Of Shepherding Shepherds

Posted on September 1, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Eldership in the 21st Century)

In a recent edition of Una Sancta[1], Brother P. Posthuma wrote on Eldership. In that article he contended that there is a place in the Church for Christian counsellors. To be sure, he upheld the primacy of Eldership, but nonetheless hinted that elders needed supplementation in our day, particularly by those trained to deal with mental illness. This article was of great interest to the current author as it is a topic that is near and dear to his heart. As I read Brother Posthuma’s work, I must admit to feeling as though I had been placed on a roller coaster at a popular theme park. I felt the emotions soaring then plummeting. After the ride, my head was spinning and my knees were the consistency of jelly.

Now, before moving on, let me make a few things very clear:

This article is not an attempt to discredit my Brother. Far from it. Referring back to the roller coaster ride, there were indeed high points. I am sure that we agree on much.
The importance of the Eldership is such that we need to deal with it Biblically. Neglect in this area will be calamitous.
As such, this article is issued as one more step in constructing a Biblical perspective on Eldership. I wish, therefore, not to diminish brother Posthuma’s work, but to build upon it.

Alright, back to the topic at hand and that nagging question that you have in your mind – Why was my head spinning and my knees the consistency of Jelly?

The basic reason is that the good Brother’s article hinted at some very important issues that need to be grappled with, but, regrettably, did not follow through to a consistently Biblical conclusion. Thus, one was caused to soar to lofty heights before being brought back down in a hurry with all the attendant “gut wrenching” sensations that normally accompany such an exercise.

There is no doubt that our Brother pushed very hard to establish eldership as a God given model that is to hold pride of place. However, as noted, there were the lows. If God has appointed elders, why do we need counsellors? Why have we erected ecclesiastical roadblocks that hinder Biblical practice? What can a university add to a man that the Spirit of God cannot? Are we today confronted by situations to which the Bible does not speak either explicitly or by “good and necessary consequence?”[2]

These questions, and others, must be answered candidly. We must seek the Biblical data and the Biblical data alone, lest we be found to be introducing threads of ungodliness to our thought process. Regrettably, this author believes that such threads were, in part, introduced in the article to which we referred. The gate was left ajar and unlatched – yes, ever so slightly. Nonetheless, that small oversight means that the slightest nudge will see the gate swing further open.

With Brother Posthuma, I wholeheartedly agree that God has ordained elders for the governance of His Church and the wellbeing of His sheep. Peter’s restoration is a clear testament to this fact.[3] These men should be esteemed. These men rightly occupy Moses seat and are therefore worthy of respect.[4] These men are, literally, on the front line of the Kingdom battle as we seek to eject Satan from this our Father’s world. Consequently, we should not make their task difficult. We should pray for them often and by name. This is our great privilege as the non-elders.

However, we cannot esteem elders and eldership, on the one hand, and then introduce unBiblical data, on the other, that erodes the very standard that we have just professed. Thus, we must question whether or not many of the issues surrounding elders and eldership in our day do not in fact come from the tacit acceptance of unBiblical data.

(This said, I may need to encourage you to continue reading whilst sitting on the floor with a ribbon holding your hat firmly in position.)

My background is that of a different Reformed denomination – a denomination that actually sees unregenerate men appointed as elders. As a consequence, there are many horror stories to tell. You may reply, “Well, we do not have such lax practices!” To which I would reply, “No, not yet!” (Gasp!)

You see Brethren, the point is not to focus upon current practice, but on the ideas (theology) that inform our practice? Our focus is not merely to be on the external and outward, but on the data that informs our ideas and which, thereby, undergirds and instructs our practice.[5] Thus, the problem surrounding elders and eldership in the 21^st Century has less to do with the examination of divergent practice and more to do with the degree to which divergent data has been inculcated into our systems of belief and governance.[6]

Thus, a denomination that ordains ungodly men to the eldership is different from the one that does not only because the former has travelled further down the “slippery slope” of disbelief. In short, it has adopted more unBiblical data and thus the practices in that denomination have become more obviously corrupt.

Again, if we focus merely on the externals and begin to feel all warm and gooey inside because we do not do what they do, we miss the fundamental point that, at some stage, these people also once had a Biblical practice founded on Biblical data. They then adopted a faulty standard or data set, a standard other than Scripture, which led to a corruption of the Biblical standard and the implementation of the corrupt. Consequently, the salient question must be, “Have we begun to allow unBiblical data into our thought process in regard to elders and eldership?”

1. Rationalism:

Living in our individualistic, scientific age, we are no longer content with, “Thus saith the Lord!” Rather, we want to find a researched article or some other academic device that supports the Biblical position. This seems harmless enough. Yet, here, there is great danger. Why? Very simple; in the end, we begin to argue science, research, or academic opinion rather than the Word of God.

Just today, as I construct this article, the following headline came to me from a prominent Christian organisation: “WHY Fathers MATTER – research reveals the truth!” Does this mean that fathers did not matter until science stepped in with a helping hand? If so, then fathers can be relegated to irrelevancy by another study that takes a contrary position.

Please allow a further illustration using coffee. As a middle aged man, I hear all sorts of reports on the consumption of coffee and most are contradictory or limited in their application. If I drink too much coffee, I may have high blood pressure or end up with a failing heart. Then, another report says, ‘Na. Coffee is great!’ Finally I hear, ‘If you are middle aged, drink five cups per day as it has been proven to combat prostate cancer.’

So, my options are: 1. Bathe in coffee and flourish in every way; 2. Bathe in coffee and have my head explode from high blood pressure, but not die of prostate cancer; 3. Don’t bathe in coffee, maybe avoid high blood pressure and heart problems, but open myself up to prostate cancer! Anyone for a coffee?

The point that I hope you will see is that there is no absolute answer available in Rationalism. Research contradicts research; academic paper contradicts academic paper; expert contradicts expert, and so on.

Therefore, if we Christians adopt this rationalistic approach, we begin to rely on the so-called ‘wisdom of men’ rather than upon the absolute wisdom of God. When this happens, we find ourselves at the ‘whim and fancy’ of every research paper produced or that of every so-called expert that makes an announcement.

Sadly, this rationalism is too prevalent in Christian circles. Recently, during the debate over homosexual union[7], this rationalism came to the fore. We were told to write to our politicians and insist that children “need a mum and dad.” The obvious question then is, “What is a “mum” or a “dad”?

If we rely on the definitions given by rebellious man, these terms could mean anything. Moreover, these terms would change with every new piece of research. If you question this, please conduct a simple experiment. Find yourself both a new and an old dictionary. Now look up some moral term, for example, marriage. What you will note is that these definitions are changing. The dictionary is being made to conform to current practice. Similarly, the terms “mum” and “dad” will be moulded to conform to the current (secular) view of the family.

Relating this to eldership, the obvious force is to question why we need to wait for “enough university qualified and trusted persons totally committed to what the Bible teaches who could also advise and consult with elders.”[8] The implicit connotation in this statement is that elders are neither “academically qualified” nor “totally committed to what the Bible teaches” and as such are in desperate need of supplementation by other (Humanistic) professionals in order to ensure that they stay on the path of truth.

Here we encounter one of those “head spinners”. The statement unequivocally upholds a Biblical standard – these must be “committed to what the Bible teaches” – yet, in the very same sentence, we see the introduction of that which the Bible does not teach—the university qualified.

In Ephesians 4:11-12 we read, “It was he who gave some to be apostles, some to be prophets, some to be evangelists, and some to be pastors and teachers, to prepare God’s people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up”. You will note that this list is devoid of counsellors, psychiatrists, psychologists, and social workers. Also, you will note that there is no mention of the need to be “university qualified”. What you will see is that God, in Christ, appointed, for the edification and building of the Church, certain offices, which are to be filled by qualified officers. Among these is the pastor (Gk: Shepherd).

Turning to Acts 20:28-29, we witness Paul giving the following counsel to the Ephesian elders: “Keep watch[9] over yourselves and all the flock[10] of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers.[11] Be shepherds[12] of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood. I know that after I leave, savage wolves will come in among you and will not spare the flock[13].”

The point in bringing these texts together is to show what the Bible does and does not emphasise. Extracurricular offices are absolutely denied. No room is given to the concept that secular institutions may turn out a superior product of which the Church should avail Herself. On the contrary, Scripture stands firm. God has given offices to His Church. In these offices are God’s officers, having been appointed by the Holy Spirit. These and these alone are to govern and to defend; for only that appointed, anointed, and empowered by God’s Spirit can adequately care for God’s precious blood bought Church.

It must be remembered that only the true shepherd stands in the face of adversity. The hireling tucks tail and runs.[14] The hireling simply will not defend against the “savage wolf”. Equally, those not having the mind of Christ cannot relate to the Christian whose mind is set on Christ. “The sinful mind is hostile to God. It does not submit to God’s law, nor can it do so.”[15] In similar vein, the one trained by the world, will tend to bring the world’s ideas into the Christian arena, polluting it to one degree or another.

Consequently, Biblical wisdom behoves us to follow the Biblical pattern. God instituted elders for the governance of the Church in the Old Testament. Christ did not alter this. Much rather, Christ’s Apostles continued the practice[16] thereby reaffirming the validity of the elder and his office.

If there are issues regarding elders and eldership in our day, then they are not with the concept of eldership. The problem must be in our inadequate application of the Biblical data, both in regard to the standards for elders and our duty toward elders. Our responsibility then is to return to the data revealed for us by God’s Spirit – the same Spirit who appoints elders – and to stand in that light making sure that we conform to every jot and tittle. This is our only option, for the Bible does not give us warrant to abandon or supplement elders or the eldership.

With Brother Posthuma, we must assert an absolute belief in God’s order and standard as revealed in His infallible Word. This confident stand must, in the first instance, cause us to treasure that order so dearly that we will automatically reject anything that seeks to encroach upon the oracles of God. Thus, we must reject both Humanism and Rationalism at the outset. To accept data from these sources is to step onto the “slippery slope”. It is to introduce that thin thread of false data that will eventually corrupt the whole system.

[1] Volume 61, N^o 7; 8 Feb 2014. Pages 165-167.

[2] The whole counsel of God concerning all things necessary for His own glory, man’s salvation, faith and life, is either expressly set down in Scripture, or by good and necessary consequence may be deduced from Scripture: unto which nothing at any time is to be added, whether by new revelations of the Spirit or traditions of men. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995. Chapter 1, Section 6. See also The Belgic Confession Article 7 – that the teaching (of Scripture) is perfect and complete in all respects.

[3] John 21:15-19.

[4] Matthew 23:1ff.

[5] This concept is a two-way street. The Biblical data addresses both the shepherd and the sheep. Hence, whilst the bulk of this article will look at the shepherds, the sheep must realise that the same data places obligations upon them also.

[6] For clarity, think here of the old adage, ‘Ideas have consequences.’

[7] I refuse to use the term “homosexual marriage”.

[8] Shepherding the Flock, p.166. Emphasis added.

[9] This is an imperative or command.

[10] This is the same noun as used in Ephesians 4:11. God gave pastors (shepherds) to watch over the flock (sheep).

[11] Overseers and Elders are two different Greek terms. Whilst some believe these terms to refer to different offices, the Biblical data would suggest that they refer to the same office. Here in Acts 20:17, Paul calls the “elders” to himself and then states that they have been appointed as “overseers” (20:28). Seemingly, Paul saw no difference. Hence, the best way to understand these terms is that the term “elder” refers to the character of the officer, whilst the term “overseer” refers to the character of the office.

[12] This is the same root word as already encountered and it means “to act as a shepherd”.

[13] The same term as previously used.

[14] John 10:12-13.

[15] Romans 8:7.

[16] Titus 1:5.

Homosexual Paranoia

Posted on April 30, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34)! So says God. Scripture clarifies this statement further by noting that “Sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). The Westminster Divines ratify this definition of sin, stating: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature” (WLC 24).

Some of those “rules” given to the “reasonable creature” are:

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
‘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. (Leviticus 20:13)
You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog[1] into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)
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. (Romans 1:26-27)
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.[2] (Revelation 22:15)

When we, as men, in whatever capacity we serve, break these rules, we “reasonable creatures” are qualified as “sinners”. We become the proliferators of sin. Consequently, we are both a “disgrace” and a means of disgrace.

Is it any wonder then that, as homosexuality is forced upon our society by a clamouring minority, we have begun to see more and more disgraceful acts? By this we not only mean individual acts, but also corporate acts.

Two such stories have come to light in recent days. The first is a case of a mother who murdered her young son because she believed he was a homosexual. [3] The second is in regard to the joining of forces by certain Australian sports codes to take a stand against “homophobia”.[4]

In regard to the first story, many people will be quick to scoff and jeer and that for a multiplicity of reasons. However, I think some reflection is in order. Homosexuality, despite the rhetoric, is not normal. Everything about it runs contrary to our true natures. It evokes very strong feelings indeed. People will talk politely about it in public because that situation is forced upon them by the State. Take them aside and the story changes. Proposition them in a homosexual manner and the reaction will be akin to a volnado (a volcano and tornado combined).

As such, are we surprised to find people acting violently when they are confronted by this disgraceful evil? Are we surprised at violent outcomes when people are forced to accept as normal that which they find repugnant and disgusting? Add to this the “born that way” nonsense and you really have a recipe for disaster. What I mean by this is that the “reasonable creature” knows that homosexuality is a choice and that it is wrong choice. Yet, the modern propaganda makes people believe that homosexuality is a genetic mutation that must be accepted.[5] It is no different, in essence, to that of eye colour – it is a genetic predisposition over which the individual has no control.

The result of this volatile mix is that parents begin to believe that it is within the realms of possibility and probability that two perfectly heterosexual people will give birth to a homosexual child. Thus, these parents are challenged at a visceral level. They do not want a homosexual child any more than they wish for a palsied child. So how do they react when they think[6] that they are the recipient of a genetic mutation?

The mother in this news article reacted in anger. She murdered her child. For this action, she will be condemned by many. Another couple, not that long back, raised their son as a girl because they believed him to be a homosexual or at least transgender. Many people condemned this couple. Yet, there is a commonality. Whilst the parents acted very differently in respect to their children and their situation, they both acted in respect to the same lie, namely, that homosexuals are born that way.

This is the disgrace spoken of earlier. Here, two families are ruined. Multiple lives are destroyed. Why? They believed the prominent homosexual lie. They were brainwashed into believing that homosexuals are born. They were forced to capitulate to the modern Humanist dogma that has become de rigueur. As a consequence of this disgraceful lie and its jackbooted propagation at the instigation of the State, two children are lost. Two families are or will be in disarray.

Friends, this is the power of lies and ignorance. This is a lesson in politics. This is a lesson in regard to sinful man being “hell bent” on his rebellious and destructive path. This is the result of the denial of God’s truth: Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people!

You see, the homosexuals are desperate to have their burning consciences eased. They believe that by legalising their debauchery their conscience will be set free. Thus, they badger, harass, demand, and deceive in order to see their dream fulfilled. What happens? People begin to believe their lies. Worse, people begin to act upon those lies. Enter homosexual paranoia. Parents begin to look at their children differently. Thoughts that were never present now begin to be entertained. Behaviours are scrutinised and reinterpreted in light of the lie. Innocent actions are now perceived as aberrant behaviour and indications that the lie is present in the child. Under this conviction, parents, and others, act and the result is devastating!

The second article deals with the major sporting codes uniting to fight homophobia. We will not spend much time on this article as we have written about this sort of nonsense on previous occasions. Here, we simply want to point out the hypocrisy of the situation and the utter nonsense that is “equality” in its current format.

Equality is indeed a Biblical ideal. What is not appreciated by the Moderns is that it is an ideal firmly rooted in the being of God. All men are equal on a very basic level precisely because they are created in the image of God. No life is worth less than another. A female is not worth less than a male. A black person is not worth less than a white person. God does not discriminate on this basic level.

Now come the caveats. To state these things is not to say that God considers all people and all activities of equal value and worth. God does not hold the murderer on the same level as the innocent. These are not equal in His sight. God does not hold the thief and his victim in the same esteem. God is a God of justice. God demands a verdict. God demands a separation between the guilty and the innocent. Similarly, God is the God of truth. God loves the one who speaks the truth and He despises the lying tongue (Proverbs 12:22).[7]

If we look at Psalm 15 we will see God’s discrimination:

O Lord, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the Lord; He swears to his own hurt, and does not change; He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

It is at this point that the Christian must come into conflict with the Modern. The Modern, like the homosexual, demands that all men accept and abide by a lie. This time the lie is that every action deemed to be legal by Man must be accepted by all men as valid. Some would widen this definition to the point at which all actions are to be accepted as equally valid and above the designation of good and bad or right and wrong. Thus, the homosexual sides with the Modern to propagate the lie that every belief and all people are equal.

As can be seen, these two theories espoused by two camps use the same term, equality, but they mean very different things when they invoke the term. If you are a Christian and you subscribe to the Modernist theory, please, go back to the Bible, read God’s word, repent, and join the fight. We must oppose this Modernist rubbish. We must openly call it a lie. We must expose it.[8]

How? Very simple. If equality is the key and they are out to “eliminate discrimination”, we should ask:

Why did ‘Test matches’ in cricket once have a “rest day” on Sunday? When the decision was taken to abolish these rest days, did that discriminate against Christian players? Did this decision discriminate against the Church and the one day of worship appointed by God? After all, we have historically always worshipped on Sunday. To no longer recognise that fact is to discriminate against all, spectators, players, and officials, who hold to the idea that Sunday is a day of rest and worship. It is tantamount to forcing them to make a decision to compromise or to lower their standard.
When the AFL introduced football matches on a Sunday, were they considering the welfare of all? Was equality and non-discrimination at the fore front of their minds? Why did a trial match on Sunday not only become reality but a multiplicity? Equally, for several years now there has been a hot potato in the AFL as to whether or not there should be a game on Good Friday.[9] Discrimination? Fairness? Equality? Any thought given to the negative impact upon society? Any thought given to the impact upon those who worship on Sunday? Any respect shown for the Christians of this nation or the Christians in the AFL? Will orthodox Christians be invited to this game to declare the true meaning of Easter or shall we simply be subject to the pagan rituals of the Aboriginal community? Respect? Equality? Inclusiveness?

These are but two examples of the current hypocrisy. The simple reality is that to stand for item A is to automatically stand against item B. To stand for homosexuality is to stand against heterosexuality as unique. To stand for homosexual marriage is to stand against heterosexual marriage. To stand for de facto relationships is to stand against marriage. To stand for paganism is to stand against Christianity.

It is probably not a great theological stride to quote from a child’s movie, but here we go. In “The Incredibles” the bad guy, Syndrome, states, “When everyone is super, then no one is!” That is exactly what is happening here in these arguments. When all are equal under the law any can be discriminated against by that same law. By claiming that all people and actions are equal, the Moderns are claiming that nothing is unique or special. They are claiming that nothing is right or wrong. They insist that nothing is moral or immoral. They require that truth and lie become one in nothingness.

Under the guise of equality, the Moderns are out to brainwash people with a second lie, namely, that all is nothing. However, the conflict is immediate. Men know that there is something and that nothing is impossible. For example, Ryan Harris and Mitchell Johnson are going to champion the anti-homophobia cause for cricket. If all is nothing, I wonder what they are doing when they run up to the white line with a red ball in their hand. Why do they stop at that line? When they have tossed the ball, why do they get all excited and turn to this austere gent near the stumps with an enquiring, “How is that?”

Here is the hypocrisy. Both of these men know that there is something, not nothing. They both know that they cannot transgress that little, white, line without bringing a penalty. They know that there is a rule that guides their action. To deny those rules is to destroy the game and bring themselves into the realm of nonsense. Why stop here? Indeed, every code that has signed up to the “homophobia” nonsense represents a game that is based in law. There is a code! There is an umpire. There is, usually, a judiciary. There are penalties for breaching the laws of the game. Let us be honest. Let us face the simple fact. Without rule and law there is no game. Without rule and law there can be only chaos!

In a similar manner, the current call for the end of discrimination and the establishment of equality, based in Secular Humanism, is nothing short of a call for our nation to be plunged into nothingness and despair. It is tantamount to saying that we can have life without rule and law. It is to say that the Government alone is the giver of morals. It is nothing short of a declaration of war upon God and His revealed standard and, as a consequence, it is a declaration of war upon any and all who believe God and His revelation.

The hypocrisy and the hatred of God should be evident. If not, please allow me to spell it out. The Moderns hide behind the Government. They push and lobby until the Government caves to their position. They use words like “moral” and “right”, but these are simply smoke screens. If a Christian Government came to power, these moderns would not be happy with the idea that the Government has the right to make the laws that it sees as fit – particularly if these were Biblical laws. Thus, in reality, these Moderns hide the fact that they are anarchists and hypocrites. You see, in the end, these moderns will only be content when the goal of having all law and constraint neutralized unless it serves their purposes!

Look at homosexuality as a prime example. As a child growing up, I well remember the news stories about demands to decriminalise homosexuality. They claimed that they should be free to do whatever they wanted in their own bedrooms, behind closed doors. Then they demanded the right to open expression in broad daylight. Now, these same activists are using law to see that their opponents, who once enjoyed the daylight, are driven indoors with no right to speak. They want them locked securely in their bedrooms like naughty children. Eventually, they will argue that their opponents should not be free to practice their religion even in the privacy of their own home. So, are they really open, affirming, and tolerant? Not on your Nellie!

Therefore, it should be plain for all to see that the arguments about total freedom for all are nothing but barefaced lies. The homosexual lobby is about suppression. This begins with the suppression of truth as a general concept. It then turns to an expressed hatred of God as the objective standard and embodiment of Truth by demanding that His revelation to and for the “reasonable creature” be suppressed. As the old adage says, “The first casualty of war is truth!”

It is in this climate that Homosexual Paranoia increases exponentially with devastating consequences. People cannot tell truth from lie (having denied God’s objective standards). People react to a perceived truth (murdering their son because he was born homosexual) only to find out they have acted on a lie. People are bullied into acting and living as though the lie is true (sports codes uniting against the mythical ‘homophobe’).[10] Those who uphold truth are pilloried. The freedoms willingly given to those on one side of the debate are explicitly and forcefully denied to those on the other side. The end result of this is tyranny and fear.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in modern North Korea or to live in Russia of yesteryear? Wonder no more. Simply step out your front door and express your heartfelt opinions on all topics PC and you will get to experience these despotic regimes firsthand. We live today in a society that is manipulative, fearful, subdued, and apathetic. For all the talk of truth and freedom there is little of either. You are free to do what the Government tells you; free to believe what the Government tells you; free to be tyrannized by Government sanctioned bullies; free to have your “freedoms” trampled upon because you do not hold to the Government’s position.

Nobody is sure of anything anymore. People are confused. Principles are situational. Long held mores mean nothing or sometimes something, but you have to guess when and which. The law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion; yet the Christian religion is discriminated against on a daily basis – and every week by certain sports codes! People are cagey. People are untrusting. People are distant. Does this sound like certain countries previously mentioned?

Why is this? It is all due to a state of paranoia. In particular, a state created by Homosexual Paranoia!

[1] The “wages of a dog” is a reference to homosexuality in the context of temple prostitution. See Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Keil and Delitzsch, David Chiltern, Rousas Rushdoony, Langenscheidt, Brown, Driver and Briggs.

[2] The term “dog” is a derogatory word used throughout Scripture. Its specific meaning needs to be gauged from the immediate context. Here, I take the term “dog” again as a specific reference to the homosexual and his practice. This designation is based on several facts. First, given the general list included at this point, “dog” must mean more than simply a non-Christian or someone who is disobedient. Second, whilst the term “immoral person” had its roots in homosexuality, its meaning became much more general. Hence, the “dog” must be something more specific. Third, some commentators speak of a sevenfold classification at this point. To achieve this they included the terms “love and practice lying” in the list. I tend to think that the ‘love and practice of lying’ qualifies the five sins listed. In other words, these five sins have at their heart that which is equivalent to blasphemy, namely, the mocking of God by mocking His true standard. As such, the “dog” mocks God as the Creator and Designer of man; the “sorcerer” mocks God as the sole Revealer; the “immoral person” mocks God as law giver; the “murderer” mocks God as Sovereign life-giver; and the “idolater” mocks God as the Sole Object of man’s worship. Thus, at every step, there is the practice of lying and a love of that practice. This accords perfectly with Paul’s statement in Romans 1:32: “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.”

[3] http://www.news.com.au/world/jessica-dutro-killed-son-zachary-4-because-she-thought-he-was-gay/story-fndir2ev-1226874066760?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180.

[4] http://www.news.com.au/sport/more-sports/major-australian-sports-unite-against-homophobia/story-fndukor0-1226878438434.

[5] Please see our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Reformation-Ministries/156961371169115) and the entry on January 20.

[6] “Think”, here, is an important word. Remember, there is no test for homosexuality. So the determination rests purely on the subjective opinion of the parents. As the news article shows, this mother thought her child walked and talked funny. Nothing objective. Just a mother’s hunch. The truth is the child may have walked and talked “funny”, but there are a number of real medical possibilities on the list before the imagined “born that way” concept!

[7] Consider also Proverbs 6:16-19: “There are six things which the Lord hates, Yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, And hands that shed innocent blood, A heart that devises wicked plans, Feet that run rapidly to evil, A false witness who utters lies, And one who spreads strife among brothers.”

[8] Ephesians 5:11-12: “And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.”

[9] Today, 30 April, 2014, saw the new AFL chief appointed. He has signalled that Good Friday games will be up for discussion. So, several weeks after joining the “homophobia bandwagon” on the basis of equality, the AFL steps up to take a swing at Christ’s Church.

[10] How many of those public faces had an option? How many were willing to put million dollar deals on the line for the sake of truth or conviction? Could anyone in any of these teams objected for conscience sake without being penalised? Was there “choice” and “freedom” or simply obligation and coercion?

The Evangelism of Despair: Preachers v Laity (Pt 2)

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

The Revolution outlined in Part 1 is important for our understanding. We must see the cause and effect of ungodliness in the Family and in the Church. In both instances, the solution to an apparent failing of one party was to either rebel against or subjugate the other party. At no point were the Scriptures studied or Biblical counsel brought to the fore.

The consequence of this Revolution has been nothing short of needless destruction and the ultimate failure to reach the stated goal. Why? Precisely because it is Humanism!

To illustrate the issue, let us look at one further example from Feminism. As we know, “Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus.” So what! This is Biblical. God tells us that there are differences (Male / Female) in our similarity (Man). However, God also tells us that we are better and more potent as a team (Marriage). Humanism, in the form of Feminism, recognised the differences, but their response was to start a war between the sexes. Rather than see the potential of the two combined in compatibility, they chose a fight to the death.

The same is true of evangelism. God’s plan was never one or other; us or them; laity against Officer. God’s plan emphasised both! Throughout Scripture God had both Witness (laity) and Proclamation (Elders / Prophets / Apostles). Sadly, this point is missed because the Dodgy Theology Brigade have rent the Scriptures and once again insisted that the New Testament is brand new, full of differences, rather than complete by means of consistency.

When we look to both Testaments, we see that God appointed his commissioned to speak and act. These were those who rightly and properly held office. They are God’s officers and to them belong both the right and obligation to speak authoritatively from God and in His Name. This is not something, contrary to Church Growth, that belongs to all Christians. It is a particular call to hold an authoritative office within God’s Church.

Thus, in the Old Testament, we have kings, priests, judges, and prophets. In the New Testament, we have prophets, apostles, and preachers.

Alongside of these, there have always been those who make up the Church. Their job is to be a consistent witness to the truth of what the commissioned proclaim. What point is there for the proclaimer to state anything, if he has no tangible proof to back his claims? Therefore, the consistent living and obedience of God’s people has always been of manifest importance as a witness in support of the authoritative proclamation.

When the preacher says, “If the Son shall set you free, you shall be free indeed;” we testify, stating that “we are freed prisoners.” When the preacher says, “God sent His Son into the world to save sinners”; we shout together, “and such were we, but we have been washed and sanctified”. When the world looks to us, they should see this explicit demonstration of freedom and of righteousness, which confirms and witnesses to the preached word.

Through our role as living epistles, we have the power to witness and show forth the radiance of the glory of Jesus Christ. This is potent. It is a genuine tool in the hands of God. Sadly, though, the moderns have despised this because they seek for themselves the more prestigious position of proclaimer.

In God’s order, He has appointed His men to preach. Equally, in God’s order, He has appointed us all to live! The proclamation is witnessed to and verified by obedient living. Both must exist in harmony. Unlike the previous articles, you are not being asked to make a choice of one or other. Today, you are being asked to accept both as God’s means of mission in the world. You are being asked to respect God’s design and to not covet positions to which you have not been called or adopt methods that God has not ordained. The analogy is again one taken from your homes. Fathers, do not act as children. Wives, do not usurp your husbands. Children, be children and do not seek to rule. Fulfil your God-appointed roles!

My plea is this: Preachers, understand your God-given role. Take His commission to heart. Climb back into your pulpits and begin to thunder with the voice of authority. Laity, go home! Husbands, love your wives; wives, respect your husband’s; children, obey your parents; families, honour God – and thereby shine and redound to the absolute glory of God. Preachers, call the lost; edify the saint. Laity, learn righteous and radiate Christ in all of life. Together, testify that Jesus Christ is the Son of God come in the flesh!

The true power of transformation can only be unleashed when God’ people work in unity by self-consciously fulfilling their respective calls. Anything else is, fluff, bubble, smoke and mirrors – it is usurpation; it is unholy!

“Thy word I have treasured in my heart, that I may not sin against Thee.” Psalm 119:11

“For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments: and his commandments are not grievous.” 1 John 5:3

The Evangelism of Despair: Preachers v Laity

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Who is to evangelise? Now there is a sticky question. One which is sure to create great debate, but only if we ignore Scripture!

The issue of evangelism has, unfortunately, been side-tracked by modern worldly perspectives. The common idea is that ministers had evangelism all to themselves while the laity (for want of a better term) sat around and listened to the sermonising of the pulpiteers waiting for the Rapture. These ministers were seen as “glory hounds” with their fancy robes and ecclesiastical paraphernalia. As the world agitated more and more against authority, it was only a matter of time before the rumblings reached the pew – adequately aided by the State education of the pew sitters.

Then came the revolution! Books like “Liberating the Laity” hit the stands and were devoured. The phraseology changed. “Laity” became a term that was to be spurned. All were now said to be ‘ministers’. This change was even justified on the Biblical grounds that the Bible speaks about the “priesthood of all believers”. The poor, oppressed laity were finally unchained, freed, and let loose on the world. They were encouraged to find and explore new avenues of mission. They were encouraged to make up the rules as they went along. Finally, people with real vigour and passion were enabled and empowered to venture forth and save the lost, leaving the ecclesiastical bombasts to their pontificating.

Where has the Revolution taken us? What did this Revolution achieve?

To be perfectly blunt, it achieved nothing more than to destroy the Church, its worship, and its witness. The reason for this boils down to one important fact: this movement was not from God! It was one more example of Humanism being rushed by the baptismal and then press-ganged into the service of the Church.

Having had the rampant Humanistic doctrine of Individualism taught to them for decades, the laity were simply glad to be free so as to scratch their itching feet. They cared not whether this movement was Biblical. I doubt that any really stopped to ask the question. The laity were free at last from the chains of a draconian ecclesiastical system. Now they were free to express the desires of the individualist that had been lurking in the shadows of their heart.

This happening parallels the destruction of the family through Feminism. Men had, to some extent, dropped the ball as head. As per Scripture’s prophecy (Genesis 3:16), women simply sought the opportunity and the excuse to step up and take on the mantle. Again, few stopped long enough, if at all, to question the Biblical warrant. All they knew was that they finally had an opportunity to give expression to their desire.

The commonality in this process is important. First, the authority figure gave up on their task. Husbands and Elders ceased to understand their roles as Covenant heads and directors of Godliness. They failed to teach those under their care the importance of the Biblical order and role. Consequently, they failed to teach the basis for their authority and the necessary role and attitude of submission. Their servant-leadership disintegrated and the associated requirements of Biblical submission followed suit. Men became administrators; they bankrolled projects and organised community, but they were no longer holders of an office of authority.

The result of this was that Family and Church began to wander. They became aimless. As the Word of God ceased to speak with volume and clarity and its serene voice dwindled, so the raucous voice of Humanism grew louder and louder until it could be ignored no longer. As the Biblical model crumbled, a shift in leadership was imminent. Thus it was that Humanism stepped into the void and grasped the helm.

The result was Revolution; Familial and Ecclesiastical Revolution!

Understand this well. Do not dismiss its importance!

What is seen here is a Biblical picture too oft repeated. When trouble and crises came, the institutions of God did not turn back to their Biblical roots and to the wisdom of their God. No, they turned for counsel to the spurious one called, the World!

What does this have to do with Evangelism? Enter Part 2.

The Evangelism of Despair: Proclamation v Invitation

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In our last instalment, we looked at the post-fall estate of man and concluded that the Biblical picture of man is that he is “dead in trespass and sin”. As such, the idea of speaking about “seekers”, as one example, is incongruous with Biblical revelation. In this article, we will look at another incongruity.

Throughout the 50’s and 60’s, people became used to hearing about the invitation to come to Christ. This was popularised by men such as Billy Graham. This language is seen in the following sentence: “According to his staff, more than 3.2 million people have responded to the invitation at Billy Graham Crusades to accept Jesus Christ as their personal savior.” Consequently, this term was popularised and made its way into the psyche and vocabulary of Christendom.

Once more, the truly pertinent question is, “Does this term reflect the Scriptural position?”

Once more, we must answer, “No, it does not!”

If man is dead, then it stands to reason that he can neither seek nor respond to an invitation. Please, put this to the test. Go to your local cemetery and place an invitation on each tomb inviting the occupant to attend your next soirée. Now the safest way to do this is to make sure that you add an RSVP to the invitation. That way, if I am wrong, said soirée will not be ruined! However, you will not do this because, in principle, you know that I am right. The dead do not seek. The dead do not respond to invitations.

This brings us to the salient point. Salvation is and always has been a sovereign, authoritative, act on the part of God. Consequently, Scripture is oblivious to the terminology of invitation, but replete with the language of proclamation.

To start, consider the OT usage of “Thus says the Lord!” God did not just, “throw it out there”. He did not give the “Ten Discussion Starters!” or the “Ten Suggestions”, as some have termed it. Yahweh did not reveal His “opinion” in the form of “guidelines”. No! Yahweh revealed His Word and His Word was Law! This is the “Judges decision. It is final. No correspondence shall be entered in to.”

Jonah did not invite Nineveh to repent. He proclaimed Yahweh’s proclamation of Judgement (Jonah 3:2). Ezekiel did not invite the dry bones to knit themselves together. He prophesied the command of Yahweh, “Hear!” (Ezekiel 37:4) Moses did not invite Pharaoh to release Israel. Moses commanded Pharaoh to release Israel. Moses made proclamation to Pharaoh in the Name of Yahweh.

When we enter the NT, the language and method does not change. The Biblical approach can be viewed in the events surrounding Lazarus. He was dead. Helpless. Lifeless. Jesus did not simply invite Lazarus, “to pop on out” of his tomb at his first convenience. Rather, in a succinct summons, Lazarus was ordered from the tomb (John 11:43).

Thus, it is that in the NT we see preachers (having semblance to the prophets) appointed to proclaim the authoritative message of the fullness of the Kingdom (Matthew 10:7; 11:1). People were not being invited with a ‘take it or leave it message’; rather they were being summoned or commanded with regard to an authoritative announcement. The heralds went forth in the name of the King!

For us the lesson should be clear. Is it not time that we stopped playing futile games with people’s souls? The only possibility of salvation, according to normal means, comes through the authoritative proclamation or declaration of God’s commissioned mouthpieces. Rather than invite, our Preachers and Evangelists should proclaim and summon.

It is time the mouthpieces remembered their ambassadorial roles, girded up their loins, and spoke with the authority of the Great King. Theirs is the glorious privilege of calling dead men to life. If they lose confidence and belief in their calling and are persuaded to remain quiet, then the tombs shall remain full. Others may seek to replace them and engage in the practice of placing invites on tombs, but it will avail naught.

Dead men must be summoned by the voice of Christ, not invited by the words of men!

Part 5

The Evangelism of Despair: Sickness v Death

Posted on February 26, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

When we speak of the Evangelism of Despair we are often met with a mixed reaction. This is particularly so when we encounter Christians who are imbued with the modern version of evangelism. It is common today to speak of “seekers” – those who desperately want to be saved. It is extremely common to encounter this terminology in combination with worship, which gives us the hybrid “Seeker Service”. (Sadly, this terminology shows a lack of Biblical understanding on at least two points.)

The problem with the “seeker” concept is related to evangelism only in a secondary way. The primary problem has to do with the Biblical view of man. In history, there have been two primary views of man regarding his post fall status. One sees man as sick; the other sees man as dead! What you believe the Bible teaches concerning man’s estate, post fall, is going to influence your view of evangelism.

To put it simply, if man is simply sick, he only needs the provision of medicine. He has the ability within himself to reach out, take hold of, and ingest any medication offered to, or requested by, himself. The dead man can do none of these things. Even if a life-giving elixir is placed in a golden chalice and then put into his hands, it will avail naught.

Here, and only here, is the root of the discussion. Can you see this? To speak of a ‘seeker service’ or of the ‘seeker’ in general, is to state that you believe that man is only sick. It is to say that Christ’s death and resurrection are merely the offering of medicine that can heal. It is now up to the “sick” to seek out that medicine, make his way to, and ingest that medicine. In such a case, your evangelism theory and practice will be based in wooing, cajoling, and coaxing the sick man to the medicine in the hope that he has enough interest and strength to drink deeply and be healed.

However, we must ask, “What if your patient is dead?” What will coaxing and cajoling actually produce? The simple answer is that it will leave you short of breath and the dead man, dead.

These questions are not meant as impertinence, but as a means to make you think. This is necessary because most Christians never stop to ask that simple question – Is sinful man sick or dead?

Then we must ask concerning results. It would be fair to say that never in the history of the Church have there been so many evangelistic programmes and evangelistic endeavours. Yet, for all of these, we are simply not impacting the world in a noticeable way. Why? Could it be that we have based our evangelistic operations on a faulty view of man?

This then leads to the all important question: Which view of man is Biblical? Is man sick or dead? The Biblical answer is that man is dead!

This answer is not popular in our day, but it is nonetheless the revealed truth of Scripture.

The clearest statement to this effect is found in Ephesians 2:1 (see also v 5), where Pauls says, “You were dead in your trespasses and sin”. Not sick, but dead (Colossians 2:13). Paul also states that “There are none righteous; none who seeks after God” (Romans 3:10-11). However, it must be clearly understood that this is not an isolated Pauline idea. This is a thoroughly Biblical concept. John, 6:44, states that the Father must “draw” the sinner. Why? John 6:65 notes that none can come to Jesus unless the Father “grants” (C.f Matthew 13:11). Why?

These positions make no sense, if man is but sick. They make total sense, if man is dead!

Man not only needs the provision of salvation – the medicine (as in the case of the sick man); he needs the medicine to be applied. The dead sinner needs the complete application of salvation. The dead sinner requires nothing less than the authoritative command of God to “live!” – and this precisely because he is dead to God. (Ezekiel 37:1-10)

Part 4

Evangelism and the Tool of Despair

Posted on February 21, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

As we have noted previously, the one true key to effective evangelism is to create a state of utter despair within the unbeliever. First, by way of clarification, we need to note that ‘utter despair’ does not necessarily equate with tears, despondency or distress, although it may. The point to be understood is that the sinner must be robbed of all autonomous or anthropocentric remedies. The obvious question that now arises is: How do we create such despair?

The one simple answer is, Show the sinner God! How do we do this precisely? Scripture posits two ways. First, God is seen in the person and work of Jesus Christ His Son. Jesus says, “If you have seen me, you have seen the Father” (John 14:9). Second, God is seen in His very own revealed Law.

Interestingly, most Christians do not have a problem with the first item. However, when Law is mentioned, people cringe and shrink back from this essential Biblical principle. The Law to most Christians today is passé. It is obsolete. It is an anachronism.

Such a position is extremely descriptive of the Church today. We are bogged down in the arguments of dichotomy – Law v Grace; NT v OT; Jesus v Paul – given to us by the DTB (Dodgy Theology Brigade) and as a consequence we dwell in mediocrity and paucity having missed the richness of the whole counsel of God.

The nonsense of these positions is patently evident when we stand still long enough to look at what the Scripture’s teach. Do we really see OT pitted against NT. No! Jesus quotes the OT, as do the Apostles, in order to prove His own identity and the cardinal doctrines of salvation, among other things. Is Paul at war with Jesus? May it never be!

So, in evangelism, we are told that we must show grace (or a nebulous love) by showing Jesus (Again, the DTB have helped us enormously (not!) by allowing the terms “Law” and “Grace” to be confused and misapplied). Yet, such is an untenable position for Jesus Himself stood upon the Law and the Prophets (Matthew 5:17-19; Luke 24:27; John 5:46-47).

Let us look at two incidents that clearly show Jesus disarming strategy based in the Law of God.

1. The Woman at the Well:

When we look at Jesus’ encounter with the Samaritan woman, we see a conversation that is full of challenges. The woman has something to say at every point. However, Jesus counters her arguments and leaves her with no place to go. The conversation moves from a temporal need that can be quenched by water from a well to the necessity of eternal life and a relationship with Yahweh – the Living Water. (Jeremiah 2:13, 17:13, Zechariah 14:8). She is instructed to bring her husband. She says she has none. Her answer is truth, but veiled truth. She is covenantally exposed. She has no head. She is an adulteress. She is worthy of death (Proverbs 5:3-5).

She speaks of a prophet and geographical worship (She is shown to be wrong again – 1 Kings 11:36). Jesus speaks to her of intimate knowledge of the One to be worshipped and of the state of the worshipper (Deuteronomy 6:5; 10:12-13). She then moves from prophet to Messiah with the general assent that when Messiah comes He will teach the truth. Here, the circle is complete. Jesus the Messiah, unrecognised throughout, is now declared. The One who reveals all is before her. He has revealed and the picture is not pretty!

2. The Rich Young Ruler:

The second and somewhat more obvious example of Jesus’ use of the Law involves the Rich Young Ruler. There is not so much banter and conversation as there is command and expectation. Jesus commands to the obedience of the Law. Why? Could it be that this man was rich precisely because he disobeyed the Law? Did his wealth come because of a disregard for Jubilee (Leviticus 25:8-17), Remission (Deuteronomy 15:1-2) or the Sabbatical (Leviticus 25:1-7 & 26:34)?

Conclusion:

If we are to be effective in evangelism and witness we need to keep these examples and principles in mind. Sin is the transgression of God’s Law (WSC 14). The sinner is one who has transgressed that Law. Jesus is the One who kept that Law on our behalf. For a sinner to be saved he must have conviction that he has transgressed that Law and that he can only be reconciled to God through the One who has kept that Law. Thus, God’s Law must be preached and proclaimed. After all, does not the Apostle tell us that this Law is the Tutor / Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ (Galatians 3:24)?

Part 3

The Evangelism of Despair

Posted on February 19, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Evangelism, it really is the “buzz word” in Christian circles today. Question the concept or the methodology and you are in big trouble. Yet methinks that there has probably never been another time when the Church new so little of the true nature and essence of evangelism.

When viewing modern evangelistic programmes and listening to people apply these various philosophies, there is one aspect that I find striking. Most Christians seem to be attempting to engender hope in the lost. It seems that there is a lot of hugging, back patting, and arms around shoulders, with the accompanying words, “It will be alright!” We have “friendship” evangelism. We have “hospitality” evangelism. We have “Creative” evangelism; not to be confused with “Creation” evangelism. We have tele-evangelists, radio evangelist, internet evangelist – how long before tele-marketing-evangelists – ‘Hello sir, I am calling you tonight from “Inspired Creations”. No, we are not selling anything, I just have a question…!”

My criticism at this point is that the Christian is putting faith in his ability to woo, coax, cajole, and educate the dead sinner into the Kingdom. It is like watching “Slick Willy Inc” run a marketing seminar with all the latest and proven techniques to ‘get your foot in the door’ and ‘close out the sale’. In short, this type of methodology is nothing short of a rank Humanism that has been given a spritz of holy water and then gang-pressed into church service.

Any hope derived from man and for man, is simply no hope. As stated, its correct title is Humanism.

The truth of Biblical evangelism lies not in (false) hope, but in (true) despair. If the rebellious sinner believes that there is something that he can do, no matter how slight, then he has hope in and of himself. This is a false hope. It is a fool’s hope. It is so because it denies the truth of God’s revelation.

What must be declared to the rebellious sinner is that he has no hope. We must bring to the sinner the sense of absolute despair. I speak here of a palpable, gut-wrenching, and loathsome despair that truly makes one fearful. I speak of a fear and a terror that brings absolute dread. The picture is of a man who, faced with a truth or an object, has turned ashen, his legs will not hold his weight, his body trembles involuntarily, and he, so weak that he cannot move, can but whimper. At this point, man is robbed of all his devices.

Now, true evangelism can occur. At this point, God alone is Man’s saviour. At this point, Jesus Christ is magnified as a Man’s only possibility for salvation. Now, there is true hope. It is a lasting hope. It is not the fleeting hope of the ephemeral, but the certain hope of promise founded in the Eternal. It is the truth that God saves sinners. It is the truth that from eternity God has set His love upon His people and that He is reconciling these He loves to Himself in His Son, Jesus Christ. This is hope. This is evangelism.

(References: Acts 2:37; Acts 16:29-30; Daniel 5:6; Isaiah 13:6-7.)

Part 2

The High Court and Homosexuality

Posted on December 28, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In the last weeks, we have witnessed the High Court of Australia hand down a decision in regard to homosexual union. This ruling had particular reference to the attempt by the ACT government to introduce its own legislation allowing homosexual union.

What do we, as Christians, make of this ruling? What are the ramifications? Should we rejoice or should we weep? What must our attitude be moving forward?

Well, if you are up for it, let’s take a look together. I cannot guarantee that this work will be short. I can guarantee that it will be provocative. I have no idea of your current stand on the issues that will be presented. I do know that if you will read and consider the ideas presented that you may well find yourself with a need to abandon one or many of them.

1. A Wake-up Call.

The first thing to say is that this ruling by the High Court of Australia should be and must be a wake-up call to all Australians, but particularly to the Christians of this nation. For a long time, various people and organisations have been alerting us to an ever creeping and thus ever growing darkness that is pervading our land.

Many have ignored these warnings. Some have dismissed the warnings because a bit of darkness has allowed them to indulge in pet sins. Others have dismissed the warnings as the paranoid ravings of the lunatic religious fringe. Then there are those whose sleeping ears have not been alert to the warnings.

After this ruling there simply is no excuse for not believing and not acting positively upon these warnings. Here, a right parallel can be drawn in regard to the “gun debate” that has long endured in this nation. As a shooter, it was not uncommon to hear derisive comments when certain arguments were made for owning guns. The scorn was at times palpable. Then came September 11. This was followed by the Bali bombings in 2002. Then, in 2005, there were the London and second Bali bombs. People no longer pour scorn and derision on these same arguments.

The simple fact was that the critics had to concede that what was once, in their estimation, nothing more than the ‘outlandish speculations of the fringe dwellers’ had now become a distinct possibility in our ever changing world.

So it is that this ruling should be considered as a cataclysmic event that has not only justified all the previous warnings, but which awakens us from our slumber and encourages us to take a stand.

2. God is the standard of Truth.

The issue of homosexual union has become a massive debate in this country. The question that is rarely, if ever, asked is, “On what authority do we stand?” This is very problematic for the Modernists and Postmodernists who have no belief in objective truth. All they can argue is feeling, opinion, or brute desire. They have no ground for a moral or ethical argument. Nor do they have ground for a timeless argument.

For example, in the current debate we hear a lot about “traditional marriage”. What then, if we pose the following questions — What is this convention? What does traditional mean? What is a marriage? What constitutes a marriage? Who performs a marriage? What makes a marriage binding?

How shall these questions be answered without an objective reference? The simple response is that they cannot be answered or they must be answered by contrivance. If I do not believe that truth is knowable or that objective truth exists, how can I argue the merits of anything? You see, at this point, I not only have no framework for deciding right or wrong, I do not even possess a framework for knowledge, understanding, or communication.

So may laugh at this. Nonetheless, the fact remains. Without a belief in the Bible’s God as the source of all truth, one is simply guessing in the dark. One of the greatest examples of this is the doctrine of Evolution. How does order come from chaos? How does cognition come from the incognisant? The very core doctrine of Evolution demands that something which is today, will not be tomorrow. No consistent evolutionist could be a mathematician because in his world twp plus two may equal four today, but tomorrow it may equal grapefruit!

Thus, when the Bible’s God is removed as the source of truth, a person, a nation, a culture cannot help but enter a state of flux and requisite confusion.

3. God is the Standard of Truth.

To borrow a line from Red Dwarf, “I am aware that it is technically the same point, but it is such a big point, I thought it was worth mentioning it twice!”

My charge to my brethren and to my countrymen is this, “Do you believe in objective truth?” Now, let’s make it simple. When you hold your wife in your arms are you holding a real woman or are you embracing a figment of your imagination? If you choose the first, then you believe in objective truth. The simple reality is that we all operate on the fact that objective truth exists each and every day. We simply could not function if we did not.[1]

Regrettably, when it comes to morals and ethics, we like to pretend that this absolute and objective truth ceases to exist – yes, even Christians are guilty at this point. We like the stipulation of God’s law, “do not commit murder / steal”, but we are wont to become hazy on “do not commit adultery / covet.” Now, the salient point: As we have become hazy on the stipulations regarding sexual deviation and perversion we have become more apt to compromise on the murder and theft issues as well.[2]

This illustrates the fact that we cannot deviate from God as the source of truth on one or two issues and stay faithful on the rest. When we turn from God, we turn completely from God. Man’s rebellion against God is not half-hearted or timid. It is complete. You see, when Man starts to turn from God, he does not start with “thou shalt not murder / steal”, he starts with, “I am the Lord God, have no other gods but Me!” Once this command is jettisoned, the rest become cultural hangovers and social mores that are malleable, plasticine, and ephemeral.

Therefore, we must understand that these issues are inextricably linked. The glue that binds them is Almighty God. As James says, we cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. God gave them all. If we contravene one, we, in essence, contravene them all.[3]

The lesson here is that we, especially we Christians, must be consistent. If you wish not to obey God’s law, then put your hand up and identify yourself as an anarchist. Start driving on the wrong side of the road. Cross on the red light. Do not pay for your groceries, and make your neighbour’s wife your own.

What you cannot do is feign obedience. You cannot, as it were, sit on the fence. You cannot say that you will accept the position outlined in God’s law at X, Y, and Z, but deny it at A, B, and C. This is the same challenge as that thrown down by Elijah on Mount Carmel – “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”[4]

God’s word alone is truth. All else is a subjective morass of opinion, speculation, and brute desire. Our people, our nation will be, and are, bogged down, unable to move. Having been robbed of the True foundation, they stand in this quagmire, slowly and surely sinking. Each move, each demand for yet more Godlessness only hastens the body’s submersion in the muck.

At this point, I particularly appeal to my brethren. Let us stop arguing figures, surveys, and science, and start arguing, unashamedly, for the whole of God’s revealed truth to be applied to our lives and to the statutes of our nation.

4. Peace, Prosperity, and Happiness.

Over the years, I have seen and heard many Christians become excited at the news of this ‘survey result’ or that ‘court decision’. Sadly, however, this joy is fleeting.

I understand the desire that these sincere brethren display. They believe that Jesus is King. They believe that Jesus has the right to be heard. They understand the nature of spiritual warfare. All this is very good.

However, we must realise that a single court case or survey result means very little. The content of that survey or court decision must be unpacked and explored. As an example, I have heard for years and years about the proportion of Americans who believe in “God”. On the surface, this is wonderful news. However, when we begin to think it through we quickly find problems. In what God do they believe? If so many believed in the God of the Bible, why is America on a downhill slide? If so many Americans believe in the One living and true God, why does it seem as though God has abandoned that country?

One does not need to be a great theologian to discover that the Bible teaches that God only blesses obedience. Equally, one does not have to be a great theologian to see that the Bible also illustrates clearly that people are apt to go through religious motion when the heart is far, far from God.

So let us not mistake an action or decision, which seems to go in the right direction, for heartfelt, God-honouring obedience and true reform.

5. The High Court – Our Response in Summary.

Whilst many in this nation rejoiced at the High Court’s decision to overturn the ACT’s law on homosexual union, the simple and harsh reality is that there was no cause for joy in that decision.

The High Court did not act for God. The High Court did not act in obedience to God’s word. Neither did the High Court act from heartfelt obedience nor a right sense of obligation to strike down this attempt to normalise homosexuality. The Court simply came to the decision that two laws were in conflict and that the Federal law had priority. As such, this decision was not a win for God or for Christians. It was nothing less than a technical decision that maintained the status quo.

On the other hand, there are many diabolical elements contained in this decision that few in this country understand. These elements should place fear in the heart for they are the fulfilment of all the warnings that have been issued thus far. That is why we termed this decision as a “cataclysmic event”.

It is clear that the High Court favours the normalisation of homosexuality. One even gets the impression that they wished that they could have given the whole thing a green light there and then. However, they were constrained by technicalities at law, not by morals, to overrule the ACT’s legislation. [5]

This conclusion can be illustrated, in part, by the High Court, first, deferring a decision and, second, allowing unions under the ACT law while the court deliberated. This led to the provocative situation of some 20 odd couples going through a ceremony that was annulled a few days later. This was an unmitigated stunt on the part of a body that should know the meaning of integrity.

This said, the real devil was certainly in the detail. When the High Court explained itself, we were led into the Postmodern conundrum of decision without foundation. We were introduced to meaningless drivel being served up as the basis for law. In fact, we can go further, the High Court eradicated any foundation or standard for law, meaning, and governance outside of the brute will of the elected government.

Some may be hesitant at the statements made. If so, continue with me, please, as we explore and unpack some aspects of the High Courts decision.

6. The High Court – A State of Flux.[6]

One of the reasons that the Church and our nation – indeed, nations around the world – are experiencing upheaval and discontent can be directly attributed to the concepts embodied in the modern adage of “Change for changes sake!” When this maxim was embraced and coupled with the Postmodern denial of truth and absolutes, it made for a deadly combination.

These philosophies of decay, embraced in the 19^th century, meant that change was not only good, but possible, for there were no longer any moral absolutes or objections standing in the way of change.[7]

The philosophy that change for no reasons other than change was good and change was possible bred discontentment. It allowed sin to take the reins. If people did not have something new every so often, they were unhappy, unsatisfied, and often considered themselves as somehow less than others. You know this to be true. How many people do you know, especially in the younger generation, who have to have a new mobile phone as soon as the next model is released? There is nothing wrong with their current phone except that it is superseded.

When we think in these terms we can see the principle. However, when we speak simply of gadgets we can be tempted to see this purely in terms of consumerism. To show how this state of discontent has wide ranging ethical implications, let’s apply this theory to marriage. What happens when you see the next model? It comes in a new case and is of a more attractive design. It may also be a bit lighter than the current model. It has certain assets that get you excited. They may be nice to play with. At this point your imagination is running wild with the possibilities offered by the new model.

So let’s pause for a minute. Let us approach it differently. Let us start with this question, “What is wrong with the current model?” Truthfully, the answer is, “Nothing!” Then we can think back to the days when we first received this model. It had great assets. It too got us very excited. We were intrigued with it for quite a while. Then we ask, “Has it failed us in some gross way?” Again, we must answer, “No!”

So at the end of all this, the only reason that you have for tipping out your current wife and obtaining a new one is that she has aged. Newsflash. Stand in front of the mirror buddy. I bet you ain’t so hot anymore either! Anyway, I digress.

Can you see how this discontentment is easily spread? “Change for changes sake” when coupled with the abandonment of truth and morals is a dark adage that has spawned great evils. It has pandered to the selfish desires of the masses and created untold damage. It makes people think only of what might be, not what is or what was. It causes you to live in a fantasy world free from moral restraint.[8]

In opposition to this, The Bible talks about contentment. Proverbs 5:18-19, speaking of marriage says this: “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.”

The simple reality of life is that we grow old.[9] Discontentment will easily creep in to a marriage if we are only thinking of ‘what might have been’ or ‘what might be.’ This is particularly true if you have imbibed some foolish, worldly, and ephemeral view of marriage that looks only at the needs of the individual.

One of the doctrines that can help us most at this point and one of the doctrines most hid from view in our day, is the Doctrine of the Immutability of God. This doctrine states that God, in His essential nature, plans, purposes, and powers does not change. Why can I believe the promises of God? God does not change!

In this current debate – and many beside – this doctrine gives us a solid foundation. When we return to the book of Genesis, we find a whole lot about marriage.[10] The first thing that must be noted is that marriage is founded by God and for His purposes. God made Man in His image and He made this Man male and female. We also see that this Man was given a mission – he was to take dominion over this world in God’s name. Furthermore, we see that this dominion was directly related to the sexuality of Man as male and female. God designed Man to marry and through marriage to bear children in order to take dominion.

The importance here is that marriage is immutable for it was founded upon and given purpose by the One living, true, and immutable God. This is precisely why laws protected marriage. In times past we spoke of the “sanctity” of marriage. In short, we acknowledged that marriage was more than a social construct or tradition. We acknowledge that it was holy, that is was set apart, that it was not to be trifled with. We did this because we understood that marriage in its design and purpose rested upon the immutable, the unchangeable and unchanging God of Scripture.

December 12, 2013 and the High Court of Australia rewrites history and takes a pair of scissors to the Bible. In section 16 they state:

The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable.

In this statement, the High Court has revealed the single reason that marriage has been systematically attacked and undermined in this country. It reveals the reason that has led to the current demands that homosexuals be allowed to marry – in the Court’s opinion, there is no absolute standard for marriage![11]

From this point, the High Court goes on to give various illustrations of how marriage has been reinterpreted over time, especially since federation.[12] The problem is that they are guilty of a logical fallacy or of “straw man” syndrome. In short, they presuppose that marriage is mutable – changeable. They presuppose that marriage is a social status that may have different forms at different times in history. Thus, they bring in illustrations to show these changes and thereby legitimise their decision.

Let’s illustrate the problem with this analogy. As a Christian it is not wrong to undertake any lawful vocation. Conversely, those vocations that are illegal or immoral are excluded. Now we must ask, who decides on the legality and morality of a vocation?

It is Victorian England. Murray’s daughter comes home all excited. She announces to her father that she has gained employment. He excitedly asks, “What is the position and for whom shall you be working?” His daughter then states that she is going to be a prostitute and that she would be working at the local brothel. Victorian Murray would not rejoice at this news and would most likely toss his daughter out of his house.

Fast forward. It is 2014, Murray’s daughter comes home. Same exuberance. Same conversation. What is modern Murray’s response? He rises from his chair, embraces his daughter, and congratulates her on choosing and old and enduring profession. What else can he do? After all, brothels are now legal.

Modern Murray must accept his daughter’s decision, if we are to believe that morality and ethics are transient and not immutable. Modern Murray has no ability to rebuke or criticise his daughter’s decision because the government has said that brothels can now operate legally.

This is the quagmire entered into when morality is removed from it foundation in the immutable, eternal God and placed upon the ephemerality of finite Man’s opinion. Everything must change. What was yesterday will not and cannot be the same tomorrow.

Therefore, what the High Court has declared is that marriage is a social construct that is completely malleable. Marriage can and must be formed or shaped by the social needs of any nation, at any time, in any place up to and including the abolition of all marriage. The institution of marriage has no link to the Bible’s God. It has no moral basis. It has no reference to Man as male and female. Marriage is not the immutable creation of God, but rather the social construct of fallen Man.

7. The High Court – The God of the Bible is Dead!

The repercussions of the High Court’s decision and reasoning are immense.

Some in this nation have been warning about the consequences of Australia becoming a Secular nation. Those people have been ridiculed and persecuted. As with the “Gun Debate” analogy above, we hope that those rumblings will now settle down. We hope that people will see the monster that has been released by the High Court.

Now, let me be clear. The anti-God philosophy displayed in the High Court’s decision is not new. It has been slowly but surely building both momentum and followers for some time. The point is that now the ramifications of that anti-God philosophy should be clear.

When people call for a secular Australia, when politicians refer to decisions good for us as a secular state, understand that they are speaking code. When they use these terms they are calling for nothing less than a concept of government that is completely uniformed and untouched by the God of the Bible. Implicit in these statements is the tenet that God is Dead – if not in reality, then as an exiled son, cast out and no longer welcome.

This is why Christians have been given less and less voice. This is why other minorities have been encouraged. This is why Christmas is attacked. This is why ridiculing Christians and Christianity is acceptable.[13] This is why free speech, particularly, true speech is gagged. This is why PC is a one-way street – leading away from God’s immutable and eternal decrees.

The reality is very simple. We are not arguing about whether there should be a God for this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have law in this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have cultural structure and rules in this nation. No. What we are arguing over is Who is the rightful God and the determiner of law and morality in this nation! That is the battleground.

The High Court has declared the One living and true God of the Bible dead. However, this cannot be construed as the High Court denying all sovereignty. When God is pushed aside, a void is created. Man cannot live with this void. It makes him uncomfortable. Being formed in the image and likeness of God, Man likes rules and government. Man, in general, likes order. The sticking point is, again, the question of, “Whose rules are to be obeyed?”

Fallen Man cannot abide the governance of God, so he must declare that God is dead. Man must clear the path for a god of his own making to be established, worshiped, and obeyed.

8. The High Court – The Elected Government replaces God.

Consequently, the High Court had to focus upon the Federal Parliament’s right to make rules regarding marriage without reference to God.

In section 9, we read:

This Court must decide whether s 51(xxi) permits the federal Parliament to make a law with respect to same sex marriage because the ACT Act would probably operate concurrently with the Marriage Act if the federal Parliament had no power to make a national law[5] providing for same sex marriage. If the federal Parliament did not have power to make a national law with respect to same sex marriage, the ACT Act would provide for a kind of union which the federal Parliament could not legislate to establish. By contrast, if the federal Parliament can make a national law providing for same sex marriage, and has provided that the only form of marriage shall be between a man and a woman, the two laws cannot operate concurrently.

What is being said here can be simplified to this – Does the Federal Parliament have an absolute right to decree what marriage is to be up to and including, but not limited to, homosexuality?

The High Court answered with a, Yes! The supposed dilemma that the Court faced was this – if the Federal Parliament could not make legislation in this area, then the ACT’s law could stand. However, if the Federal Parliament did have the authority, even though they did not exercise it, the ACT’s law could not stand.

Therefore, context aside, the High Court has ruled that the Federal Government is to replace God as the source of morality. The Federal Parliament can now make any law that is deemed to be within its right, regardless of the dictates of God.

Speaking Biblically, the above court case should never have got off the ground. A judge true to his oath and calling would have struck this legislation down as he would have realised that the proposition was contrary to God’s law. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into, by governments or lesser judges.

Yet, as we have seen, what the High Court did was to foster the God is Dead philosophy by paying homage to the rights and power of the Federal Parliament. In taking this stand, the High Court has declared the Federal Parliament to be omnipotent. The Federal Parliament can now rule with absolute surety that all is within its power.

We have witnessed this type of government many times throughout the ages. It is called tyranny! When the law makers refuse to acknowledge that they are themselves men under authority, the only possible end is tyranny.

The High Court has now handed to the Federal Parliament the very thing it has been champing at the bit for, carte blanche! It now has the power to terrorise every Christian and dissenter. It has now been given entry into your homes and to the very essence of your being.

“How so?” you ask. It is a matter of warfare and of equal and opposites. If the Federal Parliament establishes laws in favour of homosexual unions, especially if it is termed as “marriage”, it automatically attacks every authentic marriage. Just as counterfeit money disturbs the genuine currency, so a fake marriage must disturb the genuine marriage.

As the Federal Parliament only knows cooperation through force, people will be coerced into complying with the new definition of marriage. You should not be shocked at this statement. You already witness this tactic – Racial Vilification laws; Equal Opportunity laws; Anti-Discrimination laws. All these have one real aim – to force all to comply with the Federal Parliaments ideals of a harmonious and just society. The only real difference is that homosexual unions will bring the issue closer to home.

Therefore, once marriage is redefined, wholesale changes will need to be made to a range of official documentation, dictums, and conventions. For example, I already resent the term “partner” that appears on forms instead of husband / wife/ spouse. What terms will be presented for our enjoyment with the redefinition of marriage? What happens to terms like Mum and Dad? Rewrite the dictionaries! Ridiculous? Not at all. We have already seen this. Consider this dictionary definition of marriage:

the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: [Examples deleted]
(in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
[mass noun] the state of being married:[14]

Note that the second point has been inserted already as relevant to “some jurisdictions”. All that needs to happen is to delete the first definition and elevate the second and voilà the secular revolution in regard to marriage is complete.

What then of education. You believe marriage to be as God intended; a man and a woman for life. How do you object to this at the school council? What happens when you insist that your child answer contrary to the State’s position? What is your response to a please explain from the education board?[15]

What of the Christian marriage counsellor. What will happen when homosexuals turn up for counselling? Will you turn them away? Will you capitulate to the State and recognise them as legally married? Are you willing to risk your business and even jail by turning these people away?

These are but a few examples of the situations that will arise, given current examples, if the Federal Parliament legalises homosexual union.

Oh please, do not be the ignoramus par excellence and claim that the Government will add caveats or exemptions for certain Christian organisations. What the Government giveth the Government can and will taketh away![16] The Government, having been granted unlimited power, will not be slack in using that power to enforce its will.

When the Government supplants God as the final arbiter on morality, we are in for a sticky end. It is no accident that every culture that has embraced homosexuality has faltered and slipped from the pages of history. We often hear about the glory of Rome and her system, but few speak of the fall of Rome as a consequence of her debauchery.

Enamoured with her own power and authority, Caesar claimed to be a god. From this point, totalitarian rule and tyranny became the order of the day. Men were slaughtered for pleasure and entertainment. Sexual perversion abounded. Children were left to die. Life was both honoured and cheapened.

It is a dark day when the Government believes that it can rightly sit in God’s seat and rule by its own power.

9. The High Court – The Ramifications.

When Man usurps God, the consequences are incalculable. All that can be said is that there most definitely will be ramifications and that those ramifications will be negative. We have noted some ramifications already. We have hinted at the definite possibility of others, based on current practice. Still others come to light in the High Court’s reasoning.

Disturbingly, the High Court, in section 33, states:

Once it is accepted that “marriage” can include polygamous marriages, it becomes evident that the juristic concept of “marriage” cannot be confined to a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde and other nineteenth century cases. Rather, “marriage” is to be understood in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution as referring to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.[17]

The reasoning at this juncture is once more questionable. That the Family Law Act recognises polygamous marriages is a fact. However, it does not do so permissively, but rather functionally. In other words, the Act recognises polygamous marriages from outside Australia for the sole purpose of enabling the Court to deal with them.[18]

Regardless of this fact, what we need to see is that debauchery begets debauchery. The High Court introduces the practice of polygamy only to enable the Biblical view of marriage to be maligned. By introducing a heterosexual distortion, it is but a small step to utter perversion.

Hence, this section does not speak about a man and a woman, but of “natural persons”. The whole point is to deny sexuality as a criterion for marriage. Also note, please, that the High Court’s definition is numberless. Having used polygamy as a jimmy bar to pry open the door, it cannot now limit the number of persons to that marriage.

What now? Well, my advice is that you go out and by one of those rain suits that covers you from top to bottom for things are going to get murky and filthy.

First, if Postmodernism were not so popular, the High Court would be a total laughingstock. When the theory of the Court is analysed it becomes clear that they have absolutely no objective criteria for marriage and no objective or absolute foundation on which they base the form and content of marriage. The best that they can establish is ‘marriage is what Federal Parliament says it is.’ As there is no objective basis for this decision, the power of the Federal Parliament is established by the power of the High Court. Thus, one entity validates the other in reciprocal acts of “back patting” and authentication.

What this means for every Australian is that the concept and definition of marriage will now be subject to complete change at the will of the Federal Parliament. As marriage is but a social construct, the Parliament will be able to issue its own decrees as to what form and content marriage should possess.

This is the precipice to which relativism and the denial of absolutes leads. You have forty people in a room and forty opinions are shared. Truth is not established on an objective foundation, nor by consensus, but by the person holding the highest office.

Just the other night, I came across a television show in which Tony Abbott’s assertion that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman” was shot down by a reference to a Roman emperor who had two husbands. Triumph for the homosexuals!

The point here is not to bat for or against Tony Abbott, but to show that appealing to culture, science, or past happenings is not a valid means for establishing truth or ethical principle. It is for this reason that I have often been critical of brethren who use these methods. We cannot establish ethical principles for tomorrow based on what is or what was.

The weakness in Tony Abbott’s arguments is also shown to be present in the High Court’s reasoning – because both are secular rationalists who deny God’s revelation as truth. The High Court has no objective standards, so they are reduced to a set of arguments concerning this case or that case or what happened when, particularly limiting the time frame to Federation. Consequently, we are introduced to statements like:

Observing that, at federation, English law would recognise as a marriage only a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde, and would not provide matrimonial remedies in respect of any other kind of union, accurately describes the then state of the law. (Section 28.)
The great conflict of laws writer, A V Dicey, described [43] the rule which was adopted in the cases as an “instance of the principle that the rules of (so-called) private international law apply only amongst Christian states”. The rule treated some, but not all, forms of marriage contracted according to other laws as either not worthy of recognition or not able to be recognised because their incidents were not compatible with English law. (Section 29.)
These being the bases for the nineteenth century decisions, those decisions did not then, and do not now, define the limit of the marriage power (or the divorce and matrimonial causes power) in the Constitution. Decisions like Hyde v Hyde reflect no more than the then state of development of judge-made law on the subjects of marriage and divorce and matrimonial causes. Subsequent development of both judge-made law and statute law shows this to be so. (Section 30.)
First, it was established in 1890 by Brinkley v Attorney-General[44] that, despite the frequent reference found in earlier decisions to “Christian marriage” and “marriage in Christendom” as distinct from “infidel” marriages[45], a monogamous marriage validly solemnised according to the law of Japan between “a natural born subject of the Queen … having his domicil in Ireland” and “a subject of the empire of Japan”, though not a Christian marriage, would be declared to be valid in English law. (Section 31).
More particularly, the nineteenth century use of terms of approval, like “marriages throughout Christendom”[47] or marriages according to the law of “Christian states”[48], or terms of disapproval, like “marriages among infidel nations”[49], served only to obscure circularity of reasoning. Each was a term which sought to mask the adoption of a premise which begged the question of what “marriage” means.[19] (Section 36).

I realise that such quotes are not easy to read and can induce tedium. I would appreciate it if, despite this, you could ponder these texts to see how standing on shifting sand is both dangerous and ultimately futile. The High Court begins with what was the accepted standard for marriage and introduces excuse after excuse as to why those definitions or terms are no longer valid. Please note how section 36 takes to task the usage of the term “Christian” in making a distinction in marriage and ultimately asserts that all these law-makers were guessing in the dark – “obscure(ing) circularity of reasoning” and “begged the question of “what” marriage means”.

This is astounding, for these judges have basically stated that all (well, most) of the law on marriage is a guess by their predecessors and the lawmakers of the day as to what marriage is to be. Horrifyingly, in making this assessment, they have laid the foundation for their own interpretation of marriage to be accepted as the standard for our day – as they too guess in the dark!

You see, these men argue from no foundation in law to the relative laws of various jurisdictions today and at every turn they simply shoot themselves in the foot. The quotations show how the Court has argued for its point of view from and through a limited time period. Yet, the real kicker is their opening gambit – “The cases commonly referred to as providing a definition of “marriage” in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution must be read in the light of the issues decided in those cases. Each case dealt with a particular question about either succession to property or the jurisdiction of the English courts to grant a decree of dissolution in cases concerning a marriage contracted in, and governed by the law of, a foreign country.”

What the Court admits at this point is that none of the cases cited were actually looking at the questions of the source of, form of, and essential constitution of marriage. Rather, these were cases of property settlement or divorce. Thus, at best, these cases can only be cited in a cursory way.

Similarly, after the Court’s little tour through history and its arrival at tacit approval for polygamous and homosexual unions, we are granted this little gem – “Other legal systems now provide [50] for marriage between persons of the same sex. This may properly be described as being a recent development of the law of marriage in those jurisdictions. It is not useful or relevant for this Court to examine how or why this has happened.”

Excuse me! Not useful or relevant to consider the how and why of these current decisions!! How can that be? A building falls down and there is an enquiry into the “how” and the “why” immediately. All attempts are made to make sure that these things do not happen again in future. So why is the High Court of Australia not interested in the “how” and “why” of the “recent development” of this issue?

It is very simple. If the Court opened that particular door and chose to walk through it, they would first have to admit that they are the Biblical fools of Psalm 14, who have ‘said in their hearts “There is no God.”’The Court would have to admit that there is only one foundation for marriage – God! The Court would have to admit that outside of Scripture there is no other basis for the institution of marriage. The Court would have to admit that there is only one type of marriage – Christian marriage – for marriage was ordained and commanded by God for all men. The Court would have to admit that marriage is timeless, ethical, purpose driven, and is founded upon absolutes. The Court would have to admit that marriage is not a social or cultural construct. Lastly, and importantly, the Court would have to admit that it was mistaken and that it too is bound by the authority of God Almighty. This the Court will not do.

In other words, the Court dismisses this necessary investigation precisely to guard its own premise – God is Dead (See footnote 18). If the court undertook this investigation, it would be obliged to highlight the correlation between the decline in moral standards and the acceptance of homosexual union. It would be patent that a moral shift had taken place within the culture and that the adoption of a new morality or paradigm for morality had led to the acceptance of these aberrant practices.

By now you will be tired of the words “absolute” and “objective”, but I hope that you can see more clearly the diabolical nature of modern relativism. We have before our eyes the High Court of Australia making fundamental decisions based on a foundation with less tensile strength and integrity than packaged custard!

When absolutes and objective truth are denied, relativism must take over. As we have said already, the consequences are enormous. Every man – including the High Court and every politician – will do what is right in his own eyes and chaos shall ensue.

Second, having established the Federal Parliament’s right to state what it will concerning marriage; having opened some doors to dubious behaviour; and having established these concepts on the all conquering principle of relativism, the Court is now reduced to contradictions and hypocrisy as they continue to argue their case. Truly, if it were not so disastrous and serious, I would be tempted to wax lyrical.

Think this through. The High Court have set out a point of law which states that the Federal Parliament alone has the right to determine what marriage is in this country. Having done that, it continues to argue its point by elucidating its thought process. The trouble is that the process utilised, as we have seen, is fundamentally flawed.

According to the High Court, a marriage is a “consensual union between natural persons”. If this is so, then all manner of abominations are possible. How many are too many in a marriage? Then it is not only plurality that is courted but homosexuality. Marriage could be six men, six women, three men and three women. As long as these are “natural persons” – no nestene duplicates[20] – and the relationship is consensual, there can be no limit! Moreover, as this is the Court’s reasoning and that reasoning has no terminus or restrictions in morality – the only terminator being the Parliament’s will – then whatever the Parliament allows is not only right but must be obeyed and instituted.

At this point, it would seem that bestiality is ruled out, though I have nagging doubts. After all, evolutionary theory states that Man is just one of the animals. I have also read some weird stuff on what constitutes “personhood”. Placing these two together with the High Court’s ridiculous definition could mean that ‘Dolly the sheep’ is popular again and that for the abominable reason.

Equally, we cannot let the “consensual” part of the definition go unnoticed. What of pederasty? What of incest? What of those laws that have prohibited consanguineous marriages?

Now, to be fair, the High Court states, in section 43:

Eligibility to marry is fixed by the two Acts with only one difference. Under the Marriage Act, a person aged between 16 and 18 years may marry [63] if certain consents are given or judicial authorisation is obtained. Under the ACT Act, an adult person may marry [64]. Both Acts prohibit [65] marriage between persons within the same prescribed degrees of affinity or consanguinity.

However, if marriage is mutable, without an absolute definition possible, then how do the High Court and the framers of the ACT legislation decide that these limitations should remain? If polygamy and homosexuality are legitimate by way of reasoning that there is no absolute definition for marriage, then marrying your son, daughter, sister, cousin, and /or aunt – remember, no limitation on numbers – should also be legal.

Once more, from where were the limits on consanguinity derived? They are Biblical.[21] Yep, that’s right; you will find them in the Bible and only the Bible. All other writings are simply playing “catch up” or are seeking to apply or interpret what the Bible has stated. So, here on display for all to see, is the High Court’s hypocrisy. The very Court that denies God any place in marriage, the Court that tells us that marriage cannot be absolutely defined, also turns out to be a court that insists on certain Biblical standards for the marriage covenant.

The parallel here takes us back to the beginning – we will accept ‘do not murder / steal’, but we do not want ‘do not have false gods or commit adultery’. Rebellious Man enjoys God’s command when it affords him protection, but he despises God’s command when it limits his rebellion. This principle has just been clearly demonstrated by the High Court.

When God is denied, all becomes a state of flux and guessing in the dark! If the High Court were consistent, in the slightest, they would admit that the only right application of their reasoning means that there is no limitation to marriage outside the words “consensual” and “natural persons”. Thus, restrictions on age could only be governed by the term “consensual”; that is to say a court would need to adjudicate on the question, “At what age does a person understand the concepts implied in marriage?” Outside of this, there can simply be no restriction.

Third, and this is a change of topic, but there is an unseen and unspoken ramification that is rapidly coming to the surface. It is a ramification that will affect us all. It has the possibility to be momentous in our nation’s history.

I speak here of the dissolution of the Federation of States that constitutes this nation.

One of the truly disturbing aspects that has come to the fore through this whole debate is the rancour of those arguing for homosexual union. So rabid are those people that they will stop at nothing – even, it seems, the destruction of our nation.

What is clear from the process with the High Court is that this has been a deliberate venture. Those bent on destroying marriage have launched the ACT legislation as a test case. Right now, highly paid lawyers will be looking through the High Court’s ruling seeking loopholes. The ACT sought to have their legislation stand alongside of the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act. The High Court has said that in its current form it cannot.

In Western Australia there is another piece of legislation being presented. They hope that by framing things slightly differently that the result will be a piece of legislation that will stand beside the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act in a way acceptable to the High Court.

What this means in reality is that this nation is going to see a series of High Court challenges. Tax payer’s dollars will be wasted by this anarchistic minority who will not accept any other decision but the one that gives them legal right to debauchery. These people agitated for and were given a vote in Parliament. They lost. They were soundly defeated. Then came the excuses. They were offered a referendum; that was not acceptable because the outcome was unknown and permanent. So now they relentlessly hassle the politicians and clog up the courts. For what? The destruction of our nation.

Please, think this through. At Federation the States surrendered certain aspects of governance to the Federal Parliament. Now, at the behest of a debauched few, that Federation is under attack. If a state finds a piece of legislation that is acceptable to the High Court as an adjunct to the Marriage Act, then it will have the ultimate effect of nullifying the Federal Parliament’s authority.

This being the case, how many court cases are going to be presented before the burden causes the Federal Parliament to cave? If the Federal Parliament does not cave, at what point are they going to, if ever, say, “Enough!” When homosexual and polygamous unions are legalised by the States, “What is next on the agenda?” Put another way, the current question is a Constitutional one. Therefore, if a State can find a way of negating the Federal Parliament’s sole right as the authority under the Constitution, as with the Marriage Act, what effect will that have for the very existence of Federal Parliament?

Stating it as plainly as possible, if any Sate can legitimately take on a function of the Federal Parliament, once the loophole is found, then each State will be able to bypass the Federal Parliament at will. What then? What will happen to our nation as a federation of States?

Again, some may see this as the stuff of doomsday prophecy. I assure you it is not. I have said many times that there are few, if any, Western countries that have not had a civil war. Australia stands out as one that has not been down that road. However, how long will it be before some in our society become tired of being bullied by this anarchistic minority? How long before the relativism and lack of truth spoken of in this article breeds contempt for law, indeed nullifies law altogether? After all, if there is no objective truth, the opinion of the highest office or biggest stick rules!

So please, give some thought to the possibility of this ramification. With the High Court officially embracing and endorsing relativism there is no objective answer. There is no right or wrong. There is only what the law allows or the law forbids. If the law allows adjunct law by the States, “What will happen to our nation?”

Conclusion:

The decision of the High Court is disturbing and that for many reasons. In this article we have simply tried to pin point the fundamental error in the Court’s thinking, or, if you will, in their premise or presupposition. We have also attempted to outline some of the ramifications of this decision. Some have to do with marriage. Others go far beyond that topic.

In the end, we must simply restate the old maxim, “Ideas have consequences”. The idea that “God is dead” will have consequences. The idea that Federal Parliament can rule without reference to God will have consequences.[22] The idea that marriage is nothing more than a social or cultural construct will have consequences. Allowing homosexual and polygamous unions will have consequences.

It may have been appropriate to add some words on the hot topics of “God and government” and “morality in law”. These topics need to be addressed for they have many people confused, including a good number of Christians.

Let me then add some help here. Church and State are separate institutions, but they are not the only institutions. These institutions exist because God created them. Therefore, they owe their full allegiance to God. The separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of “God and government”. God made government. Romans chapter 13 informs us that government is a minister of God and that it is bound to do His will. Therefore, laws must reflect morality – God’s morality.

Allow me to close with an apt quotation from the late R.J. Rushdoony:

The other night, a prominent lawyer, appearing on television, asked for the repeal of laws against abortion, narcotics, sexual perversions, and a number of other things. “You can’t legislate morality,” he said, “and it’s about time we stopped trying to do it.” The man was lying, and he knew it, because all law is about morality. When you legislate against murder, theft, libel, and the like, you are legislating morality. When you institute traffic laws, you are again legislating morality: you are penalizing traffic behavior which may endanger the life and property of another man. In other words, you are enacting specific forms of God’s law: Thou shalt not kill, and Thou shalt not steal. Legislation about the forms of court procedure is in terms of the law banning false witness; the purpose of such laws is to further true testimony. Even the salaries of public officials have moral implication: “[T]he labourer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18).

At every point, the law deals either with morality directly or with procedures for its enforcement. All law is enacted morality. Every criminal law says that a certain thing is right, and another wrong. Every law is thus a piece of legislated morality. Moreover, all morality represents a religion, as that every system of law is an establishment of religion. Thus, there can be a separation of church and state, but there cannot be a separation of religion and the state, because every system of law is a religion and a morality in action.

What the lawyer was actually saying was that he hated a Christian law system and wanted to replace it with a system of humanistic law. This is exactly the nature of our legal revolution today. The courts are changing the law by changing the religion behind the law.

What all law does legislate is morality, and you had better believe it before it is too late before you wake up to find the revolution is over, and you are the new outlaw in terms of the new morality, the new law, and the new religion. This has happened elsewhere, and it is happening here.[23]

[1] These are trite examples, but they illustrate the point. You would always return home from work with apprehension because the wife you left in the morning may not be the one you return to at night. Similarly, it will take you a long time to get home each night as you will need to drive all over town looking for your home because you cannot guarantee that it will be in the same place.

[2] Abortion and Euthanasia are but two examples. These were rarely heard of in the days when marriage and sexuality were esteemed. As to theft, where do I begin? We all know that the burglar has more rights than the victim. Need anything more be said.

[3] See James 2:10-11. I have adapted the point of James argument and applied it to the topic at hand.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21. Note well that the question or challenge is rhetorical. Elijah demonstrates concretely that Yahweh is God and that Baal is nothing.

[5] The High Court’s decision is one more in a long line (of decisions by various courts) that displays the erroneous belief that morality and law have nothing in common.

[6] All references to the court’s reasoning come from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html.

[7] Thus a man could leave his wife and children and “move on”, as it were. People could say that this was a poor decision. They might say it was selfish. What they could not say any longer was that it was a wrong or morally corrupt decision.

[8] This is one of the truly great dangers of pornography. It is not so much the pictures, but the combination of words and images that creates the belief that there is a greater perfection than what you currently possess.

[9] I am using marriage as an example because of its relevance to the High Court’s decision. This discontentment can come into other areas of life also. Discontentment is bound to rise amongst those who refuse to see themselves as limited, finite creatures.

[10] Please see our work, Marriage is Life!

[11] In section 37 we find these words: “The boundaries of the class of persons who have that legal status are set by law and those boundaries are not immutable.” Note that the High Court once again states that marriage is not immutable. At this point they are seeking to establish that the class of persons to be married is to be determined by the “the law” but that such law is changeable.

[12] For example, Clause 18 says, in part: “More generally, it is essential to recognise that the law relating to marriage, as it stood at federation, was the result of a long and tangled development.” (Italics added.) There are references to Federation, the Council of Trent, and to Roman law, which are dismissed. Interestingly, the words of Jesus are never quoted, “And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He [God] who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”( Matthew 19:3-9.) Please note Jesus’ reference points: God and from the beginning! Federation, Trent, Rome! They are all superfluous and irrelevant. In the beginning God is the only reference point that matters and it is the one reference point the High Court a priori ruled out of the discussion.

[13] Have you noticed that for a Christian to condemn the homosexual and his practice is to be guilty of hate-speech and holding them to ridicule. However, it is acceptable for homosexuals to march in a Mardi Gras each year dressed mockingly as Fred Nile, nuns, priests etc, and to be openly blasphemous. Read Romans 1:32 for some insight!

[14] Found at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage. Viewed 32/12/13. Interestingly, my Little Oxford from 1986 does not mention the second definition! Understand well, even our dictionaries are rewritable at the dictates of PC.

[15] Some years ago, Homeschoolers in Victoria were required to register. As a part of that decree, certain topics were set out as mandatory. How long before this sinister element is used to force secular doctrine onto our children? It is already happening to some degree in State schools.

[16] In section 21, this quote by Higgins J is cited: “Power to make laws as to any class of rights involves a power to alter those rights, to define those rights, to limit those rights, to extend those rights, and to extend the class of those who may enjoy those rights.” What the Government giveth, the Government can taketh away! This fact is cited in the document discussing the Marriage Act. In short, any exemptions given by a Government can be altered by a Government, whether that be extension, diminution, or revocation.

[17] Bold added.

[18] It does not seem at all appropriate to argue from this perspective that Australian law gives explicit approval to polygamy. This is what one would term as “drawing a long bow”. Equally, it is another example of evil begetting evil. One does not need to legally recognise polygamy to deal ethically with the fallout of a failed polygamous marriage.

[19] This statement is interesting. It notes that these citations were attempts to “mask the adoption of a premise”. Nothing new here! Those familiar with the pages of Post Tenebras Lux will know that we have spoken previously about presuppositions and basic ‘faith’ positions. The real point of interest is in the question, “What premise is the High Court of Australia 2013 seeking to mask?”

[20] Just for DW fans!

[21] See Leviticus 18:6-18. Thus the Westminster Divines can say, “Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. (Lev. 18, 1 Cor. 5:1, Amos 2:7) Nor can such incestuous marriage ever be made by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. (Mark 6:18, Lev. 18:24–28)” Unlike the High Court’s ramblings, the Divines had no problem going straight to the source to find out what form and content were appropriate to marriage.

[22] You may wish to ponder the implications of Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-7.

[23] By R. J. Rushdoony. Taken from A Word in Season: Daily Messages on the Faith for All of Life, Vol. III, p. 66. Emphases added.

Choose Belief (Pt 6)

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

This series has ranged over a number of topics. However, it has only ever had one central theme – believe God! Believe what God says about Scripture and in Scripture. Believe what God says about Himself. Believe what God says about Man. Believe what God says about worship. Believe God!

The modern Church faces many dilemmas precisely because She has turned Her back on God’s revelation as the source of truth. We have imbibed so much of the World’s philosophy that we find ourselves unwilling to believe what God has revealed for our instruction (See Roman 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:10-13).

This unbelief comes in many guises. It may come as an a priori belief that the Old Testament is dead. It may come as a presupposition in which individual freedom is exalted. It may be realised by a position that sees the New Testament as radically different to the Old Testament. Could it be based on the modern educational tenets, which have led you to believe that the Bible must be verified in scientific terms?

Whatever the reason, the simple fact is that many Christians refuse to believe and submit to the whole counsel of God. They treat the Bible like a grocery store, wandering about and only choosing the items that they desire. Similarly, they pass by that which is of no interest, even to the point of avoiding some isles altogether.

The problem then becomes a very simple one. If they are asked the question, “What does your supermarket sell?” they will not be able to provide a comprehensive answer. Some items may be brought to mind with a “I have not purchased that, but I do remember seeing it in my travels.” What then of those isles or areas that are never traversed? What items are located therein?

Let’s apply this analogy to Scripture.[1] You are asked by a friend, “What does the Bible teach on …?” How comprehensively – as in accurately – will you answer? Is this topic in your favourite Isle? Is it in a spot that you pass, but one to which you have payed little attention? Maybe, it is in one of those isles into which you never venture.

If this analogy is true of you, then it is necessary to admit that any answers given to this question may not be accurate. This lack of accuracy will be directly proportional to your ignorance. Yes, this is affronting. Yet, it is, nonetheless, true.

If we altered the analogy, say, to fixing a lawnmower engine, you would agree. You would openly state that as you do not know enough in regard to the internal workings of a single cylinder motor, it would be foolishness to proffer an answer of any substance, at least without some serious caveats. However, as we are Christians and Christians are meant to know their Bibles, we are reluctant to show similar restraint or offer the appropriate caveats.

Then, there is the case in which, tweaking the analogy, you know what’s in the isle, but you will not go there because you simply do not like the product. In this case, you know what the Scripture says at certain points, but choose to ignore it and adopt some other position because it suits you or your circumstances better.[2]

It matters little into which of the categories any individual may fit. The simple reality is that if you fit one or the other, you are guilty of unbelief. You simply do not want to know what God says or you openly deny what God says.

Again, some may not like this. Certainly, you will not like it if it applies to you. However, just stand back for a moment and put self aside. If what is said here is true, just as a general principle, would you agree that the outcome is less than acceptable? In other words, would you agree that it is less than acceptable to deny a command or teaching of God? Would you further agree that having passed by God’s teaching, we are more than likely to pick up and apply a false principle from another source?

I am sure that most agree with these concepts in the abstract. The point of contention is the application to our lives. However, just as in the main body of this series we pointed to obedience as being related to holiness and sanctification, so now, we would relate this analogy to faith. Is not faith the believing of all that God has stated?

Therefore, what we are arguing for is that the Church return to Her status as a community of faith; a community of believers; a community that faithfully believes all that God has spoken.

The power of the Reformation was not in its men. It was not in the rediscovery of one salvific doctrine, such as justification by faith. Its power and influence came from the fact that the Reformers believed that God governed all things and all areas of life by His word. There was not, then, in their schema an area to which the Bible was not applicable by direct statement or derived principle.

Consequently, the West was shaped by the application of God’s word to all of life. Government, taxation, family, work, education, and yes, the doctrines of salvation, were all given new life because they were transformed and re-formed according to God’s standard.

We are about to enter 2014. Does God’s word still influence these areas? Do you believe that God speaks to these areas in His word? Do you believe that God’s word should be applied in all these areas? When you argue a point, do you say, “Thus says the Lord!” or is it more, “The latest scientific journal says …!”

Few would argue that the Church is in decline in this country and in the West in general. Every day Christians are faced with a new challenge. We are unstable and weak precisely because we are a house divided. We rest on opinion rather than on God’s revelation.

There is only one answer. We must take our stand upon God’s word. We must believe all that God has revealed for our instruction.[3] We must be prepared to take our stand on God’s revelation, for it alone is power, authority, and truth.

Brethren, let us be rid of unbelief. Let us cry out, “Lord, we believe! Help our unbelief.”

[1] The supermarket is the Bible. The isles can be individual books or portions of the Bible. Products could represent individual teachings, doctrines, and the like.

[2] Biblical examples would be: the ‘woman at the well’ and her evasive answer to Jesus regarding her husband or Ahab refusing the message of the true prophet, Micaiah, because “he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”

[3] Romans 15:4 & 1 Corinthians 10:11.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Reform

Of Shepherding Shepherds

Homosexual Paranoia

The Evangelism of Despair: Preachers v Laity (Pt 2)

The Evangelism of Despair: Preachers v Laity

The Evangelism of Despair: Proclamation v Invitation

The Evangelism of Despair: Sickness v Death

Evangelism and the Tool of Despair

The Evangelism of Despair

The High Court and Homosexuality

Choose Belief (Pt 6)