A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In Part 1, we attempted to lay a solid foundation on which we might stand and from which we might argue. As we discuss the possibilities in regard to our future as a nation, it is of vital importance that we first comprehend both the standard and the goal.

Too often have Christians and the Church gone to battle without a clear vision before their eyes of what they are seeking to achieve. This lack of a precise goal is a manifestation of them using the wrong standard.

So let us be clear. In this particular battle our goal is not to stop homosexual union. Our goal must be nothing less than the eradication of homosexuality.[1] This may seem ultra-radical, but it is the position demanded by our Standard – the eternal, abiding, authoritative Word of God!

Be assured, the goal of our enemies is not just homosexual union; it is the eradication of God, Jesus, and Christianity – at least as a force to shape culture, and preferably in totality. We should have no less a goal. Shocked again? Why? Are we not at war in a “winner takes all” battle? Is not our motivation conformity to the image of Jesus in all things?[2] Does this not mean thinking God’s thoughts after Him?[3] Does this not mean loving God and the things He loves and hating that which He hates?[4]

I can already hear the clamour of the moderns. They will speak of love, tolerance, and turning the other cheek. Thus, I pose one question: Whom do you esteem more, God or the rebellious sinner?[5]

We will never win these major political and cultural battles as long as we hold to these two erroneous beliefs: A) The Church is not called upon to fight / the Church only fights when attacked; B) God is not interested in either politics or culture.

Option A, let’s call it “Christian Pacifism”, robs the Church of any opportunity to take back lost ground or to conquer. The Church is either decimated and loses everything or it fights when attacked in the hope of hanging on to the little that remains. Thus, once the din of battle subsides, these Christians lay down their arms and go back to sleep. This group never think of staying in their armour and launching attacks against the enemy in an effort to win lost ground, fortify the front line, and prepare for another advance!

Option B, the position of the Individual Salvationist,[6] means that we Christians have absolutely nothing to contribute to any political or cultural battle. It is that simple. Sadly, such a position is not only a denial of Scripture; it is a denial of Jesus Christ.

More importantly, however, is the fact that if you hold these views and you walk onto the battlefield, you will be aiding and abetting the enemy by hindering the army of Jesus Christ.

Blunt? Yes. Necessary? All the more so.

Without a standard and a goal, the battle is lost before we begin. Therefore, we have sought to say some things which need to be said so that we can genuinely put our shoulder to the plough knowing both the task and the goal. This is done in order that we should not fail and turn back.[7]

With this said, we are now in a better position to discuss the question of a referendum on homosexual union and the appropriate response to that proposal. The following discussion will look at a number of issues and attempt to give guidance for these difficult times.

A. God Has Spoken: The first point is very simple. A referendum on the part of the Government in regard to homosexual union is invalid and illegal. God has spoken and man has no right, ability, or authority to overturn the clear statutes of God.

We argued at length in Part 1, not just concerning homosexual union, but in regard to homosexuality itself. What we must see is that, regardless of the flag flown, successive Governments have ventured outside of their God-given authority and begun to legislate and call for opinion on matters where no discussion is warranted. God has spoken. Our simple task is to obey through implementation and conformity.[8]

In the context of a looming election, we are no doubt bracing for the inevitable speech by the victor in which they will speak of having a “mandate”. Again, in the current humanistic political sphere, where Man reigns supreme, it seems that the “man-“ is interpreted as meaning, ‘Man has spoke, so it is commanded!’ In truth, all a Government ever receives is a “God-date”. It is not the wish of Man for Man that is to be observed. It is the command of God for Man that is to be obeyed at all cost.

Therefore, calling for a referendum on homosexual union is a gross error. It is to fly in the face of God. It is nothing short of our nation writing another Humanist Manifesto: “We the people of Australia totally reject the Bible’s God and His sovereign governance over us. Our hatred of Him is so vast and so thorough that we chose to live under His divine wrath and inimical disposition toward us as a consequence of this rejection, rather than humble ourselves and obey. Signed – The Citizenry of Australia.”

A referendum on homosexual union is a haughty act on the part of man and Government, to say the least. Yet, it is no less so than all the decisions taken by successive Parliaments, which gave homosexuality credence and standing in the public eye and before the courts.

God has spoken. Man and Governments must render obedience in all things. We must note provoke God by overstepping our authority and making decisions that run contrary to His command.

All that a referendum will do, at one level, is cause all Australians to share the Government’s guilt. This referendum is akin to David’s numbering Israel.[9] That was a haughty act that intrinsically denied the command of God and His sovereign protection of that nation. It brought a devastating judgement.[10] Now we seek to be equally pretentious by denying God’s clear command and, in essence, state that we are capable of ensuring our own prosperity into the future.

This is our stand. A referendum is morally wrong because God has clearly spoken.

B. Australia 2013: Now comes the difficult part. We live in a fallen world and ethical choices need to be made. How do we respond if this referendum should go ahead? What should our stance be if we are compelled to vote? What impact can we have during the campaign? Is voting a sin? These are just a few of the many and, no doubt, prevalent questions in people’s minds.

It is beyond me to give concrete or absolute answers here. What I seek to do is help you think your way through some of the issues and to arrive at a Biblically reasoned response.

1. No Concrete Answers: I am unable to give concrete answers and firm direction on these issues. This is not because I seek to “wimp out” on my brethren when they are in a difficult situation. It is simply because, at this point, there are too many unknowns and too many variables. Equally, the only thing able to bind our consciences is God’s word. Here, then, I seek to serve my brethren by giving direction where possible; by laying down principle, by urging you to think, pray, and act; and by laying out, as best as it can be anticipated, some of the issues to be faced.

2. Christians Must Think and Act: As noted already, the question of a referendum has divided Christian commentators. In light of this many Christians will be tempted to place this issue in that proverbial basket labelled “Too Hard!” Therefore, it is essential that, while we have time, we try to understand the situation into which we have been placed. We are obligated to do this.[11] The Christian way should never be to simply “opt out”. Donkey and informal votes are not, at least should not be, the accepted or argued way for the Christian. God gave us a brain.[12] God gave us a new heart.[13] God gave us His Spirit.[14] God welcomes us into His throne room in order to hear our prayers and petitions.[15] It is ours to use our renewed minds to think our way through the possibilities in light of God’s wisdom found in God’s word.[16] Surely, this is what it means to be transformed so that we can be Salt and Light to the glory of God!

3. Be Prepared: “Robert Baden-Powell explains the meaning of the phrase: The Scout Motto is: BE PREPARED which means you are always in a state of readiness in mind and body to do your DUTY. Be Prepared in Mind by having disciplined yourself to be obedient to every order, and also by having thought out beforehand any accident or situation that might occur, so that you know the right thing to do at the right moment, and are willing to do it. Be Prepared in Body by making yourself strong and active and able to do the right thing at the right moment, and do it.”[17] This is sound advice for the Christian, even if the application needs a little tweak. Too often Christians are defeated because we refuse to be prepared in advance. We have time. Are we using that time to equip ourselves?[18]

4. Action: When it comes to the idea of a referendum, there are three options, roughly speaking, for the Christian. 1. Do not vote on moral grounds. 2. Decide to vote, even if under sufferance, in order to deprive the enemy and magnify God. 3. Decide not to vote, but to be active in campaigning. Okay, a little explanation. At no point do I say, “Do nothing.” That is not a Christian approach. If you decide not to vote, action should still be taken. Whether it be prayer or some other action of a militant nature; we should do something. I urge you not to complete a “Donkey Vote”. Neither make a typical informal vote. If you vote informally, do not mess up the form incoherently. Write something positive like, “Jesus Christ is Lord! – not KRudd”; “God has spoken, man must obey!”; or even write out a Biblical text. Whatever path we do choose before God in light of His wisdom, we must act, we must shine, we must glorify God. Whatever our path, it cannot be inaction. Similarly, if you are convinced to campaign, do so righteously and to God’s glory. This is not to say that you “soft-pedal” or be all “airy-fairy”. Speak truth. Speak it vigorously. Speak it vociferously. Speak it in love. Speak it with integrity. Speak it unashamedly.

5. Some Variables:

A. Referendum v Plebiscite: We need to understand the difference. A brief explanation of these two terms is: A referendum is binding and alters the constitution. A plebiscite is nothing more than a gigantic and expensive opinion poll – it is worth about the same as a politician’s promise![19] If we are forced to vote, then we should argue for a referendum. Why? A referendum will result in a change.[20] A plebiscite will do nothing, particularly if the motion is defeated. A plebiscite has also now been rendered utterly useless and nothing more than a gross obscenity for, as we speak, the Labor Government has said that they will implement homosexual union at some point.[21] So what is the point of a plebiscite? Mr Rudd has set his sail – who cares what the people think! Thus, if a vote comes, it must be a referendum. It must deal with the issue. It must clear the air.

B. The Question: Importantly, any referendum must ask the right question and it must provide for a just outcome. If the question is put in terms of recognising God’s view of marriage in the constitution, then there is a lot to gain. If said motion is defeated, we return to the status quo of relying on an Act of Parliament. This option at least provides for the possibility of a better outcome. If, however, the question deals specifically with homosexual union and it is unanimously defeated, then, as I understand it, the majority voice will gain nothing and we are back to the status quo of relying on politicians and an Act of Parliament. This is simply lose / lose. We can either be subjected to homosexual union or listen to their endless banter until they browbeat Parliament into granting their request.[22] This is raised because, as we noted in Part 1, the evil agitators gained the desire of their hearts and the politicians voted. They Lost!! Yet it did not stop them. Thus, the question posed must be fair, accurate, just, and aimed at ending this issue positively. Equally, we must remember that Labor has now promised to implement homosexual union. Thus, even if Mr Abbott finds himself in the Lodge after the election that, in itself, is no guarantee that this issue will be laid to rest. Imagine a day in which Malcolm Turnbull “knife’s” Mr Abbott and the leadership changes. What then? Remember that, although not having any time for Julia Gillard, she did oppose homosexual union and that would have made some in her party stand with her in the last vote, regardless of it being a conscience vote. So whilst I oppose the concept of this referendum, I equally acknowledge that it may also be a glimmer of light.

6. Democracy and Politicians: I have some dear and respected brethren / colleagues who are convinced that this issue should be settled by the politicians. I agree that these people have been elected and that they should do their job. The trouble is, they do not!

We had a vote on legalising homosexual union. It was resoundingly defeated. Upon its defeat did any politician seek to ensconce the outcome by fortifying marriage? No! Were any measures taken, given the positive result, to sure up marriage, to make the agitators cease, or to insist that no more bills be presented on the topic? No! In Part 1, I argued for a view of limited democracy? I did so because the whole process of democracy in this country is a farce. Yes, the people vote in an elected official. Then what? That individual goes about doing what they think or what their party tells them.

Mr Rudd is trying to make a huge issue out of the fact that the Coalition members were not allowed a “conscience vote” on the issue of homosexual union. This is just farcical. On how many of Mr Rudd’s policies were Labor politicians given a “conscience vote”? If Labor politicians had been able to have this freedom on the “mining tax”, “carbon tax” “pink bats” and other policies, would Labor have been in its recent mess? Would any or all of those schemes have seen the light of day?

Then there is the even bigger question. Is a conscience vote in keeping with the democratic principle? I will answer, No! If a democracy is that – a rule by the people – then the freedom to express a particular point outside of Party politics is indeed necessary. However, it is not the freedom of the politician’s conscience that should be in view. Rather, it is the freedom of the politician to represent the views of his constituents.

Seriously, friends (even enemies), think about this. Our modern form of democracy gives us the right to elect a representative. At the cessation of that process, our democratic right is obliterated by party politics, and a “two-party-preferred” system. Some argument can be made that our democratic right does not even go that far, being truncated by preferential voting.

Consequently, with all due respect to my colleagues who hold this position, “What do we really expect from these elected officials in this corrupt democracy?” Mr Rudd talks up a conscience vote on homosexual union, but then tramples on the very concept of democracy by announcing that Labor will make homosexual union a reality. Do people not see this glaring inconsistency?

Consequently, on one side of politics there is a leader fully dedicated to homosexual union, who despite his promise not to take a “national lead” on this issue, has committed his party to making homosexual union a reality. Even with a conscience vote the leader’s attitude is going to sway votes in their direction. On the other side of politics, the leader has said no to homosexual union and will not let (for now) his people have a free vote.

Whilst Mr Abbott’s position is the correct one – though I suspect for all the wrong reasons – the simple, stark, cold reality is that neither side is representing a democratic position. Both transgress the simple principle of representing the people. Neither side are really listening to the people.[23]

Mr Rudd is whipping up the issue of homosexual union and broadband for one reason – he sees these as the point of connection with younger voters. So, even at this juncture, Mr Rudd is not listening to the people, but to a subset of people. Thus, he is not arguing democracy, but demography. Mr Abbott, for whatever reason, has refused to allow a vote, which equally strikes at the democratic principle. I mean, truly, if we accept the conscience vote as a form of democracy, then we should be demanding that Mr Abbott change his mind and allow such a vote. After all, the elected representatives should be able to represent, feigned or genuine, their constituents.

The current situation should really call for pause and a complete rethink of what we mean, particularly as Christians, when we speak of democracy and of elected officials doing their job. Can we trust people who lie? Can we trust the adulterer? My federal member believes whole-heartedly in homosexuality and in maintaining the “traditional” view of marriage. Can I trust her? Not on your Nelly! Why, because she, like most, is guided by pragmatism and not absolutes.

7. Conservative Australia: Some Christians, whom I respect, are wary of a referendum because they wonder whether God’s truth would be voted in, even if the right process is allowed and the right question posed. My belief is that this position underestimates the general clime of our nation.

One of the reasons many homosexual protagonists have backed away from the idea of a referendum on homosexual union is because they know that it does not have public support. Whilst Australia may not be a righteous nation, it is to some degree “politically conservative.”

This conservative nature was highlighted with the rise of One Nation. Regardless of your particular feelings concerning Pauline and that Party, you should morn over what happened to her and the One Nation Party. This marked a dark day in Australian politics and showed that democracy, whilst touted, was simply not welcome. This political party became popular very quickly. It began to poll better than most other minor parties and it became a real threat. Thus, the big boys banded together and set out to destroy this fledgling party before it could become a real power, thus extinguishing the heralded democracy of our nation.

Why? Very simple. One Nation began to put forth different policies that had credibility. They did not offer the same, old, tired, lame excuses. They were willing to try something different. They were willing to recognise morality in governance. Moreover, they were advocating a change.[24] As a consequence, they gained a real following. For whatever other lack may have been present, the rise and demise of One Nation showed that Australia has a conservative outlook. It showed that people were sick and tired of only having two choices – Dumb and Dumber!

For this reason, the homosexual lobby has focussed on changing the minds of politicians rather than changing the mind of the people. This is why Tony Abbott has come under so much pressure for not allowing a “conscience” vote on the issue. The proponents of homosexual union want to deceive people into thinking that the only reason that the last vote was unsuccessful was because of this limitation.

Thus, they continue to add pressure to the fickle politicians who want to be re-elected. So we see Mr Windsor[25] and Mr Rudd both changing their mind on this issue. Did they have a moral change or a political change of heart? In other words, could they see the writing on the wall and so make a decision in order to gain the votes of a vocal minority in order to save their political careers?

Having moved amongst my countrymen, I do not believe there is anywhere near the support for homosexual union or homosexuality that is touted in the media. People feel they must support things in public because they fear Big Brother. However, take them aside and have a quiet chat and their view is very different.[26]

8. PC – A Dangerous Thing: The simple reality is that Australia is being held to ransom at the barrel of the PC gun.[27] People are simply not free to state what they believe and to discuss the topic. People are constrained and restrained by legislation, workplace policies, and employment contracts; all of which is nothing short of the forced Governmental indoctrination of its citizens.

When a Government cannot present a reasoned debate that convinces its citizens, it turns to tyranny, force, and coercion. The irony found in our tyrannical Government is that they claim to be rationalists who subscribe to reason as the basis of their belief system, yet they are unable to give a credible reasoning for their actions. How bizarre!

Anyway, the point is this: the Government has no rationale for the implementation of homosexual union. Therefore, it will readily stifle debate and enforce its will through the abhorrence that is PC. So, in looking toward the future, we must be willing to attack PC, to stand against its insidious methods of gagging, and to risk its weight falling upon us. Make no mistake, if we get to a referendum there will be a campaign and there will be debates. If we argue as I have urged – arguing against homosexuality in general – or simply against homosexual union, we will be opposed by all the legislation enacted to the honour of the pagan god “PC”.

9. Girding the Loins: In times like these we cannot afford to have a spirit of timidity. We cannot back away from the fight simply because it seems that we are opposed by the many. Remember Gideon. Remember Jericho. Remember Joshua. Remember, it is Yahweh Who fights for us. It is in Yahweh’s army that we march.

This army must fight at the command of its Captain. However, the army must remember that its Captain is not constrained to “save by many or few!”[28] When God is for us, who is there to oppose? With the Psalmist should we not also exclaim, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread?”

Conclusion:

Whilst I oppose the idea of being compelled to vote on a topic on which God has already spoken vociferously, I am equally open to the fact that God may be presenting His people with a great opportunity. I realise that some will see that position as “confused” or me as having a “double standard”. If that be the case, I guess I will have to cope.

Such issues aside, it is necessary that the Christians of this nation not miss a God-given opportunity. Many issues divide Christians for many reasons. On the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union there is a greater degree of unity. Therefore, at this present time, we have been granted an opportunity to garner support for Biblical reform. It would be a pitiable situation if this opportunity were not seized.

As is clear from this article, our problems as a nation go far beyond the issue of homosexual union. That topic is nothing more than a spiritual and cultural barometer. What it clearly shows is that the needle is pointing to a deep low; that is if the needle has not already fallen from the hub in disgust, lying dormant at the bottom of the dial!

My aim is to stir people’s hearts for Revival and Reform. Yes, highlighting inadequacy and error can be seen as pessimism or an overly critical spirit. However, I count such terms as naught. The simple, basic truth is this: Honest appraisal must come before any attempt at renovation! You would not buy a house on the basis that it had an expensive, solid-timber, hand crafted door, complete with a costly stained-glass inset, while the rest of the house was desperately in need of repair. You would not sit there, shivering as the icy wind blew in through cracks in the wall, simply admiring the door, convinced that the house is in excellent condition. So why do we seek to unleash such deception upon ourselves at a national level.

Having pointed out the deficiencies, we need to now set about taking whatever opportunities we have to rectify the situation.

Imagine, the referendum is fair, the question just. God hears the cries of His people and marriage between one man and one woman is enshrined in the constitution. Wonderful. Then the fallout. We would have a constitution that is at loggerheads with international treaties and other “Human Rights” garbage. Our Equal Opportunity Commission would be in a conundrum. How can we be had up for vilification if we are being but constitutional?

Imagine the public declaration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that could take place during a campaign. Yes, there may be / will be opposition. Nonetheless, we would have just cause to publish Christ’s word daily in our newspapers; daily opportunity for Christ’s word to be spoken on radio. Any attempts to gag would simply furnish us with more material on which to comment. Gagging would provide us with more opportunities to speak Christ’s word to yet one more godless situation. It would further enable us to point out man’s natural hatred of Christ and His standard. It would provide us with plentiful opportunities to command, Cease, Desist, Repent, Live.

As stated, our consciences are to be bound to God’s word and by God’s word. Thus, my number one encouragement is this: Do not give up searching the Scriptures in these difficult times. It is God’s word alone that will furnish us the necessary wisdom to fight appropriately and succeed.

Secondly, do not give up on prayer. Pray often. Pray vigorously. Also, pray wisely and pray toward something. Let us prove to God that we are convinced that there is a particular course of action that is right. Encourage your brethren to pray, even if their ideas and convictions are different. The point is that we should swamp God’s throne with our ardent prayers; thereby showing that we are engaged and interested participants in the establishment of His Kingly rule over his Kingdom. As to the fact that our prayers may differ – tis naught. A perfectly wise God can adjudicate that situation most adequately.

Let us approach this situation with courage in Jesus Christ and with a positive outlook. Whilst the situation may be chaotic and less than perfect, that by no means translates to the fact that God cannot work or that He will not work. In fact, Scripture shows us that it is at times of greatest despair, when man’s resources and hope are expended, that God often works the greatest.

Salt and light. If we will not preserve and shine, who will? Tis our task to work for the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom. Whether the days be good or evil is not ours to choose. It is ours to live faithfully in every age. To live to God’s glory and to proclaim that it is God’s right to rule all institutions and all nations through Jesus Christ.

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.” “And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.”

Eschatologies and prophetic views may differ, but these words sum up our raison d’être. This is that to which we are obliged to work and to which we have been called. This is our cause in Australia in the year of our Lord 2013. Will you join with me in this fight for the glory of Jesus Christ our King?

Footnotes:

[1] Let us also be clear on this point. I focus on homosexuality because of the topic and context. However, all institutions have a responsibility to eradicate everything that is sinful. We need to bid homosexuality, “Be gone!” Along with this, we also need to include abortion, euthanasia, murder, divorce, de facto relationships and the like. Equally, we need to oppose theft in all its forms – excessive taxation, unjust weights, manipulated dollar, manipulated fuel prices, and so on. We need to remove tyranny and bring freedom. We need to re-establish justice. Our society needs to undergo transformation through the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In short, we need another Reformation.

[2] Romans 8:29.

[3] “How precious also are Thy thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them!” 139:17

[4] “Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128. “Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth.” Psalm 73:25.

[5] “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29; “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.” Deuteronomy 30:19-20; “And He 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.” Matthew 22”37-38.

[6] These are those that believe the Gospel is only about saving individuals. Politics and Culture are but unholy distractions. These will only get involved in these battles if they are constrained by external forces.

[7] Luke 9:62.

[8] Allow me to draw an Ecclesiastical analogy. Some years ago the congregation I then attended was vacant. A meeting was held by the Interim-Moderator in order to expedite filling the vacancy. One of the questions posed was, “What do you want in a minister?” This opened the door to all sorts of ridiculous statements, including, “We do not want anyone dogmatic!” (If the desired candidate is to believe nothing and have no convictions, we may as well have stayed vacant!) My point here is very simple – Scripture tells us absolutely what an Elder / Minister must be. We did not need a popular consensus or a democratic vote on the principle qualities that the Elder / Minister must display, for they are codified in Scripture. Neither do we need Governments holding opinion polls on homosexuality. Our perspective on that has likewise been codified in Scripture.

[9] 2 Samuel 24: ff c.f 1 Chronicles 21:1 ff.

[10] Both accounts record that 70,000 died in the ensuing pestilence.

[11] “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” Ephesians 5:15-17.

[12] Without getting into a debate regarding Eschatology, we would point out that the book of Revelation contains two challenges for people to think and apply their minds. Revelation 13:8 and 17:9.

[13] Jeremiah 31:33: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” John 14:1: “Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.”

[14] John 16:8-11: “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.”

[15] Hebrews 4:16: “Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.”

[16] Romans 12:2: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Paul, at this juncture, insists on the renewed – Biblical – mind so that we may in fact understand God’s will, which is always acceptable and perfect.

[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Motto

[18] We would do to remember and heed Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to be “ready in season and out” 2 Timothy 4:2.

[19] A plebiscite would be useless. The Government is well aware of the numbers who oppose this change, just as it is well aware of its own agenda and treaty obligations. As such, a plebiscite would be a colossal waste of money which would do nothing to turn back the tide in this nation.

[20] Again, there are many variables. However, in an effort to be constructive I assume a number of issues, such as a fair question and a victory for God.

[21] “LABOR has given a strong indication same-sex marriage will be legalised, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s righthand man declaring the party will make it happen. Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made the declaration while being interviewed on a youth radio station. But Mr Albanese later sought to clarify his comment, saying the issue was still a matter for a conscience vote and that history showed the Labor side of politics had always been the one to reform gay and lesbian rights.…

Asked on Triple J’s Hack show if Labor would make gay marriage happen, Mr Albanese, restricted to one-word answers, said: “Yes”.” Read more:

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/albanese-signals-marriage-equality-8216will-happen8217-under-labor/story-fnho52ip-1226673375150

[22] Space does not allow for a full discussion, but I believe that any referendum should come with a “sunset clause” or moratorium. We had a vote on this issue. The homosexuals lost. Yet, as we have noted, that vote did not put the issue to rest. Thus, if homosexual union is again defeated, there needs to be a stipulated time before it can ever be raised again. If this is not done, the political circus will continue.

[23] Let me illustrate with two examples, both from the supposedly conservative side of politics. Jeff Kennett allowed a “conscience vote” on legalising marijuana, yet at the same time ruled out ever allowing a vote on the reintroduction of the death penalty. John Winston Howard turned tyranny to an art form with the “gun buy-back”. The real tragedy in this saga was seen when “backbenchers” began to speak up for their constituents. They were told publicly to go back and silence the voters. So where is democracy? What voice do the people really have? Put this to the test. Walk down the street – any street – and I guarantee you can start a conversation with a complete stranger on this issue in no time at all. I equally guarantee that the response will not be positive. It is a sad reality, but the depth of despair is summed up in the old joke, “How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move!”

[24] How many times have you heard a politician in opposition tell you how ridiculous certain government policies are, yet, when the opposition gains power, they do not rescind or repeal these policies?

[25] This was penned before the recent announcement that Mr Windsor would not contest his seat at the next election.

[26] Before leaving this point, let me highlight just how our political landscape is radically altered by our corrupt system. In the election that saw One Nation decimated, they had hoped to win 12 seats. As we know, they did not win a single seat – or did they? My memory is a bit hazy, but, at that time, I smelled a rat and spent hours trolling through election results. If memory serves correctly, on a first past the post result, One Nation won 15 seats. Again, I cannot remember the exact number, but I believe that Pauline Hanson was something like 10,000^{^[26]} votes in front at the end of primary voting.

Analogy time! Imagine the outcry if, at the end of the horse race, the winner was relegated to last place because of a straw poll conducted amongst the jockeys as to who they thought should have won. This is what is happening at every election in Australia. How different would Australia be if we had a system that recognised the first past the post or the majority primary vote?

[27] Dr Ben Carson spoke at the Nation Prayer Breakfast in the US this year. His speech is worth listening to in its entirety. May I encourage you to listen to the first six minutes of his speech, in which he says some very salient things in regard to people being easily offended and the impact of PC. If time is short, simply listen to one minute of this speech. Between 5:05 and 6:02, Dr Carson, speaks directly to the PC culture. He labels it as a “horrible thing” and as “dangerous”. He notes that it “muzzles people.” View at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA

[28] 1 Samuel 14:6.

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)

Posted on July 6, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

[This article was begun some months ago when the issue of a referendum was first raised. Due to circumstances, it has been worked on in an ad hoc fashion over that time. I feared that it had become irrelevant with Kevin Rudd taking back the Prime Ministership and that it may end up in the bin. However, Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union and his statements of recent show that this issue is still very much alive. Some aspects may be dated. We now know that Tony Windsor will not be standing for re-election. However, it is hoped that the bulk of the article will still prove helpful. RM]

The issue of homosexual marriage refuses to go away.[1] Why is this? The simple answer has to do with, a) agitators who will not give up until they achieve their goal and, b) Christians who will not engage in this fight in an appropriate manner.

Those in favour of homosexual marriage managed to have a bill introduced to Parliament in 2012, which sought to rewrite the Marriage Act by changing its definition. After months of debate throughout society, the vote was taken and the democratically elected officials voted the bill down. Not only was the bill defeated; it was significantly defeated (98-42).

Did this stop the agitators? No, it did not.[2] Why did it not stop them? The answer here is twofold.

First, it must be understood, and we have made this point in previous articles, that the vote taken by the Parliament was only a vote as to the definition of marriage. It was not an in principle vote against homosexuality. In other words, the vote was not a total rejection of homosexuality as an invalid and unacceptable lifestyle. Rather, it was a vote concerning the extent of homosexual recognition.

Second, because the aforementioned vote was not a complete rejection of homosexuality, the agitators have continued to be buoyed by Government policy and world events. We have highlighted the fact that the Gillard Government has made major concessions to the homosexual movement.[3] In recent months, we have seen both the New Zealand and French Parliaments vote to accept homosexual marriage. The consequence of which was to once more fuel the issue here in Australia.

Given the inability of our elected officials to deal satisfactorily and morally with this issue, we must ask, “What now?” The most recent proposal came from the Independent MP, Tony Windsor. His suggestion is that an additional question be added to the referendum planned to be held at the upcoming election.[4] Naturally, the additional question would deal with homosexual marriage.

This is a very simple plan. It is an effective plan. It is a definite plan. It is also a plan that has well and truly placed the “cat amongst the pigeons.” Thus far, we have seen some Christians support the idea[5] and some Christians reject the idea.[6] Certain political parties embraced the idea and then distance themselves from it. Social commentators have raised concerns about what effect a referendum and the associated advertising may have. Then, amusingly, certain homosexual lobby groups have shied away from the proposal.[7]

“Referendum or no referendum?” that is the question.

As noted, I would agree with certain aspects of Mr Windsor’s proposal. A referendum should put this issue to bed once and for all. The proposal is simple. The proposal is democratic. This proposal would tell us what the Australian people are actually thinking in contradistinction to what the news polls suppose we are thinking. A referendum would put the issue beyond the reach of politicians and political speak.

The question, however, that must of necessity be asked is, “Are these aspects the right and only issues in this debate.” The answer to that is a resounding, “No!” Here, we enter the heart of this debate. Here, we must look at the issues that are being pushed aside by most, if not all, in this debate.

1. Man’s Logic v God’s Authoritative Word:

One of the constant irritations in debates of this nature is the way in which Christians seek to argue logic and trend rather than God and His word. In The War was not Won, I noted:

I know a good few Christian organisations who have fought hard in this and other battles. I do not in any way wish to detract from them or their work. However, I would posit that the events of recent years have shown us that the so called “logical” arguments are of little value. … We are witnessing a war based on definitions. Unless we come to the table armed with God’s word, then we will simply be trading “logic” for “logic” or human understanding for human understanding. The only thing that makes the Christian’s argument impenetrable is the very fact that it is God’s word! We have no magical ability bestowed upon us. Our faculties are not made magically better than other men. Our strength lies in the Word of God.[8]

It is time that we Christians came to these arguments armed solely with God’s word – the sword of His armoury![9] There is a place for secondary arguments; but they are just that, secondary. Such arguments must follow as an adjunct that witness to the truth of God’s word. They can never be allowed to supplant the primacy of God’s word either as the foundation from which we speak or as the content of that speech.

Allow me to attempt to elucidate. In theology we speak of “Natural” and “Positive” penalties when speaking of judgements upon sin. Berkhof explains:

There are punishments which are the natural results of sin, and which man cannot escape, because they are the natural and necessary consequence of sin. … The slothful man comes to poverty, the drunkard brings ruin to himself and his family, the fornicator contracts a loathsome disease, and the criminal is burdened with shame and even when leaving the prison walls finds it extremely hard to make a new start. … But there are also positive punishments, and these are punishments in the more ordinary and legal sense of the word. They presuppose not merely the natural laws of life, but the positive law of the great Lawgiver with added sanctions. They are not penalties which naturally result from the nature of the transgression, but penalties which are attached to the transgression by divine enactments. They are superimposed by divine law, which is absolute authority.[10]

It is fundamentally important that we grasp this point. When we as Christians wade into battle, we do so to glorify God and to stop sin. We go forth in the name of Jesus Christ and cry out, “Cease. Desist. Repent. Live!” Concerned for the holiness of our God, we seek to stop every action that robs Him of His glory or besmirches His great name. The implication of this is that we are dealing with sins specifically proscribed by God as Lawgiver. Consequently, there is no logical link between the sin committed and the negative covenant penalty imposed by the sanction of God.

Lost? Let me explain. What logical link is there between neglecting the worship of Jesus Christ, poverty and famine? What logical link is there between sexual promiscuity and exile (loss of sovereignty)? What logical link is there between familial adultery and childlessness? To our modern and Humanistic way of thinking, we would reply, “Nothing!” However, if we explore God’s word, we will see clearly that in God’s Law these are the exact positive penalties attached to each of these transgressions.[11]

Whilst it is evident that there is indeed a system of cause and effect, the effect is not a logical consequence. In terms of homosexuality, we may see that the natural penalty of homosexual activity may be a divorce or the acquisition of a “loathsome” disease. What we do not see, what we refuse to see, is that the prosperity of our nation, its ability to produce, the stability of the seasons, the moral clime of the nation, the safety of our wives in their beds and our children on the street, and a myriad of things beside, are all linked to the acceptance or rejection of homosexuals and homosexual practice.

Everyone is aware of the current agitation on Climate Change.[12] Around the world there is a constant outcry about the dangers of Climate Change. I hear all sorts of reasons being advanced. Do you know what I do not hear? This admission: “For we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, since our youth even to this day!”[13] We hear nothing in regard to the fact we are being punished and chastised for our rebellion against God.

Australia is toying with homosexual marriage as is Britain and America. France and New Zealand have legalised it – as have other countries. Heretics are crawling out of the woodwork—like the false prophets of old crying out “Peace! Peace! When there was no peace”—telling us that homosexuality is a “gift of God” and that people are “gay by divine right.”[14] This bemuses me. If all this is “so right” in the sight of God, why are our respective nations “so messed up”? If this is right before God then it constitutes righteousness. God says He will look to the “righteous” and that He will bless “righteous” behaviour. So, where is the obvious covenantal blessing (positive command for our good) of God upon our respective nations?

How do these false prophets explain Australia’s drought? How do they explain New Zealand’s earthquakes? How do they explain America’s ever decreasing prosperity and plunge into unpayable debt? How do they explain the downward spiral of Britain from ‘world power’ to third-world war zone?

The short answer is, “They cannot!” At least, not without denying God as sovereign Lawgiver all over again and admitting that we are products of chance; that our prosperity and the rise and fall of nations is just a “per chance” or “happenstance” on the timeline we call history. (Oops! Sorry. My bad. Of course they do this. They call it Evolution, Humanism, and Post Modern Thought, to name but a few.)

There is no human logic, research, or empiricism to be argued here. The only logic (right judgement) is to believe the revelation given by God and accept that, by God’s standard, all is not “rosy in the garden”; and this precisely because we have sinned and are therefore experiencing the application of the covenantal penalty to the covenantal transgression.

We can front our politicians with the so called “logical”. We can quote statistics. We can cite papers by PhDs. Yet none of these things says that the acceptance of homosexuality is an abhorrent deed that should not be practiced because it is an offence to Almighty God. None of these simply says, No![15]

More importantly, none of these papers speak with authority. None of these papers have the ability to command the consciences of sinful men and to tell them to stop suppressing the truth of God. None of these papers have the authority to either rebuke the conscience or liberate the conscience unto Jesus Christ. In short, none of these papers can transform. That process can only be worked by Divine authority and that authority is God’s word.

Dr. Joe Morecraft III is absolutely correct when he states that arguments of logic and empiricism are a ‘denial of the Christian faith.’ Says he, “Knowledge and morality are absolutely impossible unless we presuppose the truth of the Lordship of Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible over every area of life.”[16] Spot on! However, beware the pitfall. We cannot have a half-baked cake. We cannot give mental assent only and say that we believe in accordance with Brother Joe and then forsake that principle for research and the words of men.

It is for this reason that we must go into battle with the offensive weapon of the Lord – The Sword of the Spirit.

Brethren, the first point is a very simple one. If we are going into battle with any expectation of victory, then let us throw down our piddly pen-knives and go armed with The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.[17]

2. Morality v Equality:

Beginning with the Word of God is essential for a successful Christian defence because it helps us to cut through the extraneous material thrown up by our opponents. The lens of God’s word helps us to see through the smoke and mirrors. Armed with the Sword of the Lord, we are enabled to peel back the layers of lies and deceit and expose the true condition we face.

In the battle regarding homosexual marriage, we must be sure of the true enemy so that we can apply the full force of God’s word to that point. Taking on God’s word and wisdom will ensure that we are not distracted and led from the path chasing tangential arguments and ideas.

Of priority, we assert that the idea of homosexual marriage is an argument of morality and not equality. Hence, from here on in, reference is made to homosexual union.[18]

Homosexuality is illegitimate. Homosexuality is an abomination and a depraved activity. Homosexuality is condemned by God.[19] Homosexuality is the pinnacle of man’s rebellion against God and therefore falls under the full weight of His righteous wrath.[20] So says God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Therefore, any discussion in regard to homosexual practices or homosexual rights is first, foremost, and only a moral issue!

Yet, we do not hear this anymore – even from the Christians!! We Christians have become so focused upon the “logical” refutation of the particular point before us that we have forgotten the bigger issue. The question before us is not, “Should homosexual union be legalised or recognised?” but “Should homosexuality be recognised or accepted?”

These are very different questions. The first merely feeds the rebellious desires of the homosexual lobby. The second places the homosexuals back in the closet and then pushes the closet of a cliff!! Oh dear! How un-PC of me. Well, in the words of Sgt Major “Shut Up”, “Oh dear. So sad. Never mind!”

The longer we Christians (and our nation) refuse to acknowledge, preach, proclaim, and insist on God’s order, the longer we will suffer the plague of homosexuality with all its attendant and destructive ills.

As a moral issue, homosexuality can only be discussed under two words and from one perspective. Those two words – two very unpopular words today – are, “Right” or “Wrong”. The one perspective is God’s. If we begin at any other place, we have lost the battle before we have even begun.

My friends, please understand this. As a moral issue, the discussion is only in regard to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and nothing else. If we begin to discuss the ancillary, then we fight on the enemy’s terms.

Let me illustrate this point for you. Recently, I heard a discussion on this topic in the context of a proposed referendum. A female was interviewed as part of a panel. She began her discussion and in the space of no more than two sentences changed her language three times. She started with “homosexual marriage” moved to “marriage equality” and then ended with the passionate “Australians just want everybody to be happy”.[21]

In these two sentences there was a transitionary move from the moral / ethical, to the cultural / legal, finishing strongly with the emotional – the modern god of happiness. Note this well, please. These transitions are used all the time. They are used to disarm and confuse. They are nothing short of Psychological Warfare. These terms are used to disguise reality and to deliberately lead people away from discussing homosexuality on moral grounds.

Asking Joe Average whether he wants “everybody to be happy” is a very different thing to asking him, “Do you believe homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle?” Yet, this is exactly what happens in order to bluff and beguile the average person on the street.

Footnote four contains a link to the interview with Fred Nile on this issue. I would now encourage you to go and view that link. Note this same attempt on the part of the interviewer to use language that distracts from the real issues. Note how that language makes any who oppose seem to be “Draconian”, “half-witted”, or just part of the “religious lunatic fringe”. Also note, please, how Fred Nile fails to indentify the real issue and continues to talk only of homosexual union.[22]

At this point, we must also highlight the current desire to speak of “marriage” as a mere tradition. Again, by taking this route the proponents of homosexual union are trying to remove the topic from the realm of morality and place it into a cultural context. As such, marriage becomes no more than choice, culture, or habit. They attempt to move it from the realm of God’s jurisdiction to that of Man’s; from Divine commandment to cultural choice.

Brethren, the second lesson is also simple. We must come to this argument armed with “Thus says the Lord God…” because this is a moral issue. It is a case of right or wrong based in God’s revealed Law-Word.

This issue is not equality. The issue is Morality!

3. Democracy v Theocracy:

Here, we arrive at the real thought provoker. Here, we arrive at one of the greatest problems in the modern Church – Epistemological Hypocrisy. Wow! Big word. So let’s explore.

Epistemology is, in general, the “theory of knowledge”. It looks at how we know, why we know, and what we can know. It is fundamentally important that the Christian grasp and understand the significance of this. It is so because the Christian believes, or should believe, that one can know. The Christian does not believe that they are in an unintelligible world that has no reality or purpose and which is naught but a transient dream in the mind of the individual. On the contrary, the Christian believes in a world created by God. Therefore, there is knowledge of order, purpose, justice, morality, right and wrong.

In contradistinction to this is our current world – the world of the “Postmodern” era. In this world, knowledge and the ability to know are questioned or denied. The ramification of this is that the predominate philosophy of our day, the theory that guides the people in power, is one in which there are no absolutes and, therefore, no right or wrong. In such a world, democracy and the collective choice of the individuals is hailed as supreme.[23]

This brings us to discuss the Epistemological Hypocrisy of the Church. If we went to church this Sunday and conducted a straw poll on the questions, “What is the Church’s authority?” and “Where do I find God’s instruction?” I am sure we would have high percentages tell us that it is God and the Bible. In short, Christians would affirm that their epistemology is based in God’s revelation of Himself. This has led the Church, throughout history, to affirm that the Bible is the only rule of life and faith for all.

The problem is that we have become Epistemological Hypocrites. What we affirm with our lips, we do not affirm with our actions. This was made clear two decades ago at a church I then attended. A group came to the church with a questionnaire. It had, I believe, twenty questions. Ten were asked positively. Ten were asked negatively.

When asked the positive question regarding Scripture, the answer was around 90% in the affirmative. In other words, the majority of respondents believed that the Bible was our only source of authority. However, when the practical question was asked – a question along the lines of, ‘When people ask for advice you give or seek guidance from …?” – the percentage of those who used the Bible plummeted dramatically.

This is Epistemological Hypocrisy. We Christians say that we believe God. We say that we live by God’s word. We say that we obey God’s commands. We say that we desire obedience to God’s Law. We go into our church services and pray lofty prayers asking God for guidance, for wisdom, for discernment. We are even emboldened to ask for God’s blessing upon our obedience. Yet, we walk from the building and begin to implement that which seems good to us. We enter into cultural and political debates armed with the toothpicks of human research rather than the Sword of the Spirit.

This leads to the challenge. Christian, why do you support an unbridled view of democracy? Whilst it has become an unpopular view and a word to be shunned, the simple reality is that this world and our nation must be Theocratic.[24] We must live under, by, and for the rule of God.

The best that a Christian should say is that he believes in Limited Democracy. This is a view in which man has some ability to vote into being certain rules. Yet, intrinsically, it also sets up a very high and strong fence around a range of issues and sets a banner on that fence: “God has spoken. Man may not encroach!”

In regard to the question of a referendum, I object, not because I fear the outcome, but because God has spoken. Consequently, the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union is beyond the determination of man – either as an individual or as a parliament. This is the same with Euthanasia, Abortion, Taxation, Property Ownership and a whole host of things. God has spoken. Man’s task is to listen and obey.

Here, then, is the quandary. The Church has fallen for the modern mood of Individualism. The idea of “having a vote” and “expressing our own opinion” has become a joy to us (research v Word). We see this in the modern desire for choice. Man simply wants to be free to choose his own destiny. This sounds okay, but at heart it is once more a return to the Garden and a grab for God’s throne. It is to visit Psalm Two and see the kings and judges of the earth conspiring to throw off God’s rule, and therein, God’s Law and God’s Christ.

Sadly, the Church has become complicit in this gross sin. She has desired Her own path. As such, She has played the harlot. She has not remained faithful to Her Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ. In modern parlance, She has become a Feminist and joined the noisy chorus demanding freedom from Biblical headship.

If we are to have victory, we Christians and the Church, must confess this sin and repent. We must live our epistemology consistently. We must deny Democracy and call for Theocracy. We must remember that we are not members in a club with voting rights, but citizens and ambassadors from a Kingdom. Our job is to live out and declare the message of the Great King.[25]

When we grasp this point. When we affirm, on the basis of a Biblical conviction, that we subscribe to a limited democracy that sits below the Theocracy, then we will be more inclined to say, “Thus say the Lord God…!” and to understand issues from the point of God’s morality and God’s sovereignty.

4. Homosexuality v Heterosexuality:

God’s revelation shows that it is one man and one woman who are to be joined in a legal unification – a legal unification that we have termed as marriage. Even if we take into account the times we witness multiple wives in Scripture – something tolerated, not commanded or sanctioned – it is exactly the same pattern, man with woman / women! The number of the wives may change; their gender never does.

Here we must once more throw out the challenge by use of analogy. Your child is shown, by you, a picture of an animal. That animal is large, grey, four-footed, has a trunk, is equipped with tusks, eyes, mouth, and has very large ears.

You now ask your child to name the animal. Your child studies the picture and jubilantly exclaims, “It’s a donkey!” Bewildered, you ask, “Why do you say it is a donkey?” Contemplatively, your child replies, “Well, it has large ears. It has a mouth. It has eyes. It has a tail and it stands on four legs.” Continuing, your child confidently asserts, “It must be a donkey because a donkey has all these!”

You see, like the child, the homosexual and the homosexual lobby try to justify their perverted view of gender and sexuality on the basis of similarity. Yet such is absolute nonsense. We would not let our child call an elephant a donkey based on similarity. Rather, we demand that our child call an elephant an “elephant” based on its unique qualities that set it apart. In essence, the label “elephant” cannot be applied willy-nilly to any animal. The term brings to mind an exact representation. The label and the form go together.

So it is in terms of marriage and sexuality. Marriage is a term that applies to the covenantal union of a male and female with the implication of all that God intended for and through that covenantal union. Marriage is the label. Male and female is the form. This is the majestic, mighty elephant – powerful, strong, and robust.

In comparison, you have the donkey that is homosexuality. The similarities in form do not entitle it to appropriate to itself the label. It is that simple. Sharing big ears and having four feet does not transform a donkey into an elephant. Likewise, the fact that homosexuality is one side of the gender coin; that some travesty of sexual exchange may take place; that some type of relationship may be present, in no way qualifies this parody to appropriate the label “marriage”.

Form and label go together. Alter the form and the label does not apply. To use the label for a different form is theft. It is the path to confusion and anarchy.

5. Life v Death:

At this point we are going to be, to the modern mind, rather provocative. No excuses are made. No apologies issued. These things must be stated.

The Dominion / Cultural Mandate[26] clearly shows that Marriage is God’s design for life. God placed male and female together in covenant union – marriage – in order to be fruitful and bring God’s rule over the earth. This design fit perfectly with God’s blueprint for life. God planted seed in man. God deposited eggs within woman. He gave to the woman a womb – a secret place within her wherein God would knit life and bring forth posterity. These create generational family. They provide nurture, care, love, and discipline. They train. They sacrifice. They live.

Homosexuality cannot copy this pattern. Homosexuality is, by definition, barren and dead. Eggs without seed and seed without eggs. Life cannot be brought forth by these relationships without intervention or further depravity. Historically, nations that have embraced homosexuality have died out. One does not need to be a genius to figure out why.

Homosexuality is death. Its form is death. Its label is death. Heterosexuality is life precisely because God gave a form that could be and is fruitful. God placed a man and a woman together – form. That form is called marriage – label. This form and this label are life.

Now to be really provocative, but, nonetheless, truthful. Homosexual union is an impossibility. It is so because homosexuals are abominations proscribed under pain of death. The union which they seek is “until death do us part”.[27] Biblical fact – their dead!! The dead do not marry. The dead cannot marry.[28]

You will now tell me that such a statement is unpalatable. The slaves to modernism will tell me that such statements are harsh, unloving, intolerant, and not in keeping with Jesus’ philosophy, and so on ad nauseum. These are the same people who have rejected the term and concept of Theocracy in order to be comfortable in the modern world. These are those who simply reject the order God Almighty in His holiness has imposed.

Remember, the issue is not equality or happiness. It is Morality and Righteousness. It is life or death; blessing or curse. It is nothing less than the Righteousness of God revealed as Law that flows from the essential holiness of His character; the Law given to us in the totality of Scripture.

When viewed correctly, the unpalatable and intolerable is found in those who would vindicate, approve, and accept that which God rejects as abhorrent!

God’s Law-Word states:

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Deuteronomy 23:17-18: “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.”
Romans 1:24-27 & 32: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error … and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
1 Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:8-11: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Revelation 21:25-26: “And in the daytime … its gates shall never be closed; and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”[29]
Revelation 22:14-15: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.”

Whilst the moderns try to reinterpret Scripture and make God to be as a babbling fool with no coherence, the simple reality is that God speaks clearly, consistently, and unequivocally in and through Scripture. Homosexuality is death! This is God’s verdict. Homosexuality, in any form, is death. It should be punished with death here. It will certainly be punished with the “second death” in eternity.

There is nothing ‘God-like’ in homosexuality. There is nothing noble in homosexuality. There is nothing righteous in homosexuality. There is no life in homosexuality. The Bible unanimously condemns this practice as rebellion. The Bible issues forth one sentence upon homosexuality. It is a lifestyle deserving of death.

In light of such evidence, how is that Christians and society today can accept homosexuality as not only legitimate but as having more right than the Law of God? How is it that we so comfortably speak of loving a practice that God hates, which He calls an abomination, and which He proscribes with death? Indeed, there are unpalatable and intolerable things stated in regard to homosexuality. However, such things are not present when God’s truth is declared. Truly, the unpalatable and intolerable are realised when men, and particularly Christians, proceed to call “good” that which God has called both an evil and an abomination.

To continue with this type of speech in favour of that which God has soundly condemned is to invite God’s vigorous judgement upon our nation. It is to bring death to our nation and to our culture. It is to say goodbye to peace, prosperity, and fertility and to invite calamity, debt, and death.[30]

Conclusion:

Brethren, I would ask you to think upon these issues – deeply and at length. In Part 2, we will attempt to look at the issue of a referendum in regard to some of the practical aspects. However, at this point, please consider the issues raised. Are you thinking God’s thoughts after Him or are you a conduit of Humanistic philosophy? Is your political theory founded in the “whole counsel of God” or on a few texts scattered here and there with which you are comfortable or, even worse, upon some wayward humanist’s theory?[31] Do you believe that it is God’s right to rule our nation here and now? If so, how are you seeking to implement that rule? If not, why do you deny the sovereignty of God in Jesus Christ?

These and many other questions must be asked and answered. For our part, we are only too happy to stir up the hornet’s nest of theological beliefs. Why? We are in this mess because the Church in this nation has subscribed to the many modern philosophies that have destroyed truth. Now we seek to bury any point of difference. We seek to side step any issue that may mean heated discussion or see our popularity take a ‘2 point’ dive in the weekly “popularity” contest.

If we would have an impact for Jesus Christ, a lasting impact, then we must ask and answer the hard questions. It is only in wrestling with those questions and seeking God’s answer to them that we will be in any way equipped to fight and to win. It is this wrestling that Paul commended. It is this procedure that leads to “the equipping of the saints.”

Therefore, before we can proceed to any sort of practical lesson, we must first learn the theory. We must first wrestle with God’s word of truth and seek His wisdom as to His standard and how that standard should be appropriately implemented.

Continue reading: Part 2

Footnotes:

[1] Many, including myself, pondered what motivated Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union. I am now of the belief that it was a necessary condition imposed by some for their support in his reclaiming the leadership of the Labor Party and, thereby, Lodge. In one of his first speeches he raised homosexual union alongside of “broadband” as issues dear to the young of this nation. Yes, that is it, all our problems will be solved by faster internet speeds and homosexual union. This is a man peddling an (imposed) agenda, not a man bent on fixing the things he broke in Kevin Mark 1.

[2] This is in itself interesting. The agitators made much of the idea of “democracy”, yet when the democratically elected officials voted, they were unwilling to live with the outcome of the vote that they had sought. Note this well, please. The homosexual lobby sought this vote. The homosexual agitators sought this vote. When the vote was taken, they lost. So it is very reasonable for the populace to now ask these people to “shut up” and to “go away”. They achieved the vote they so desperately wanted; yet, like children in the playground, “they took their bat and ball and went home” when the decision did not go their way. So much for democracy!

[3] Please see The Battle Still Rages, The Essence of War (Pt. 1) and especially, The Essence of War (Pt.2).

[4] See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html. Accessed 07/05/13

[5] See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/nile-calls-for-black-and-white-choice-for-voters-20130429-2ip0m.html.

[6] See: http://www.saltshakers.org.au/component/content/article/85-front-page-news/1078-our-response-to-calls-for-a-referendum-on-same-sex-marriage.

[7] This is very amusing as these same people seem to be constantly telling us that the majority of Australians support homosexual marriage. If this is true, why not embrace the referendum? After all, it is a “dead cert” if what they have claimed publically is true.

[8] Available at: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2012/11/the-war-was-not-won-the-battle-still-rages/.

[9] See Ephesians 6:10ff. It is interesting that most Christians know this passage by heart. Ask them about the sword and they will say a good many things. Yet, frisk them as they go into battle and said sword is conspicuous by its absence. It is high time we believed God’s Word and trusted to it. Not just in the comfort of our theoretical Bible studies, but in the heat of battle. Christians, if you are tired of fighting and losing, take Ephesians to heart. Put on God’s battle armour. Stand firm. Swing the sword and watch the power of God at work.

[10] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Banner of Truth Trust (1939) p 255.

[11] See: Deuteronomy 28:15-19: “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. “Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. “Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.” Deuteronomy 28:23-24: “And the heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. “The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed.” Deuteronomy 28:36: “The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone.” Leviticus 20:20-21: “If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.”

[12] This is but one issue. All the countries to be mentioned have major law and order issues. They all murder their own children in genocidal acts. They are threatened by a rising tide of false religions, not least of which is Humanism. Their governments are all unable to produce a quality countermeasure to the problem. Why is that if it is simply a logical case of cause and effect?

[13] Jeremiah 3:25

[14] Please see the “High Priestess” Oprah sowing her perverted view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBnzUVFTOek.

[15] These papers and statistics may state things that are true. Yet, as they are not authoritative, the homosexual lobby will rally its statistics and its PhDs to counter these claims. Again, it becomes “logic” against “logic” and “opinion” against “opinion”.

[16] See” Refuting Abortion from the Bible. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEszNTt1R3U.

[17] See: Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12.

[18] Please do not understand this as a statement in favour of “civil unions” or “registers”. It is simply a statement that we need to recapture the language. Marriage is God’s covenant term for a man and a woman. Not only should it not be used of others, it cannot be used of others. Please see: The War of Words at: http://againsttheworld.tv/?p=614.

[19] See: Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

[20] See Paul’s argument in Romans 1:26-27. It is important that we understand all these texts on homosexuality as the Bible presents them. These acts are not denounced because they show a lack of hospitality or they are abusive of younger persons (pederasty). These comments are just the “smoke and mirrors” of sinful men. Homosexuality is condemned because it is, 1. A deconstruction of the image of God in man; 2. A deconstruction of God’s order in creation – God made man male and female; 3. A deconstruction of God’s marriage covenant – one man with one woman. 4. A deconstruction of God’s creational institution – the family. 5. A deconstruction of God’s appointed order for His rule and His glory in the earth. Being these things, it is the consummate symbol of man’s rebellion against God. Being thus, it is also God’s consummate judgement against man – He gave them over! (Romans 1:24, 26, 28.) Man wanted freedom from God’s rule and law, so God gave man over to the depravity he so craved. Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of man’s rebellion against God and of the futility into which man is plunged as a result. Homosexuality is the clearest expression of the futility of life to which sin leads.

[21] It is probably worth highlighting the obvious fallacy in this statement. I for one do not want everyone in Australia to be happy. I truly desire that the murderers, rapists, and paedophiles suffer for what they have done and pay the appropriate penalty. This is called justice. If you can murder and be “happy”, then true justice is, of necessity, absent.

[22] Please understand, I support Fred. He is a true unsung hero in this nation. He is one of Christ’s true champions. However, it seems that there is a failure to grasp the crux of the matter or, as has become the case, people are afraid to state the truth lest they fall foul of the evil vilification laws that have been introduced to this country. Thus, in the attempt to choose words carefully, the content is watered down. This is a secondary issue to do with language, but one worth noting. The evil doers are able to “flower” their language to the point of lying, knowing that their opponents cannot tighten or firm their language to the point of truth without crossing a boundary enforced by the law of the land. Yet, these have the audacity to speak of equality!!

[23] Please see: Of Designer Babies and Murderous Acts for comments upon the “right of choice”.

[24] As stated, the term Theocracy has become an unpalatable word in our day. Thus, I boldly ask, “Christian, if you despise this term, what form of governance do you aspire to see?” Do you really believe in Democracy? Do you believe that 51% makes for right every time? Do you believe we should have votes by the people on topics such as homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, adultery, witchcraft, divination, and the like? Should we live our lives content to ebb and flow with the desires of our society? Are you going to allow your family to vote on whether your daughter should be allowed to move in with her boyfriend? Do you propose a democratic vote on abortion should she fall pregnant to said boyfriend? Would this perspective be in keeping with Ephesians 4:14-15 or 2 Corinthians 7:1? What do we do when we encounter texts like: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path. I have sworn, and I will confirm it, That I will keep Thy righteous ordinances” (Psalm119:105-106). “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Thy word. With all my heart I have sought Thee; Do not let me wander from Thy commandments. Thy word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against Thee” (Psalm 119:9-11). “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Christians have come to despise the term Theocracy because they have been led captive by the nose to a false belief. The simple reality is that when you pray the Lord’s Prayer – Thy will be done of earth – you are asking for the Theocracy to be realised here and now. When you utter any of the texts cited above, and a myriad besides, you are asking for the Theocracy. When you pray for obedience, you are asking for conformity to the rule of God – Theocracy!! Friends, it is time we got over this hurdle, embrace the legitimacy of the term, and went about our Master’s task of teaching the nations to obey all that Jesus, King and All Powerful Sovereign, has commanded.

[25] The term theocracy receives a lot of bad press in our day because too many Christians have been seduced by the world’s views and have been taught that the Old Testament is outdated and obsolete. If you are one of these, then let me put before you some “New Testamenty” type texts that spell “theocracy” in a different way. Do you believe in the Great Commission? Yes! Okay, please go and re read it. Yes, read the text, please. Note that there is nothing there of the modern view of saving individual souls (Qualification needed, but that must wait for another time?) What you will see is “teach the nations to obey all that I have commanded!” Is this not Jesus stating the Theocratic principle in different language? We might also add, in this context, Jesus’ words, “all authority Has been given to Me … on earth.” 1 Timothy 6:15b-16: “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.” Here, the Apostle proves the case. God is absolute King. It is His to have dominion forever! Jude 24-25: “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” Please note Jude’s timeline. Some admit to Theocracy and to God’s rule over the earth, but they make it a future thing; something that happens only after Jesus returns. Such a perspective is not shared by Jude. He ascribes dominion to God in Christ “from all the ages”, “now”, and “to all the ages”. Ephesians 1:20-23: “He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” Please note Paul’s agreeance with Jude. Jesus is given dominion over all, not only in this age, but also in the age to come. The clear implication is that Jesus is King and all other authorities must yield to His Lordship. This means that all authorities on earth, whoever they may be, are obligated to obey all of God’s commands in Christ Jesus. Theocracy, New Testament style; Old Testament style; Biblical!

[26] Please see: Marriage Is Life!

[27] Once more, in viewing these words, we see how the marriage covenant has been attacked and eroded. Marriage is life and it is for life. The moderns, even when accepting the institution of marriage, still agitate against God’s design by railing against this phrase. They prefer gooey out-clauses like, ‘as long as we both shall love.’ Thus, even these fail the test of true marriage. They want the label, but they are still subtly seeking to alter the God-ordained form.

[28] The point here is very simple. If the magistrate followed Biblical law, homosexuals, along with murderers, kidnappers, rapists, to name a few, would be put to death. It would therefore be a physical impossibility for such people to demand anything, let alone proceed to a covenantal union that was “for life” and which terminated “at death”.

[29] Scripture here affirms the deathly quality of homosexuality. These persons are banned from the Kingdom. They are outside in the darkness. This is what Jesus and other Biblical writers call the “second death” – “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (See also: Revelation 2:11, 20:14) The clear implication is that these people are dead once and proceed to the second death.

[30] Morality demands that we as a nation complete a rethink on a number of topics. Not only is it high time that we Christians reject homosexuality, full stop, but it is time that we also began to reject all heterosexual perversions that encroach upon the sanctity of marriage. For too long have we remained silent on topics such as fornication, sex before marriage, adultery, and de facto relationships. These are all baby–steps to the acceptance of the ultimate perversions of God’s order as realised in homosexuality and bestiality.

[31] You may recoil from this approach, but it is necessary. I remember only a few years ago having a conversation with a relative who attends a supposedly conservative denomination on a similar topic. This was his position: Marxism most closely approximates the Christian position! Sadly, too many Christian leaders have recoiled from Biblically critiquing such theories with the consequent result that young minds are lead captive to falsehood.

Kevin’s Dudd Position

Posted on June 1, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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.

[1] Shorter replies can be found at Saltshakers and CultreWatch.

[2] Available at: http://www.kevinruddmp.com/2013/05/church-and-state-are-able-to-have.html. Accessed 23 May, 2013.

[3] More will be said on this. For now, it must be realised that Church and State exist under God and have the same purpose – His absolute glory! Therefore, there should be no difference between the two. The Church should inform the State of God’s standard and the State should implement that standard. Narrator: “And they all truly lived happily ever after because they were blessed of God! The End!”

[4] It would be worth remembering that this issue has come about because of the State’s grab for power. Not so long ago, Marriage was governed by the Church. Now marriages may occur in a church building, but without any authority. I have always hated those words, “by the power invested in me by the State”. Yuck!

[5] 1 Corinthians 10:5.

[6] 2 Corinthians 6:14-18: Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people. “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you. “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty.

[7] Similarly, if Marriage is a Christian institution, why do the homosexuals want it? They should simply reject the concept in totality.

[8] Before he was elected Prime Minister, Mr Rudd was asked if he ‘believed in Jesus Christ as the son of God?’ His response was one of obvious frustration and refusal to answer. In this article there are many places that illustrate that his thinking and standards fall outside of those demanded by Scripture. In our discussion, we have not as yet reached some of the aspects that clearly highlight this.

[9] It is also worth noting that with this view comes a false view of faith. Biblically, faith believes the word or promise of God. It is not the conjuring of some mystical power from within, which then gains us credit. In arguments like the one before us we hear of faith, but it is a moveable and shaped thing precisely because faith is conceived of as subjective. Biblical faith does not shift because it believes the Word of the Objective, God.

[10] Acts 11:26

[11] John 10:30

[12] The theology surrounding the “Angel of the Lord” has posited that this being was the pre-incarnate Christ. When looking at the relevant passages, you will see that this Angel possess the qualities of Yahweh and often acts as Yahweh. As an example, read the narrative in Exodus 3 with Moses at the Burning Bush. Note that it begins with the “Angel of the Lord” and moves to Yahweh (see verses 2, 4, and 6).

[13] Exodus 21:5-6

[14] May I recommend to you a DVD entitled, Warriors of Honor. It is essentially a look at the lives and faith of Robert E. Lee and Stonewall Jackson. However, there are a few short documentaries at the end. One looks at slavery. I am fairly certain it will alter your perspective. This DVD is available from Reformation Ministries. Please email: murray@reformationministries.com.au with requests.

[15] It must also be remembered, of course, that the Bible has some things to say about relationships including polygamy. Read Deuteronomy 21:15-17. God implemented laws to give protection in polygamous situations because He knew it was an imperfect situation. It is also worth noting that polygamy was warned against. The king was told not to multiply wives or they would lead him astray (Deuteronomy 17:17). David’s sin with Bathsheba – multiplying wives! Solomon, wise yet stupid – multiplying wives!

[16] Exodus 20:14; Leviticus 20:4-5; 1 Kings 11:7-8; Jeremiah 32:35; Leviticus 18:15.

[17] Proverbs 14:34

[18] Answer 14. Westminster Shorter Catechism. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Shorter Catechism, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[19] G. E. Veith, Why God Gave Us a Book, (P&R 2011) 16-17. Emphasis added.

[20] Whilst there are cultural aspects to the Bible – a must as it was written in time, space, and culture – we nonetheless can quite easily see those aspects. Neither does such a “cultural” imposition mean that the statute or principle is defunct. For example, we read that houses were to have parapets on the roof. Definitely cultural. We may not build in this manner today, but that does not annul the principle involved, which was to keep people safe and to make sure that innocent blood was not shed. You may find this interesting – God was the first to implement OH&S! See Deuteronomy 22:8.

[21] God’s word is not subject to vote. We as a culture cannot vote to legitimise homosexuality or fornication because God has already spoken against these. Our vote means nothing. Our vote to overturn God’s Law is nothing short of a group delusion.

[22] We are not free to sift through the Bible and pull out the individual snippets that please us. God’s word is not the equivalent of a “Moral Supermarket” where we shop for those things which suit our palate or diet.

[23] This is by far the most important aspect. In theology we speak of God’s “Immutability”. Sadly, this term is rarely spoken about today. In essence, it means that God does not change in His plans, purposes, or power. Therefore, what God hated in Genesis, God hates in Revelation. To say that God no longer hates homosexuality, divination, false worship, child sacrifice, and so forth, is to say that God has changed substantially. That is to say, as God’s Law is a reflection of His character, a change in His moral stance in Law must presuppose a change in His character. Thus, God has changed. At this point, God is no longer God.

[24] The fundamental aspect missing from Mr Rudd’s assessment is that marriage is ultimately for God’s glory. Thus, the children brought into this world are likewise to be raised for His glory. Marriage is not just about nurture and protection for children. It is about God’s desire for Godly offspring; for successive generations that will praise and honour His name. True nurture occurs in households that are under the dominion of Jesus Christ; where parents raise their children in the fear and admonition of the Lord.

[25] When we highlight the Biblical concept of Marriage, it does in one sense attack the legitimacy of homosexuality. However, what needs to be recognised is that many are simply debating a term as though that term can be applied to anything. It cannot. “Marriage” is a label given to a distinct covenantal form that simply cannot be replicated. If your child is shown a picture of a large, grey animal, with a long trunk and tusks, is it legitimate for him to call that form a “donkey”? I mean they have four legs, a tail, a head, and a mouth. Both have big ears. There are definite similarities. Yet, you would not allow this to stand. Why? Because the distinction is not found in the similarities, but in the differences. The label cannot be separated either from form or ability. Homosexuals have neither the form nor the ability. That is to say that their form is illegitimate and their abilities deficient. Thus, the label cannot apply.

[26] I will admit to paucity at this point. I have forgotten the name of the person. However, I do remember looking at the data and found it to be convincing. See: The Australian

[27] 1 Corinthians 15:24-25

[28] 1 Timothy 1:8-11

[29] Deuteronomy 17:18-20

[30] My brother related to me a story. He was watching Channel 10’s, The Project. Someone stated that the statistics on homosexuality were 2%. Dave Hughes then stated that such figures cannot be right. ‘They must be more like 10%.’ The true statistic is denied, and the figure plucked from the air by the comedian is left to stand. Thus we must be aware of the fact that “hype” is being mistaken for support and practice. This parallels a study in the US that found that people perceived the homosexual population to be about 25% given all the hype surrounding the subject. The original Gallup survey is now unavailable; the site being reconstructed. So please view a snippet here.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Homosexuality

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)

Kevin’s Dudd Position