The Love of Christ Constrains

Posted on January 23, 2019 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Changes can be subtle and subtle changes can be wrong. A wise Christian once said: “Wisdom is the ability to distinguish ‘right’ from ‘almost right’!”

One such subtle change, which has had a terrible impact on Christianity, has to do with the love of Christ. “Now”, you ask, “how can the love of Christ ever be wrong?” As the above saying suggests, it can be wrong when it is almost right.

The problem has come about and is seen in a one–sided love. The love of Christ is that in which the Christian basks. It is the love of Christ that has set the Christian free. In these views, the love of Christ is only a permissive love that enables the Christian to do what he enjoys most.

Is this view of Christ’s love correct? The answer is, no. Whilst the love of Christ gives to the Christian many wondrous benefits and incalculable riches, autonomy is not one of them. By this we mean that Christ did not set us free to a vacuum where we are self-determining kings. On the contrary, Christ’s love set us free to serve God. Jesus’ love set us free so that we could be priestly-kings in His Kingdom, in order to serve Him faithfully and fully.

Missing from the Christian’s view of Christ’s love in our day is the concept found in the hymn, “For the might Thine arm”, which states, For the love of Christ constraining.” As a child growing up, I remember this phrase being used. Christians spoke freely of the fact that Christ’s love constrained.

As individualism has made inroads into the Church, I no longer hear this phrase. Rather, as alluded to earlier, Christ’s love is now simply viewed as a permissive element in which Jesus smiles upon any and all activities of the Christian.

Such should not be the case. The love of Christ should constrain us. The love of Christ should motivate us to obedient action. Likewise, the love of Christ should dissuade us from disobedient actions. The love of Christ should be everything to us. It should be our health and happiness.

Thus, we must ask, “How can we be happy, if we mock the love of Christ?” Someone close to me married an unbeliever. When challenged, their response was, “Do you not want me to be happy?” Our response to that was, “If you are a Christian, how can you be happy when you disobey Christ?”

The love of Christ is a two-way street. Christ’s absolute love to us should be reflected in our love for Him absolutely. This means that we must appreciate and understand the infinite cost of Jesus death; the incomprehensible depth of the statement, “loved before the foundation of the world”; and the implications of, “you are not your own but have been bought with a price – therefore glorify God in your body!”

We simply cannot say that we are encompassed by the love of Christ, when we walk in disobedience to Christ. We cannot say that Christ is our all in all, when we do not love Jesus absolutely by absolutely keeping His commands. Inane concepts like, “God looks at the heart” simply do not suffice. Yes, God does look at the heart. He looks at the heart to see if it is genuinely filled with the love of Jesus, His beloved Son. God looks at the heart to see whether or not the works that come forth are those of outward show or those constrained by the true love of Christ.

Consider Jesus words to the Church at Ephesus: “But I have this against you, that you have left your first love” (Revelation 2:4).

These Ephesians were good. They could spot a heretic at one hundred paces. They could rightly divide the word of God. They had sound doctrine. What they did not have was a genuine love for Christ. This is not to say that they did not love Jesus in any way. Rather, it is to emphasise the fact that spotting heretics and having right theology became an end in itself. They did not learn to eradicate falsehood so that Jesus would be honoured. They did not learn doctrine so that Christ would be glorified. Rather, these elements became an end in themselves.

Brethren, please let the love of Christ constrain us in our day. Give up the radical disobedience of self. Give up the false idea of doctrine for doctrine’s sake. In all our actions, let us be conscious that we act for Christ and His glory. Let us be constrained to action and from action on the basis that we love Jesus and that it would break our hearts irreparably to cause Him any hurt.

The modern view of permissive love is a false view. Christ’s love constrains, and rightly so. How could we not give our all for Him who held nothing back from us? Jesus love for us saw Him forsaken of God, hung on a tree, cursed by His own creation, despised of man; all to purchase a people for God. How little a thing is it then, that the love of Jesus be allowed to govern every word, thought, and action of His people.

May the love of Christ constrain us completely to an obedience which magnifies and glorifies our beautiful Jesus!

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.6)

Posted on November 27, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Beware the Poison Well)

6. Oil and Water.

In part five of this series, we showed that there is absolutely no common ground between the Biblical worldview and that of the Humanist. We concluded by pointedly showing that the denial of the Biblical worldview was nothing short of an overt attack upon the Person and Work of Jesus Christ.[1] We therefore labelled the denial of the Biblical worldview, or parts thereof, as either heresy or apostasy. The use of such strong terms was deliberate, for we desire the brethren to truly understand what is at stake in this discussion.

Understand, please, that we are not discussing two equally valid systems for assessing, viewing, and treating Man. We are exposing the war that exists between God’s view and diagnosis of Man and Man’s view and diagnosis of Man. On one side there is God’s view – the view of the Holy, Righteous, Infinite, Eternal, Creator. On the other side is Man’s view – the view of a fallen, corrupt, finite, rebellious, creature. These views are gulfs apart; they are irreconcilable! These views are like oil and water; they simply do not and cannot mix.

Yet, what we find are genuine Christian folk who are passionately committed to the idea that oil and water not only can mix, but should mix. They are convinced that they can find a way to combine oil and water, eliminating all tensions, and thus create a harmonious synthesis between the two. With respect to these folk, this is a fool’s errand. It is, as we saw in Part Five, an attempt to mix light and dark; Christ and Belial; righteousness and lawlessness.

This brings us to a discussion of the supposed Christian counsellor. If psychology and psychiatry[2] are inherently evil, then the pertinent question must be, “What then of the Christian Counsellor?”

Before answering this question, we need to make two points for clarification. First, we need to underscore the fact that every Christian who is able in the Word of God is indeed competent to counsel.[3] Second, when we speak of the ‘Christian counsellor’, we have in mind the professional who is, if you will, competing with the Elders of the Church for business.

Turning our attention to the question at hand, it is our contention that the Christian counsellor, almost universally, will have undergone training in the Secular science of Psychology. To the extent that such a person has imbibed the false Humanistic doctrine and worldview, to that extent they have tried to alter and are in conflict with the Biblical worldview. It is, in essence, that simple.

Now, it must be understood that capacious tomes have been written on this subject, so our little work will hardly scratch the surface. However, we do hope to make ground by focusing upon worldviews, presuppositions, and theologies.

6.1 The Christian Counsellor’s First Thoughts: In trying to understand a person’s position, it is always beneficial to understand his basic presuppositions or worldview elements. This is the same for any discussion involving theology. When we come to this debate on secular counselling techniques and its place in the Church (especially), people are often confused by the use of the generic term “Christian”. Yet, we must ask, “What does the word Christian mean to the author in such discussions?” Our heart would thrill at the thought that in our day this term meant that all Christians shared all Biblical truths and all things in common, but, sadly, this is not the case.

As a result, we need to understand the theological positions of the authors involved in this debate. We need to, if you will, understand their brand of theology or Christianity. Hence, it should come as no surprise and no coincidence that there is a theological divide involved in this present debate. The divide to which we refer is, generally speaking, between the Reformed (anti) and Arminian (pro) camps and it is so because they possess different views of both Scripture and Man.

The Reformed[4] person believes that Man is, through sin, totally depraved (Total Depravity). This term does not mean that Man is as bad as Man can be, but, rather, that every part of his being is impacted and corrupted by sin. Consequently, the unregenerate, unrenewed mind cannot think correctly. This mind has a bias against God and is in no position to accurately process thoughts about God or Man.[5] We would even go so far as to say that the regenerate man must work hard at learning to think aright.[6] Through regeneration and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit the Christian now has the ability to think aright, but this is not necessarily a guarantee that he will think aright.[7] Therefore, the Christian’s thinking, indeed Man’s thinking, must always be measured by God’s revelation (Scripture) as the final standard of correct thought.[8]

The Arminian does not share this position. He holds to a more mild view of sin and generally believes that Man’s reason remains untouched by sin. Hence, you often see the exaltation of reason within his system. In evangelism, this belief displays itself in the providing of information to the lost and in pressing him for a “decision”. In other words, the sinner is urged to exercise his mind and choose to be removed from his current estate of rebellion by rationally deciding to accept the sacrifice of Jesus. In regard to our current discussion, it presents as a willingness to give excessive credibility to the reasoned arguments of the unregenerate, or to Man in general, and to view Man’s sin condition as if it does not impede Man’s ability to realise God’s truth when he finds it.[9]

Therefore, it is of absolute importance, in a debate like this, that the Christian asks himself what any author means when he uses the words “Christian” or “Biblical”. It may sound silly, but many are duped by deceptive terms. The words “Christian” or “Biblical” are emblazoned upon the cover of the latest and greatest, thus many unsuspecting Christians pick up and read the contents; but are those contents truly Christian and Biblical?

Similarly, what is meant when a writer speaks of the “authority of Scripture”? Does he mean an absolute authority or is this a qualified authority? Is it an authority to all men or just Christians? Is Scripture our authority on all to which it speaks (speaking by statute or principle to everything) or only on the topic of salvation? Equally, what is a “committed” Christian? Someone committed to the general concept of Christianity; someone who holds tightly to every tenet revealed in Scripture; or someone who has simply ‘committed’ their life to Jesus?

These questions are by no means irrelevant as we discuss this topic. In the following discussion you will read these terms. Those supporting the use of psychology will assign authority to Scripture. They will speak of “committed” Christians. They will even quote from Scripture. Thus, you need to have a gatekeeper over your heart and mind. First, you need to make yourself aware of what each author means when he uses the terms listed. Second, you need to understand the Scriptures quoted in their context to see if they really say what is being claimed.

6.2 The Presuppositional Slide: When we start at any position other than that which is Biblical, we will, of necessity, miss the mark—the Biblical goal. This is as true for the Christian as it is for the non-believer. Our knowledge is based in revelation, God’s revelation. When we fail to allow God to be the Revelator then we begin to assume that role ourselves. When we take over that role we will begin to paint ourselves, fallen Man, in a much better light than we deserve.

This is seen ultimately in the Humanist position. However, it is also seen in the position of Christians who reject the Reformed or Biblical worldview. The intrusions are often subtle, but they are there and they will be seen by the way in which they inevitably ascribe too much credence to Man’s ability, too little authority to God’s word,[10] and are antagonistic to those who seek to hold to a truly Biblical position. To illustrate these points, we will look to those who, claiming to be Christian,[11] espouse the use of psychology and psychological techniques:

A) Gary Collins[12] – Like most in this category, Gary Collins does have some good things to say. However, the simple reality is that whilst he tries to speak highly of Christianity and the Bible, he can never veil the fact that psychology is his key weapon. Throughout, psychology is constantly and consistently exalted.

When starting out, Collins makes a very apt point:

No counsellor is completely value free or neutral in terms of assumptions. We each bring our own viewpoints into the counselling situation and these influence our judgements and comments whether we recognize this or not.[13]

When Collins makes this point, it leads us to believe that he is aware of the depths and richness of this fundamental and universal principle, and how it will be worked out and expressed by all, especially the unregenerate. Such words fill us with an innate hope that he understands that the “carnal mind is enmity against God” (KJV) and that it therefore has an antagonistic bias against God and His standards. It makes you think that he is helping to guard the principles of Christianity against defilement. Yet, this is not the case. Just a few pages on, we read:

In the following chapters, the writings of social scientists are frequently cited on the assumption that all truth comes from God, including truth about people whom God created. He has revealed this truth through the Bible, God’s written Word to human beings,[14] but he also has permitted us to discover truth through experience and the methods of scientific investigation. Discovered truth[15] must always be consistent with, and tested against, the norm of revealed Biblical truth.[16] But we limit our counselling effectiveness when we pretend that the discoveries of psychology have nothing to contribute to the understanding and solution of problems.[17]

What happened to assumptions? Well, they are very much on display, just not in the way we had hoped. What we see are Collins’ assumptions, namely, that the unregenerate mind can rightly discover and interpret the data around him; that the Bible needs supplementation; and that psychology is right and acceptable.

In fact, the very next paragraph starts with, “Let us accept the fact that psychology can be a great help to the Christian counsellor.”[18] Why? Why should we accept this proposition as a fact? Where is the evidence from the Bible – measuring discovered truth against revealed truth – that tells us that psychology is acceptable?[19] There is none. We are simply expected to shelve the revelation of God for the conviction of Gary Collins.

Tragically, what is displayed here is nothing less than the subjugation of the Bible to the tyrannical whims of Man. Having totally misunderstood the role and impact of presuppositions, assumptions, Collin’s, rather than elevating Scripture, has seen Its colours lowered. We may say that rather than protecting the jewel of Scripture, Collin’s unlocked the cabinet, grasped it in his hands and, then, with one careless act, fumbled the jewel, dropping it to the floor, shattering it.[20]

Do you not believe us? Then let us consider the rest of this paragraph, penned by Collins:

How, then, do we wade through the quagmire of techniques, theories, and technical terms to find the insights that are truly helpful?[21] The answer involves our finding a guide—some person or persons who are committed followers of Jesus Christ, familiar with the psychological and counselling literature, trained in counselling and in research methods (so the scientific accuracy of psychologists’ conclusions can be evaluated), and effective as counsellors. It is crucial that the guides be committed to the inspiration and authority of the Bible, both as the standard against which all psychology must be tested and as the written Word of God with which all counselling must agree.[22]

Wow! Do you note the vacillations and contradictions? Do you see the double standards?

To sharpen our focus, let us consider the following analogy. You want, as a young Christian, to delve into counselling as a serious vocation. You approach a wise, committed follower of Jesus Christ. You outline your intentions. His reply, ‘My son, have nothing to do with secular psychology. If this is your God given passion, go to seminary.’ What will be the reply? “Oh, sorry wise one. I just checked the criteria again. Whilst I admit that you are a wise, faithful Christian, indeed the most faithful I have ever known, I note that my guide must also be aware of the current counselling literature and trained in the scientific method. As you do not possess these extra skills, I must assume that you are biased and therefore not able to guide me adequately in these issues. Thank you. Sorry for wasting your time.”

A straw man? No. What we want you to readily see is that Mr. Collins has sown his assumption (presuppositions) into the fabric of his advice. Neatly woven together are the concepts of Biblical authority and the correctness of psychology. Immediately, anyone following this advice is going to look to fulfil both sets of criteria, follow both threads, if you will. Consequently, the advice of the wise Christian, who sees no place for psychology based in the revelation of God’s word, is nullified.

Similarly, what do we make of the two standards? First, we are to be “trained in counselling and in research methods (so the scientific accuracy of psychologists’ conclusions can be evaluated)” and then we are to “be committed to the inspiration and authority of the Bible … as the standard against which all psychology must be tested.” So which is it? Which is the final test—Bible or scientific method? If the Bible shows that psychology is an unwarranted intrusion upon the teachings of God, for what do we need the scientific method? If the scientific method is untrustworthy or open to abuse,[23] precisely because those who employ it are not neutral, being biased against God,[24] then should we not go straight to Scripture?

Then comes the curly question, “What if science and its methodology prove the Bible wrong?”—at least that’s what the Secular scientist might claim, as in the case of Evolution. Who will decide? What triumphs, God’s Book or Man’s microscope? After all, a man cannot have two masters and a man cannot have two authorities. This is a very sound Biblical principle.[25] Therefore, having noted that all men have “assumptions” that will influence them, why does this brother discount the fact that some of those assumptions are going to be the negative assumptions of God is not, Evolution, Enlightenment, and Humanistic Utopianism rather than the Biblical worldview of God is, Creation, Fall, and Redemption? The further question then must be, “How do these people, functioning according to these false assumptions, provide more reliable and superior explanations than those revealed by God?”

Lastly, in proving our point, it must be noted that Collins speaks of three forms of “pastoral” input, namely, Pastoral Care, Pastoral Counselling, and Pastoral Psychotherapy.[26] These are ranked in order of speciality. Thus, “pastoral care” is the broadest and most general category. Notably, in regard to “pastoral counselling” Collins has this to say: “As defined traditionally, pastoral counselling is the work of an ordained pastor.” Similarly, in speaking of the “pastoral psychotherapist”, we are told that this is “the work of a trained specialist” and, as a consequence, it “will rarely be mentioned in this book”.

Now the obvious question is this: “In a book on “Christian counselling”, where the ordained pastor and Christian counsellor are placed squarely in the middle category, who are these chaps that occupy the highest position as the “trained specialists?” If the book on Biblical counselling truly and absolutely espouses God’s revealed truth as the sovereign evaluator of all thought and processes, then why is psychotherapy not covered in the book? Is this a tacit confession to the effect that the Bible does not speak to all areas; or that Man in his wisdom has figured out a few things that God did not or could not; or possibly it is an acknowledgement that God simply forgot to put some things in Scripture?

In brining this discussion on Gary Collins to an end, we will provide one practical example that highlights how psychology triumphs over Scripture. In discussing anger, Collins states:

Anthropological studies have shown that people from different cultures get angry over different issues and express their anger in different ways.… One counsellor who works with angry teenagers concluded that “in nearly every situation, there was at least one parent who was also a very angry person.” By watching others, children and adults both learn when and how to be angry. (Proverbs 22:24-25 is then quoted)[27]

Now, upon reading this, you will be thinking to yourself, ‘that all seems pretty straightforward, so where is the problem?’ Well, the problem is in the fact that Scripture is brought in at the end to justify, or baptise, the Secular research.

To be fair, Collins has made some valid and Biblically correct statements up to this point. He notes that anger is a part of God’s character and, therefore, rightfully a part of Man’s character. He notes that anger is not always sinful, but that it can quickly become such. Thus, the real criticism is that he did not stop when he was standing upon the Word of God. He had to keep going and delve into the Humanist perspective.

Hence, Collins arrives at a point in which he gives us the five main “causes” for anger: Biology[28]; Injustice[29]; Frustration; Threat and Fear; Learning. With the exception of the second category, Injustice, it should be understood that these categories are those that would occasion negative sinful outbursts. Note, please, the absence of sin and the corrupt heart of Man as the poisonous root from which the anger arises. Yes, all of these can be triggers that tempt us to an outburst of anger, but none of them are really the cause of anger. After all, anger is a reactive emotion

In seeking to expose this issue, we have highlighted the fifth cause, Learning. The point is very simple: Why do we need the Anthropologists and Psychologists to tell us what the Bible has already made plain? If the Bible says that anger is at times wrong (James 1:20) and that this wrong behaviour can be learned (Psalm 37:8; Proverbs 16:32); if Scripture tells us that the right path is self-control (Ephesians 4:31; Galatians 5:23; 2 Peter 1:6); if the Scriptures tell us that humility (Proverbs 15:33; Proverbs 22:4; 1 Peter 5:5) is the greater state of being, why then do we need the Secular sciences?

It seems that, in the mind of these men, the Bible needs to be ratified by some scientific means before it can become truly authoritative. If science is needed to establish the Bible as “Authoritative”, then by logical extension “Science” must be more authoritative! After all, is it not the king who bestows titles? However, this begs the question, if Man gives the Bible its final authority, cannot Man take that authority away again at any time? Similarly, if Man gives the Bible its authority, then Man really is the final authority and not the Bible.

B) Lawrence J. Crabb[30] – As with Gary Collins, Lawrence Crabb speaks of the Bible as that which is authoritative, yet he is found to opine the validity of psychology: “I do not want anyone to interpret this chapter as a cavalier dismissal of secular psychology. I believe psychology as a thoroughly secular discipline (like dentistry or engineering)[31] has real value. My concern is to identify the basic assumptions about people and their problems implicitly advocated by secular psychology, and in the light of Scripture to see these assumptions as totally inadequate as a reliable, fixed framework for counselling. Only Scripture can provide the needed structure. Psychology’s efforts, while enlightening in many ways, are about as useful to the counsellor in search of an absolute foundation as floating anchors are to a ship in stormy waters.”[32]

Here again, we are confronted with the disappointing. If secular psychology is fundamentally flawed at a presuppositional level, having no worthy “absolute foundation”, then why should we accept it as a valid discipline? Why trumpet that which is foundationally flawed?

The impotence of these statements is highlighted when we realise that the paragraph before stated:

Christians sometimes are quick to support anyone who degrades the wisdom of man and asserts the sufficiency of Scripture as a base for all thinking. Dismissing all secular thinking as profitless denies the obvious fact that all true knowledge comes from God.[33]

Are you able to see the confusion? As with Collins, Crabb takes aim at any Christian who denounces secular thinking and in doing so undertakes to exalt the secularists and their mental abilities. However, he then turns on the secularists and tells them that their system has no “absolute foundation”. Hence, the message these men proclaim is that mixture and compromise are the only way forward. One cannot believe Scripture alone or psychology alone. One must believe a combination of the two. Once more, then, we are confronted with the destruction of Scripture by those claiming to uphold the Bible as their only authority.

What do we make of Crabb’s claims? To put it simply, they are unBiblical. Scripture states: “For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God. For it is written, “He is the one who catches the wise in their craftiness”; and again, “The Lord knows the reasonings of the wise, that they are useless.” So then let no one boast in men.”[34]

The Apostle Paul did not think the secularist had any worthwhile contribution to make. The Apostle does not esteem the ruminations of fallen Man as worthy of holding our attention. Paul did not think that a halfway house of compromise was the way forward. In point of fact, Paul’s advice, summed up, is, ‘Turn from the so-called wisdom of Man unto God, the true fount of Wisdom.’ Paul does not, in any way, ridicule the Christian who clings to God’s word as sufficient, but rather takes aim at the secularist who believes he can reason accurately apart from God and His revelation.

In abandoning the Biblical position, Crabb, as with Collins, finds himself always subjecting the Bible to the views of Man or crowing that secular psychology is acceptable because it agrees with Scripture. To show this we will highlight just one instance of Crabb’s confusion:

Ellis calls this the A-B-C Theory of emotion: A (what happens to you) does not control C (how you feel); B (what you say to yourself about A) is in fact directly responsible for C (how you feel). Although the arguments continue unabated, there is plenty of psychological evidence to support this third point I wish to make: how a person thinks has a great deal to do with what a person does and how a person feels. Scripture, the Christian’s final authority,[35] supports the belief that psychologists are right when they emphasize the importance of thinking. (Crabb then quotes Proverbs 23:7 and alludes to Romans 12:2.)[36]

Much could be said concerning this paragraph, but we will zero in on the subordination of Scripture to secular thought. Do you see how Scripture is used to justify the fact that the “psychologists are right” in regard to the theory being posited. No doubt this is a perverted attempt to claim authority for the Bible, but it is a vain attempt that backfires. Why? Simple—the recent claims of psychology are trumpeted as innovative and the ancient truths of the Bible are rallied as a secondary source. It is the Bible that agrees with psychology and not psychology that has simply reformulated the ancient truth revealed in Scripture. As Scripture predates psychology, Crabb could have ditched all the natter regarding psychology and simply said, Thus saith the Lord…! He could have listed Proverbs, Romans, and a host of other texts that prove conclusively, without any reference to psychology, that Man’s thought patterns are vitally important. In point of fact, had he studied some of these other texts, he would have been far more reticent to speak so highly of fallen Man’s rational ability to discover truth apart from God.[37]

This is the idolatry of our age. So enamoured are we with Man and his rational ability that we have once again listened to the great evil – did God really say? – have elevated Man to the place of God – knowing good from evil – and instead of turning to God for wisdom, we now turn to ourselves. Evangelicals no longer lean upon God’s word as their only authority. Now we have research, science, and a host of other disciplines, like psychology, erected as idols in our streets, unto which we bow, supplicating them for direction, prosperity, and life.

The scene is sickening; yet there is worse. Worse? Yes, worse! With our idolatry has come a terminal intolerance of God’s word. When we are made to feed upon God’s word, we are like children made to choke down brussel sprouts.

C) Derek Tidball – We reference Tidball as an example of how we no longer want to stomach that which is purely Biblical. Says he:

Jay Adams has, without a doubt, made an enormous contribution to the revival of a biblical pastoral theology. He has restored the confidence of many in their role as pastors, as distinct from being psychologists with a religious hue. He has restored, too, the confidence of many in the Bible as a sufficient and relevant textbook to deal with man’s problems. He has restored confidence in the power of the Holy Spirit to bring about changes in people’s lives. He has uncovered man’s basic problem as being that of sin for which he is responsible, rather than being a problem which lies in his environment or heredity. He has put feelings in their right context, which is quite an accomplishment in a culture which has been termed by Christopher Lasch ‘the culture of narcissism’. And he has swept through much of the unnecessary and pretentious paraphernalia of the medical perspective which has laden counselling down. He has not been afraid to point out when he thought that the emperor had no clothes. What is more, he has shown a concern to relate his counselling to his doctrine and to place it firmly within the Church.[38]

How did Jay Adams do all this? Is he an Oracle? Does he have an IQ above that of any other man? No, Jay Adams is a man who read his Bible and saw what God revealed therein. Jay Adams simply took God at His word, then took God’s word and applied God’s word. In short, Jay Adams simply believed God and expected that God’s word would do that which He said it would do. The result of this faithful application of God’s word to the pastoral and counselling arena produced the results outlined.[39]

Now, the curious among you are saying, “Hang on Murray. This was meant to be about choking on God’s word. I do not see choking, but rather lauding.” Yes, you have observed correctly. At this point, Tidball is playing excellently. His stroke play is unmatched. However, he is now on the final green. One simple put to take the trophy. Oh no, there is sweat on the brow. The palms are greasy and tingling. He cannot grip the putter properly. Oh no, can you feel the choke coming?

Tidball continues:

In spite of this there remain a number of major weaknesses in his approach which so blemish it as to render it seriously defective as an evangelical pastoral theology.

Duck! If you thought spiting coffee was bad, you do not want to be here for the brussel sprouts!!!!

Please grasp this. A man who by God’s grace turned people to Scripture; who was the instrument by which men stood up as pastors, realising that they could have confidence in the authority, breadth, depth, and sufficiency of Scripture; who was used to turn pastors from psychological lackeys into true Biblical counsellors; who helped Christians to see, understand, and rely upon the power of the Holy Spirit; who, applying Scripture, penetrated the false philosophies of the day – this one, such a man as this, has a “seriously defective” pastoral theology that is, in essence, useless to the Church!

My friends, this is choking par excellence. Worse, it is the full-blown repudiation of Scripture.

Which secular psychologist is going to esteem Scripture? Which secular psychologist is going to give Christian pastors a fundamental confidence in the Bible? Which secular psychologist is going to cut through the false philosophies of our day? Which secular psychologist is going to triumph the wonder and power of the Holy Spirit? The answer is, none of them! Neither are the Christians who have enslaved themselves to the false belief system of secular psychology.

Why, then, does Tidball make such harsh comments against Adams and take such a strong position? Precisely because he is a slave! Says he:

The pastor, then, must not forsake his distinctive role. He is a minister of God’s grace, not a purveyor of psychological acceptance. This is not to deny a genuine role for good psychotherapy or to pretend that a pastor has nothing to learn from the psychologist regarding his counselling technique.[40]

In these words from Tidball, we witness the great vacillation. He first builds up the pastor and distances him from psychology only to then tell him to go to the psychologists and learn their techniques. The problem here is that when you go to the psychologist, you are not just learning his techniques; you are learning his presuppositions upon which those techniques are based. Think of driving as an example. An individual wishes to earn more money for his family, so he decides to become a truck driver. In order to practice his skills and to learn a driving technique, he goes to the local racetrack and takes lessons in a formula one race car. What would be the outcome? One very ordinary truck driver! The technique he learned was based upon the vehicle involved – race car – and therefore upon certain presuppositions relevant to that vehicle. Thus, he was taught how to drive – technique – a fast, light, low, short vehicle with a sequential gearbox[41] when he was heading out to drive a slow, heavy, high, long vehicle with a crash box![42]

Consequently, in giving the advice that he does, Tidball automatically robs Christians of all the advantages that he outlined in regard to Jay Adams methodology. The reason for this, as we have just explained, is that Tidball is teaching a technique that is not relevant to the particular vehicle he is driving.

Conclusion:

In looking at these three men, all of whom are pro psychology, we can see similar themes running through their works. Whilst they all try to uphold the authority of Scripture, they ultimately fail, not only in this regard, but also in regard to the doctrine of the Sufficiency of Scripture. All of these men, in one way or another, conclude that the best way forward is to have a mixture of Scripture and psychology. The problem with this is that Scripture always loses out to Secular psychology.

Collins tells us that Scripture is Man’s final authority, but then we must also have access to counselling techniques and the scientific method. Collins tells us that if we ignore psychology then we “limit our counselling effectiveness”. This is tantamount to saying that if we base our counselling only on Scripture then we have a “seriously defective” approach. Sound familiar?

Crabb tells us that the Scripture is the Christian’s final authority, but then adds that a dismissal of man’s wisdom as profitless is, in our words, incorrect and foolish. The real sting comes when you examine the context of his comment and note that he is in fact denigrating those Christians who believe in the sole sufficiency of Scripture. His point is simple, you must not believe in the sufficiency of Scripture if that means dismissing the wisdom of men – fallen men, unregenerate men. Lastly, we remember Tidball’s slaying of Adams. Why was Adams executed? Because he would not yield the sufficiency of Scripture to the secular discipline of psychology. Tidball’s denunciation of Adam’s position as “seriously defective” is based on little more than Adams’ refusal to accept that secular psychology is a legitimate for the Christian.

Ultimately, every one of these men has betrayed Scripture. Despite all their pleas for balance; all the rhetoric concerning the authority and sufficiency of Scripture, they all end up making the same point – Scripture is not sufficient for a complete pastoral theology or as the basis for genuine and effective counselling. Scripture alone is deficient. Scripture must be added to by these learned men of psychology. This is why we see Scripture being dragged in by the scruff of the neck to show the correctness of the psychologists and anthropologists. Yet the reality is that the psychologists and anthropologists are simply affirming what Scripture has always taught.

Returning to our opening illustration of oil and water, we are confronted with the inherent problem. Whenever we attempt to mix two incompatible elements, only two options are available: a) we must remain in a constant flux, a state of perpetual agitation, so that the elements stay seemingly combined; or b) the minute agitation ceases, the elements begin to separate. When separation takes place, one element will naturally be subdued by the other.

What we have witnessed in the three men surveyed is a failed attempt to mix oil and water, darkness and light, psychology and Scripture. As soon as they stopped their agitation, the oil floated to the top, burying and suppressing the living water of Scripture.

One can think of no better conclusion than to quote Scripture, in this case the Apostle Paul: let God be found true, though every man be found a liar![43]

Shepherding Shepherds Part 7

FOOTNOTES:

[1] Obviously, many other areas are also attacked. However, as Jesus is the pinnacle of God’s revelation and work, then any attack upon Jesus must automatically have consequence for all that He represents.

[2] Some Christians, like Jay Adams (Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p 12; n 3), take aim at psychiatry and not psychology. Adams gives his reasons for this. However, elsewhere he calls psychiatry “the illegitimate child of psychology” (p 1). To this author, the illegitimate child is the product of an unlawful union. In this the child should not be blamed for its parentage; the parents should. In short, it was the illegitimate nature of secular psychology that opened the door for psychiatry and any subsequent abuses.

[3] “Preeminently, a nouthetic counsellor must be conversant in the Scriptures.” Adams Competent, p 61. Whilst Adams and this work focus upon the pastoral aspect of counselling, there is a recognition that true counselling can be given by anyone who knows the Scriptures. We see this type of counselling in Scripture passages like Matthew 18:15-17; James 5:19-20; Proverbs 15:5. However, as the Text of Matthew 18 shows, there comes a time when the counsel of brethren must give way to the counsel of authority – tell it to the Church! This is right, as we have argued earlier in this series, and reflects the fact that, ultimately, true counselling belongs to those authoritatively commissioned men that Jesus has placed in leadership within His Church.

[4] As you will have gathered, this current series of articles assert the truth of the Reformed position over that of the Arminian and are therefore designed to guard against the creep of Arminian thought into Reformed circles. In fact, it is this very design that gave rise to this series. The catalyst, as you will remember, came from an article published from within a Reformed denomination, which hinted at the fact that the Church needed trained counsellors to help the Elders. Upon reading this, we were reminded of a minister in another Reformed denomination who proudly washed his hands of pastoral counselling in favour of sending these people to a “Christian counsellor down the road”. All this made the alarm bells ring, for it showed categorically that Reformed people are digressing from their professed presuppositions and are no longer content with the Sovereignty and Authority of God and His Word.

[5] Romans 8:7-8.

[6] Romans 12:1-3.

[7] We believe this to be so precisely because the Reformed doctrine of Total Depravity does not exempt any aspect of Man’s being (Jesus excepted) from the fall. Therefore, Man’s reason is tainted, corrupted. We need to learn to think again, just as we need to learn to love, worship, and obey again – living up to God’s revealed standards of these things. Learning to think God’s thoughts after Him is as much a part of sanctification as learning to deny the flesh. That is exactly why Paul insists that we be transformed by the renewing of our minds. After all, what is Paul’s point if our minds are not in need of renewing because they have not been severely affected by the fall? C.f 2 Corinthians 10:5.

[8] The Reformed insistence on Total Depravity is balanced by our view of Scripture as absolutely necessary to reveal truth. Because man is blinded by sin, he must have the Light of God’s Word. On the other hand, the Arminian view of Partial Depravity, giving credence to Man’s mental abilities, lessens Man’s dependence of Scripture.

[9] As you will see in the following critique, much is made of this fact by those in favour of psychology. The constant refrain is that Man can see and willingly embrace God’s truth when he discovers it by use of the scientific method. Our contention, discussed in more detail at that point, is twofold. First, that statement seems to run contrary to the Biblical data—Man suppressing the truth of God in unrighteousness (Romans 1:18). Second, and in line with the Biblical data, we see the scientific method used to attack God’s truth and to justify Man’s rebellion—evolution and homosexuality being two current examples.

[10] It is very much worth noting that there is generally a subtle absence in the following quotations in regard to the authority of Scripture. You will read that Scripture is the “Christian’s” final authority, but you will not read the overt statement that the Bible is “Man’s” final authority. In other words, the Bible is everyone’s final authority, whether a person or institution chooses to recognise this fact or not. One of the reasons that Secularism has grown is because of this reductionist view of Scripture. Too many have been allowed to say, in essence, “I am not a Christian, so those Biblical standards do not apply to me!” The real tragedy here is that the Church has simply accepted this as true and begun to reiterate the error.

[11] This is not a denial that they are indeed Christians.

[12] Gary R. Collins, Christian Counselling: A Comprehensive Guide (Milton Keynes: Word Publishing, 1988).

[13] Collins, 17. (Italics added.) The only problem here seems to be that Collins limits this concept to counselling. If he is right in making this a ‘general’ statement, and he is, then the quotation must also include and be relevant to the scientist. Looking through a microscope does not reveal truth; it reveals a fact that must then be interpreted. The scientist’s personal position in understanding will then influence that interpretation – Is he an evolutionist, a believer in Intelligent Design, or is he a Creationist? If he is a Christian, is he a Romanist, Deist, Arminian, or Reformed? Does he subscribe to Theism or is he a Christian humanist?

[14] Credit where credit is due—at least Collins’ acknowledges that the Bible governs Man and not just Christians. However, our joy is short lived and fleeting!

[15] Note here, please, the fault in logic and understanding. Truth is not discovered, it is revealed. Experience can never be the final arbiter of truth in a fallen world, neither can science. We must have revelation. Experience and science, as previously noted, simply give us facts. It is only revelation that gives us righteousness; the rightness of those facts.

[16] Collins’ rightly acknowledges that God’s word governs human beings. He states that all must be measured against Scripture. Our question is: “What of those who do not believe Scripture and refuse to submit their scientific findings to God’s revelation?” Again, there seems to be the simple proposition that anyone—God’s Word to human beings—can read and rightly interpret the Bible. Then there is the subtle inference that, having worked out their schema and measured it by the scientific method, they will submit it to the Bible for final critique and judgement. Returning to our question: Will the unregenerate mind submit his schema to Scripture’s judgement? Keep in mind, please, when answering the question, that some deliberately develop schema in direct opposition to Scripture precisely because they wish to be free of Scripture’s demands (Psalm 2:1-3).

[17] Collins, 22. Emphasis added.

[18] Ibid, 23.

[19] Please also note that emotion and experience are to be regarded more highly than revelation. If God has revealed His truth in the Bible and that is the touchstone to which we must return, what then is the point of emotion or experience? Must a truth be experienced before it actually becomes truth? Does implementing the many possible realities of a principle only then validate the principle? The answer is no. One does not need to steal to confirm the validity of, “Thou shalt not steal”. The whole point of revelation is so that you have a reliable guide. Think here of your GPS navigator. You programme your GPS so that you will be taken to your destination. When the voice says, “Turn left in 500 meters”, you immediately turn right or you turn up every other street. This will, in your experience, validate the directions given. This is most definitely emotional and experiential. Yet, so is driving 500 meters and turning left. Following the commandment is also experiential validation. The point is that we do not need to disobey the command in order to know that the command was indeed correct. We can obey the command and still know, absolutely, that it is correct.

[20] The true application of presuppositional thought would realise that the dead heart cannot think life. In Biblical terms, the carnal mind is hostility against God. Thus, the unregenerate will not think high and lofty thoughts for the glory of God. His thoughts will in fact lead away from God and to the exaltation of self (Jeremiah 17:9). How then are these thoughts meant to teach us to live God’s life by God’s law in God’s world? Collin’s had the right idea at the start—an idea that should have kept him on track. However, not truly understanding the application of his statement, he has minimised it to simply apply to some vague personal choices.

[21] “Truly helpful” is now the criterion; not Biblical, Scriptural, God-honouring.

[22] Ibid, 23

[23] Understand well that Mr. Collins is admitting this when he states that you need to be trained so that you can tell when someone is trying to pull the wool over your eyes. This is his criterion, not ours. It is his admission that both the results of “scientific method” and “all psychology” are in need of verification. Think this through please. Do you need to place such caveats on a person when you tell him to read the Bible?

[24] James 4:4; 1 John 2:15 (Remember that the “World”, in Scripture, often, as here, refers not to a terrestrial ball, but to a pattern of thought that is opposed to God and His Law ); Proverbs 15:9; Proverbs 11:20; Psalm 14:1-3.

[25] Matthew 6:24.

[26] Collins, 16 – 17.

[27] Collins, 125.

[28] The only exception is the category of biology. In his book, Collins gives the example of a boy who had sudden and seemingly random outbursts of anger, after which he was extremely apologetic. In the end, it was found that the problem was related to eating bananas. There was something in the banana that was interacting with his brain’s chemistry to produce a negative result. (p 124) In a fallen world, we must be open to such possibilities. However, living in a fallen world, it also becomes easy for true sin to be excused by the application of a psychological label. For example, as a young man one rarely heard of ADD/ADHD. Once this “syndrome” was labelled, the labelling machines were put into overdrive to the point where all sorts of discipline issues were excused by this label. Psychologist will contend that ADD/ADHD is not a discipline issue. We would simply point to the fact that since discipline has been frowned upon and nearly outlawed, cases of ADD/ADHD have become prominent and seem to be increasing. (https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/digital-pandemic/201308/why-the-increase-in-adhd; http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/adhd/data.html) We also contend that there are other factors to be considered. However, our main contention is that Secular psychology seeks to excuse that which the Bible calls sin and to cover it with a fancy label. Christians must beware of this practice.

In other words, we must maintain that sin is the root cause of all our problems – we did not have faulty brain chemistry in Eden – regardless of the question of personal sin. By maintaining this focus on Man’s genuine problem, we are far more likely to help men in their time of need. Christian psychologists are apt to comment that “persevere and pray” are not legitimate strategies. Here, we would simply say that neither is, “Stop eating bananas!”

[29] Injustice is the only example of a situation in which anger can be positive and not sinful. Generally this would be categorised as “righteous indignation”.

[30] Lawrence J. Crabb, Basic Principles of Biblical Counselling (London: Marshall Pickering,1985; reprint 1989)

[31] At the start of this article, we spoke about worldviews and what people mean by their words. Here is an example. Crabb calls dentistry and engineering “secular disciplines”. More will be said on these comparisons later in this series, for now, please note the strong emphasis upon the bifurcation of the world into the Secular and Sacred. Whilst the term “secular” generally refers to that which has no reference to God or religions that believe in a ‘god’, we do need to ask whether or not disciplines like those mentioned are truly secular. In other words, are these disciplines founded upon the basic tenet, God is not!—for that is the true definition of secularism. Equally, the old Sacred / Secular division is not a Biblical one. Scripture speaks of the basic tenets of the worldview as that which carries the day, not of the enterprise itself. In other words, two men can undertake the same discipline with the same passion; one to righteousness, the other to unrighteousness.

[32] Crabb, 29-30. Emphasis added.

[33] Crabb, 29.

[34] 1 Corinthians 3:19-21. C.f 1 Corinthians 1:20ff.

[35] Once more, we draw your attention to comments made at the start of this article. Remember how we asked people to strive to understand what authors meant when they use words. This statement is one more example. See how Scripture is limited to being the Christian’s final authority, when in fact Scripture is Man’s final authority. This is not just a poor choice of words. It reveals the authors central belief. Sadly this concept – Scripture is for Christians only – is gaining currency. Some years ago, at a Bible study, a visitor made this exact point, and vehemently so, stating that the Bible did not speak to unbelievers. “Danger! Danger! Will Robinson!” The outworking of this theory is that the Christian must take the secular data and see if it accords with Scripture, if it does not, the Christian must abandon it. So far, so good. What of the secularist? Is he free to simply espouse his theory ungoverned and unrestrained? According to this theory, the answer is, yes. Biblically, however, the answer is, No! The point of Scripture is that we measure all thoughts against God’s revelation. If the thought espoused is something contrary to Scripture the Christian does not abandon it on purely pragmatic grounds. No, he rejects it because it is a falsehood, a lie, a blasphemy. As such, all men are called upon to reject such untruths and to cease and desist from spreading them (Proverbs 12:22).

[36] Crabb, 85.

[37] For your consideration: James 1:27; James 4:4; 1 John 2:15-17; 2 Corinthians 10:5; Jeremiah 17:9-10; Genesis 6:5; Psalm 10:3; Psalm 94:8-11; Proverbs 12:5, 15, 26; Isaiah 55:7; Mark 7:21-23.

[38] Tidball, pp 238-239.

[39] This article is not to be understood as endorsing everything that Jay Adams has espoused. Rather, it is an illustration of how a man who built a methodology upon Scripture is systematically attacked by those who, in reality, deny the sufficiency of Scripture. Adams should be commended for taking a stand on and in Scripture and for demonstrating its sufficiency for counselling and pastoral work. In fact, his denigration should trigger alarm bells.

[40] Tidball, p.268. Emphasis added.

[41] A sequential box is usually a paddle or stick shift that moves in two directions, forward and back. The driver cannot choose a particular gear (for example he cannot move from first to third in one shift), he must move through the gears in sequence– 1,2,3,4,5. Moving the paddle makes the shift in the gears take place, thus taking pressure of the driver to coordinate the change accurately.

[42] A crash box is so named because it does not have a synchromesh system to help match gear speeds. Thus, the driver must match road speed and engine revs or be confronted with much grinding. A crash box requires skill and coordination.

[43] Romans 3:4

Of Revolving Prime Ministers and Moral Decay

Posted on September 15, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Most Australians have awoken today to the news that we have a new Prime Minister. This makes five Prime Ministers in about the same number of years – even if for some it was their second time. Welcome to the world of revolving Prime Ministers and moral decay.

What then will Malcolm Turnbull, the latest offering of the revolving door, do positively for Australia? The answer is, “Nothing of substance!”

First, let us look at the political hypocrisy, deceit, and lies that have accompanied Malcolm Turnbull into the top job. We have heard much in the media that former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, could not unite the Party. This very day, Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, has tried to justify her rebellion by citing this divide. Says she, “I did what a deputy (leader) has to do and that is to reflect the views of the party,” … “Tony asked for six months to turn it around and unfortunately that hadn’t happened. “It became obvious to me that the majority of the party had lost confidence in Tony (and) I informed him as is my duty as deputy.” “Through that time, nobody wanted Tony to succeed more than I (but) the vast majority of the party room had lost confidence in him.”[1]

Next we encounter the words of Malcolm Turnbull himself: “Heading in to work as Prime Minister designate this morning, Mr Turnbull said he was getting on with the job. “There has been a change … but we are a very, very strong government, a strong country with a lot of potential and we will realise that potential by working together.”[2]

Okay, Abbott is out because he created a divide in the party. Julie Bishop speaks of the “majority”, indeed the “vast majority”, that were dissatisfied with Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull states that the Party will now prosper by “working together”, which seems to imply significant unity. Yet, when we look at the vote it was only 54 – 44 in favour of Malcolm Turnbull. This, my friends, is neither a majority, a vast majority, nor is it unity.[3]

Please explain to me, then, where the gain is to be found? We have swapped one embattled leader for another. I could almost guarantee you that of the 10 votes that separated the two candidates, there would be a significant number who have voted for change for change’s sake in the hope that something better may eventuate – for themselves!. After all, Malcolm Turnbull has already been the Leader of the Liberal Party and he was ousted because of his dismal performance. One commentator, on last night’s edition of The Drum, noted that, when he led the Party, Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers were far worse than Tony Abbott’s.

My concern here springs from being an old guy who has heard all of this rhetoric before and seen firsthand how these close votes end in tears. As a child, sad to say, I grew up in a congregation that was divided between the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. The “bad” guys won votes by single figure margins and men crowed about “majorities”. Then their plans and desires turned to dust before their eyes. They became bitter. They slandered and maligned. They undermined. What was the outcome? That congregation, in excess of 100 at that time, barely exists today. The divide continued and brought disgrace to Christ’s Church with constant infighting and bickering.

A secular example? Just look back a few years to the Rudd – Gillard saga. Starting in 2006, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beazley 49 – 39.[4] In 2010, Julia Gillard challenges Kevin Rudd. When the writing is on the wall, Rudd chooses to resign rather than stand for re-election.[5] In 2012, Kevin Rudd challenges Julia Gillard because of dissatisfaction with her performance. Gillard beat Rudd with a 71 – 31 vote.[6] In March 2013, Simon Crean and others are concerned at Labor’s fortunes. They agitate for another leadership spill. Julia Gillard calls for the spill in a hope to end the infighting. Again, Kevin Rudd is touted as the challenger. In a repeat of history, however, he realises that the numbers are not with him and he refuses to put up his hand.[7] Then, a paltry 3 months later, June 2013, Kevin Rudd challenges for the leadership and dislodges Julia Gillard with a 57 – 45 vote.[8]

When you look at these numbers, you can see that from Kevin Rudd’s earliest days, the party was divided and that he never enjoyed a majority of support.[9] The clearest margin out of all of these changes belongs to Gillard’s so-called “midnight coup”. Her numbers were far better than Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers, yet she could not overcome the subterfuge and undermining processes of the dissenters. What then makes us think that Malcolm Turnbull’s fate will be any different?

To add weight to our argument, you need to be reminded of history. You will hear that Tony Abbott pipped Malcolm Turnbull at the post by one vote in the 2009 leadership spill. This is true, but it is not the complete picture. Malcolm Turnbull was the incumbent. He was challenged and the spill occurred. What is rarely spoken about is that the initial vote was between three candidates, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, and Joe Hockey. In this poll, Abbott was the clear victor by 9 votes (35), followed by Turnbull on 26 and Hockey on 23.[10] Note this please: Malcolm Turnbull, the incumbent leader, only survived being eliminated from the race by three votes.[11] It is only once the second round of polling was completed that the famous won by one scenario comes to the fore with Abbott on 42 and Turnbull on 41. The clearest explanation of this result is that, once there man was out, two-thirds of Joe Hockey’s supporters abandoned their desire for change and opted to stay with the status quo and one-third backed their instinct for change; but I digress.

The main point here is that Malcolm Turnbull, as leader of the Liberal Party, was not able to unite that party. The figures showed then and they showed again last night that he still does not have the majority support of his Party, despite his and Julie Bishop’s rhetoric.

Therefore, questions about legitimate gain must be asked. How does the hypocritical justification for knifing a sitting Prime Minister, given by the Leader and his Deputy, assure us of better things ahead? Mr Turnbull’s speech did not outline any concrete policies; he just trotted out slogans – again in a hypocritical fashion.

This begs the questions: Are we just witnessing another egocentric display as we did with Kevin 07? Having failed to secure a real majority, will Malcolm Turnbull govern correctly or simply aim for the opinion-poll popularity contest? Will we see him affirm any position in the hope that it will make him acceptable to all and sundry?

Second, the reason that Malcolm Turnbull will not deliver any significant change has to do with ego over morality. The problem with governance in this country has to do with the fact that it is no longer moral. When was the last time you heard a politician of any persuasion speak of morality? When did you last hear any candidate speak up and say that the fundamental problem with our nation was not “health and education”, but morality?

It is at this point that these two factors coalesce. Malcolm Turnbull does not have a majority in the Party. From my perspective he is not generally accepted by the public. Thus, his primary goal is going to be ego and or popularity.

The direct application of this is that morality, particularly God’s morality, as the necessary panacea for this nation will be sidestepped yet again in favour of ego or popularity. Instead of governing according to morality, ethic, and principle, Malcolm Turnbull will govern for himself and his own personal benefit or he will govern in a manner that seeks to make his Party popular, neither of which will benefit this country one iota.

We saw the politics of ego in the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. His comeback had nothing to do with the people of this country. It was all about Kevin. If he had been sincere, he would have stayed on after his Party’s defeat. If he were absolutely convinced that he was the best man for the job, he would have stuck to the task. His capitulation simply showed that his aim was payback and his name in lights. Consequently, we need to ask as to whether or not we are in for more of this grandstanding via the politics of ego; a political enterprise that will only further impoverish our nation.

What then of opinion-poll popularity politics? In this sense, I do have sympathy for Tony Abbott. Many are critical of his performance, yet few seem to spread the blame. The previous Labor government was almost ineffective over its six years of reign. Policy after policy bled this nation dry. Whilst Rudd and Gillard bickered, Australia failed. Tony Abbott then wins the election and immediately faces a barrage of hostility for no other reason than he has a Romanist leaning and therefore has a few morals to guide his conscience. Instead of the elected members getting on board to bring change and move the country forward, they stalled, blocked, and grandstanded; Palmer practicing the politics of ego par excellence. To his credit, Tony Abbott stood his ground and refused to simply make policy in order to be popular. Now that Malcolm Turnbull is in charge, and there seems to be distinct lack of Biblical morals to guide his conscience, we have no reason to expect that anything but popularity will drive Liberal Party policy.

If this eventuality transpires, then we are in for a torrid time as a nation. Julia Gillard clung to power (ego) by making deals with a few Independents (popularity). That combination then set this nation on a futile and destructive course as true governance was derailed in order to indulge the whims of those with whom bargains had been struck in order for her to stay in office. One notable lowlight was the vote on homosexual union. Julia Gillard’s lust for power introduced the possibility of a reprehensible evil being made legal in this country. Whilst Parliament voted that proposal down at that time, it nonetheless fuelled the fire so that this distraction has continued to dog parliament. Ever since that vote, Tony Abbott has come under personal attack for his refusal to compromise and has had to fend off constant criticism in regard to this issue, which is really a non-issue.[12]

It is important that we understand this point. Popularity and ego has tied this particular weight around the neck of the Federal Parliament of this nation. Popularity and ego have meant that we have not been rightly governed now for nearly three terms of Parliament. When popularity and ego are combined with a minority leadership, and an immoral minority leadership at that, then chaos and debacle can be the only outcomes.

Malcolm Turnbull is pro homosexual union and a republic, just to name a couple of points. He has a very liberal attitude to moral issues and even today has spoken of looking forward and cutting the ties with the past. In short, he is concerned with being all things modern, which by definition means that he sees no place for God in government and morality in politics. (How did he make it to the leadership of the supposed conservative Party?) It would, therefore, be of no surprise if these issues come to the fore very soon in order to either distract the public while he attempts to make ground or introduces them in order to make ground.[13] Either way, we will see the politics of ego, popularity, and minority (disunity) continue to ravage this nation.

What is needed to restore this nation is the application of God’s morality. We need to see right and wrong restored. We need to see justice. We need to have a parliament that guides and protects, not one that simply affirms. We need to remember that a nation’s health can only be measured in terms of its obedience to God, not by its bank account or balance of trade figures.

We have quoted Proverbs 14:34 often of recent – Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a disgrace to any people. We quote it again because it is the essence of our nation’s health. Whilst our elected officials continue to deny the necessity of morality and righteousness for our nation’s wellbeing, we can only plunge deeper into sin. Plunging into sin can only increase our disgrace.

Our moral decay is the only explanation as to why the Prime Minister’s office is currently equipped with a revolving door. Moral decay is why we are shamed constantly by backstabbers who seek the top job for their glory and not God’s. For the naysayers, I merely direct you to the histories of Rome and Israel.

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/emotional-julie-bishop-defends-her-decision-to-turn-on-tony-abbott/story-fn5tas5k-1227527662827?sv=33eb56284952ab31cc6de47d0fb36d40. Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[3] Julie Bishop secured her position with 70 – 30 vote, which is a bit more in keeping with what one would term a majority.

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2006.

[5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2010.

[6] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_2012.

[7] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_March_2013.

[8] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_Labor_Party_leadership_spill,_June_2013.

[9] The objective lesson here seems to be that the Labour Party settled for Kevin Rudd as the best in a bad bunch, hence the numbers. It seems equally true that with regard to Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull that the Liberal Party has done exactly the same thing. This is what happens when there is no clear cut leader for people to rally behind. It means that the man out the front must always be looking over his shoulder and second guessing himself. In such an environment, it is not a wonder that people do not succeed. The sad reality is that these political “fat cats” retire on their super-doper pensions and superannuation packages while the average Australian is bankrupted by their profligacy.

[10] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberal_Party_of_Australia_leadership_spill,_2009.

[11] It is worthy of note that, looking at percentages, Malcolm Turnbull only garnered 31% as the incumbent leader. This means that on the first round of voting, 70% of his party was willing to see him go. By comparison, only 54.5% of the Party deemed that Mr Abbott was worthy of an invitation to retire.

[12] This is a non-issue in that Parliament voted that homosexual union should not be legalised in this country. It is constantly raised by agitators in order and only in order to destabilise and distract.

[13] The issue of homosexual union is an interesting one. It seems that Malcolm Turnbull has given assurances that there will be a plebiscite at the next election. This then is not a policy change. It is the same tactic that was proposed under Tony Abbott’s leadership. So, if this issue dies down it shows that there has been hostility, rancour, directed toward Mr Abbott and that this issue has been used as a shoe horn to lever him out of office – and this no doubt by some within his own Party. It will also be interesting to see whether or not the Cabinet stops leaking with this change of leadership. If both happen, it is a sure sign that Brutus is alive and well in the Liberal Party.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(God’s Shepherd alone has God’s Worldview)

The Biblical Worldview and its Implications.

Having laid down the basis of our contention with broad brush strokes, we now need to move to the specifics. Thus far, we have spoken of a clash of worldviews and of the fact that Christianity and Humanism share fundamentally different presuppositions. This means that the two systems are mutually exclusive. Consequently, as noted earlier, Humanism ‘not only should not, but it simply cannot inform the Christian’.

Here, we will seek to show why this exclusivity exists and why reconciliation between the two systems is unachievable.[1]

The Biblical worldview, simply summed up, can be stated in four tenets: 1) God is; 2) Creation; 3) Fall; and 4) Redemption.

1.) God is: Giving fuller explanation to these tenets, Christianity posits and believes that there is a perfect, holy, benevolent, and just God who has existed from all eternity.[2] This God is a communicative Being, Who, though One Being, exists in three distinct Persons. These Persons have and always will enjoy complete fellowship and unity within the Godhead. This perfect God is rightly the Absolute.

2.) Creation: Moving out from this basic presupposition, we see that this perfect and eternal God created the universe. This universe, being so created, was perfect precisely because it reflected God. For this reason, God could pronounce over his creation the benediction, “It was very good!”[3] This benediction naturally and obviously included Man. Further, Man was exalted above the other creatures when created by God and placed upon the earth because he was the only true Image Bearer in all of creation. By this we mean that, whilst all of creation bears the Creator’s mark, Man stands above all else in his abilities to actively and consciously reflect the attributes of God in the operation of his being. As such, Man was made perfectly, with all aspects of his being reflecting his subordinate position as God’s vice-regent. Truly, Man was the bridge between heaven and earth.

Man’s elevated status is shown in the Cultural Mandate.[4] God spoke with Man, giving both covenant and blessing. Man’s task was to populate and rule over the earth whilst operating under God’s auspices. Man was to exercise a limited dominion, that is to say, Man was to rightly rule that which was below him whilst being ruled by God, Who alone was the true sovereign. Hence, Man’s identity, purpose, and essential nature are intrinsically tied to God. This comes as the essential consequence of being created by God, for God, and in the image of God.

Man did not make his own rules; he simply implemented God’s rules. Man did not exist in isolation, he existed in fellowship. This fellowship was upward to God and sideways to the creation. Man ruled in peace and was ruled in peace. As a subordinate, Man always had a superior unto whom he could turn for counsel, wisdom, perspective, and the like.[5]

3.) Fall: When we enter upon step three, the Fall, Man sets himself on a self-destructive course. Man loses the clarity of his identity and being because he no longer enjoys a peaceable fellowship with God. Having rebelled against God, Man now finds the creation in rebellion. The peace is shattered and replaced with a persistent tumult; a tumult which reaches to the very core of Man himself! Rather than service in submission to God, Man now, conflicted and without direction, either demands to be served or becomes willing to serve anything but the Creator.[6] This puts Man into a complete spin.[7] Rather than serving God, Man becomes a hater of God.[8] Man – at this point the ultimate Humanist – wants to carve out a new existence for himself,[9] but he cannot escape the indelible marks of the Creator that are stamped forever upon his being.[10]

In this, Man is like the rebellious son who shifts into his own home to escape his parents. Only too late does he realise that he may have his own space, but that it is impossible to escape his parents completely. After all, he sees reflections of them in his mirror, he hears their sound every time he speaks, and he witnesses their standards every time he acts – for he either finds himself conforming to or self-consciously rebelling against their standard.

In the Fall, Man transitions from a position of dominion to the place of subjugation, and this by all aspects of his being, his environment, and the creation he once governed. He loses perfection. He loses harmony. He loses peace. He loses ease. He loses fellowship. He loses control. In this state, Man is under God’s judgement. His one path to restoration – seeking God and his forgiveness – is the one path that he will not and, indeed, cannot now choose. Consequently, Man simply rails against God more vociferously in the hope that he will drown out his conscience.[11] Man, to use the modern term, “gets busy” spawning idols after his own image and of his own making so that he can live in a world without God. Man creates his own philosophy to explain how and why he thinks as he does. Man creates his own history so that God is nowhere mentioned as the origin of the species or anything else for that matter. Lastly, and pertinently, Man creates his own diagnostic tools to measure and explain his seeming dysfunction.

4.) Redemption: Man knowing that something is wrong, suppresses that knowledge and seeks alternate explanations. He seeks restoration and rightness (wellness), but what he does not seek is (Biblical) redemption. Man wants to be made right, but on his own terms. Man therefore relies on his deceptive, self-made diagnostic tools to help explain his seeming deficiencies.[12] Man will not turn to God, so the seeming deficiencies must be explained or excused by another theory. Here, Man is like the rebellious son in the analogy above. He wants to make his own way, but he can never escape the marks of his upbringing and these constant reminders become to Man a source of continuous consternation.

Enter, Secular Psychology—the restoration of Man by Man using his own deceptive self-diagnostic tools—and the crux of the problem. Man was made by God for God. This is hardwired into his being at every point. From this fact there simply is no escape. Consequently, any interpretation of Man that does not reference the four simplified tenets, above, becomes an overt attempt to remodel Man according to an ungodly or apostate pattern. This is Man’s ultimate act of vandalism as he seeks to actively deface himself in a vain attempt to remove from himself every remaining mark that says, “Made in the image of Almighty God!”

Naturally, this is not only a painful process; it is a frustrating one, for it can never fully realise its goal. Imagine trying to remove a tattoo with steel wool. The image, ingrained in your skin, can only be removed by tearing away layers of yourself. Yet, the process never really satisfies. The removal of the image causes great mental anguish, as you suffer the pain of that steel wool incessantly gnawing at your flesh. This has to leave a mental picture that you will carry with you and which will undoubtedly be a reminder to you of your actions and aims. Then there is that painful abrasion. When you look to the site where the image was, you now see an open wound, bloodied, weeping, sore, and uncomfortable. This needs treatment. So there are trips for healing, procedures, dressing changes, and medications – all reinforcing the desperate nature of your act of erasion. After months, the pain subsides and the wound heals. Are you now satisfied? Not likely. Every time you look at the site where the image was, you are confronted with an ugly scar. Now you try to hide the scar with make-up and clothing – anything to make you forget! However, the very act of covering the site is in itself a constant reminder of both the removal process and your motives for that removal.

Linleigh J. Roberts[13] showed the futility of this approach with an even better illustration, akin to the following. You go out to your car one morning. After several aborted attempts the car finally starts. Yet, it is immediately evident that something is wrong, for the car sounds like the proverbial “chaff cutter” and after running for several minutes it is showing no sign of improvement. Frustrated you call the mechanic. He arrives and looks over the car. He politely asks you for the manual. The mechanic takes it in hand and begins thumbing through the pages. After so many pages he would put down the manual, change a few things, and start the car. Yet, nothing changed. The car still sounded like the “chaff cutter”. In the end, you see the frustrated mechanic take out his pen and begin to rewrite the car’s manual. Rubbing insult to injury, you are flabbergasted when the mechanic returns the manual and tells you that the car is working perfectly, as it now conforms to the manual.

Again, I sense spilt coffee and some muttered words along the lines of, “You have gotta be kidding me! No one would ever fall for or accept that type of practice!” Well, if that is what you are thinking, you are simply wrong. This is exactly what transpires every time we turn from God’s word and God’s appointed means. This is exactly what occurs every time we turn from the Biblical worldview.

Linleigh’s illustration sounds absurd only from the point of view that the owner knew that the car originally ran differently and, armed with this knowledge, he should not have accepted the mechanic’s remedy.[14] This granted, let’s modify the illustration slightly. Let’s say that this is the fifth owner of the car and that when he purchased the vehicle it ran like this. Let’s also say that this was the experience of owners two through five. What now? Owner five has only two viable options at this point. Option 1: Return to the first owner (or believe the Maker’s Manual), the only owner who knows how the car functioned when it was tuned to the manufacturer’s specifications, or; Option 2: Presume that the car has always, even from the assembly line, operated in this (defective) manner.

In essence, this is the quandary faced by all the Secular Humanists. When faced with a malfunction, a deficiency, the Secular Humanist does not return to the original owner or consult the Maker’s original manual. Rather, he amasses generations, owners two through five in our analogy, to support his supposition that Man has always operated in this particular way and that this model, homo sapiens, has always been attended by those particular rattles and clunks. However, it is important to note that this information is only based on the observation and experience of some of the owners. [15] No one has returned to the original owner and asked the question – “How did the car run when you owned it?” This distortion is then spread and confirmed by the mechanics who, having been taught to ignore the Maker’s manual, set about writing and disseminating a new manual which describes Man, with all his observed rattles and clunks, as normal.

Unpacking the illustration is very simple. God is the One Who wrote the Maker’s Manual – we call it The Bible. He knows Man’s vital statistics, so to speak. God made Man and God made Man to His standard. Therefore, asking any Man post-fall what Man should be or to what he corresponds is like quizzing owners two through five from the car analogy. All they know is the broken, fallen model, so they are of no use in finding out the original specifications. They simply cannot inform us as to Man’s original condition, for they are ignorant of that condition.

In terms of the four base tenets of the Biblical worldview, there is simply no agreement with Secular Humanism, nor can there be. The Secular Humanist does not accept that God is. The Humanist does not accept that Man was made perfectly in the image of this God. The Humanist does not accept the fact that man is a poor shadow of his former self because of the Fall. Hence, the Secularist will always look for auto-salvific means outside of God and rooted in Man.[16]

As a consequence, a Secularist can never arrive at the truth of God. Starting on the wrong road, he cannot reach the final destination. This is the key objection that must be noted. The Secularist may, as an image bearer living in God’s world, stumble across and observe certain of God’s truths. However, the Secularist can never see man correctly diagnosed or healed because he does not build upon the foundation of God and His Word. In essence, the Secularist sees counselling as corrective, not redemptive;[17] it is to bring inner peace, not peace with God; it is aimed at mitigation, not reconciliation.

Like the mechanic, the Secularist begins to re-write the Maker’s manual so that Man – the chaff cutter – is made to look normal. The process looks like this. Humanism’s basic presupposition is, God is not. Erasing God seems like an excellent start and it certainly helps to soothe Man’s aching conscience. Nonetheless, other issues are encountered. These can be summed up in the old chestnuts, “Who am I?” and “Why am I here?” with the addition of “How did I get here?”

With God removed, we now must explain our origins. So a new religion is invented. This religion is Evolution. Man is no longer the product of an eternal, ordered, perfect God; he is but the product of random chance, time, and chaos. Okay, this helps explain how we got here without reference to God. Phew! How about, “Who am I?” Does that not now become a bit tricky? Well yes, as a matter of fact it does. If we are not image bearers, then what am I; what is Man? Well, the new theologians of Evolution come up with the answer. They tell us that we are just a base animal who currently resides at the top of the food chain. Cool! Now, can you explain why I am here? Oh yes. That one is easy. If I am an animal at the top of the food chain, then I simply must endeavour to remain where I am. I have two goals. I must remain the fittest and to do this I must eliminate the weakest.

Conveniently, questions about morals, faith, and these sticky questions get left out of the discussion. When someone feels that they need to engage in behaviour outside the norm, they are generally encouraged in that direction.[18] However, the Evolutionary religion cannot explain the internal struggle that many feel. Abortion is natural. This baby can threaten my body shape, my wealth, my attractiveness to men, and so on. What counsel does Evolution give to a mother who struggles to make the decision to kill her child or the mother who regrets killing their child? Honestly, the only counsel that they can give that is consistent with their religion is, “Wake up to yourself you stupid woman, you have no conscience, there are no morals, simply embrace your decision as that which secured your future, for this is your only concern, and move on!”

This response is harsh, very harsh, yet it is completely consistent with Secular Humanism’s religion and professed beliefs.

Humanism, denying God, must ipso facto deny Creation, Fall, and Redemption, especially as they are defined in Scripture. This Man does religiously and philosophically. What he can never do is achieve this goal empirically and experientially, for God’s “make plate” is stamped indelibly onto His creation, Man most of all. This is the dilemma and the source of the Humanist’s pain. Man lives as though God is not there, yet every shred of his existence tells Man God is there.[19] So Man rewrites the manual. Man scratches painfully at his own being hoping to erase any trace of the Maker or His mark, but all to no avail. Instead of a panacea, Man only creates a pandemic as he misdiagnoses and mistreats himself. Instead of ending the crisis, Man’s faulty presuppositions make sure his suffering, dissatisfaction, and hurt are endless.

It is for this reason that we counsel the Christian to have nothing to do with Secular Psychology and the Secular practitioner. The Apostle states: “Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? Or what agreement has the temple of God with idols?”[20] Thus, our counsel is not opinion; it is given on the authority of God, His Word, and His Apostle!

When you seek out the Secular Psychologist, you are seeking out darkness, Belial, and idols. Therefore, only danger awaits if you choose to stand in the “counsel of the ungodly”[21] and ignore all the Biblical warnings.[22]

Put as plainly as possible: It must be understood that Humanism is a complete turning away from the Biblical worldview. Humanism is, therefore, Apostasy. Consequently, any science based upon such apostasy must of necessity partake of its poison. If we accept the science, we accept the poison. It really is that simple.

If you, as a Christian, baulk or are tempted once more to eject coffee from your oral cavity at these statements and the use of the term “apostasy”, then please consider this question: “Who, ultimately, are the Humanist’s rejecting?” Yes, that is right, Who, not what?

When the Humanist denies the basic tenets of the Christian worldview, this is not a harmless disagreement over what constitutes a worldview, it is, much rather, an obvious attack upon Who institutes your worldview. Thus, the Humanist does not start with the rejection of the material, Creation; rather he begins with the rejection of the Personal, there is no (personal, intimate, immanent) God! In rejecting God and His Personality[23] at the outset, the Humanist must continue to reject all of God’s Personal interactions with the world at every stage; Creation and Redemption. Thus, the Humanist is engaged in an outright and blatant attack upon God Himself, especially as He is revealed in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ, God’s only and beloved Son.

In each of the four tenets of the basic Christian worldview, as outlined, Jesus is of fundamental importance and plays an intrinsic role. Thus, the Humanist does not simply reject God; he rejects God’s Creator; he rejects God’s Judge; and he, therefore, ultimately rejects God’s Redeemer. Written out, in order to aid clarity, it would look something like this:

1) Who is God? Jesus Christ is God, the second Person of the Trinity;[24]

2) Who is the Agent of Creation? Jesus Christ is God’s Agent of Creation;[25]

3) Who is God’s Judge of the Fallen? Jesus Christ is God’s Judge;[26]

4) Whom did God appoint to be the Redeemer of His people? Jesus Christ is God’s only Redeemer.[27]

How then do we, as Christians, lie down with a system that blatantly attacks our beautiful and much beloved redeemer, Jesus? How do we claim to be obedient servants, if we are adopting and implementing a worldview, or parts thereof, that are built upon the explicit denial of Jesus as He is revealed to us in Scripture? How do we delude ourselves into thinking that such hostility and outright blasphemy can be baptised and then press ganged into service in the Church without detriment?

In conclusion, then, a denial of God, Creation, Fall and Redemption, or any portion thereof; a positing of another way of Salvation; an overt rejection of the fact that sin is separation from God and therefore lawlessness to be judged; or the adoption of any concept that denies that Man is made in God’s image, is nothing less than an explicit denial of the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ. That is a gross blasphemy. Therefore, if found in the mouth of a Humanist, it is sheer heresy; in the mouth of someone who claims to be a Christian, it is apostasy!

Footnotes:

[1] The only way that these systems can be united, generally speaking, is for the tenets of one of the systems to be erased, ignored, grossly misapplied, or misinterpreted. Generally, it is the Biblical standards that are washed of meaning. As we shall see later, Secular Psychology is adept at stealing Biblical concepts, reworking and rebadging them, and then sells them as something new of its own making—just like the triumphant explore who returns home victorious after naming a supposedly as yet undiscovered mountain. The explorer did not make the mountain, place the mountain, or magically cause the mountain to be manifest. No, he simply discovered something that already existed, that was possibly already known to others, that was already present, and that was already impacting the world.

[2] See Question and Answer 4 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism: What is God? God is a Spirit, (John 4:24) infinite, (Job 11:7–9) eternal, (Ps. 90:2) and unchangeable, (James 1:17) in his being, (Exod. 3:14) wisdom, (Ps. 147:5) power, (Rev. 4:8) holiness, (Rev. 15:4) justice, goodness, and truth. (Exod. 34:6–7).

[3] Genesis 1:31.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] It is important for us to avoid the idea that because this relationship existed in perfection that it was a cold, automated relationship. Adam would have been in constant fellowship with God. Adam would have asked questions, gaining knowledge and wisdom through these interactions. This pattern is exemplified in Jesus. He knew His task. He knew what it was that He was born to do. Yet this did not create distance. Rather, it was the basis for a deep fellowship and mutual respect.

[6] Romans 1:18-20: For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

[7] Ephesians 2:12. Devoid of a covenant relationship with God, Man was without hope in the world. This lack of hope was the consequence of Man loosing / rejecting the one true guiding principle, God!

[8] John 7:7.

[9] Psalm 2:1-3; Genesis 11:4.

[10] Romans 1:32.

[11] Psalm 2:1-2.

[12] We speak of “seeming deficiencies” because Man will not admit to sin and moral corruption. Nonetheless, Man spends a great deal of his day seeking the Utopian dream. He speaks often of the “human condition”, expresses a constant desire for “peace” and “harmony”, and is constantly disappointed by and expresses outrage at Man’s own inability to realise these because of Man’s own self-destructive tendencies. The UN, Greenpeace, Doctors without Borders, Amnesty International, to name but a few, as well as the whole psychological movement are a testimony to the fact that Man acknowledges that he has a serious problem, a deficiency. Yet, he still refuses to admit that he has a moral problem. Man repudiates the idea that he has, if you will, a deep seated wiring problem (sin) that God alone can fix. Consequently, all Man’s panaceas must be of his own design and according to his own diagnosis. Man is simply deficient, not corrupt, and deficiencies can be corrected with education or coercion.

[13] A poetically licensed version. See Linleigh J. Roberts, Let Us Make Man, Banner of Truth Trust; Edinburgh. p 43. As Linleigh goes on to state, we would not accept this type of practice from a doctor. We would be rightly indignant if our GP simply rewrote his text books every time we showed at his clinic with an ailment. Why then do we accept this in the areas of philosophy and psychology?

[14] In terms of this illustration, though, we must remember that most people are mechanically inept and would therefore accept the mechanics judgement. After all, he is the professional. Similarly, most people do not have a clue about worldviews, so when the psychologist, the professional, suggests a remedy, they will generally imbibe it without question.

[15] An example of this can be seen in Andrew Marr’s, History of the World. In this BBC DVD set, subtitled “An epic and definitive account of 70,000 years of Human history”, Marr is left to conclude that the only thing from which we have to learn is our own history. There is no revelation from God; hence Christianity is explained away as the invention of Saul who had a bit of an experience on the road to Damascus – something akin to heatstroke! With this denial of revelation, Marr, and thousands like him, commit themselves to an ultimate futility. We can only know what Man might be or become based on what Man has been throughout history. Yet, history does not show Man to have been particularly successful at anything but bloodshed. Marr himself speaks words similar to, “Homo Sapiens means ‘wise man’”. He then refers to us as apes made good, before ultimately concluding that we are “smart” not “wise”. If this is what our 70,000 year history teaches us, what hope do we have? From whence does Wisdom come? The answer is, “Nowhere but our own history!” We must simply keep inventing and applying ideas in the hope that one day we may strike the right formula. Then, we must hope that the rest of mankind, looking back to us from the future, will realise that we had the right solution and adopt it for the sake of humanity.

[16] To be clear, Man does not truly seek redemption, he seeks wellness or rightness. In other words, he does not like his deficiencies. So, he is on a quest to discover the panacea. However, it has to be realised that it has become very fashionable of late for the Secularist to use the words redemption and atonement. However, he uses both terms erroneously. Redemption implies the act of redeeming, which means to “to buy back” or “buy out”. This is a perfectly Biblical word, as it aptly describes God’s action of paying for the sins of His people. We are God’s because He purchased us with the blood of His beloved Son, Jesus. What does the Secularist mean when he uses this term? How did he pay for his sins or remit the payment? Whom did he pay? With what did he pay? Similarly, the Christian treasures the term “atonement” as that which paid for our sins or covered over our transgressions. The Secularist has to break this word apart and make it say at-one-ment, thereby implying peace with himself.

[17] Compare Jay E. Adams, Competent to Counsel, Ministry Resources Library, 1970; p67 – “Any such counselling that claims to be Christian surely must be evangelistic. Counselling is redemptive.”

[18] See this article and note how the girl was guided to the Humanist options. Any other concept was dismissed. http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1401-a-wonderful-story-jean-lloyd-the-girl-in-the-tuxedo-two-variations-on-sexual-orientation-and-gender-identity. It is also worth noting that the Humanist hypocrites still cannot or will not explain, on the basis of their religion, why homosexuality and polygamy are acceptable but bestiality and paedophilia are not. This said, some Humanists have taken that leap, realising that for their religion to be consistent that all restraints are to be removed. These are generally ushered to the rear of the car and hastily stuffed in the boot – that’s the “trunk” for our US brethren – because their desire for consistency ultimately gives the game away.

[19] Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[20] 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

[21] Psalm 1:1.

[22] Psalm 5:9 – “There is nothing reliable in what they say; Their inward part is destruction itself; Their throat is an open grave; They flatter with their tongue.” Proverbs 12:26 – “The righteous is a guide to his neighbor, But the way of the wicked leads them astray.” Proverbs 10:32 – “The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, But the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.” Proverbs 14:7 – “Leave the presence of a fool, Or you will not discern words of knowledge.” — remember that the Biblical “fool” is not just a silly fellow, but the one that says “There is no God!” Surely, this is the Secular Humanist.

[23] That is, the Trinity. If God is rejected, then it follows that the Persons of the Godhead are equally denied.

[24] Judges 6:11-15; John 10:30.

[25] Colossians 1:13-17.

[26] Acts 17:31; Acts 10:42; John 5:22-24.

[27] John 14:6; Colossians 1:13-14; Luke 1:68; Romans 3:23-24. See also: Westminster Confession 8:1 – It pleased God, in His eternal purpose, to choose and ordain the Lord Jesus, His only begotten Son, to be the Mediator between God and man, (Isa. 42:1, 1 Pet. 1:19–20, John 3:16, 1 Tim. 2:5) the Prophet, (Acts 3:22) Priest, (Heb. 5:5–6) and King (Ps. 2:6, Luke 1:33) the Head and Saviour of His Church, (Eph. 5:23) the Heir of all things, (Heb. 1:2) and Judge of the world: (Acts 17:31) unto whom He did from all eternity give a people, to be His seed, (John 17:6, Ps. 22:30, Isa. 53:10) and to be by Him in time redeemed, called, justified, sanctified, and glorified. (1 Tim. 2:6, Isa. 55:4–5, 1 Cor. 1:30)

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.

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.2)

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Claiming to be civilised, the modern Secularist has laid down his sword and gun. However, this has left him in somewhat of a predicament. The Secularist is in need of an effective instrument with which to bludgeon into submission those who oppose.

Enter the abuse of language and the courting of hypocrisy!

The simple reality is that the Secularist does not play fair. When it suits him, he steals from the Christian worldview (e.g., justice, love, society, law). When it suits him, he attacks the Christian worldview (e.g., morality and jurisprudence). When he needs, he destroys language and meaning. When he needs, he places new meaning and non-meaning into words (e.g., what is equality, homophobia or Political Correctness). When it suits him, he claims absolute truth (e.g., right, wrong, and even truth itself). When he seeks to beguile, he lies as though truth was an unknown concept.

If we are to successfully engage the Secularist, we must be aware of his tactics, his false claims, and his bullying. Thus far, we have made a number of claims. Let us now look at how these things work in practice.

1. Worldview: A worldview is your perspective of and on the world. It is a set of ideas with which you interpret the world around you and by which you attempt to make sense of the data you see. Everybody has one. So do not be fooled into thinking that you don’t, they don’t or that such a thing is unnecessary.

This worldview is essentially based on faith – an assumed presupposition that cannot be proven. For the Christian that presupposition is, God exists. For the unbeliever, born in sin and antagonistic to God, it is, God is dead.[1]

A worldview in action looks like this:

The Christian, presupposing that God exists and that God has revealed Himself, On this basis, sees a rainbow and thanks God for His covenant to never again destroy the world by flood.

The Secularist, presupposing that God is dead, looks at the rainbow and contemplates a meteorological phenomenon in which light reflects off water droplets causing a colourful display. It means nothing. It has no purpose. It just is.

2. Religious Battle: The second furphy gladly peddled by the Secularist is that he is free from the burden of religion. He happily, if not smugly, highlights the Crusades as evidence of his statement that “religion has been the cause of most wars.” Then he pontificates about the grandeur of Man and Man’s ability to reason his way to a better state and higher plane of peace and respect with no need for a religion of any type.

In reality, the Secularist is simply in the midst of making a religion after his own image and likeness. He creates a worldview, which means that he has adopted fundamental principles that govern his outlook on life. One of those principles is that God is dead. A consequent principle is that Man is the exalted measure of all things. This is precisely why he attacks Christianity. The Secularist is in a religious war. He wants his god (Man) to dominate the old God; he wants his new worldview (Humanism) to displace and expel the old worldview (Theism). Here, we see the veil slip for the first time. (More later)

Thus, the Secularist is religious; he has a religion. He is formulating principles by which Man should live. The only difference is that he chooses to make Man his god. Therefore, in opposition to Christianity, the Secularist establishes Man’s god rather than contentedly being God’s man.

3. Destruction and Reconstruction: Central to the Secularist’s takeover is the destruction of any and all forms that give voice to the moral principles that were enshrined in law and culture via the old worldview. In our case, God’s Law-Word (the Bible) was the basis for law and morality in our culture. This same God is the basis of the Christian worldview. As such, the Secularist must find a way to deconstruct these ideas or, at the very least, empty them of any moral implications so that the empty shell can be stuffed with the new dogma. In this manner, the Secularist begins to construct and re-construct the culture according to the new worldview.

Consequently, as we note in Part 1, Secularism unleashes its Bastard child, Political Correctness, to begin the process of demoralising and sanitising language. Dropped from the language are all words that have a moral connotation and the implication of judicial penalty: fornication, adultery, sodomy, blasphemy.[2]

4. Tolerance: As Secularism professes to be the new enlightened way, having shed this dictatorial God of the Bible, it adopts as a major tenet the concept of tolerance. It invites all to partake in this new and freer society, regardless of particular beliefs. All are welcome.

The trouble is that Secularism’s invitation is like the free ride to Toyland – all play and no work, then you awake one morning as donkey! It is all too good to be true.

Think about it logically. Are all things equal? Are all people equal? Are all pursuits as noble and worthwhile as each other? Are the diligent and the malingerer actually of the same substance and worth? Are the murder and the philanthropist the same?

Secularism’s claim to tolerance is one more hollow shell.[3]

5. Hypocrisy: It is here that we meet the other key requisite necessary to be a Secularist – you must be a hypocrite! The simple reality is that Secularism does not and, indeed, cannot meet any of the goals it so proudly pursues. It betrays itself at nearly every major tenet that it professes to espouse and to which it tirelessly works.

6. Examples: With this introduction complete, let us illustrate these things with real examples.[4]

Secularism pretends that it is not a religion. It claims, rather, to be merely a movement aimed at aiding the autonomy of Man. If this be true, why then has Secularism declared war on Christianity and the Christian’s God? If Secularism is inert, why then does our current Prime Minister speak of a Secular State that holds absolute sway over all other institutions? Why, in that context, must the faith of all others capitulate to the will of the State?[5]^,[6]

Naturally, we must ask, if Secularism is so accommodating, Why can it not leave us Christians alone? Why must it change and break a system that has served this nation well? Why must the Secularists force Christians to change their beliefs? After all, what is there to fear? Every culture that has had a genuine Christian (Reformational) influence has prospered.[7]

Again, we must ask, “If tolerance is a key tenet of Secularism, why are Christians not tolerated?” A better question for the hypocrites is this, “If tolerance is a key tenet of your religion, why do you not abide by your own stated beliefs and tolerate Christianity?”

It is in answering that question that the veil falls completely. It is at this point that the Secularist must vent his spleen and admit that Christianity is opposed to everything for which he stands. Consequently, it must be eradicated. As long as there is a Christian, there will be opposition to the plans and ideas of the Secularist. It is in these statements that his rebellious nature comes to the fore. It is here that we see his innate hatred of God and His law. It is at this point that his utter hypocrisy is shown!

All the talk concerning tolerance, fairness, and equality are shown to be absolutely hollow. The duplicitous nature of their scheming is unveiled.

How so you ask? Consider the following:

A. Today’s news included an article in regard to the Liberals backing out of a “preference deal” with the Christian Democratic Party because of comments concerning “gays”. The eye catching headline, “Gay Crisis in Sex-Appeal Seat” leads one to a story with the more moderate title, “Libs in preference crisis in Lindsay over gay comments.”[8]

What was the obviously disgusting, degrading, derogatory and inhuman comment that Andrew Green, the DCP candidate, uttered? Well, hold on to your hats, cover the children’s ears, he referred to ‘gay men as having a “lower life span” than heterosexual males.’ Pilloried for stating, what to my understanding is, truth. Harangued, because when asked for a source, all he could say was that “he read it along the way somewhere.”

What this shows is that tolerance is not a part of the Secularist’s agenda, persecution is! Why is Mr. Green not entitled to express his view on this subject? Why is the Liberal Party so sensitive? Hypocrisy! It wants to be seen to be abiding by the “equality” mantra. Yet, by taking the action it did the Liberal Party shows that it believes in neither tolerance nor equality.[9]

Contrast this to a situation I witnessed. (Prepare to harangue as I cannot give the source.[10]) It was a news article describing the lesbian lifestyle. This particular, lesbian was at a café or some such watching women pass by. She saw a relatively attractive lady. Something about this lady came to the fore, perhaps a wedding ring, causing the lesbian’s scathing comment of disappointment, ‘She’s a breeder!’[11]

Hang on! Wait for the outcry. Her it comes. ‘Shut down that café!’ Clear the street.’ ‘Send in the Storm troopers!’ (Deafening silence) Hello? Anything? Maybe just a token whimper? Possibly a little downturn to the sides of the mouth to show a little disapproval? No! What’s that? Oh, a ‘double standard’ you say. Oh, I see, she can belittle because she is a homosexual. Got it!

B. We are constantly told that the sanitising language of PC is aimed at equality and not allowing anyone to be stigmatised. Our story above shows that such a claim is hollow. However, the problem is not a lone lesbian at a street-side café. The problem goes to the very top and to the deliberate murder of language and the open display of hypocrisy by our leaders.

Just last week, Kevin Rudd publicly stated that there was no room in Australia for “Racism, Sexism or Homophobia.” Wonderful! Maybe? Well, no. Given the way the Secularists murder language, we must enquire as to what Mr. Rudd means by these terms.

Earlier this year, we had the situation involving Adam Goodes and a 13 year old girl. The confrontation went national as a case of Racism. Really? Not even close. Racism is the KKK hanging someone from a tree simply because of skin colour. Racism is what motivated Hitler to destroy the Jews. Racism is the Serbs and Croats duking it out in front of the Tennis Centre for no other reason than that they (or more likely their fathers) were born on different sides of a line.

Racism is not making a statement of truth in regard to someone of a different ethnicity. Racism is not found in asking that migrants support and uphold the standards of this nation. Racism is not found in asking that there be one law and one rule for all.[12]

Moving on to Sexism. Was Tony Abbott’s “sex appeal” comment sexist? Not at all. It was a compliment in support of a candidate. Those who were offended by the comment only proved that they were ignorant of Australian colloquialisms. The terms “sexy” or “sex appeal” do not always refer to a sexual act or to derogation based in sexuality. Used in certain contexts, like that of Mr. Abbott, it simply means someone has vitality, persona, and therefore, a general appeal.

Now we move to that hybrid term homophobia. The use of this term is offensive. Mr. Rudd, I am offended. By taking to the microphone and using this term, Mr. Rudd, with the authority of the Prime Minister’s office, actually stigmatised every person in this country who is opposed to homosexuality.

Again, the veil falls. Tolerance and equality go out the window faster than Casanova when a husband returns early! In order to give homosexuals equality, Mr. Rudd is prepared to concretely malign and stigmatise a large proportion of the population who oppose this practice, no matter what their reason.

This is a repugnance that simply cannot be tolerated. Allow me to explain. Firstly, I hate the term homophobia. It is a conjugated hybrid that has no place in language. It has been recruited by that disorderly Bastard to batter and stigmatise those who oppose homosexuality.

Secondly, I hate this term because it is a gross distortion of the truth. Let’s get this straight (pun!), just for the record. Homophobia suggests that I have a clinically diagnosed, irrational fear of homosexuals.[13] This is not even close. I do not fear homosexuals. I detest them. I, for moral reasons, find their sexual choices to be abhorrent.

Thirdly, the term homophobia is not, to my knowledge, a recognised clinical psychiatric disorder. Wikipedia makes this comment, “Homophobia has never been listed as part of a clinical taxonomy of phobias, neither in Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM) or International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems (ICD); homophobia is usually used in a non-clinical sense.^”[14]Consider this statement:

“Homophobia is not an actual phobia, according to three University of Arkansas psychologists. In a recent study, these researchers showed that homophobia originates not out of fear or anxiety – as true phobias do – but from feelings of disgust. The UA researchers also found close associations between homophobic tendencies and concerns about contamination as well as conservative views about sexuality in general. Their findings suggest a social, attitudinal basis for homophobia rather than a psychopathological one, as the term itself implies.”[15]

This being the case, we have the Prime Minister of Australia using labelling language to discriminate against a whole bunch of decent and upright citizens in this country. He has stigmatised these people with an official pronouncement. He has effectively told these people to “pack their bags” for they are not wanted in this country.

Incredulously, Mr. Rudd has chosen to bully and stigmatise these people with a non-word, a word that has been conjured. He has called for disgrace and shame to fall upon these people by describing them as suffers of a mythological, non-existent, pathological disorder.

The real kicker, of course, is that Mr Rudd, until very recently, was one of the condemned who suffered from homophobia because he opposed homosexual union. Having now changed his mind on that topic, and having stated that he will not take a national lead on the issue, he now stands before the media as Prime Minister to point fingers, bully, stigmatise, and forcefully subjugate those who have had the integrity to maintain their opposition.

This is the War of Meaningless and contrived words; invented for two purposes: First, to obfuscate. Second, to shame people into capitulating. However, as we have seen, the Secularists cannot be consistent with their own worldview.

Hollow words from hollow men! Meaningless words used in a religious war.

(Part 3 for the Application)

[1] Paul makes it abundantly clear that the ungodly willingly suppress the knowledge of God because God is evident in everything that they see. Romans 1:18-20.

[2] Some terms, such as “theft” and “murder” are retained, but not without much modification. What is 1^st, 2^nd, or 3^rd degree murder? Are these categories consistent with Biblical revelation? No, they are not. So what do they mean? Essentially, they are Man’s invention. They are a way to find excuses for murder or to take away Man’s responsibility to punish the murderer.

[3] Remember JJ Rousseau’s magnificent world in which all would be tolerated except the intolerant. Any who were intolerant would be punished with death. Conundrum! How do you identify the “intolerant one” without first becoming intolerant yourself?

[4] We will try and illustrate these concepts with current content. That is to say, with reference to homosexuality and the current political landscape.

[5] “I have come to the conclusion that church and state can have different positions and practices on the question of same sex marriage. I believe the secular Australian state should be able to recognise same sex marriage. I also believe that this change should legally exempt religious institutions from any requirement to change their historic position and practice that marriage is exclusively between a man and a woman.” The problem with this, as we have highlighted, is the question of, ‘What happens outside the physical institution?’ When I go to Church on Sunday, I can decry, presumably, the debauchery that is homosexuality. I can also refuse to marry Adam and Steve. On Monday, I go to work. In response to a question, I outline my position on homosexuality – in exactly the same words as the day before. Now, I am charged with a treasonous act. I have betrayed a major tenet of the State’s religious belief system. Then, I receive a demand from my employer to attend a ‘human rights’ seminar conducted by Adam and Steve. I do not wish to go, but it is mandatory. How then do I divide myself? The answer of Secularism is this: “Easy. Become a hypocrite like us! Believe what you believe. Simply feign acceptance and compliance.”

[6] The Secularists know that their system is a failure. For proof of this, look to the French Revolution. Yet, they will not give up their fight against Christ and His Church.

[7] America was built on this foundation. She was, to a large extent, a light on a hill. She has now shifted ground. The Secularists have taken control and have sanitised law, education, justice, and the like. They have removed God. They have banned prayer. Creation cannot be taught.

Is America a better nation today? No. She has become reliant upon her might and her technology. She has forsaken God with dire consequences. She is weak and feeble. She is in catastrophic debt. She is hypocritical. She goes to war against tyrants on foreign soil, but does not bring justice to the tyrants on her own soil. Why do we think that a Secularised Australia will be any different?

[8] http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/exclusive-libs-in-preference-crisis-in-lindsay-over-gay-comments/story-fnho52ip-1226700883582?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[9] Did the Liberal Party ever stop to ask, “Is there truth in this statement?” If there is, why shy away from it? Again, hypocrisy! They are not interested in truth, but in winning an election. Thus, they walk the eggshell road of veiled answers, non-commitment, and seeming conformity to the demands of the noisy minorities. Here is one article reporting on the shortened life expectancy of homosexuals. It can be dismissed because it is a Christian site: http://carm.org/homosexual-gay-sex-harms-no-one. This one though, is from the homosexual community. Whilst not dealing explicitly with homosexual lifespan, it does deals with homosexual suicide (which significantly impacts lifespan) and notes that research shows higher suicide rates: http://theconversation.com/preventing-suicide-among-gender-and-sexual-minorities-11637. So, the conclusion of the matter is this: The Liberal Party does not have researchers or they are not interested in truth?

[10] I am trying to recollect this as accurately as I can. Details may be sketchy, but the point is not.

[11] My story may not be documented, so try this one: “Okay, I was at an LGBT conference last month and I was talking with an open lesbian. She asked me what I identified myself as and I said, “A heterosexual Ally.” She kinda snapped back at me with, “we don’t need sympathy from breeders.” I wasn’t even sure what the term meant but I knew it was offensive and related to my being straight. I reply to her, “What? Why don’t you want the support of heterosexuals? Seems kind of counterproductive doesn’t it?” She muttered something and walked away. I was really confused. I talked to other Allies at the conference and they experienced similar things as well. I went home and then looked up the definition of a “breeder” and this is what I found: “Breeder is a slang term (either joking or derogatory) used to describe heterosexuals, primarily by homosexuals. It is drawn from the fact that while homosexual sex does not lead to reproduction, heterosexual sex can, with implicit mocking by connotation of animal husbandry.”” At: http://www.wrongplanet.net/postt160289.html. Accessed 21/08/13. Bold added.

[12] In point of fact, on this last point, it is indeed Racism to divide the nation by applying different rules to different ethnic groups.

[13] Homophobia is “an extreme and irrational aversion to homosexuality and homosexual people.” Oxford Dictionaries Online. At: http://oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/homophobia. Accessed 22/08/13.

[14] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homophobia. Accessed 20/08/13. Bold added.

[15]At: http://mentalhealth.about.com/library/sci/0602/blhomo602.htm. Accessed 22/08/13. Italics added. In fairness, one of those interviewed states that homophobia is more in line with racism. He suggests that the answer is attitudinal reform. Thus, the implication is that those suffering from homophobia are bigoted rather than mentally ill. I, for one can, live with this.

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.1)

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Christians are currently involved in a titanic struggle. Our whole existence is currently being threatened by a noisy minority who have the ears of our politicians.

These God-haters, à la Psalm two, want to throw off every semblance of God, His Son, Jesus Christ, and His revealed Law-Word. They are done following the Maker’s commands and they are demanding absolute autonomy for themselves. These are the Secularists complete with their desire for the Secular State.

Consequently, we hear a great deal in regard to the separation of Church and State. We hear that the concept of God is passé. We hear that people can freely have and practice their religion. However, there is an explicit quid pro quo. We can have our religion (Christianity) as long as it stays a private matter.

Along with Secularism comes its bastard child, Political Correctness. This spawn from the pit starts to make even more demands. However, the cleverness of this corrupting child is that it seeks to mask its corruption by feigning equality. Thus, one is no longer a ‘lowly housewife’. One becomes a “domestic engineer”. Speaking of a former life, I was not a “Garbo”, but a “sanitation engineer”.

Insidiously, this spurious mongrel makes people believe that they are being elevated in importance and rank when in actual fact nothing changes. Indeed, in many instances, degradation and regression are deliberately masked.

The last example of the “garbo” is particularly pertinent, for sanitising is exactly what Political Correctness sets out achieve. It does this by destroying language, terminology, and meaning. The Secularists use it with great skill in the war that has been unleashed upon our nation. They have been so successful, that they have managed to have a variety of terms introduced into common parlance. More importantly, they have had legislation passed to fortify their position and silence those who would oppose.[1]

Regrettably, we Christians have been a bit thick. We have been all too eager to jump on this Bastard’s bandwagon and adopt its perversions without engaging our brains or engaging with God’s word.

Just as many Christians have given up on the physical discipline of their children for fear of being “dobbed in”, too many Christians have adopted the language of Political Correctness in an effort to conform and not stand out.

This acquiescence has only worsened the situation we face. It has made our enemy stronger and it has substantially weakened our cause, the cause of Christ. As a result, we face a very dire time. There is a growing voice of opposition. It is vociferous at times. At times it is an incoherent rant filled with sheer hatred for God and his people.[2]

However, take heart. All is not lost. First, we serve the Lord Jesus Christ. In case any are in doubt, His job description and title goes something like this – King of kings and Lord of lords; Prince of peace; Son of God, Mighty God; on whose shoulders rest the Governance of the nations; a King whose Kingdom cannot end; A King who sent His servants to “teach the nations to obey all that He commanded”. In the words of S.M. Lockridge, “Yeah, that’s my King!”[3]

Second, Christians can arm themselves for this battle. It is a battle that must be self-consciously fought in the Name of the King and in His power, but it can be fought and won. Indeed, I would contend that it must be fought and won.

Please allow me to outline, in brief, a bit of a battle plan.

1. Christians must quit the fuzzy thinking. Listening to Christians argue their case, I hear too much baptised humanism. In other words, the Christians are arguing with a Secularised worldview rather than with a Biblical worldview.

2. As this is the case, Christians have no effective weaponry. Cotton Mather, speaking of the use of so-called ‘white’ magic against ‘black’ magic, remarked that such an enterprise was “to use the devil’s shield against the devil’s sword”. It was an endeavour of futility.

3. Consequently, Christians need to arm themselves with the “Sword of the Spirit” and the “mind of Christ”. What is meant by this is that we must use the Biblical weaponry, but that, equally, we use our minds and the wisdom God gives through Christ Jesus.[4]

When these simple points are brought together, the Christian must realise that Jesus Christ did not come to reveal “doormat theology” or the view that we Christians are to be the poverty stricken whipping boys of all other belief systems. On the contrary, Jesus revealed to us the system of life and victory.

By taking our stand in God’s word, we stand upon the immovable Rock that is Jesus Christ. When we clothe ourselves with the mind of Christ, we are able to think God’s thoughts after Him and outthink our opponents. In 1 Corinthians1:20 & 25 we are encouraged with these words: “Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? … Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.”

Therefore, let us do everything within our power to take the fight to our opponents by following the Wisdom of God. “But How?” you ask. Well, let’s see if we cannot give a few pointers to help you.

A. Do not let the enemy set or force the agenda. Too often Christians awake from their sleep just long enough to fight this or that battle. However, when the urgency subsides, the Christian’s hibernation continues. In opposition to this, we need to be awake and on the job 24/7. We need to be the ones in the politician’s ear giving sound counsel.

At present the battle ground is the issue of homosexual union. However, I do not hear too many arguments against homosexuality, full stop! How did we arrive at this point? Honestly, there are a number of answers. Amongst them, though, are things like Christians being distracted by silver and gold; Christians being more interested in trying to figure out the date and time of Jesus’ Second Coming than “teaching the nations to obey”; and Christians being concerned that their children get a good (State based) education, rather than being concerned that their children receive a Christ(ian) education.

B. Adopt the Christian or Biblical worldview. This is really the critical need of our day. Too many Christians are unable to think Biblically and critically – the second because they lack the first. Yes, Christians often use the terminology of ‘believing the Bible’ or ‘standing on God’s word’, but in reality, very few do.

Let us look at the issue of homosexuality. In a few sentences I will present a ‘no holds barred’ assessment that will offend many. The offence comes from the fact that we do not hold to a Biblical worldview. In short, we do not view issues from God’s perspective or take God’s statements seriously.

God, in the Bible, calls homosexuals an abomination. God states that their immorality is worthy of death. These are very serious charges. Despite the moderns desire to reinterpret these texts, the simple reality is that God situates homosexuals among that which disgusts Him most. Thus, He decrees that they should die.

No doubt, you will counter with, “Oh yes, but that is the Old Testament.”[5] So, let us look at the New Testament. In Romans 1:26-27, Paul, under the influence of the Holy Spirit, declares homosexuality to be both the pinnacle of rebellion against God and of God’s judgement against Man. Note, please, Paul is expressing God’s absolute distaste for homosexuals and their practice. Then, in verse 32, Paul speaks of these as “being worthy of death”.

In Paul’s argument, there is a complete unity with what God has said in previously in the Law and the Prophets. Yet, modern Christians read over this explicit statement. They re-interpret the term “death” as meaning ‘spiritual death’ or as a euphemism for Hell.

With this reinterpretation complete, the average Christian then speaks of God’s love for the homosexual. They tell us that we are to tolerate these people, even if we do not condone their sin. In the worst cases, we have Christians (??) refusing to even label homosexuality as sin! Yet, the question must be posed, “How is it, given the Scripture’s unified statements to the effect that God is disgusted with homosexuals and that He decrees that they should be struck from the earth, that Christians come forth with statements that say the exact opposite?”[6] How does the Christian sanitise that which God labels disgusting?

Now, many / some will not agree with what has been said, but the challenge then is, “Does your disagreement come from the Biblical dictates of a Biblical worldview or does it originate in the Worldly dictates of the Secularist’s worldview?”

In any case, the point is simple. Modern Christians are, at times, found to be calling good that which God has called evil; they try to tear asunder that which God has brought together or bring together that which God has torn asunder. They do so because a miasma of Biblical illiteracy has descended upon the Church.

C. Do not be fooled by the language. As we noted above, the illegitimate offspring of Secularism, Political Correctness, seeks to mask evil by changing language. Thus, the Biblical concept of fornication[7] is toned down into sleeping together;[8] Husband/wife/spouse becomes partner; Adultery becomes an affair; Sin/Evil becomes sickness; Sodomy becomes homosexuality/gay; Murdering infants becomes pro Choice; Murdering the elderly becomes euthanasia;[9] Corporal punishment becomes child abuse; and stating a fact becomes vilification / slur.

Secularism also seeks to invent and apply stigmatised labels[10] as a weapon in this war. People who will not yield are labelled and through labelling are shamed into capitulating – you are judgemental; homophobic; intolerant; bigoted.[11]

By adopting this language, Christians give ground. We begin to subtly imbibe the Secularist’s worldview. More importantly, we actually impugn our God. We do this by our abandonment of the Christian worldview, but also by the implicit denial that God gave us morals and terms[12] that both encompass and express those morals.

D. Do not be fooled by false claims. The Secularists will claim that they hold the moral high ground on many issues. However, when light is brought to bear, the Secularist is found to be naked with naught but a smile to hide behind. Hence, he manipulates the situation through language and fortifies his position with legislation. Again, by buying into this practice we actually support and abet the ungodly desires, notions, and goals of the secularist.

This brings us to the heart of the current debate, namely, the obvious hypocrisy and deceit by the Secularists as they push their anti-God agenda.

(For the examples, please read Part 2 of this article)

[1] We will talk about hypocrisy later, but even here the Secularist is seen to be a hypocrite. He justifies his cause on the basis that God is dictatorial, suggesting words mean a certain thing and that any lack of conformity will be punished. In response, the Secularist demands that words mean nothing – until he puts meaning into them – and if you do not conform to this new usage, you will be punished!

[2] See Bill Muehlenberg’s No Tolerance for Dissenters.

[3] http://thatsmyking.wordpress.com/2007/11/16/sm-lockeridges-my-king-2007-high-energy-remixed-version/

[4] Colossians 2:3.

[5] There is another discussion to be had here in regard to God’s immutability. Those who argue OT v NT are implicitly, if not explicitly, stating that God has changed His moral standing on issues like this. Regrettably, this attitude smacks of a return to the Marcionite heresy.

[6] The counter to this is, of course, the fallacious statement that God loves the sinner but hates the sin. Room does not allow for a full discussion, so we will make two points: A. The Bible never, in the judicial sense, separates a man and his sin; B. Why does God send men to hell and not just their sin?

[7] For a thought provoking read, see RC Sproul Jr’s, Sexual Destruction.

[8] It is fundamentally important that we grasp the point being made. Search the Scriptures and you will not find a moral imperative that would forbid an unrelated, unmarried couple of the opposite sex from actually sleeping together. The Bible may ask us to be wise because such a situation, if indulged too often or in the wrong circumstances, may lead to that which is forbidden. However, I repeat, the Bible has no moral imperative against two people “catching some Z’s” together. On the other hand, the Bible does have some strong words and presents a moral imperative against sexual congress outside of marriage. The masking, is at heart, an attempt to destroy God’s moral imperatives by changing the connotation of the act, removing the stigma attached to immorality, and, in essence, removing morality from the action. Hence, we encounter the sanitising effect of Political Correctness.

[9] For those not aware, the term euthanasia literally translates to good death. Here, again, the sanitising crew of PC has done their best to wipe the muck off this term and mask the reality. In what sense is this death good? What or who is the determiner of a good or a bad death? After all, we are all dying, are we not? So whilst I live, I hasten to die? So at what point and on whose authority does the process of dying converge with the death event? What qualities make this convergence good or bad?

[10] Here, again, hypocrisy comes into view. It is wrong of Christians to stigmatise homosexuals with their Biblical language and moral objections, but it is right and acceptable for the Secularist to stigmatise Christians with their invented language and labels of shame.

[11] This was the same approach used by the Feminists in their war. If you disagreed with them, as a male, you were labelled as a misogynist.

[12] It is important that we understand that terms apply to certain things. We work with this fact every day. Yet, as we have shown, the Secularists are keen to destroy these terms when they are detrimental to their agenda. Elsewhere, I have addressed this issue with the illustration of a child wrongly naming an animal that he was shown.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Secularism