Kevin’s Dudd  Position! No not a spelling mistake. A deliberate play in order to highlight the nonsense that has come to underpin the whole argument in support of homosexual union by supposed Christians.

Much has been and is being written in regard to the continued push for homosexual union. As a writer, it is sometimes hard to know when to lay the pen down and allow the content to filter through people’s minds. One does not want to bore the readers. However, there is that old adage in regard to the preacher who, having been asked the secret of preaching, responded, “First, I tell them. Then, I tell them again. Then I tell them what I told them!”

In following this principle there will no doubt be repetition. Equally, we hope there will be major differences. At Reformation Ministries, we try to expose the latent ideas that give rise to particular cultural forms. Many people battle against the form and not against the basic idea on which that form is built. The consequence of battling form is that there is always something new. If we destroy the idea, we destroy all forms that would come from it. Think of it this way. One can attempt to kill every wasp they encounter or they could destroy the nest. We want to destroy the nest.

The point! Mr Rudd has come out in support of homosexual union. What to do? His arguments need to be rebuffed because they are typical of those advance by Liberal Christians and seized upon by the pagan’s to bolster their claims. Consequently, Christians need to be made aware of these arguments and they need to be armed against them. This the raises the questions, “What is the best manner to achieve this outcome? In the end, we decided to reprint his reasons in full and add comments on each paragraph. This makes for more reading, but we hope that it be comprehensive and have a greater impact.[1]

To Mr Rudd’s credit, he at least tried to outline his position and give reasons for why he has changed his mind. Most supporters of homosexual union wall themselves behind “bigotry” and claim to be unassailable. In other words, they will not give reasons, they simply make great statements to the effect that “if you do not support … you must be a narrow-minded bigot with a draconian mindset”.

Having Mr Rudd’s reasons in print is helpful. So let us explore them.

 I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman. For me, this change in position has come about as a result of a lot of reflection, over a long period of time, including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith.[2]

          RM: The most obvious deficiency that is immediately apparent is that there is a belief in neutrality. The position espoused essentially believes that both Church and State can simply “agree to disagree” and merrily move on – living happily ever after!

This is most certainly the inane content of fairy tales! Just as Creation and Evolution fight for the same patch of turf, so does the Church and  “Secular” State[3] on the issue of Marriage and homosexual union. There simply is no compromise to be had.

Think this through. The state legalises homosexual union and in so doing exempts the Church from performing such unions. Great! No, not even close. What about the family unit that is central to both Church and State and which, in God’s order, is an institution in itself that must be respected and honoured by the previously mention institutions? The Church gains an exemption in performing a ritual, but will the family be exempt from teaching that homosexual union is not legitimate?

This is but the first movement of the lid on Pandora’s Box. What of the Christian business man? Will he be exempt from employing those joined in such a union because it cuts across his belief? Will the Christian school be exempt? Will the Christian home be exempt? What about Christian advertising on radio, television, and in print? Will I be able to write and publish an article that deposes the whole concept as wrong?

Sadly, these questions have already been answered. The horrendous ‘equality laws’ set in place by successive governments have ensured that no one can raise a voice in opposition to the Government. I am in the process of writing another article with strong words in it and I know that should someone take those words to the “law” I could be in trouble. That is the state of play in this nation today.

Thus, it is absolutely naïve on the part of Mr Rudd to reduce this issue to a mere exemption on the part of the Church.[4] Mr Rudd needs to think long and hard about how this will impact on the individuals and families that make up both Church and State. How do I divide myself? I am a member of society as I am a member of the Church. Must I now have a split personality so that different parts of me can swear allegiance to different institutions? Mr Ruddneeds to think diligently about the practical consequences of what this law means, not for the infinitesimal minority who seek homosexual union, but for the large majority that oppose it.

Then there is the glaring error – What is a Secular State? Whilst the Bible recognises the validity of the State as a God-ordained institution, the Bible knows nothing of this State that rules unto itself. Romans 13 clearly shows that Government is appointed by God as a minister for good. What good? God’s good! In other words, the Government is bound to act by and institute God’s principles and laws. When the Government differentiates between the individual to be praised and the individual to be condemned, the differentiation is to be that revealed by God in His law.

When a Government rejects this paradigm, then it essentially loses its right to govern. At this point the Bible ceases to use the word “Government” and speaks more of “rebels” and “usurpers”. Thus, Mr Rudd is actively promoting the concept of “government without God”. In promoting this position, Mr Rudd is espousing not only that God does not participate in the affairs of men, but that He indeed cannot participate in the deeds of men. The logical consequence is nothing less than a Ruddology which proclaims that there are spheres over which God does not and cannot reign. Omnipotence? Flushed! Omnipresence? Flushed! Omniscience? What is the point? God has been barred by man!

One Saturday morning in Canberra, some weeks ago, a former political staffer asked to have a coffee. This bloke, who shall remain nameless, is one of those rare finds among political staffers who combines intelligence, integrity, a prodigious work ethic, and, importantly, an unfailing sense of humour in the various positions he has worked in around Parliament House. Necessary in contemporary politics, otherwise you simply go stark raving mad.

And like myself, this bloke is a bit of a god-botherer (aka Christian). Although a little unlike myself, he is more of a capital G God-Botherer. In fact, he’s long been active in his local Pentecostal Church.

Over coffee, and after the mandatory depressing discussion about the state of politics, he tells me that he’s gay, he’s told his pastor (who he says is pretty cool with it all, although the same cannot be said of the rest of the church leadership team) and he then tells me that one day he’d like to get married to another bloke. And by the way, “had my views on same sex marriage changed?”.

          RM: Take this in very carefully. Yes, I know he has not said much, but this is important. In these paragraphs you are witnessing the psychological setting. This is the equivalent of the Mills and Boon, “Their eyes met across a smoke filled room…” at which people’s hearts melt, men weep silently in dark corners, and women order bulk packs of tissues online!!

To be a tad more serious, please note the flow. It is coffee. We are with another supposed Christian. Out of the blue comes the announcement about his homosexuality. Then we have the wonderful acceptance by the pastor; but wait, there is more. Then comes the bigoted draconians that form the rest of the leadership team.

Back to the movies. We have just met the enlightened heroes and the bad guys. Now we have to buy our popcorn and watch what is about to unfold. Of course, for those who have seen a few Westerns, the story is over at this point. We know the enlightened hero – good guy – always gets his man and sees to it that the “bad guys” are “done down”.

Now reread Mr Rudd’s opening paragraph. Note the comments toward the end on “including conversations with good people grappling with deep questions of life, sexuality and faith.” See how we have been led. These seemingly innocuous paragraphs have been placed there to emotionally disarm. ‘How dare we oppose these poor people who are such wonderful individuals!’ ‘Such a heinous thing to do when they are struggling with these deep questions!’

More will be said later, but please note Mr Rudd’s authority – his own experience! This gels with Tony Windsor’s back flip on this issue. In his case, he witnessed a ceremony and found it wonderfully moving. Beware when emotions trump morals! Be very afraid when the opinion of the transient individual trumps the command of the eternal God!

As most folks know, in our family I have long been regarded as the last of the Mohicans on this one. The kids have long thought I’m an unreconstructed dinosaur for not supporting marriage equality legislation. And Thérèse just looks at me with that slightly weary, slightly exasperated, slightly pitying “there, there darling, you’ll get over it one day” sort of look, that wives can be particularly good at giving to their antediluvian husbands.

          RM: What does familial opinion have to do with morality? The “antediluvian” concept is a good one. Pre-flood there were many families whose opinions were at odds with God and His law. God’s response was to separate righteous Noah and his family and call everyone else to account through His judgement in the flood.

Very few things surprise me in life and politics anymore. But I must confess the Pentecostal staffer guy threw me a bit. And so the re-think began, once again taking me back to first principles. First, given that I profess to be a Christian (albeit not a particularly virtuous one) and given that this belief informs a number of my basic views; and given that I am given a conscience vote on these issues; then what constitutes for me a credible Christian view of same sex marriage, and is such a view amenable to change? Second, irrespective of what that view might be, do such views have a proper place in a secular state, in a secular definition of marriage, or in a country where the census tells us that while 70% of the population profess a religious belief, some 70% of marriages no longer occur in religious institutions, Christian or otherwise.

          RM: Okay people. Strap in! This is where the ride really begins. Here we come to the crux of the Rudd conundrum – the man is “Christian” in name only! Why does this Christian thing only inform a number of “basic views”? The Biblical position is that God’s man will become an analogue of God, thinking His thoughts after Him. Not just some thoughts, but all thoughts. God’s commands to His people “to be Holy as He is holy” and “to be perfect as He is perfect” are not symbolic of partial surrender or partial commitment. They tell us that all is to be surrendered – “we are taking every thought captive to the obedience of Christ”[5]—not just some thoughts!

 Jesus says, “If you love me, you will keep my commands!” Does Mr Rudd really love Jesus, if he will not yield to all or any of His commands? Jesus also says that His commands are not burdensome (Matthew 11:30). Now, I know we have to do a bit of theology here, but it is worth it. Jesus is not just a man. Jesus is God. The Church has believed this from “dot”. Thus, Jesus’ statements mean that the Christian is obliged to all the commands in Scripture and that through our love for God and desire to honour Him we will not find any of His requirements in life or worship to be burdensome. So why does Mr Rudd only insist on a “number of basic views” rather than upon total surrender to Jesus Christ?

Then we come to the conscience vote. Note well, the Australian Labor Party may allow such a vote, but God does not! Mr Rudd is under the delusion that the tenets of Christianity are somehow open to debate. One is not sure where he gained this perverted view, but we are sure it did not come from God’s Self-revelation in the Bible.

Now the absolute crux: “What constitutes for me a credible Christian view…?” Herein is the source of all Mr Rudd’s problems. He is a Humanist! The final arbiter of life and faith for Mr Rudd is none other than “Kevin 07” himself.

Friends, please take serious note of this point. We are constantly subjected to the world’s nonsense that Christians cannot agree; that there is diversity of opinion in the Church, etc, etc, ad nauseum! Please, tell the world to “take a hike.” Please tell them to stop building straw men and either torching them or setting them on gold pillars. I know they will not listen. However, I have an ulterior motive. In your telling them, you will convince yourself and, at the very least, hold them to account.

Sadly, there is an unhealthy diversity today. However, we must realise that most of the diversity comes from travesties. Already today I have read a criticism of something put out by the Australian Christian Lobby. Who did the news people go to for criticism? That is right, the Uniting Club (I refuse to call it a church)! This apostate, perverted, hell-procuring organisation has been allowed to strut its evil for too long. When will the True Church condemn this organisation and shun it rather than dialogue with it – what fellowship has light with worthless fellows?[6] I digress slightly, but the point remains – it is the World that chases worldly opinion in the guise of truth!

Here, the world is utterly hypocritical. If the world hates the Church, why ask for its opinion on anything or from anyone?[7] Not possible. They must muck rake and divide, even to the point of citing those that they know have no real credibility. Our shame is that we have not repudiated the false institutions and sought by prayer and action to expose them. Thus, this canker has been left to infect our land and to give fodder and ammunition to the World.

Friends, it is time to regain the concept of “speaking the truth”. Truth spoken in love is still truth. If our perception of love alters the message, then we neither speak in love or with truth. This is the delusion of our age.

In regard to this point, understand and proclaim that Kevin Rudd is an outright Humanist. He wears the appellation “Christian” in name only. There is nothing in his life, speech, or conduct that would lead us to believe that Kevin Rudd is a saved, Bible believing Christian. In fact, there is much evidence to the contrary – evidence from his own mouth and pen.[8] Being an unconvinced Humanist, change is possible. Opinion can meander and waver precisely because it is not founded upon the eternal rock that is Jesus Christ.

Being a Humanist, Mr Rudd then moves on to muse regarding the place of certain Christian ethics in a secular state. Again, this belies the true position of his mind. Mr Rudd does not affirm God’s revelation in Romans 13, which says that the State is a minister of God for good and that as a consequence the State must be subject to God in all things. Rather, he divorces the State from God’s jurisdiction. Therefore, Mr Rudd has declared that, as a consequence of his position, God has nothing to say on law, theft, murder, rape, justice, family, taxation, property ownership, etcetera, etcetera. Why? God has now been confined within the walls of the local church.

It is this constant refusal by Mr Rudd, throughout this article, to acknowledge the Lordship of Jesus Christ that belies his Humanistic heart. Man reigns in Mr Rudd’s worldview, not God. Man governs, not God. If God is allowed any space, it is to be found in the Church alone – and then, only with the permission of the State!!

Lastly, we are confronted by the dreaded “statistic”. What do these numbers prove? Really, they are inconsequential. As we noted above, this is more of the world’s hypocrisy. For 40 years the governments of this land have attacked both Marriage and the Family. They have eroded, undermined, sabotaged, and torn at the Biblical model. Now, surveying the mess they have created, they use statistics to prove that our culture seems to be turning away from God! Wow. Move over Nostradamus. Here comes Kevin 07!!

As we have said many times already, we are at the point of considering and pushing for homosexual union precisely because the true essence of Marriage and the purpose of the Family have been destroyed by successive governments. Homosexual union and interspecies union are but the end result of a destructive rampage against the ordinances of God. Is this not what Romans 1 explicitly teaches? Homosexuality is God giving man to his rebellious desires as a judgement. The prevalence and acceptance of homosexuality in our community and a community being forced to accept it, shows that we are a Judged people.

These statistics are but the result of a ‘self-fulfilling prophecy’, properly “nightmare”. These rulers have sought to throw off the imperative of God. Having partly succeeded, they now quote the results of their own handiwork as a means of inspiring others to complete the work they have begun.

The Christian tradition since Aquinas is one based on a combination of faith informed by reason. If the latter is diminished, then we are reduced to varying forms of theocratic terrorisms where the stoning of heretics and the burning of witches would still be commonplace. In fact if we were today to adhere to a literalist rendition of the Christian scriptures, the 21st century would be a deeply troubling place, and the list of legitimized social oppressions would be disturbingly long.

          RM: Again we face Humanism. Aquinas was a humanist. Note the small “m”. Aquinas built his epistemology on Rationalism. In other words, he worked from reason to faith. This was in direct distinction to Augustine who admitted that revelation was necessary in order to know.

Given this, I am not in the least surprised that Mr Rudd has sided with Aquinas. The problem with this position, and one from which Rome still suffers, is that “reason” ends up effectually trumping “faith”.[9] Whilst I believe absolutely that Christianity is “reasonable”, that is, it can be defended to the reason, this is not for what Mr Rudd is arguing. Rather, he is stating that any claim in the Bible must be validated by human reason in order to have veracity and potency. In this scheme, every word of God must be verified by man. Only with man’s sanction will it be granted assent. The catch is that man can then withdraw his assent and the word of God falls.

As Mr Rudd moves on to rail against certain Biblical standards, he effectively shots himself in the foot. His argument revolves around the changing standards within a culture and how the acceptability of those practices change. If this be any argument, then we have to disavow the “rule of law” and become fully fledged anarchists. If change is inevitable then we cannot be found to be making any concrete laws or decisions, for tomorrow a new opinion may prevail.

Why did people condemn Hitler, Stalin, Pol Pot, Idi Amin, Jack the Ripper, and the like? Were their actions morally reprehensible or was it simply the case that society at that time was not enlightened enough to accept their actions? If Mr Rudd be correct, we must accept and affirm the latter.

At present, we are talking of homosexual union. Let’s talk paedophilia, pederasty, incest, bestiality! Now, the mockers will come out and ridicule. However, if we are in an ever changing democracy where less than 2% is the number needed to demand society capitulates to your demands, then why should I be mocked? All is possible and all must be accepted on this ever changing scale of human reason.

At heart, Humanism is nothing more than a continual state of flux. For this reason, it makes for a poor master, poor law maker, poor guide, and a poor ethic. I mean to say, do we really believe in a system that is as fragile and fickle as politicians changing their mind because of one conversation over a cup of coffee?

It is precisely for this reason that we need an objective standard which does not change! It is for this reason we need the “mind of God” as it is revealed in the Bible.

Relativism is a failure in each and every circumstance. Who else should Mr Rudd have a cup of coffee with so that opinion would once more change? It seems we need to invent a new word – Coffeearchy! The rule deduced while drinking coffee.

Yet, this is not the low point in this paragraph. That chord is struck when Mr Rudd calls God a “terrorist”. His choice of the phrase “theocratic terrorism” is poor at best, but is instructive in that it once more shows us the workings of his mind. In Mr Rudd’s view, God is not the Sovereign of the universe whose every word and edict is to be obeyed – In fact, one would be right to question if Mr Rudd would even bend to acknowledging the existence of God as revealed in the Bible. His comments lean in the Liberal direction; in which the historicity of a “supreme being” is denied and man is left to judge the ethics of the book left by this possible, but probably non-existent, being.

Mr Rudd’s position parallels the Marcionite heresy.  Marcion took to the Scriptures with a pair of scissors. Among his reasons for so doing was the concept that the Bible revealed two gods – One from the older Testament: gruff, harsh, judgemental, intolerant, and demanding. One from the newer Testament: loving, gentle, accepting, tolerant, and embracing. More of this will come to light, but for now, please note that if you believe that “heretics” or “witches” should be stoned or burned, then you are placed in the same category as a mad bomber carrying out the plans of the insane.

Therefore, the clear implication is that if you, as a Christian, believe in obeying God and implementing that obedience in our culture, you are the terrorist acting out the malevolent plans of the theocratic one. So the questions that spring immediately to mind are these: Is not a Christian a disciple of Christ?[10] If Christ is one with the Father and there is no division in the Godhead, why does Mr Rudd reject Christ’s rule?[11] If Christ is not only God, but also to be found in the pages of the Old Testament working with and for God, how does Mr Rudd drive a wedge between Old and New Testament?[12] If Mr Rudd wears the name “Christian” and claims to be a disciple of Christ, who came to show us and reconcile us to the Father, how does he reject the Father’s rule in Christ over his life? Simply put, ‘How does one claim to be a disciple of Christ and then question or flatly deny the teachings of the Master?’

In closing out this paragraph, I am lead to question the wisdom and logic displayed by Mr Rudd. If Christian principle were rightly enacted today, I am sure our world would be a better place. I am afraid that the 21^st century is a “deeply troubling place” laced with all kinds of “social oppressions”, Mr Rudd! Most of these troubles have come from denying God and His wisdom and then seeking to replace that wisdom with the ideas of men.

Slavery would still be regarded as normal as political constituencies around the world, like the pre-civil war American South, continued to invoke the New Testament injunction that “slaves be obedient to your masters” as their justification. Not to mention the derivative political theologies that provided ready justifications for bans on inter-racial marriage and, in very recent times, the ethical obscenity that was racial segregation and apartheid.

          RM: Oh dear! – and this man was our Prime Minister!! Much could be said at this point, but we will be brief. Slavery is Biblical, but only in certain, well defined circumstances. One such is that a slave may choose to stay with his master.[13]

A little known fact about the USA at the time of the Civil War is that there were slaves in the North. Another little known fact is that some of the slaves in the South chose to be slaves. Another little known fact was that some men did much to help those slaves. These facts are little known because we simply do not want to acknowledge that the Civil War was about “governance” and not slavery.[14]

Once more, sadly, we see that ignorance reigns supreme. There is an absolute failure to distinguish between what Christianity teaches and what is claimed in the name of Christianity. The world’s hatred of Christ is seen here. A Muslim blows up a plane and he in no way reflects the religion he represents. Kevin Rudd et al claim to be Christians, all evidence to the contrary, and Christianity is blamed for every heinous crime committed on the planet.

It might also be worth pointing out that William Wilberforce, the champion of Abolition, took up the charge after he was converted. In other words, it was his Christianity that moved him to work toward the abolition of slavery! Equally, one might ask Mr Rudd for a dissertation on what the heathens, pagans, secularists, and humanists were doing at this time. Who ran the slave ships? Who profited from slavery? Are we to believe that this enterprise was wholly and completely run by Christians? If so, why did Wilberforce not find more ready support for Abolition?

Similarly with the status of women. Supporters of polygamy would be able to justify their position based on biblical precedent. Advocates of equality would also have difficulty with Paul’s injunction that “wives should be submissive to their husbands” (As a good Anglican, Thérèse has never been a particularly big rap for Saint Paul on this one). The Bible also teaches us that people should be stoned to death for adultery (which would lead to a veritable boom in the quarrying industry were that still the practice today). The same for homosexuals. And the biblical conditions for divorce are so strict that a woman could be beaten within an inch of her life and still not be allowed to legally separate. 

          RM: Here, Mr Rudd introduces us to the very reasons that the “21st century “IS” a deeply troubling place”! In a stroke, Kevin has affirmed his belief that man governs the Word of God. If it is not man, then it is culture. At any rate, God is not sovereign and His Word is not authoritative.

Now to the claims. Yes, polygamy is in the Bible. Yes, people could use this precedent to justify polygamy.[15] However, is this the point? Not on your nelly!! If we are to act only on Biblical precedent, rather than upon Biblical command, then we would have to say that all kind of evils are acceptable.

The Bible mentions murder, rape, theft, child sacrifice, regicide, tyranny, false witnesses, dishonest gain, unjust weights and the list goes on. Are we then to see that all of these should be accepted in our day?

Even if we look at things that displeased God, but which He did not take action against, then we are still on shaky ground. David lived after his sin with Bathsheba. Paul lived after killing Christians. Solomon took no action against the prostitutes. Manasseh lived after murder and idolatry. Judah lived after his interaction with Tamar.

On this basis, God does not care concerning murder, adultery, false worship, semi-incestuous affairs, or child sacrifice. Yet, if we search the Scriptures, we will most definitely find that God does care and has spoken out against each one.[16] Thus, we follow the Biblical command, not an implication or a precedent.

Many other things could be said. At this point, however, we would simply reinforce the fact that Mr Rudd has absolutely no respect for the Bible as God’s authoritative Word. In this paragraph, there is not even an attempt to salvage a “time honoured” principle form amongst the Biblical wreckage. No, it is all culturally irrelevant.

The last comment comes in the form of “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people”[17] and “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God.[18]”

If we disregard God’s order and God’s command to abide by that order, then absolute disgrace is our final destination. Mr Rudd decries the atrocities wrought in the name of Biblical Christianity, but what of the atrocities caused by the rejection of the Biblical command? How much hurt comes through divorce? How many divorces result from adultery? How much adultery exists because women are not subject to their husbands? How much adultery exists because men do not “love” their wives “as Christ loved the Church and gave Himself for Her?”

The want of conformity to God’s law is sin. The transgression of God’s law is sin. Sin is a disgrace! Yet, our former Prime Minister seems to think and believe that “sin” is better than “righteousness”. He once more outthinks God by declaring some more Ruddology – Sin exalts a nation and righteousness is a disgrace!

As I pen these words, I fear! I fear for our nation. Yet, at the risk of sounding a tad weak, I pity and fear for Kevin Rudd and his soul and the souls of his family. As I write, these words echo in my mind: “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish, but to fulfill. “For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass away from the Law, until all is accomplished. “Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and so teaches others, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven. “For I say to you, that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the scribes and Pharisees, you shall not enter the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 5:17-20).

Jesus’ opinion was that these laws meant something. Jesus believed these laws to have validity. Yet Mr Rudd would annul them. Mr Rudd would teach us all that these commands are superfluous. Thus, Mr Rudd is setting himself upon a terrible course in which his name shall be least. However, I must confess that Mr Rudd’s tenor throughout this piece makes me wonder if he shall be called “least”? As it stands, I fear that his name will not be called at all!

The point is that nobody in the mainstream Christian Church today would argue any of these propositions. A hundred years ago, that was not necessarily the case. In other words, the definition of Christian ethics is subject to change, based on analysis of the historical context into which the biblical writers were speaking at the time, and separating historical context from timeless moral principles, such as the injunction to “love your neighbour as yourself”.

          RM: H. Y. P. O. C. R. I. S. Y. = His Yawing Personal Outlook Compromises Religious Instruction Says Yahweh! or Help Yourself Positions Often Change Readers Instruction Select subjectivelY!

The Liberal position never ceases to amaze. These people do not want to recognise the authority of the Bible except for when they want to recognise the authority of the Bible! Mr Rudd has constantly denied the right of God or His Word to speak, but now, “Behold!” the Bible has “timeless moral principles”, which we are to obey!

Pray tell, what makes the injunction, “love your neighbour as yourself” a timeless classic as opposed to, “Have no other gods before me”, “Do not commit adultery”, “Wives submit to your husbands”, and “homosexuality is an abomination”?

I ask this because the text from which Mr Rudd quotes has a context. In short, these words are surrounded by other words that give that text meaning. In this case, these other words are very significant. Quoting from Matthew 22:37-40, we read:

And He [Jesus] said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment. “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.

In this passage, Jesus affirms two statements. Jesus notes that on these two statements “the whole Law and the Prophets” depend. How is it then that we highlight one statement as truth forever and dismiss the other as cultural nonsense? How is the “great and foremost” commandment dismissed as cultural gobbledygook and the second promoted to the status of timeless morality?

Imagine you have a picture that has two hanging points. In your wisdom, you decide to only use one. What happens? The first and most obvious issue is that the picture will not hang straight. Your wall will look unorganized as this picture dangles at some precarious angle. The second issue is that it will only be a matter of time before the picture falls catastrophically to the floor, as it is not secured properly.

This is the modus operandi of Mr Rudd. He has placed upon his wall, for all to see, a crooked hanging that threatens to fall. If he will not admit his folly and rectify the situation, he must invent reasons to explain the crooked picture.

Matthew’s text is explicit. God’s timeless words are hung at two points. You simply cannot disregard one or pick and choose between them. In order to love your neighbour you must first love God. If you do not love God, then you will never truly love your neighbour.

Please also note that the Law and the Prophets “depend” (literally “hang”) on these statements. If we opt for the summary of God’s law, we must of necessity be arguing for all the law. If we are arguing that “love for neighbour” is a “timeless moral” imperative, then we must also assert that man is compelled to “love God” as this too is a timeless imperative. This then leads us to affirm that we must love all that God has commanded us for we cannot separate God from His morality.

G. E. Veith has this to say: The moral content of the Bible is part of God’s revelation of himself because he, personally, is a moral being. God’s righteousness is manifested not only in his ineffable goodness but in his requirement that we too be righteous. …The Bible teaches that God is transcendent … and that morality is transcendent. Morality is grounded in the character of the sovereign deity, whose laws are above all individuals and cultures. In the Bibles, even the king is accountable to God’s moral Law. Thus the prophets come before kings and, bearing God’s Word, denounce them for oppressing the widows and orphans and for other acts of personal and social immorality.[19]

Presently, we come to the true affirmation, God is God! He is the absolute Sovereign whose right it is to command all men everywhere to obey His Law and His statutes. We must affirm that, this being true, God’s principles are not culturally subjective[20], democratically avowed[21], individually chosen[22], or humanly changeable[23].

Against this particular Christian norm, and its secular moral corollary of “do no harm”, and, in particular, “do no harm to others, especially the vulnerable”, we have seen a range of social reforms over the decades where traditional, literalist biblical teachings have been turned on their head, often with the support of the churches. Including relatively recent legislative actions by Australian legislatures to decriminalize homosexuality. And much more recently, under my Prime Ministership, action to remove all legal discriminations against same sex couples in national statutes including in inheritance, taxation, superannuation, veterans affairs, family law, defence housing, Centrelink, child support, health insurance, citizenship and aged care.

          RM: Key here is the Humanist revision. “Love your neighbour as yourself” becomes the Humanist’s “do no harm, especially to the vulnerable.” These two are not equal.

Anyway, my real question is: Mr Rudd, if your timeless moral principle is “do no harm, especially to the vulnerable”, why did you not stop abortion? Surely they are most grievously harmed and they are most certainly vulnerable!

H.Y.P …!!!

Which brings us back to same sex marriage. I for one have never accepted the argument from some Christians that homosexuality is an abnormality. People do not choose to be gay. The near universal findings of biological and psychological research for most of the post war period is that irrespective of race, religion or culture, a certain proportion of the community is born gay, whether they like it or not. Given this relatively uncontested scientific fact, then the following question that arises is should our brothers and sisters who happen to be gay be fully embraced as full members of our wider society? The answer to that is unequivocally yes, given that the suppression of a person’s sexuality inevitably creates far greater social and behavioural abnormalities, as opposed to its free and lawful expression. 

          RM: Here, we encounter the straw man. What is “abnormality”? Once more, we encounter the use of an emotive term in an effort to disarm. Homosexuals love their mothers. Homosexuals pay taxes. Homosexuals engage in charity work. How dare we label them as abnormal!

As stated, this all depends on your concept of what constitutes an abnormality.

Homosexuality is abnormal because it is dissolution of and rebellion against God’s design. What God designed was a man who was both male and female. These he brought together to form the family. In doing this, God equipped each man, male and female, with the gifts and abilities to fulfil each role. That is God’s design. Adam and Steve or Eve and Bev, simply do not meet the criteria. Thus, homosexuality is an abnormality.

As to this supposed science, room simply does not allow a full discussion. Suffice to say, science requires a “faith” position. If you begin with the presupposition “God does not exist” then it is little wonder that your science will produce results that do not accord with God’s revelation.

I am not a wrap for psychology or psychiatry for both seek to explain man apart from God and apart from sin. Hence, the wrong foundation leads to a wrong conclusion. Thus, much of the supposed science justifying homosexuality comes from sectors that are interested in maintaining “mental health” and ensuring “positive self-esteem”. Consequently, they seek to eradicate moral norms that would affront the sinner and his sinful behaviour. The guilty conscience is supposedly alleviated by decriminalising or “de-guilty-fying” the practice.

To highlight the absurdity, think of the murderer and the paedophile. Both feel guilt. The Biblical answer is true justice and true repentance. The modern scientific answer would be to decriminalise these acts, shift the blame away from the individual to another factor, and thereby help the person to feel better.

Lastly, we look at simple happenings. A homosexual is converted to Christ and gives up homosexuality. A transgender male, post reconstructive surgery, realises that he has a soul and that he cannot deny who he is regardless of the façade, and goes back to living as a man. Twins, one straight the other homosexual. So much for “being born that way”!

Provocatively, on the “being born that way” thing, we must ask, ‘How long will it be before we accept bestiality, paedophilia, polygamy, pederasty, rape, and “incest” on the same principle? Moving on from sexual expression, at what point will we define murder, kleptomania, road rage, bag snatching and burglary as crimes driven by a gene?

Which brings us to what for some time has been the sole remaining obstacle in my mind on same sex marriage – namely any unforeseen consequences for children who would be brought up by parents in a same sex married relationship, as against those brought up by parents in married or de-facto heterosexual relationships, by single parents, or by adoptive or foster parents, or other legally recognised parent or guardian relationships. The care, nurture and protection of children in loving relationships must be our fundamental concern. And this question cannot be clinically detached from questions of marriage – same sex or opposite sex. The truth is that in modern Australia approximately 43 per cent of marriages end in divorce, 27 per cent of Australian children are raised in one parent, blended or step-family situations, and in 2011-12 nearly 50,000 cases of child abuse were substantiated by the authorities of more than 250,000 notifications registered. In other words, we have a few problems out there.

          RM: In a lucid moment, Mr Rudd notes a central truth. The “welfare of children” is tied inextricably to the “questions of marriage” and it most certainly cannot be “clinically detached” there from. Sadly, however, the insight is weighed down and muddied by the continuing insistence that “marriage” can be multiform – to the point of travesty – and still somehow meet its goal.

The absolute joke is that the goal of marriage was instituted by God Himself. Tragically, we are once more confronted with hypocrisy. The God-deniers do not want or accept the form of marriage that God instituted, but they want to claim that the goal of marriage – or part thereof – is still valid. Denying the form, they seek the goal. How can this be?

God is concerned for the welfare of children. That is why He made man male and female, brought them together in unity and instituted the family as the vehicle by which this protection and nurture would be forth coming. The simple reality is that you cannot change the form without drastically altering the outcome.[24]

God, if you will, instituted both marriage and family as a womb in which children would be protected, nourished, and nurtured. The modernists, with their penchant for abortion, now tear the womb of family open, spilling its content to the harsh, cold ground. Standing back they look at the bloodied contents; battered, soiled, shivering, and then make great proclamations about how marriage fails and how other forms could do as well, if not better.

Yet, this question is never answered – How does a homosexual become a parent? Forget Christianity for a moment. Let’s talk evolution. Even from an evolutionary stand point, homosexuality is doomed to fail. The two same-sexed people do not carry the components necessary to breed. Thus, by the standard of evolution, homosexuality is barren, infertile, and, therefore, futile.

Given this futility, the homosexual must turn to adoption, children from a previous heterosexual relationship or to another form of immorality to even produce the children that would constitute a family. So why are we even having this conversation? God says it is abnormal and futile behaviour. Evolution says it is abnormal and futile behaviour. Yet, within our society a noisy minority continue to argue that this futility be legitimised, legalised, and sanctioned as a child producing and nurturing unit!!

We commented on the “dreaded” statistic previously. Here, all we would seek to do is ask that you think cautiously about these statistics. Mr Rudd is quoting large numbers to pull at the heart-strings. We would state openly, one case of child abuse is one too many. The problem is here summarised: 1. What definition of “abuse” is used by the modernist? 2. How many of the reported abuse cases came from marriages and how many from subsequent marriages, de facto relationships, “shack-ups”, or some other travesty? 3. How many of these statistics include Elizabeth Taylor? Confused? Don’t be. Think here of divorce statistics. Taylor was married 8 times to seven men (only one dissolution through death). The world record holder has said “I do” 23 times. So, if these two ladies are in these statistics, the figures are skewed. You have 2 women for 30 divorces. The questions then are: How do such multiples factor into these statistics? and How do such multiples skew the statistics?

Whilst on divorce statistics, we would also ask: What role does our secular State, lauded by Mr Rudd, play in destroying both marriage and family? What impact has the Government’s implementation at law of de facto relationships and no fault divorce had upon divorce rates and the declination in tradition (Biblical) marriage? Mr Rudd was also concerned about the status of rocks in our quarries, should we insist upon stoning adulterers. Yet, we must ask, what impact has not stoning them had upon marriage and its sanctity? What is to stop the philanderer if his actions are neither penalised nor frowned upon?

That does not mean, by some automatic corollary, that children raised in same sex relationships are destined to experience some sort of nirvana by comparison. But scientific surveys offer important indications. One of the most comprehensive surveys of children raised in same sex relationships is the US National Longitudinal Survey conducted since 1986 – 1992 (and still ongoing) on adolescents raised by same sex partners. This survey, published in the Journal of the American Academy of Paediatrics in 2010, concluded that there were no Child Behaviour Checklist differences for these kids as against the rest of the country. There are a number of other research projects with similar conclusions as well. In fact 30 years of research has seen the Australian Medical Association, the American Medical Association, the American Academy of Paediatrics and the American Psychological Association acknowledge that same sex families do not compromise children’s development.

          RM: As an ethicist, we are not whelmed by research statistics. For any research statistic to be valid, we need to understand both the presupposition of the researcher, the goal of the research, and the methodology employed.

Let me lighten the mood a little. There was an excellent article in that top research journal, Mad Magazine, which highlighted the flaws present in any research. They had several cartoons as examples. The one that sticks in the mind was on the question of the legitimacy and acceptability of “sex before marriage”. The cartoon parodies the results by looking at the responses from the local “catholic college” and from something akin to the “hippie commune”. Albert E. Newman, may not be a high rating research tool, but the satire illustrates a point.

Then there is a very simple reality. Mr Rudd’s collection of research is not complete. There are other studies that contradict what Mr Rudd is here avowing as well as testimonies that do not agree with the research.

Please go to the Saltshakers website and review the data provided there. Please also look at these two articles. One is from a homosexual who does not want same-sex marriage; I’m Gay and I Oppose same-sex Marriage. The other is from a man raised in a same-sex relationship and is entitled, Growing Up With Two Moms: The untold Child’s View. Neither of these articles are written from a Christian point of view. They are written from the life situation of people who are or who have experienced parenting from a homosexual perspective. We do not endorse all the arguments, but one cannot deny that some of the insights are compelling.

Furthermore, there is the reality of a growing number of Australian children being raised in same sex relationships. Either as a result of previous opposite-sex relationships, or through existing state and territory laws making assisted reproduction, surrogacy, adoption and fostering legally possible for same sex couples or individuals in the majority of Australian states and territories. Furthermore, Commonwealth legislation has already recognised the legal rights of children being brought up in such relationships under the terms of Australian family law. Therefore, the question arises that given the state has already recognised and facilitated children being raised in same sex relationships, why do we not afford such relationships the potential emotional and practical stability offered by the possibility of civil marriage? 

          RM: Friends, read this paragraph well! Here is “the elephant” in the room. Throughout the current debate, much has centred on the definition of marriage. Little or nothing has focussed upon the illegitimacy of homosexuality! In other articles, we have noted that whilst the Parliament voted to retain the current definition of marriage as stated in the Act, the Government has merrily moved on its way and followed its own agenda extending rights to homosexuals. Whilst some mock and scorn such statements, the simple fact is that Mr Rudd has now affirmed this as indeed being the case.

This situation is the weakness in the fortress wall. Every time the Government gives the homosexual lobby another tidbit it strengthens their case to be granted “access-all areas”! Truly, how do we legitimately deny homosexuals the right to marry, if we have already legalised their sexual deviance, allowed them to adopt, and given them equal rights at almost every other point of law? To deny them marriage is to be nothing short of hypocritical.

Consequently, this warning must be given. The only way this battle can be won is to stop focussing on “marriage” and look at the illegitimacy of homosexuality, full stop![25] The Government, through its own immorality and many treaty obligations, have already accepted that homosexuals are equal and entitled to everything. They are simply waiting for public opinion to “catch up”. That is why, within weeks of the vote to maintain the current definition of marriage, the Government was doling out yet more privileges and rights to homosexuals. It is for this reason that many politicians have shied away from the idea of a Referendum on this issue. They realise that it is easier to sway the politician who wants to be re-elected rather than the electorate.

Criticism will come for this statement, but so be it. When you write to your local “pollie” on this issue and you receive a reply which goes along the lines of, ‘homosexuality is great, but marriage is for man and woman’, please write back and tell them to stop being an overt hypocrite.

The battle ground is very simple: Either homosexuality is 100% legitimate and they are entitled to all or it is illegitimate and they are entitled to nothing!

As long as we halt between to opinions we play into the hands of the homosexual lobby. The longer rights are applied to the homosexual, the quicker we will see the realisation of homosexual union in this and other countries.

Finally, as someone who was raised for the most important part of his childhood by a single mum, I don’t buy the argument that I was somehow developmentally challenged because I didn’t happen to have a father. The loving nurture of children is a more complex business than that.

          RM: Having not experienced the Biblical norm, how does one measure whether they missed out on anything? Single parenthood is a truth – especially through death. God’s grace and eye are upon such situations. Hence, the Bible’s many injunctions to care for the widow, the fatherless, and the orphan.

Then there are many modern situations – single parenting by choice or because of divorce. Here, the evidence clearly suggests deficiency. Some years ago a particular person was in trouble for stating that ‘broken home beget broken homes’. The self-righteous media decried the statement, but the evidence is undeniable.[26]

So where does this leave us in relation to the recent and prospective debates before the Australian Parliament? Many Christians will disagree with the reasoning I have put forward as the basis for changing my position on the secular state having a broader definition of marriage than the church. I respect their views as those of good and considered conscience. I trust they respect mine as being of the same. In my case, they are the product of extensive reflection on Christian teaching, the scientific data and the emerging reality in our communities where a growing number of same sex couples are now asking for marriage equality in order to give public pledge to their private love and for each other, and to provide the sort of long-term relationship commitment that marriage can provide for the emotional stability important for the proper nurture of children.

          RM: Yes, this Christian, and many besides, does disagree with your position, Mr Rudd. Neither can we simply submit to your request that we “respect” your position. Luther made the bold claim that our consciences were bound to God’s word alone – Here I stand, I can do no other!

In this tradition we follow. The disrespect is not to do with your sincerity, but with your method. If you held to Scripture, you would be happy to rest upon the very statements of God on this matter. You would not need “science” or the “growing numbers”. You would realise that the One “timeless moral principle” is God Himself. You would realise that man lives “by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God”. You would realise that when the Sovereign of the universe speaks, we men are to humbly listen and obey.

It is simply not good enough to continually claim to be a “Christian” when every stroke of your pen attacks Christianity and the logic of your argument shows that you have more respect for the “secular”, for “research”, and for “weight of numbers”.

Mr Rudd, you say you are a Christian. A Christian is a disciple of Jesus, the Christ. Let me ask you this, “Where is this Christ and what is He doing right now?”

The Biblical answer is this: “Then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.”[27]

Jesus is not merely waiting in heaven to get the “nod” from His Father. No! He is waging war against God’s enemies. Jesus is making the enemies of God into a footstool – Jesus is making them to submit or He is destroying them!

Who are these enemies? Paul answers in this manner: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers  and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”[28]

The import of this text is very simple. There is that which is in accord with the Gospel and there is that which is contrary to the Gospel. Paul notes that God’s Law clearly places homosexuality in the “contrary to” the Gospel category. Hence, anything in this category is rightly defined as an “enemy of God” and rightly understood as the object against which Jesus the Christ wars.

So then, Mr Rudd, how is it that you claim the title “Christian” and then side with those against whom Christ wars?

It is decision time, and this is stated with absolute sincerity: Mr Rudd, repent of your false position, come out from among them and be separate, devote yourself wholly to Jesus Christ or give up the pretence of Christianity.

Further, under no circumstances should marriage equality legislation place any legal requirement on the church or other religious institutions to conduct same sex marriages. The churches should be explicitly exempt. If we truly believe in a separation of church and state, then the church must be absolutely free to conduct marriage ceremonies between a man and a woman only, given the nature of their current established theological and doctrinal positions on the matter. This should be exclusively a matter for the church, the mosque and the synagogue. It is, however, a different matter for a secular state. The Church must be free to perform marriages for Christian heterosexual couples without any threat of interference from the state. Just as the state should be free to perform marriage services for both heterosexual and same sex couples, and whether these couples are of a religious faith or no religious faith.

          RM: We have touched on this point already. Where is the line to be drawn? The Church is to be exempt from performing such unions. Will the Church be free to preach against such unions? Will the people who make up the Church be free to live out their disdain for homosexuality? Will the Church school be free to change their curriculum to teach against homosexuality?

Methinks not. On what basis? Simple. This is based upon Mr Rudd’s statement above in which he admits that homosexuality has been given equality in most parts of society already. Therefore, there will be no capitulation other than to say that the Church will not be required to marry homosexuals. Outside of this, the State’s law will be unleashed against any who dare infract in any other way.

Comment is also to be made on Mr Rudd’s view that the secular State stands outside of God’s jurisdiction. The parallel here is indeed one commensurate with the sexes. God made male and female to work together under His rule as one for His glory. God did the same thing with the Church and State. Both are ordained of God to abide by His rule and work for His glory. There simply is no division to be found between the Church and the State when it comes to their “terms of reference”. It might be worth remembering that God’s king in Israel was required to write out his own copy of God’s law and to read it regularly.[29] Does that sound like God intended for the State to be free from His rule and Law?

Last, what the State giveth, the State can taketh away! Mr Rudd’s concept is nice in theory, but the reality is that any power or exemption given in State law can also be removed by the State. How long would such an exemption last?

These issues properly remain matters of conscience for all members of the Parliament. Labor provides a conscience vote. The Liberals and the Nationals do not. They should. If they don’t, then we should consider a national referendum at an appropriate time, and which would also have the added advantage of bringing the Australian community along with us on an important social reform for the nation. And for the guys and girls, like the former staffer who came to see me recently in a state of genuine distress, we may just be able to provide a more dignified and non-discriminatory future for all.

RM: Would it be too much to ask for a politician to make a comment without getting political?

Seriously, there is a major flaw present at this point and it has to do with the conscience vote.  We are currently trying to produce another article on the idea of a Referendum on homosexual union, which explores these ideas in more detail. When finished, we will place a link here. Suffice to say two things: 1. Democracy, Republic, or Monarchy, when God has spoken, no one has the right to do other than what God has commanded. 2. If we are to have conscience votes, then give them all the time on every issue and end the nonsense that is Party Politics. 3. If the politician is voting via his conscience, then what happens to the concept that he is representing his constituents?

Then there is the emotional issue. Yes, it is a real issue. However, it is really created by the individual’s choice to rebel against God and His order. Accepting their stand will not remove this inner conflict. Their deep seated unhappiness, the isolation, the ostracising, and the distress are all symptoms of their own hatred of who they are as creatures made in the image of God.

Homosexuals are always wont to blame heterosexuals and Christians for their misery. It is supposedly our unwillingness to accept them that creates all the problems. How is this so today? As we have pointed out, with Kevin’s agreement, the Government has steamed ahead with a raft of measures to equalise the homosexual.

Truth be told, homosexuals have more rights today than the average Christian. Yet one is content, the other is not. Why. Simple. Every time the homosexual looks in the mirror they see a glorious being made in the image and likeness of God. As homosexuals, their one constant is hatred of God and rebellion against God. Therefore, they are like those who indulge in self-mutilation. The homosexual tears at the image of God within themselves. Every clawing only hurts them all the more because they are in fact attempting to destroy the fabric of who they are as a person. Their pain is self-inflicted.

Cessation of pain and distress will come for the homosexual when they abandon their rebellious lifestyle. It will not come with greater indulgence, more rights, or public recognition.

Some will ask why I am saying all this now. For me, this issue has been a difficult personal journey, as I have read much, and talked now with many people, and of late for the first time in a long time I have had the time to do both. I have long resisted going with the growing tide of public opinion just for the sake of it. Those who know me well know that I have tried in good conscience to deal with the ethical fundamentals of the issue and reach an ethical conclusion. My opponents both within and beyond the Labor Party, will read all sorts of political significances into this. That’s a matter for them. There is no such thing as perfect timing to go public on issues such as this.

          RM: Nearing the end of the document there are not many things to focus upon. This paragraph has one interesting assertion, “the growing tide of public opinion”. This has to be one of the biggest falsehood in this whole debate.

Once more, I would direct you to Saltshakers for a look at the numbers. Suffice to say here, that less than 2% of the population in Australia identify with homosexuality. When you look at the hype surrounding this issue, you would think that the number would be twenty times that amount.

It is for this reason that many are shying away from the idea of a referendum. With so few homosexuals, it is by no means certain that Australia would vote for homosexual union. In fact, this author is very much convinced that the opposite is true.

The danger comes from two distinct sources. First, there are many in the modern generation who, being raised on Postmodern ideology, subscribe to a “live and let live” policy. As “Dee” said on a blog the other day, “My generation do not care”. Second, the danger is in the term “growing public opinion”. There are many in our society who simply do not have an idea about numbers[30] and will feel pressured by these statements. They will be made to think that they are the “odd ducks” and that they should fall in line with the majority. Of course, the lie is that the majority do not believe what is claimed.

For the record, I will not be taking any leadership role on this issue nationally. My core interest is to be clear-cut about the change in my position locally on this highly controversial issue before the next election, so that my constituents are fully aware of my position when they next visit the ballot box. That, I believe, is the right thing to do.

          RM: Whilst I have never been a big wrap for Kevin, I would at least like to acknowledge the fact that, whatever his motives, he did take the time to sit down and write this piece. As is obvious, we disagree with the majority of it. Yet, it is a pity that most politicians today do not ever attempt to speak about why they believe a certain thing or have a certain conviction. Most hide behind political speak and silence. Being politicians, they want to know what everybody else thinks before they speak. Thus, intrinsically, our politicians are not leaders, but most definitely followers.

Thus, in sincerity, I do thank Mr Rudd for at least being willing to take the time to give the populace an explanation on his position.

A Summary:

Friends, this article is, to many, no doubt, long and tedious. We hope that you have persisted and made your way from beginning to end. When this issue arose we pondered as to how best to deal with it. We decided that it needed a substantial reply. Not because it came from Kevin Rudd, but because the arguments inside have been the same ones used by theological Liberals for years and these are the arguments seized upon by the World to bolster their position.

In light of this, the decision was made to insert replies throughout the original document so that the Christians of this nation might be adequately armed should they come up against such arguments in the future. Of course, not everything was said that could have been said. Nonetheless, we hope and pray that by exposing the arguments in Mr Rudd’s document, you have been equipped and given confidence to stand against all such false attempts.

The important points:

• As Christians, God’s Word is our sole foundation. This is our only Authority in all matters of life and faith.
• Church and State differ in role only. Their mandate is to serve, in their respective capacities, to the absolute glory of God. On issues such as homosexuality, there simply should not be a difference of belief.
• Consequently, the idea that the “secular state” is removed from God’s Rule and Law is a first rate heresy. Too strong? Then please substitute, “error”. No matter the term, Mr Rudd’s concept is unBiblical.
• “Political opinion”, “weight of numbers”, “emotional distress” having nothing to do with the statements of an immutable God. God’s Law stands forever. It is ours to obey, not to question.
• Criticisms concerning the implementation of Biblical Law as “Draconian” and leading to trouble are sheer nonsense. Such statements show the speaker to be ignorant. The West was built on Biblical Law. America was built on Biblical Law. Australia followed suit, although to a lesser degree. We are now crumbling because we have turned away from that Law. We have the words, but we have altered the content. We remember better days, but we cannot recapture them because we refuse to turn back to God.
• Beware any who claim to be Christian, but who deny those things that the Master has commanded us.
• In the body of this article I did not touch upon this point, but it is worth remembering. Jesus gave the Great Commission. It was a Commission to teach the Nations to obey Jesus Christ. Mr Rudd would now tell you that such a Commission is now actually an anti-Christian thing. Good Christians let the pagans win! Good Christians remain silent in the public square, no matter what Jesus has commanded them.
• The term “marriage” is applied to a form. Alter the form, the term no longer applies. Marriage therefore can never be applied to a homosexual relationship.