosexuals. In some instances, and increasingly so, those whose counsel to homosexuals is “forsake the practice” are being shut down or muzzled. The State has defined the air corridor – effectively conjoining itself to the rebellious sinner/pilot – and in so doing does not allow inputs to the control column that would see the craft deviate from its course—even though it is evidently heading for a mountain. Thus, the counsellor bound to obey the State must bow to his master’s will; even the so-called Christian counsellor.[8]

Equally, we must address the sinner and state boldly that they too, in seeking out the uncommissioned are placing themselves in a position of impotency. They are walking away from the church of the living God, the pillar and foundation of the truth[9] in which they can actually find help, power, strength, forgiveness, and reconciliation.

Brother Posthuma rightly noted that some seek out the counsellor for anonymity.[10] This is understandable, but only to a minute degree; for we must ask as to the point of anonymity, if it also means impotency. Could it be that the anonymity sought is a guise in which one can soothe the troubled conscience without seeking a real remedy to the problem? Why would a person suffering from an ailment and supposedly seeking a cure, turn away from a medical centre simply because they were known at that clinic? Why seek out the backyard quack for the sake of anonymity when such action could prolong your suffering or lead to greater harm?[11] In point of fact, being known may lead to better, swifter, and more compassionate treatment.

The only genuine reason for anonymity is the fear of shame. After all, you only seek out a medical doctor anonymously if you have a medical condition or are in need of medical assistance because you are fairly certain that the condition arose out of a spurious circumstance. Similarly, you only seek out a counsellor anonymously when your spiritual circumstances are a result of spurious activities. Consequently, the whole counselling phenomena has, at its root, a faulty and unBiblical premise.

The reality is very simple. In turning from God’s order, we turn from God’s power and authority. As such, we turn to the impotent and embrace that which can never truly bring us the genuine help we need.

More coffee on the newspaper? If so, we are not sure why. Let us be frank. In Psychiatry, it is well known that many of the problems are medicated, not healed. People are forced to exist in a drug induced state in order to function, and that term is used very loosely. Medication is used because there is a fundamental inability to deal with the core issues. This is the impotency of which we speak. There is no God-empowered command that causes the dead to live and the rebellious to heel. There is no worldview that rises above. No hope on the horizon that can be given – particularly from the secular standpoint.

Therefore, it is absolutely necessary that we grasp the importance of the fact that the elder operates under God’s commission and with His authority. The elder operates within the Biblical worldview and thus gives God’s answers to the troubles of this world. These attributes are not known to the secular counsellor, even the Christian counsellor, for at some point, they seek to introduce another worldview that conflicts with the Biblical worldview.

As an example, you would not go to a witchdoctor for advice, would you? Yet, the secular science of psychology comes from the same poisonous root. So why do we give it credence simply because it comes from a university? What makes this theory or view of Man more acceptable than the one outlined by God in His Word?

Friends, it is here that we come to the pointy end of the stick, for the essence of our contention, as we have noted, comes down to a clash of worldviews and to these two questions:

a) Will we faithfully accept what God says about Man and His creation as it is revealed in Scripture or will we seek out another worldview, another wisdom that is more acceptable to us in our circumstance?

b) Which man will we choose to counsel us—the man who stands with God’s authority and administers wisdom according to the Biblical worldview or will we seek out the man of compromise who seeks to supplant God’s wisdom with the wisdom of fallen Man; baptised though it may be?

Footnotes:

[1] It must also be remembered that in the Biblical covenantal paradigm, counselling and preaching can also legitimately harden a person in their rebellion so that God’s judgement is proved just (Psalm 51:4; See also Exodus 9:16 and Romans 9:17 as a practical example). God’s word is, as it always has been, both life and death. It is to one the aroma of life; to another the stench of death (2 Corinthians 2:15-16). It is for this reason that much of the modern Church Growth theory should be despised and rejected. The truth does not in every case bring life. Sometimes it brings death. The only sure, categorical, and absolute statement that we can make in regard to God’s Word proclaimed is this: So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it (Isaiah 55:11).

[2] This is not to say that personal qualities are not important; they are! Biblically, the office of elder is only open to those who have certain, proven character traits. The point here is that we do not elect a good man, but a righteous man. We do not elect a smart man, but a wise man. We do not elect the popular man, but the godly man. We do not elect the rich man, but the spiritually wealthy man. We do so, on God’s command, so that, once in office, these traits are subject to and magnified by the power of God’s Spirit. Such a man becomes a powerful instrument in God’s hands because he is blessable; he is a worthy instrument through which God will work. As such he stands in God’s stead and should not be trifled with.

[3] Some may doubt this. If so, please turn to Exodus 16:2&8. There you will see that Israel grumbled against Aaron and Moses and in so doing they grumbled against the Lord.

[4] See Ezekiel 37:1ff.

[5] Hebrews 3:8-11.

[6] Is it not for this very reason that we are urged to attend upon the preaching of the Word in constancy. We are in absolute need of hearing God’s word – Christ’s voice – proclaimed with His full authority.

[7] It may be an oversimplification, but it is worth remembering that Man is a subordinate being to God. Thus God was right to give the Ten Commandments and not the Ten Suggestions or the Ten Helpful Pointers.

[8] It is worth noting the power of secularism at this point. Many pastoral care positions that are now advertised require that the applicant be eligible for enrolment in a Psychological Association or some such. This requirement alone generally rules out the Biblical counsellor and therefore puts the pressure on this group to undertake further studies so as to be “approved”. In essence, these situations effectually force a compromise. It also sees the field heavily stacked in favour of Humanism.

[9] 1 Timothy 3:15.

[10] Volume 61, N^o 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 166.

[11] A pertinent example, here, is that of abortion. At every step along the way it was argued that legalising abortion would do away with the need for backyard practitioners who were causing pain and death. Yet, legalising abortion did not resolve this problem. The very same argument was once again paraded in the recent discussion over the abortion drug RU86.

Belief in God’s Revelation (Pt 2)

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

If the Church’s primary ailment is unbelief,[1] then throwing another programme at a perceived symptom will do very little. As we noted in the introduction to this series, treating the symptom is but a slowing down of the death process. It is not a cure.

Therefore, if we are to counter the ailment effectively, we must counteract the underlying cause. In this case, we do not need to institute yet another new programme. We simply need to encourage people to a true and profound belief in all that God has to say. We need to believe the whole counsel of God.[2]

I cannot pinpoint the exact date on which we decided by consensus to give up on believing God’s truth. It is fair to say that there has always been elements within the Church that have questioned what God has to say and have affirmed doctrines that are not in keeping with God’s revelation.

In the modern era, I believe that World War Two had a lot to do with the loss of faith and belief. Prior to WW2, Theological Liberalism was on the rise. It robbed the Scriptures of everything supernatural and internalised both faith and epistemology. In this trend, Theological Liberalism was but following the Secular trend of the exalted self.

When war broke out and millions of lives were thrown into chaos with people being forced to witness and endure brutalities scarcely heard of, people rightly sought answers. Sadly, Theological Liberalism had no answer. Liberalism could not impart understanding. It could give no reason. Most certainly, its comforts were but hollow words; heartless and without warmth.

Not surprisingly, Man began to question the point of a religion that could not provide answers to the basic questions of life.[3] Thus, Man turned further from the Church and found the warm embrace of Rationalism. This was but a natural step as the exalted self had been long courted by Rationalism. The Liberals had caused Christianity to be transformed into a mere shadow of its former self. This new emaciated Church was gaunt precisely because it had been taught to feed upon Man and not upon “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”[4]

At this point, we had a culture that was enamoured with the exalted self and the basic tenets of Individualism. From that point, we have simply witnessed an outworking of this process. We have seen our society completely dominated by rank Individualism. We witness it every day in the death of society and the fragmentation of our culture.

What of the Church? How has she faired? Well, to use terminology from WW2, She is absolutely “shell-shocked”! 1977 saw this trend of disbelief culminate in what came to be known as Union. At that time, the majority of the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches were rolled into one body, which we know today as the Uniting church.

One only has to look at the resultant state of that new body to see how disastrous the doctrines of the exalted self were and are. This body is almost devoid of any semblance of Christianity. It is noticeably void of anything closely resembling a belief in ‘the authoritative word of God’. Its doctrines are based not in Scripture, but in Secularism and Humanism.

What then of other denominations and those that refrained from joining the Union? Regrettably, the process of disbelief has largely continued unabated. It has to a lesser or greater degree infiltrated most denominations. The result of which has been disastrous.

Here is the problem. Having given up on God’s word as the source of truth, many denominations have drifted into a modern form of Liberalism. As we noted in the introduction, this is the sinister aspect of this ailment. Without a foundational belief in God’s word as their only authority, they will continue to drift. The one thing they must do is the one thing the exalted self does not want to do – completely trust God!

Tragically, this false belief has also had a major impact on those reform movements that have sprung up. When some good folk looked around the Church and saw that She was not having an impact upon the world; when they saw dwindling numbers; when they witnessed injustices; when they realised that people were not being converted, they set out with all good intent to improve things.

Enter the sinister ailment once again. When these people set out to find a cure they failed to realise that they had been so indoctrinated by the exalted self that they simply produced more symptoms. Rather than return wholeheartedly to the God of the Bible and His wondrous revelation, they looked to Man for wisdom. If the Bible was consulted, such consultations were completed in a selective manner; choosing only those texts that seemed to legitimise the new approach.

Consequently, when Church numbers dwindled, demography was proposed as the solution. When church services were poorly attended, entertainment was embraced as an answer. When fallen men found certain teachings unpalatable, the response was to reject those doctrines or to hide them from public view. When desires for different forms of worship were voiced, the corrective was found in the deliberate fragmentation of Christ’s body. When Sexism was raised as a criticism, all barriers were cast down – gender neutral Bibles were invented. When the Government enacted laws on vilification and equality, the reaction was to disown more doctrine and to simply remain silent.

All of these correctives, responses, reactions, and answers have availed naught precisely because they come from the same poisonous root. They are delivering more poisoned fruit, more symptoms, because they are the inventions of Man and not the declarations of God.

As well intentioned as these brethren may have been in their desire and efforts for reform, they failed to realise and react to the true problem, unbelief! As a consequence of this failure, their efforts realised and propagated a new set of errors (symptoms). Therefore, these labours have not led to the Church’s healing. On the contrary, She has been confined to Her sickbed for a prolonged stay.

If we truly want to realise a healthy Church; be a vibrant community of faith; attain to a faithful and pure Bride; offer up spiritual sacrifices; and be a holy priesthood, then we must truly, with all our heart, mind, and soul, believe God’s word and trust to His ways.

If there is one text that we must understand, it is Isaiah 55:8-11:

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.[5]

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the Bible should know that God’s ways are not Man’s ways. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God[6] and God’s true wisdom is not accepted by Man.[7]

Therefore, if we truly desire to see a healthy, vibrant, obedient, worshipping Church, we must put to death the exalted self and be pleased to wholeheartedly and tenaciously cling to the prescriptions of Almighty God – whether it makes sense to us or not!

Believe! As Jesus said, “Did I not say to you, if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”[8]

Part 3

[1] Hebrews 3:17-19 gives us a harsh reminder of the consequences of unbelief and the need we have to always guard against it – And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. Deuteronomy 8:20 sums up the Old Testament equivalent – Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God.

[2] Acts 20:27. The KJV uses “counsel”; the NIV “will”; the NASB “purpose”. ‘Counsel’ and ‘purpose’ are probably the better translations in that they imply the necessity of interaction and compliance on the part of the hearers.

[3] This is, of course, an irony as the alternate religion embraced by Man gave no answers to life’s questions either. It would seem that there was enough capital from the Christian worldview left in the bank to inspire some optimism. World War 2 completely shattered any remaining optimism and the subsequent years have shown that the bank account is continually in the red.

[4] Deuteronomy 8:3.

[5] The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977. Emphasis added.

[6] 1 Corinthians 3:19 – For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.

[7] 1 Corinthians 1:20-25 – Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[8] John 11:40. Yes, taken from a different context, but the principle holds. How do we expect to see the magnificent works of God in this world if we will not believe God’s word and what He says He will accomplish through that word?

Programme or Belief

Posted on October 3, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

There are, no doubt, many problems with the Church today. We may well say that the Church is sick. Like any illness and the necessary diagnosis, the physician must be able to distinguish the disease from the symptoms.

Much of what we see in the Church today are but symptoms of the disease. We can attempt to treat these symptoms, and they certainly need to be addressed, however, if we do not treat the underlying cause, we will be consumed by treatments that never lead to a cure.

Imagine a man with a festering sore on his leg. He goes to a doctor who does nothing but clean the wound, excise any dead flesh, and then redress the wound. In the end, this man will lose his leg and possibly his life. Yes, he is being treated, but only at a superficial level. The treatment will go on. The treatments will change as the wound grows and the necrosis consumes more of the man’s flesh. Yet, in the end, all you are doing is treating the symptom.

Whilst these treatments are necessary, the doctor must also address the cause. He must prescribe an antibiotic or antivenene to deal with the underlying source, otherwise the visible manifestation of the problem will only become more obvious, more serious, and, eventually, life threatening.

The Church is sick. Many have ideas about what is wrong. However, most are only looking at the symptoms. Suggestions about new programmes for this or that are promulgated and the appropriate propaganda developed. The trouble with this approach is to be found in the methodology itself. Where in the Bible do we read of “programmes”? How do we know that these are the panacea?

The Gospel is not a matter of having the appropriate programme; it is a matter of belief. As God’s creature, regenerate or not, we are obligated to believe what God says is true; not reinvent truth to suit our opinions, outlook, or self-established purpose.

Therefore, it must be said that much of the sickness in the Church derives from varying states of unbelief.[1] We are simply unable or, worse, unwilling to believe the Word of God. This unbelief manifests itself in various ways, but these manifestations are but symptoms of the greater and more sinister ailment.

The sinister nature of this ailment is to be seen in the fact that unless we begin to trust God and take Him at His word, we will never find the cure; for belief is the cure. All we will do is engage ourselves in another programme, which is nothing more than symptom chasing. We will swap bandages and bathe wounds, but we will not realise a cure.

You see, the whole “programme” philosophy is one that is suggested by the world. It is not something you will find in God’s word. Thus, the very fact that we tend to solve problems by “throwing another programme at it” clearly demonstrates that we have lost faith in God and His absolute Word. Consequently, we are seen to be following an ungodly philosophy in trying to bring health to the Church.

When we examine the Bible, we do not see programmes; stepped projects, or 5 point plans. The Biblical approach is very simple. It consists of a basic dialogue – God speaks; Man listens. Viewed differently, God speaks and Man either obeys or disobeys. Consequently, Man is either blessed or cursed.

The beauty of this system is its simplicity. If the Church is not prosperous we need only ask two questions: “Are we persecuted for righteousness sake?” or “Are we under judgement for disobedience?”

When the questions are this simple, we do not need “committees” or “programmes”. We simply need to exchange the “worldly programme” or “lie”, as Paul would term it, for a Biblical approach: 1. Listen to and believe God; 2. Act obediently upon His command.

Part 2

[1] In general, we may believe the key doctrines regarding Jesus. However, as soon as we move from these into essential everyday applications – also important doctrines – we see a great divergence.

Lines in the Sand

Posted on December 17, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In recent months we have been focusing upon the fact that Christians are involved in a global war. This war, by its very nature, encompasses each of us in every aspect of our lives. That is to say, you cannot escape the impact or consequence of this war even if you choose to be a pacifist – not an option for the Christian (1 Timothy1:18; 1 Timothy 6:12). The war is religious. It is, by necessary consequence, moral and ethical. Therefore, it is cultural.

It is for this reason that you cannot escape this war. Everything around you is impacted, to some degree, by this war. The future of our culture is being shaped by the salvos fired both yesterday and today. Many, unfortunately, do not see this. Think about this for a little while and you will see the truth of the matter. We may describe it in terms of Newton’s Third Law of Motion – every action has an equal and opposite reaction. If a politician makes a law today, that law must have consequences.1 Indeed, at some point down the track, it will have consequences. Those consequences may be minor. It may not amount to much more than a waste of tax-payer dollars and the raising of the blood pressure of some middle level, paper shufflers firmly entrenched in State bureaucracy. On the other hand, the impact could be huge with devastating effects that are seen for generations.

Of recent, our government has seemingly been bent on introducing us to legislation and policies that fit into the last category. Even as I write, there is a draft bill on “Discrimination” that sits waiting in the wings —a Bill laden with Humanistic error and which is aimed at tearing any remnants of the Bible’s God from this nation.

It is time for the Christians of this nation to draw a line in the sand and say, nay shout, “Enough is enough!”

For far too long, we, as Christians, have acquiesced to the government’s demands. Our insipid theology coupled with a desire to be popular, has led us into a dark and dangerous place. We have willingly taken money from the government to build our “Christian Schools”. Then the mean “Piper” wanted to be paid. His money came with strings and restrictions. Was having a new building really worth being made to dance to the Statist’s tune? We have allowed the government to dictate to us what shall be taught as “religious instruction” in State schools. I ask, “How do we, with a good conscience, teach a Christless gospel?” “What do we believe we are achieving by acquiescing to these false standards?” Yes, I will be criticised. Many good Christians teach RE, however, I have not meet one yet who has told me that they are free to open their Bible and say, “Thus says the Lord God!” To a man, they have all commented that they need to, in some degree, ‘be careful’ and move within the set curriculum. Some are very inventive in navigating this minefield. Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that there is a minefield in need of being navigated! Two points must be grasped. First, the Gospel of Jesus Christ is chained! Second, these are the good teachers! How many RE teachers come from Liberal and other false backgrounds and simply spew out the State approved pabulum?

Please understand, these points are merely illustrative of the way in which Christians have, to one degree or another, modified their belief system in order to please their Statist masters. Many other illustrations could be given. In the final analysis, we must ask, “What has been the outcome of this compromise?” Has the Church finally shown that it is open and tolerant enough to be trusted by the State? Has the State been convinced by our actions that we really are trying to “fit in” and join the “brotherhood of man”? Not at all. This is a war, remember! It is winner takes all. Compromise has only weakened Christianity. The opposite effect is that it has emboldened the State to continue on with its agenda of subjugation of people to its will. Therefore, it is time that Christians drew a line in the sand.

The State continues to demand allegiance to its core beliefs. It continues to pass legislation that enforces those beliefs. All dissenters are forced, in one way or another, to capitulate to the State’s demands. The more that is gained, the more the State hungers for total control. Do you believe this? Do you see this?

We started by noting the cultural war and its impact upon you and me. Let me give some examples of this war and how the State operates to subjugate.

Case 1. Some years ago, the local council made some funding available to local community groups under the heading “Game On.” The money was to encourage local community groups to celebrate the Commonwealth Games. Our homeschool group expressed interest. We met with the artist in charge. As leader of the group, I asserted from the outset that, as a Christians group, we would like to have a text of Scripture so that the artwork reflected our identity. The artist could see no problem with this. As a group, we chose the following words: “let us run with endurance the race set before us, fixing our eyes on Jesus, … so that you may not grow weary and lose heart.” This text was a modified form of Hebrews 12:1-3. It was chosen both to fit the theme and reflect our Christian perspective.

All was well for months. The children went on with their art work. Then came the news that there was a problem with the artwork and some of it would need to be remade. This was at first put forward under the guise that the artwork had been damaged. We met with the artist to begin work on the parts that we could use. At that meeting, she announced that the name of “Jesus” had to go!

First, condemnation belongs to the council for their decision but also for their utter cowardice. They did not have the intestinal fortitude to turn up and speak to us in person. When we finally arranged a meeting, we were stone-walled. The decision was made; no correspondence would be entered in to. They launched a war on Jesus and then hid in their bunker.

Second, note the war on Jesus. It is reminiscent of what the early Apostles endured – “let us warn them to speak no more to any man in this name” (Acts 4:17). We could have substituted Jesus name for something nebulous, such as creator, Supreme Being or God. In other words, we could have only that which was interpretable and which would be open to the majority of peoples and beliefs.

Third, and I believe in my heart that this was the greatest tragedy, I was the only one there that day that walked away from the project. All the others were willing to give up the name of Jesus to appease the Statist master and ultimately to ‘slip beneath the radar’. Please do not read this as a pat on the back for self. It is not. It is a heartfelt cry that Christians, of various denominations, would so easily give up the name of Jesus for peace — and we are talking a name on a table! What then are the Christians going to do when confronted with the barrel of a gun, deprivation, or incarceration?

Case 2. Foolishly, after the above incident, I went to work for said council. Never have I worked in such a godless place, but that is another topic. During my time, Big Brother invited me, against my will, to attend a seminar on Human Rights. What I learnt at that seminar was that the government has no respect for so called “Human Rights”. I objected to going to this meeting, but I was informed that it was compulsory. The State Government had amended legislation making it compulsory for all Local Government workers to be ‘brainwashed’ into believing the Humanistic nonsense entitled “Human Rights”.

At that time, my big boss, belonged to the Congregation of Rome. So I appealed to him. ‘This is nonsense. It cuts across what you and I believe. So why should we have to go?’ Answer: I do not want to go either, but it is compulsory!

The lesson should be obvious. We mentioned above that there is a certain rewrite of “Discrimination” legislation waiting in the wings. How is it that the same government that is out to quash discrimination, actively discriminates? How is it that the government pushing “Human Rights”, can trample all over my rights to establish theirs?

Having read parts of this draft legislation, it makes me laugh – muffled because it is serious. Have a guess at who is exempt from prosecution under this legislation? The Crown! So the Crown can discriminate without fear whilst telling others they are not to discriminate. (1:15 – The Crown is bound by the legislation but cannot be prosecuted for an offence.) You would probably also enjoy 2:21, “Special measures to achieve equality are not discrimination”. Now, it may be just me and my paranoia, but that sounds suspiciously like ‘enforced group therapy to bring about homogenous “line towing”’ is not to be considered as discrimination. Could this explain why I was compulsorily invited to attend a Human Rights seminar?

Case 3. Recently, I had a chat with a friend regarding the name of an author. I asked if he knew this person. He responded by saying, “Yes. It is me!” (Forgive the vagueness, but I wish to protect him.) Naturally, I sought an explanation for the nom de plume. It was fairly succinct. He had obtained a job in a department that wants its employees to ‘be seen to be neutral’. So it was suggested that any forays into the public arena, particularly with strongly held – and I am guessing, running contrary to the party line – opinions, were best expressed under an assumed name.

Let me be clear. I am not saying that my friend was the only one who received this advice. I am merely highlighting the fact that “he did” receive this advice.

The real point is this: Do you think that this department is governed by existing anti-discrimination legislation? I would think so. Therefore, regardless of who the employee is, such advice should not be given, it is, in fact, illegal to put forward such a suggestion, especially by a department of this type.

Again, we focus on the State’s utter hypocrisy. The State busies itself preparing legislation that is meant to bring about equality and the freedom of the individual, but then tells individuals that they cannot express certain sentiments or, if they do, they should do it under another name. It is this second aspect that is important.

The State’s anti-discrimination legislation is nothing less than a postmodern denial of truth. The theory posits that there are no absolutes, especially when it comes to epistemology. Consequently, it is asserted that the subjective opinion of each and every man is equally valid. This is what anti-discrimination legislation seeks to protect. In itself this legislation is a philosophic oxymoron, for this legislation seeks to make an absolute for governing the subjective and in so doing proposes something contradictory to its own presupposition, namely that absolutes do not exist! It is therefore a logical fallacy. However, I digress.

Having asserted that every opinion is valid, the government then legislates to force everyone to accept their nonsense position. In order to be seen to operate within the bounds of their own laws, the government does not forbid, in most cases, its employees to speak in the public square. Hence, the second piece of advice – change your name if you do! It would be obvious to all that the government was being inconsistent if it forbade people to speak, to express their subjective non-absolutes on a particular topic. However, having adopted the untenable position that they have, the last thing the government wants is people pulling their straw man apart; especially people on their payroll who can be traced back to the inner sanctum.

What is all important here is the guise! You see the government would prefer you not to be a Christian – because those odd people who believe in absolutes and objective truth are a darn spanner in the works! However, their plan “B” is to manipulate people into appearing and acting as though all operate on the same basis. It is akin to Mrs Bucket in “Keeping up Appearances.” You smooth the pronunciation of “bucket” with a French touch so that it sounds more like “bouquet” and you sit beside the phone waiting for the Queen to phone. Yet all the time you are just a commoner whose name is “bucket”. In other words, whilst the State would be happy for you to abandon your Christian belief, and this is their ultimate goal, they will settle, in the short term, for your acquiescence to their ideals (playing by their rules) and a desertion of any overt statements on your part. Therefore, hand-in-hand with their anti-discrimination legislation comes legislation that makes it illegal for you to express your supposed subjective opinions anywhere outside of your house or place of worship.

Case 4. Harking back to my foolishness in going to work for the local council, I must confess that I nearly did not. After going through the interview process and being offered the position, I received my employment contract. In that contract was a clause that stated that whilst employed by Council I could make no negative comments in the media concerning Council. I could understand the clause that said that I was not authorised to speak to the media on behalf of Council. However, this clause was different. It took away my right as a citizen to express my views in the public square, at least on certain issues. Remember, this is the same organisation that made me go to a “Human Rights” seminar whilst trampling on my supposed ‘rights’ multiple times.

Conclusion:

Having meandered through a few topics, it is time to pull them all together.

We are in a cultural war. That war is reality because of our government’s insistence on continued rebellion against God. Romans 13 clearly shows that government is a minister of God and that it is to be a righteous instrument in His hand. However, like man, it is fallen. It will be used rightly by righteous people or it will be used wrongly by those who are evil and misguided. At present, government, nationwide, is under the management of usurpers and God haters. Even where Christians exist, they seem reluctant to make a stand or incapable of putting forward solid arguments for change.

Therefore, we are constantly bombarded with legislation, policy, and directives that push us further from God’s grace and unto His wrath and judgement.

Much of this has happened because of the Christians acquiescence, for one reason or another, to the Statist’s demands. In saying this, I do not stand on the moral high ground. I have used my own poor example of how easily we can be lured into compromise. It is also worth noting that some of this is subtle. I applied for a job as a “garbo”. I simply did not expect the employment contract to contain some of the things it did. To me they were relevant because I write on social issues. To most, it would have been irrelevant. The point is, nonetheless, that it was there and people, of all beliefs, signed up to it. This Council employed over 300 people. That means that over 300 people agreed to be silent on certain issues. It means that 300 people decided “not to bite the hand that feeds” no matter what errors they encountered.

You see my friends, this is how the Statist master forces, coerces, and deceives. None of us took on a position because we were desperate to be gagged. Yet, that is essentially what happened. Despite all the various types of legislation that exist; despite all the militant lawyers looking for the big win and headlines, clauses like this are written in to contracts all the time and people, wittingly or otherwise, sign up to them.

I mentioned earlier that policies like these have a total cultural impact. Some may query this. Let’s follow this example. 300 odd people signed up to employment on the basis of not speaking against Council. This meant that, in essence, 300 inside and informed perspectives were denied to the wider community. Equally, those same 300 people were “made” to attend a “Human Rights” seminar. Thus, these 300 were abused over and over. Having been employed by Local Government, they became the government’s drones. They were denied the right to speak. They were forced to attend seminars that denied them basic rights – after all, a child can be exempt from religious instruction on the request of a parent, but we were denied that option.

Then think about those 300 people. Most had families. How did all these policies influence those wider families? Is it possible that dad does not be a proper dad now because he is trying to respect the “rights and dignity” of his 3 year old as defined by Humanism? Does mum no longer abide her place as her husband’s helpmeet because she has “rights” and is entitled to express them?

Then we must ask, “What of all the other Local Governments whose employees were also forced into these seminars?” How many do they number? The answer to that is hidden in the fact that there are over 70 Councils in Victoria all of whose employees would have been required to attend seminars similar to the one mentioned. If we allow an average of 100 employees per council, we arrive at a number of around 7000.

Then we can think of the other levels of Government. How many employees in State and Federal governments are subjected to this tyranny? Well, according to the world of Wiki, there were over 160,000 people employed under the Public Service Act 1999 for the 09-10 financial year. That figure really only accounts for the Federal Government. We could go on, but I believe that you understand my point. Thousands of people across this nation are being constrained to attend propaganda seminars run by our governments to reinforce their agenda. These operations must have an impact on our culture. Even if only 10% of these people leave those meetings convinced, it is 10% fewer that have to be convinced. It is 10% that will now operate according to and regurgitate the State’s position.

In order to drive this point home, I would like to raise two illustrations. The first is more relevant to the more mature – the polite term for aged. Those of us who were around before the “wall” fell will remember the horror with which the former Russia was described. We would revile in an instant when we were confronted with the forced indoctrination of the Soviet peoples. We saw a culture disintegrate before our eyes because the Socialist monster had denied generations the right to think or express anything but that which the State had approved. Jails were filled with people whose only crime was to speak out against the establishment or to hold an opinion that was deemed contrary to the State. I ask you, “Can you not see the parallels between the Russia of old and what is being realised before your eyes in your own country?”

The second illustration came from a mission organisation. They showed a film on Christians in Egypt. It explained how these Christians were free to worship God in Jesus and to teach their religion, but only within the bounds of the Church building. These people could not move outside their church building and say anything. To do so would bring swift condemnation. In watching this, the tragedy was that so many Christians immediately felt sympathy for these people; they were incensed at the injustice; yet it did not seem to gel with them that we are experiencing these very same laws here in Australia. It is already illegal in some parts of this country to make statements on certain topics outside of the church building. How long will these exemptions apply? How long will it be before our sermons and worship need to be approved by the State censor?

Many will scorn in answering these questions. Labels will be appended, and so on. However, none of that alters the evidence. Name calling does not dismiss the proof that is before our eyes.

These actions on the part of the government will only be stopped when Christians draw the line in the sand. We, for the most part, are the only ones who can see clearly in order to understand and repudiate the false claims of the State. This is not magic. It is the consequence of a redeemed mind and will (Romans 12:1-2). It is what happens when Jesus claims a life as His and, removing the veil of death and sin, makes a person truly alive (Romans 6:12-14). Consequently, like Ezekiel the watchmen, we must stand on the cultural parapet and cry out to our countrymen (Ezekiel 33:1-9). Sadly, it seems to me, the watchman is asleep.

If the Christians will not draw the line in the sand, who will? If the Christians truly believe that Jesus Christ is the only Son of God and the only way of Salvation, when will they begin to resist all demands both to compromise this message and the way of life by which it is proclaimed? If government, like man and the Church, were made and instituted for the glory of God alone, when will the Christians begin to demand that the government serve God through Jesus Christ (Romans 13-1 & 6)? The line in the sand must be draw.

Let me go one step further. The line in the sand has been draw. It was draw a long time ago. It was drawn by the finger of God. The reason it is no longer visible is because the enemies of God have long transgressed that boundary and God’s warriors, the Church and the Christian, have done little to repel such incursions. Explaining it this way may help the Christians of this nation to see that it is not simply enough to assume God’s authority, draw a new line, and make peace with those that oppose God and His Christ. No. Our job is nothing other than to oust the enemy and push them back to God’s line of demarcation.

I call upon you now to draw a line in the sand and shout “Enough!”, but not in defiance of God or as a usurper of His authority. Rather, the call is in terms of a covenant and a testimony before God that our compromise and sin has been great and that this day, in full repentance, we begin to push back. May this line serve one purpose only; that of being a testimony to our compromise and a constant reminder of our need to push the enemy back to God’s line of demarcation (Joshua 4:1-7). We should look over our shoulder daily to see this new line disappear out of sight. We should look forward every day to see God’s line looming large in our sight.

Brethren, let us draws this line as a sign of our repentance and as a symbol of our dedication to God and His statutes, revealed in Jesus Christ, wriiten down and brought to remembrance through the Holy Spirit. Let us, in the Name of Jesus Christ, show our love and dedication to our God in Trinity and take back our Father’s world.

1. For example, If that law promotes evil; the opposite effect is that it must diminish righteousness. Although we are focussing on government, the same is true of the Church. If the Church preaches error, the opposite reaction is that it diminishes righteousness. If the Church preaches righteousness, the opposit effect is that evil diminishes.

Of Kiddie Fiddlers, the Church, and the State

Posted on November 17, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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 Essence of War: Part 2

Posted on November 8, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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?”

Reformers Reforming: Post Tenebras Lux

Posted on November 5, 2012 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Most are familiar with the Reformation and the cry, post tenebras lux – after darkness, light! This cry, issued by the Reformers, illustrated the very heart of and need for reform within the Church. Darkness had enveloped the world and it was necessary for the Light to shine. What was this darkness? It had to do with the fact that the True Light, coming into the world (John 1:9), had been placed under a basket. Little flashes of light were seen from time to time, sneaking through the weave, but for the most part, the light was contained.

This state arose because the Church, appointed by Jesus Christ to proclaim His Law-Word to the ends of the earth, and therefore to shine the light to its greatest degree, abandoned the idea of service to Christ for an attitude of self-service. In short, the Church began to serve its own purposes, desires, and inclinations. The message of the Gospel was forgotten. The proclamation of Jesus as the only means of reconciliation to God, with all its attendant good for the world, was replaced by a proclamation of Rome and Her own importance.

Instead of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and the fullness of His being as the very revelation of God – a revelation that brought truth, purpose, meaning, freedom, reconciliation, and light to those who dwelt in darkness – Rome brought error, hopelessness, confusion, slavery, discord – especially between man and God – and the light was shut up. So darkness fell! As darkness fell, ignorance grew. Men were as far from God as ever. Sadly, the institution appointed to bear light, chose darkness instead.

Into this situation, by God’s merciful hand of providence, came a long line of Reformers. They had a motto: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God”) The Reformers understood that true light could only be attained by a faithful proclamation of the True Light – Jesus Christ the Righteous Son of God. However, they did not simply stop at proclamation. They went to the source document, the Bible, to see exactly what God had revealed and commanded of men. They were no longer guessing in the dark. They opened God’s eternal word written and therein found God’s eternal Word living. They found the Light of the world and they began to let that Light shine; and this by faithful and obedient proclamation of the whole counsel of God.

Why are these points raised? Why the little history lesson? These questions are best answered by the old saying, “Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.” The argument, here, is that once again the Church is failing in her duty to faithfully proclaim the truth of the Light, Jesus Christ. Once more, we see departures from and a weakening of the Light – the proclamation of the whole counsel of God as revealed in Jesus the Christ. We once more see institutions begin to be self-serving, rather than self-sacrificing. We see some sectors of the Church unsure as to where to look for answers. Such a state will only bring in ever increasing amounts of compromise. This compromise will in turn lead to darkness, confusion, and slavery.

When faced with such a situation, we necessarily must ask, ‘What is the best way forward?’ The answer, the sole answer, in this situation is to return to the cry of the Reformation – “The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God!” This creed, if you will, gives us the sure foundation because it encapsulates all the necessary aspects of successful Church life. In contrast to this full creed, the moderns are tempted in one of two ways, both of which bring disaster to the Church and to its function as a faithful proclaimer of the Light.

The first error is seen when the creed is altered to, “the church reformed, reformed according to the Word of God.” The change here is subtle, but it essentially makes the Reformation, a fact of history, the be-all and end-all of Church reform. The problem with this view is that it fails to grasp the idea that the Church is a living organism. In this view, the only reform the Church needed, and which it will receive, has happened and we must cling tenaciously to every word uttered some 500 years ago, as though that is the last word. This view, however, misses the clear fact that, by its very nature, the Church must grow and mature. It must turn from a seed to a giant tree, which, in this case, fills the whole world. None of us would be satisfied if we reached puberty and stopped developing. The horticulturists amongst us would not be satisfied with a yard full of immature plants. Imagine a summer without the ripe fruits because all the trees had budded, but no bud had matured. Similarly, the Church is alive and it is growing. Consequently, it must change. It must pass through different stages of growth.

The second error is seen when the creed is altered to, “The church, always reforming!” Here, we clearly encounter the desire for change, but note that the standard of change has been omitted. God’s word no longer holds the place as the sole director of the Church’s life. Rather, we are influenced by men, vain philosophies, and dare it be said, carnal desires. It seems that this is the particular situation that plagues the Church of today.

In such circumstances, we encounter a flurry of activity. People, left, right, and centre, are running a programme for this and a programme for that. There is always one new, sure–fire, guaranteed way to fill the Church or to have a greater impact upon society—that is, until it is discarded for the next sure-fire, guaranteed way and so on! The problem at this point is singular. We have omitted from our creed the one objective standard that would give sure guidance and which would allow the Light to shine. That objective standard is God’s word, the Bible. It is not a coincidence that, in the post-modern world, the Church’s rejection of Scripture as its sole authority has led to a post-modern infiltration into the Church in which ‘men do what is right in their own eyes’.

Examples of this modern approach abound, here are two, taken from two different mission organisations: “To that end, people are given the freedom to experiment with new ideas and implement creative methods and even if they fail, they can try again. … We encourage men and women to use whatever means will be effective in communicating the gospel. Creative ideas, innovative strategies and unique concepts are being employed….” “We do not encourage the espousing of doctrinal emphases that could and would divide us and distract us away from our objectives.”

Please note the absolute lack of reliance upon God’s word. Rather, we see that men are to “experiment” and realise “creative methods.” Why? Is it the case that if they happen upon the exact method of success they will patent it, bottle it, and ship it to every Church? It would seem not. Sadly, all this creativity is couched in words that expect failure! Interesting. Does God in His word expect failure? Is God at present sitting in the heavens bewildered and distraught that He cannot make things work according to His purposes and plans? Methinks not (Isaiah 46:8-11)! The modern Church is filled with those whose activities are not governed “according to the word of God.” Consequently, they are trying to reinvent the “theological wheel”. They experiment and become creative in a vain hope, rather than taking instruction from the only wise God (Romans 16:27).

Then we view the second quotation. Heaven forbid that doctrine should get in the way of men’s ideas. Well, no! May God forbid that men’s ideas should get in the way of true doctrine! The believers in the early Church had “all things in common. (Acts 2:43)” This included doctrine. They all believed the same thing in regard to Jesus Christ, His person, work, and purpose. Why is it today that we want to avoid doctrine and that we are certain that Biblical doctrine will divide rather than unite? Could it be that we prefer the subjective autonomy provided to us by a post-modern world where truth is unknowable and where we can rule our lives according to our own standards, rather than by God’s standard?

Here is a plea for a vibrant, healthy, maturing, Church, in which the redeemed constantly and consistently “proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light!” (1 Peter 2:9) It is a plea to be consistent with the Reformational creed. Let us realise and glory in the fact that the Church is a living entity and that it is encumbered upon Her to meet each new challenge in every subsequent age. It must be said – lightening rods on standby – that Luther, Calvin, and co, did not have everything nailed down. However, let us also understand that the Church’s obligation in these challenges is not to rely on man’s inventiveness or creativity. It is, rather, to declare, “Thus says the Lord God!”

The path to a living, maturing, vibrant church, that truly impacts the world and glorifies God, is to be found in humble, covenantal obedience to the Biblical standards revealed in Jesus Christ and attested by the Holy Spirit. It is found in believing and applying God’s revealed objective standard, the Bible, and not in man’s subjective invention.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Ecclesiology