Equality and Coercion: The Antipodes of Humanism

Posted on March 10, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

“You will know them by their fruits”, so says Jesus.[1] This is a wonderful piece of advice and one which every Christian should learn to put into practice. In essence, Jesus is telling us that if you want to understand what makes a man tick, look at the fruit of his ideas. If someone comes to you selling “sweetness and light”, but behind him there is a trail of stench and darkness, then you would rightly question the intrinsic nature of the salesman’s product. In such a scenario, the terms ‘witchdoctor’ and ‘snake oil’ would readily spring to mind.

As Christians in the year 2015, we have many witchdoctors peddling much snake oil, but it all comes packaged as “sweetness and light” or, more specifically, Religious Freedom and Equality. Yes, the packaging sells the product well. It is bright and shiny. It makes some wonderful claims that just warm the cockles of your heart. It’s calorie free. It can be consumed at any time. It will add volume to your hair and … you get the picture. Yes, it seems laudable and the racketeers, oh, sorry, marketers, do a fine job in pushing their product. However, have you stopped to look at the fruit of their wares? When you look at our culture, are people healthy, thin, and sporting voluminous bouffants or are they ailing, squidgy around the middle, and balding?

Brethren, what fruit do you see about you today?

This challenge is necessary precisely because the common place mantra in the Church today is “Do not judge; do not judge!” Consequently, when we as Christians are confronted with fruit that is rancid or which looks highly questionable, we tend to be duped or coerced into believing the packaging and its claims. Thus, we quote the mantra, breathe deeply, and take a bite, rather than dispose of the rotten fruit — pledging never to buy from that retailer ever again!

Two such pieces of ugly fruit, being mass marketed as we speak, are Religious Freedom and Equality. Yet, both are rotten to the core. They are so because they are anti-God and as such contravene explicit commands that God has given. As such, one would think that the average Christian would give these products wide birth. However, it still seems that Christians are willing to believe the promises of the racketeers, rather than the Word of God.

Reformation Ministries, Salt Shakers, and other Christian organisations, expend much energy on warning people, Christians in particular, about the dangers of Humanism and electing governments whose explicit agendas run contrary to God’s Word. Today, we place upon your table the fruit of Humanism’s hollow promises, garnished with a real life example of Humanism’s hypocrisy.

We are all aware of the terms Religious Freedom and Equality. Both are pushed by the Humanists. Both are said to mean that any and every man will be free to believe what he will and act in accordance with his own conscience. This sounds good to many, but it is in fact the first false step. Man was created in God’s image and for His glory.[2] As such, Man’s beliefs and conscience are inextricably tied to the Law and revelation of God as opened to us in the Bible.[3] In short, Man is not autonomous, he is Theonomic. Man is not “I” centred (anthropocentric), but “God” centred (Theocentric).

Applying this Biblical truth means that Man is neither free to follow any religion he likes or invents nor able to demand equality for every practice. By this we mean that Man must worship God, through Jesus Christ, as God has specified in Scripture and that Man’s acceptable behaviour is that, and only that, which God in His Word countenances.[4] This means that bowing to a golden image is as wrong today as it was in Daniel’s time. It means that the wicked are not equal with the righteous or the murderer with the innocent.

Thus, Religious Freedom and Equality are usurpations of God’s rule and authority and they are a manifestation of Man’s desire to ascend to the throne of God.

That this is so can be seen in the case of Barronelle Stutzman, which comes to us from the USA.[5] This 70 year old, a Christian florist, has fallen foul of the State authorities for refusing to supply flowers for a homosexual union – what is termed as ‘gay marriage’. In looking at this case, we see that the Humanist veil has completely fallen off, displaying their bigotry, bias, and hostility to Christ and His own.

The cut down version of the story is that a long time customer of Mrs. Stutzman took advantage of perverse marriage laws[6] and decided to unite with his homosexual partner. Mrs. Stutzman was in turn asked to provide flowers for the event. After careful consideration, she politely declined the invitation. From this seemingly amicable declining of an invitation, the story, carried by the great evil of social media, began to circulate. At this point, Washington State’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, having viewed the social media, stepped in and sued Mrs. Stutzman. That’s right. The Attorney General, without a complaint from the man involved launched a suit against Mrs. Stutzman. Bob Ferguson’s rationale is this: “My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I[7] will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”[8]

Here, we enter upon the conundrum. We subtitled this article, The Antipodes of Humanism, and we did so for this reason – Humanism cannot reconcile its two great mantras!

When Christians defend the faith, they can be criticised for being biased – which we are happily; biased toward God and His Word – and people can use that bias to disbelieve the message.[9] However, the above story, giving voice to the Humanist agenda, shows that the fruit of Humanist philosophy is rancid, unpalatable, and poisonous. It does so precisely because it proves that the two great Humanist mantras of Religious Freedom and Equality are completely incompatible. It proves that Humanism cannot guarantee everybody’s freedom. At some point, a person’s ideology (religion) is going to clash with another’s ideology as the fruits of that ideology (actions) are put on display.

Let’s make it simple. Your religion will dictate your practice. Your religion specifies your morals; your morals are worked out through your fingertips, so to speak. Now the fallacy of Humanism, and its outright hypocrisy, is that it tries to pretend that all actions and, therefore, all religions are equal. However, this simply cannot be true and the above story proves it to be so. A Christian operating on her religious convictions refuses a service to another person based on the fact that the other person’s religion and practice conflicts with her own. At this point, Humanism should be delighted. Both parties have expressed their conviction and have practiced their religion accordingly. Yet what we see is that Humanism is decidedly unhappy. Mr. Ferguson, wielding the power of the State, is incensed and feels that action is warranted.

Naturally, he must favour the Christian. After all, she holds to tenets that have been cherished and believed for thousands of years. She believes as the founders of America believed – in a Law giving God who proscribed homosexuality as an abomination. Hers is the established religion of centuries. The judges of America sit beneath the Ten Commandments. Surely, hers is the right! No. Not so.

You see, the new god dictates who is right and who is wrong. The worshippers of this new god know that Equality is a fallacy precisely because not all religions agree on every tenet and disagreement must mean a difference in practice.[10] Yet, they continue with their mantra hoping to blind as many people as possible.

The key lesson here is that Humanism is itself a religion and one that is, at present, far more destructive than the threat posed by Islam. Please do not be fooled by Humanism’s rhetoric of either Freedom or Equality; neither be fooled by Humanism’s claim to be neutral. All are lies. When a stalemate occurs, as in the above story, the servants of the new god become the umpires and they will always side with that which promotes their religion and their god.

This said, there are other disturbing elements to this story. For example, Mrs. Stutzman is not only being sued as a business, but also as a person. She has now also had lawsuits brought against her by the ACLU and the person involved. Then there are the homosexual activists who are now sending more requests to Mrs. Stutzman for flowers at their union ceremonies, knowing she will refuse and thereby increase fines and so on.

These elements are wrong and true justice is mocked. For example, how many times can a person be sued for one action? If the Attorney General proceeds first, in the name of the State, on what basis are these other suits presented. In essence, any person in America aggrieved at this lady’s action could sue her![11] Then we have to ask as to the rights of a business owner to refuse service to a person. How is refusing service to a homosexual any different to refusing service to a person with an inappropriate dress code or who is drunk?[12] Both these later examples are acceptable, with one being required by law. Hence, we can only conclude that discrimination is acceptable, it is simply a matter of whom you choose to discriminate against and on what basis.

This then leads us to a clarion statement: Christian, the persecuted Church no longer exists in Communist, Islamic, and Third World countries. It exists right here, in the so-called Christian West! America calls itself a Christian nation, yet She actively persecutes true Christians. Do not be fooled, the same is happening here in Australia. It may be less noticeable, but it is here. It is not different in nature, only in degree.

Hence, we, as God’s people, must take action whilst we are still able. Dear friends, this is why we ask you to join us in our stand against these false standards. This call is issued because, sadly, the Christian populace has largely embraced these false ideas of Freedom and Equality, either naively thinking that they were good or they have been coerced by law and threats of litigation.

In essence, Freedom of Religion and Equality are the Secular Humanist’s values enshrined in law and the means by which they will discriminate against all those who hold to a different religion. In the end, the question is not, “Will there be discrimination in our society?” but “Who is to be discriminated against and by what standard?”

We ask, therefore, that you might join in rejecting all forms of the Humanist agenda and thereby become an integral part of the Church Militant instead of the Church compliant.

[1] Matthew 7:20.

[2] Genesis 1:26-28.

[3] Question and answer 3 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism highlight this: “What do the scriptures principally teach? The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. (2 Tim. 1:13, 2 Tim. 3:16)”

[4] The perfect example of this pattern is to be seen in the Ten Commandments. The first four deal with God and His worship, the following six with how man should relate to man. God therefore loves the one who worships correctly and hates the one who presents false worship. God deplores the thief and the adulterer, but has regard for the one who honours his parents. In God’s eyes, not all religions are valid or all actions acceptable. God, as the perfect Sovereign, determines these things. Not Man!

[5] http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/florist-barronelle-stutzman-refuses-to-pay-fine-for-refusing-to-provide-flowers-for-a-gay-marriage-on-religious-grounds/story-fnizhakg-1227236997936. We are citing this case because the USA is further advanced in capitulating to the homosexual agenda and it is hoped that the ramifications seen there might awaken us to action before we begin to see and experience the same here.

[6] This is of course an imposition of the Humanist god. The One living and true God says that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and that for life. God does not recognise homosexual unions as legitimate. They are viewed as rebellion.

[7] It is an interesting use of the personal pronoun at this point.

[8] If all discrimination is wrong, then open the jails. In fact, one must destroy all law. Any law, any compulsion, is intrinsically an act of discrimination or, at the very least, holds the potential to be discriminatory. Similarly, if Mr. Ferguson wants to remove “discrimination the basis of sexual orientation” and genuinely wants to be fair to all, why then does he only stand up for that which is Biblically and historically aberrant behaviour?

[9] Of course, the Humanists admit no such bias. They would have you believe that they were born in a vacuum and remain untouched by the world of ideas around them.

[10] A man whose religion sates that he is bound to obey a God who has revealed His will is going to have a very different set of practices to the man that sets himself up as god and believes that he rightly determines his own actions.

[11] It must be said that in Biblical justice the person wronged must be the complainant, unless that person is incapable of doing so. The Bible knows nothing of the State benefitting from cases of justice; the beneficiary must be the person wronged.

[12] We could even turn the question around and ask, “At what point will a customer be compelled to shop in a particular store against their will?” If the owner of a business is compelled to deal with everyone, when will he be able to compel everyone?

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

5. God’s Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

[4] See Ezekiel 37:1ff.

[5] Hebrews 3:8-11.

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

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

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

[9] 1 Timothy 3:15.

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

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

The Hypocrisy of Humanism: Stephen Fry and his Blasphemy

Posted on February 5, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

A recent news article brought to our eyes yet another example of Humanism’s hypocrisy and double standards.

Popular television presenter, homosexual, and atheist, Stephen Fry has appeared in an interview on the Irish television show The Meaning of Life. He was asked by the presenter, in essence, if it turns out that he is wrong and God does exist, ‘What will you say to “him, her, or it” when you arrive at the Pearly gates?”

His answer:

“Bone cancer in children”, what’s that about? “How dare you? How dare you create such misery in a world that it is not our fault? It’s not right, it’s utterly, utterly evil.” “Why should I respect a capricious, mean-minded, stupid God who creates a world that is so full of injustice and pain?”[1]

The article then goes on to add: “If the universe was created by some sort of God, Mr. Fry feels that divinity is “quite clearly a maniac, utter maniac. Totally selfish.””

Now, I have no track with Stephen Fry at all. In this household no program that he appears on is allowed to be watched. Categorise it as “hate speech” if you will, but I would encourage all Christians to follow suit. That said, my issue, is not with Stephen Fry, as such.

Stephen Fry is a homosexual and an atheist; one highlighted in previous writings.[2] Consequently, it is not surprising, in the least, that his mouth would spew forth disgusting blasphemies against God. Tragically, he will one day have to give an account for these blasphemous words when he meets God’s eternal Judge, Jesus Christ.[3]

No, the bigger problem here is that he is allowed by the Humanist tyrants to sprout this muck on television, and that without censorship. A further problem, and one more disastrous still, is the role that Christians play in spreading Humanism’s hypocrisy by giving tacit, if not explicit, approval to their demands.

Consider this, seriously please!

If I write, ‘Homosexuals create misery, they are utterly, utterly evil, capricious beings – selfish maniacs – who create pain’; how long do you think it will be before the hate mail arrives. More importantly, how long would it be before I came in for unwelcome attention from the homosexual activists and the Humanist tyrants?

If you would like to help me conduct a straw poll, please cut out the words in pale green above and circulate them freely across the web. Nothing needs to be added other than the reference to this article. Anyway, I digress

The question before us then boils down to this: “Why is it that I cannot, as a white, heterosexual, Christian, male, say these things, even though they can be mostly proven, yet the homosexual can lampoon the God I love with impunity?”

Recently, Saltshakers highlighted the fact that a homosexual activist here in Australia had successfully sued a political candidate and is now set to sue Bernard Gaynor.[4] I wonder if this same homosexual activist is willing to sue his comrade-in-homosexuality for insulting God and thereby offending Christians across the world.

The abhorrence of this hypocrisy and its complete insistence on demanding insanity from those over whom it holds sway is evident at every turn. Following the Charlie Hebdo shootings, British Prime Minister, David Cameron, spoke some eloquent drivel about not letting the terrorists rob us of the fundamentals we hold dear. Among the few things mentioned – sadly nothing about Christ and His righteousness – he spoke of democracy and freedom of speech. I laughed!

Where is this freedom of speech when people are being sued successfully for speaking the truth? Where is this freedom of speech, and the democratic principle of “equality” so highly treasured by the Humanist tyrants, when it only applies to those who hate God? How is it that, in a culture prizing the fallacy of “equality”, some are more equal than others? How does freedom of speech work, when it allows some to lie with impunity, shelters them from question, and then gags those who hold the opposite view? What is this democracy, so treasured by the tyrants, when it leads to innocent, righteous citizens being harangued, harassed, and persecuted in the name of this wretched “equality”?

Then, we would ask, “Is there not even one who dares to ask why “the Emperor has no clothes?” Of course not. Those who are “milking the system” understand full well that the whole thing is a hypocritical sham. Their purpose is to “make hay while the sun shines”, so they are not going to point out the hypocritical nature of the system; no, they will simply use it to their ends.

Now, in asking these questions, I do not expect the hypocrites to all of a sudden gain a conscience, have pangs, and become moral. These questions are asked so as to highlight the current state of affairs and to provoke you – the Christians – to think about the situation in which you find yourselves.

Here, it is necessary, yet again, to highlight the absolute fallacy that is the Myth of Neutrality. Listening to the Humanist tyrants, like David Cameron and most Australian politicians, you will hear words like “all” and “everyone”. You will hear the deceptive phrase, equality for all. This is the Myth of Neutrality in action. People are conned into believing that this policy will create and give to each individual absolute freedom of expression. The individual is led to believe that his creed, colour, and flag will be to him both sacred and sovereign. Yet, this is simply not the case.

The best example to explode this myth is that of Communist Russia. Communism promised equality. Most interpreted that to mean equality in wealth, prosperity, and opportunity. In reality, it meant equality in poverty, mouldy bread, and oppression. There was a small ruling elite who possessed great wealth and underneath were the rest – the oppressed. All dissenters; all thinkers; all religions capable of mounting a rational challenge – i.e. Christianity – were mercilessly suppressed. Does any of this sound familiar? If not, you may need to get out a little more.

In similar fashion, our equality will be to the line and only that line drawn in the sand by the Humanist tyrants that govern. Why sand? Because it is flexible, removable, adjustable, erasable! Here is our first clue that we are being hoodwinked. When God wrote, God wrote in stone – solid, eternal, absolute, indelible!

Explained a little differently, we can sum it up in this adage: What the government gives, the government can take away. If we are given equal rights only by the government and the law of man, then that government or a subsequent government can take them away. Remember when Bob Hawke, Australian Prime Minister, so kindly held a referendum to give us religious freedom. What would have been the outcome of a successful “Yes” vote? Simple. It would have opened the door for the government to curtail your freedoms.

Whilst that particular referendum failed, the Humanist tyrants have not given up. They have been working tirelessly to explore and implement other avenues by which they will reach the same goal. Enter, Human Rights! Enter, Religious Vilification! Enter, Equal Opportunity! Enter, any perversion of law written an enacted by the Humanist tyrants.

Daniel Andrews, recently elected Victorian Premier, has vowed to push through his anti-Christian, God-hating equality laws. Please read the fine print and take careful note that politicians or political parties will be exempt. The hypocrisy of this is that, as a Christian, I cannot refuse employment to those who do not share my beliefs or the tenets of Christianity, but dear ol’ Dan don’t got to employ a Liberal! Daniel Andrews is therefore an absolute hypocrite of the highest order. Moreover, he is an absolute liar. Anytime he speaks of “all”, you now know that you will have to read the fine print so that you are fully aware of who the all are in that particular case.

Here is a second clue. The governments rail against God, when in fact they seek to usurp God’s position. You will hear, as with Mr Fry, all sorts of allegations against God. He is a tyrant and a dictator because He gave us holy and righteous laws to follow that were all appended with, “No correspondence shall be entered into! Such a dictatorial manner. It is completely unacceptable. “Away with Him!” they yell; having failed to learn the poignant lesson of Psalm two. However, what do we find the Humanist tyrants doing? Nothing less than enacting absolute laws that enshrine their desire for mankind. Thus, they do exactly what God did only without the benefit of omniscience, omnipotence, and holiness – and off course, the right and legitimate authority to do so!

As stated, the world will not change without Jesus Christ becoming the Lord of their hearts. So the real import of this message is for you, the Christian. The simple reality is that things will not get better or change so long as we stick our head in the sand and capitulate to the Humanist tyrant’s every demand. It is time that we were willing to suffer loss for the sake of Jesus and stand up to these tyrannical hypocrites. It is time that we began to refuse to acknowledge their laws and supposed freedoms that are nothing more than chains with which to bind us.

Let me ask, Where are the preachers of righteousness? Why are our pulpits so silent? Why is it that men like Andrew Bolt, who do not have faith in Christ, are left to lead the charge? Why is it that they can see what you as a Christian either cannot or will not see?

Hard words? Yes, but pertinent nonetheless. How many churches have complied with the Humanist demands on a whole range of issues from Mandatory Reporting to Equality issues? Why is it that a prominent Christian organisation recently circulated an “open letter” to our Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, which lacked at four specific areas? What were those areas? Father! Son! Holy Spirit! Scripture! In a one page letter, there were no references to God or to His authoritative Word, yet the letter contained at least six references to other research or articles.[5]

There is no joy in pointing to these things, for in the words of Paul – I shall not praise you![6] These things are highlighted so that we Christians may come to see that we have imbibed the Myth of Neutrality for far too long.

You see, Brethren, it is a myth because the World, the Humanist tyrants, call them what you will, are not neutral and they know they are not neutral. Their cunning plan – sadly all too successful – is to make you think that you are at a fair game being played on a level playing field, when neither is true.

The late Greg Bahnsen correctly stated, in reference to the Humanists, that “they are not neutral and we shouldn’t be.” Yet, we seem to continue to trust these Humanists. We continue to ‘give them the benefit of the doubt’. All this we do contrary to God’s Word, wherein we are taught that the carnal mind is enmity toward God[7] and that these are not only unwilling but unable to obey the law of God.[8]

Thus, the really pertinent question is not, “Why do the heathen blaspheme God?” but “Why do we Christians condone their blasphemy by seeking to play by and uphold the anti-God rules decreed by the Humanist tyrants?”

Footnotes:

[1] http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/tv/stephen-fry-calls-god-a-stupid-evil-selfish-maniac/story-e6frfmyi-1227204789990

[2] https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/06/on-being-born-that-way/.

[3] Matthew 12:36 -37 – “And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. “For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.” Acts 17:30-31 – “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” 2 Timothy 4:1 – I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom.

[4] http://saltshakers.org.au/107-fp-articles/fp-2015/1393-being-sued-for-speaking-up-here-in-australia

[5] Cotton Mather, referring to the so-called uses of white magic against black magic, noted that it was “to use the Devil’s shield against the Devil’s sword”. Sadly, this is exactly what this organisation is doing. Without God’s Word, it is human reason against human reason; academic against academic. There simply is no authority, no absolute, no standard. Hence, we Christians lose the battles.

[6] See 1 Corinthians 11:22. The sad reality, as expressed in Paul’s words, is that Christians often stray from the principles of Christ’s law. They can think that they are doing well, as these Corinthians obviously did, yet the reality is that God’s hand of judgement is set firmly against them.

[7] James 4:4. Note James’ use of the term “adulteresses”. Remember, he is speaking to the Church.

[8] Romans 8:6-8.

SRI Religion V religion

Posted on March 27, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Yesterday, the afternoon news carried a story about a banner being unfurled on a Melbourne billboard. My interest was initially piqued by the large picture at the centre of this banner. Here, being spread out for everyone to see was a picture of Jesus patting a dinosaur. Only after turning up the volume and having time to read the banner did I realise that this was actually a protest against Christianity.

The fist wavers (Psalm 2) were at it again. This time they were out to have SRI (Special Religious Instruction) banned from Victorian schools. For most of us, we realise that these campaigns are not new. Equally, we are aware that with the decline of Christianity, these demands are going to become common place and vociferous.

The truly disturbing aspect of this story was in listening to the ignorance and drivel of those demanding that SRI cease. Those familiar with our writings will be aware that we often speak of worldviews. This story is one more example of why we need to understand what a worldview is and the importance they play. (See here, and here, as examples.)

One of those interviewed stated, in essence, ‘that religion had no place in our schools.’ Interesting! What would they call Secularism, Humanism, or Evolution? In regard to Evolution, its own proponents acknowledge it as a religion. So what this person was really demanding, in our world of Tolerance and Equality, was that the Christian religion be excluded from our schools. They do not want all religions banned; only that religion which shows that they are idol worshippers.

Another example concerned a lady who stated that “the children go from a science class (read – absolute rational fact) to the SRI class (read – absolute irrational myth) where they are told that dinosaurs do not exist.” I have added the words in parentheses in order to highlight the intention of her words. Again, it is important to see the contrast. This woman is happy to subject our children to the religion of Evolution and to its god, science; but she is quite unwilling for our children to be subject to the Christian religion and the One Living and True God!

Equally, note the disparagement present when it is claimed, without substantiation, that these children would be taught that dinosaurs do not exist, simply because they are being taught by Christians.

At this point it is fundamentally important that we come to terms with how a worldview shapes a person’s outlook. Here, we see that those interviewed had imbibed the fallacious belief that a religion is equivalent to an organised system of belief rooted in a god. As such, these people typically take aim at Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. Is Animism not a religion because it posits no belief in a god and has no system? Are Eastern religions in fact non-religions because, though organised, they strictly do not believe in a god (Buddhism rejects the notion of God as external; Hinduism has multiple gods, but they are all attempts at representing Brahman, the ultimate god that is beyond knowing)?

The answer is, of course, No! These are all religions. They are so precisely because a religion does not need of necessity to posit a belief in god, be organised, or, for that matter, codified. The essence of religion, like the exploration in Physics, looks for the god-particle, but it does not need necessarily to look for a god, personal or otherwise. In our day, the god-particle or god-idea can be reduced to searching for the essence of being or be the “central directedness [of a person] … toward the real or presumed ultimate source of meaning or authority.”[1]

The Christian has a religion based in God’s revelation. It is a religion “directed” to God as the absolute source of being. From this central tenet, the Christian’s worldview branches out to embrace and interpret all other fields and spheres. What needs to be seen here is that the same mechanics are at work in other ideals. God and revelation may be substituted, but there are still similar touchstones to be found. For example, the Rationalist seeks being / source / authority in the mind. The mind becomes as God and the mind’s projections become as revelation. At this point, he engages his worldview. The Evolutionist seeks being / source / authority in time and chance. The Humanist seeks these things in Man (capitalised, for Man becomes god). The Secularist seeks these things anywhere but in a God / god that cannot be manipulated.

So it is that, like the more comprehensive worldview, all men have a religion.

An anecdote I like to use in these situations is as follows: Many years back, I went with a farmer friend, a fellow Christian, to pick up some goods from another farm. Whilst there, it was disclosed that we were Christians. The owner of the farm trotted out the hackneyed, “Do not care for religion as it has caused so many wars!” Of course, this is offered as the final statement on religion and the conversation is supposed to end with respect and contemplative silence. Well, you should have seen the look on this guys face when I sympathetically agreed with his statement. I then went on to list the atrocities committed in those religious wars instigated by Hitler, Idi Amin, Pol Pot, Stalin and so on. Suffice it to say, his mouth was agape.

You see, all too often, Christians are not taught adequately about worldviews / religion and how to expose a person’s basic premise for understanding. Consequently, when they run into statements like those mentioned in this article, they are stumped. They have no answer. They are immediately on the back foot and usually end up relying on a subjective and erroneous retort. Ask yourself, honestly, ‘How many times have you had “the Crusades!”, or “religion (Christianity in particular) causes war!”, or , “if God is love, how can he send people to Hell?” type statements or questions cast in your way in order to silence your proclamation of Christianity?’ How did you respond?

My plea here is that Christians might be taught and be willing to learn about worldviews. Every accusation that can be thrown at the Christian can be thrown back manifold to the opponents of Christ. Ban SRI! Why? Crusades. Hmmm. How many died during the Crusades? Too many, yes! So we throw out Christianity. What, then, of Evolution? What is its death toll? One hundred thousand babies a year in Australia. Fifty million babies in the US since Roe v Wade! According to the World Counter for abortions, we have murdered 9 million babies so far this year alone.[2] I am not really sure that the Crusades came close![3]

We might even go so far as to ask a more mainline question, namely, “How many lives are lost to Evolution through despair, injustice, lawlessness, non-accountability, Racism, and the other evils that flow from mantras such as “survival of the fittest”? Unlike Christianity, where death is an intruder and life is the norm, Evolution posits that life can only exist through death. Thus, Evolution exalts death and its devotees desire to mask this obvious truth because they do not want it known that their religion is worse than the one they are seeking to abolish.

In the end, it is important for Christians to realise that the debate is never about the questions: Will we have religion? Will we have law? Will we have government? Will we have morals? or Will / Should religion be taught in schools? The debate is summarised in the question, “Whose religion, law, government, and morals will we adopt and have taught in our schools?

Thus, those unfurling this banner were not objecting to religion, but firing salvos in a distinctly religious battle. They were protesting against our God only in order to exalt their god.

[1] B.J. van der Walt, Culture, Worldview and Religion ; (2000) 11.

[2] http://www.worldometers.info/abortions/

[3] Wikipedia suggests between 1 million and 3 million. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll.

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.

Losing my Religion 2

Posted on September 12, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Yesterday, we looked at the whole concept of Losing my Religion. We noted that it was in fact an impossibility to lose one’s religion. One may change their fundamental outlook on life, but one cannot ever be devoid of such an outlook.

If it is possible to lose religion, we are of necessity faced with some “hairy” questions. I mean to say, where did you leave your religion so that it now has a “lost” status? Is it behind the dryer with that missing sock? Did you leave it in your other pants? Is it lost in the deep recesses of your makeup case – behind that fluorescent lipstick that you “just had to have”? Maybe it is at the grocery store with your car keys?

Then we have to look at the other possibilities. If someone finds your religion, do you want it returned? Did your mother sow name labels into your religion at the same time she was doing your underwear for just such an occasion? Have you gone to the police station to file a report in regard to your lost religion?

Now, to the truly perplexing. If you do not want your religion back, then it is not lost, it has been abandoned. That which is discarded is not lost, nor will it be sought. A conscious decision has been made to exchange one set of beliefs for another.

So, in the end, we reassert the fact that everyone is religious and all have a religion; whether or not you subscribe to God, gods, or you elevate Man to the position of “God”.

This morning’s news brings another story to our attention – another story that promotes the myth of neutrality and the diarrheic drivel that people can be areligious:

“Former ABBA star Bjorn Ulvaeus says people have become to [too] scared to criticise Islam and that “less religion in the world would be better.”

“Look at all the misery in the Middle East for example. All these countries have Islam in common, and far too few dare to criticize Islam as an ideology, and what it’s doing to these countries,” the 68-year-old told The Wall Street Journal.

“I know I might get punched in the face for saying these things, but my conviction is that less religion in the world would be better.”

Ulvaeus said he did not mean to single out any specific religion but rather believes that countries, like his native Sweden, should be “open, liberal, secular and democratic.”

“Religion is the root of so much misery in the world and I’ve always thought there is lack of criticism against it,” he said.

He is a member of Humanisterna (Swedish Humanist Association) which campaigns for an end to religious oppression and an open secular society.”[1]

I now wish to issue a full and unqualified retraction of all that I have said. Benny has proven me wrong. As Benny was instrumental in the success of ABBA, he must, of course, be absolutely right! NOT!!!

Once more, we a treated to the inane arguments of the humanist – “All evil in the world is because of religion!” This hackneyed argument is trotted out time and again, especially when criticising Christianity.

The astute among you will now call me a hypocrite. After what I have written, how do I deny or criticise the statement that “all evil in the world is because of religion”. Well, I do so for a number of reasons.

As a Christian, evil is a consequence of sin. Sin is rebellion against God.
My objection is not with the statement, but with the Humanist’s definition and implication.
What of the “good” that religions, particularly Christians, do every day?

What I mean by this is very simple. In this statement, Benny uses the term religion” in the sense outlined in the first article. He uses religion in the sense of an organised worldview that looks to God or gods. However, as we have seen, this is a faulty view of religion.

Christianity, Islam, and Judaism are monotheistic and would fall under Benny’s condemnation. What then of the many Eastern religions? Some have a pantheon. Some state that “god” is found within. Then we must consider those animistic religions. They are less formalised, but they still acknowledge a god or gods. Further, we have pantheism.

Who exactly is Benny criticising here?

As always, the Humanists take aim at the first three, for they are the codified “religions” that have a view of a Supreme God, who having revealed Himself, demands that His creatures obey Him. This, of course, does not sit very well with the Humanists who wish to follow the rebellious desires of their fallen nature.

Benny, openly criticises Islam, but his veiled comment about ‘criticising all religions’ includes Christianity. I am fairly confident that Benny is not about to enter into a diatribe against Buddhists and Animists. He attacks those codified religions. So let’s understand this point well. Benny criticises those religions that have structure and a rule book.

What then is Benny’s Humanism? As you can see, he belongs to an organisation, a body with rules; a structure. (Hmmm!) Dig a little further and you will find that it also has a rule book that defines its beliefs. (Quizzical look of baffled amazement!) Read the rule book and it calls itself a religion! (Gollum: Hospitals pleases. Silly Bennises has nasty bullet holes in his footses!)

So says the Humanist Manifesto 1933:

The time has come for widespread recognition of the radical changes in religious beliefs throughout the modern world. The time is past for mere revision of traditional attitudes. Science and economic change have disrupted the old beliefs. Religions the world over are under the necessity of coming to terms with new conditions created by a vastly increased knowledge and experience. In every field of human activity, the vital movement is now in the direction of a candid and explicit humanism. In order that religious humanism may be better understood we, the undersigned, desire to make certain affirmations which we believe the facts of our contemporary life demonstrate. There is great danger of a final, and we believe fatal, identification of the word religion with doctrines and methods which have lost their significance and which are powerless to solve the problem of human living in the Twentieth Century. Religions have always been means for realizing the highest values of life. Their end has been accomplished through the interpretation of the total environing situation (theology or world view), the sense of values resulting therefrom (goal or ideal), and the technique (cult), established for realizing the satisfactory life. A change in any of these factors results in alteration of the outward forms of religion. This fact explains the changefulness of religions through the centuries. But through all changes religion itself remains constant in its quest for abiding values, an inseparable feature of human life.

Today man’s larger understanding of the universe, his scientific achievements, and deeper appreciation of brotherhood, have created a situation which requires a new statement of the means and purposes of religion. Such a vital, fearless, and frank religion capable of furnishing adequate social goals and personal satisfactions may appear to many people as a complete break with the past. While this age does owe a vast debt to the traditional religions, it is none the less obvious that any religion that can hope to be a synthesizing and dynamic force for today must be shaped for the needs of this age. To establish such a religion is a major necessity of the present. It is a responsibility which rests upon this generation.[2]

There it is folks. At the very outset Humanism declared itself to be the new religion. Please also note that it was to be a true religion! It had dogma or doctrine. It spoke of salvation. It sought to dominate the world.

Benny is right when he speaks of religions (worldviews) being at the root of many world clashes. However, he is absolutely wrong in his application. Many of these so–called ‘evils’ arise when good men stand up to tyrants.

Benny is also incorrect in his assertion that Humanism is not a religion and is therefore exempt from the criticism. What of Hitler, Idi Amin, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot, and the myriad other tyrants of recent times who have murdered, pillaged , and plundered in the name of their particular cause?

Similarly, Benny is mistaken in the substance of his comment which passively asserts that religion, Christianity in particular, does not do any good in this world. What would the world be like if the Christians were taken away? Maybe Benny should read the book or watch the video, ‘What if Jesus had never been born?’

The prophet says that the “heart of man is desperately sick.”[3] It is evil to the core and from it flow all evils.[4] The only panacea is Jesus Christ the Son of God. Only Jesus can bring peace and wellness to the human heart. Only Jesus can deal with the human condition – sin. Only Jesus reveals that it is His redemptive peace that will see the nations beat their swords into ploughshares.

Once more we see, not an areligious soul, but a religious soul peddling a false religion. Benny has aligned himself with those who wage war against God and against His Christ.

Benny, “Kiss the Son, lest He become angry and you perish in the way!”

[1] http://www.news.com.au/entertainment/celebrity/too-few-criticise-islam-abba-star-bjorn-ulvaeus-says/story-e6frfmqi-1226717306347?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[2] Available at: http://emp.byui.edu/marrottr/Humanist%20Manifestos.pdf. Accessed 12/09/13. Emphasis added. It may be for these reasons that there have been two more versions of the Humanist Manifesto,

[3] Jeremiah 17:9.

[4] Matthew 12:34-37; Matthew 15:19-20.

Losing my Religion

Posted on September 11, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In 1991, R.E.M. released their song, Losing my Religion. Twenty years later today’s news carried the headline, Britons become less religious.[1] Spooky. Were R.E.M. prophets in disguise?

I doubt it. This Thomical attitude is based on many reasons; chief of these is the fact that one cannot lose their religion. A person may change his religion, but it is a sheer impossibility to be areligious.[2]

Modern usage of the terms Secular and Religous have led us to the point of believing that the two terms are mutually exclusive. More exactly, the inference is that if you tend to the sacred or religious you believe in a God or god, more or less defined. If you are a secularist, then you do not believe in these things.

In today’s world, the definition is really driven further. To be religious is to be that poor, deluded soul who pursues myths. You are in need of a crutch on which to lean because the vicissitudes of life are threatening to overwhelm. The secularist is then viewed as the pinnacle of true humanity – the one who has gained the strength to stand without any crutch.

These definitions will be found in most dictionaries with all the implications noted. The problem is that the dictionaries are mostly inaccurate. When you look through the definitions, you will generally find a hint that religion is more than a belief in God or gods. The subtlety is usually there in phrases like, “a system of faith”[3] or “something of overwhelming importance to a person”.[4]

Thus, when the clutter is removed, we see that to have a religion is to have a set of beliefs that govern how we live. A person may be irreligious but he can never be areligious. It is simply not possible for a person to function without a basic set of beliefs. Therefore, It is inconsequential, at this point, to argue over who determines one’s beliefs. The critical issue is that everyman has a worldview – a set of essential beliefs by which he lives. Call it religion; call it secularism; call it what you will; all men have a fundamental worldview.

Support for this is gained from looking at a thesaurus. One such item lists the following as equivalents for religion: belief, creed, cult, denomination, faith, sect.[5]

This is where we encounter the conundrum and confusion. This same dictionary, under the heading of secular, states: “of worldly affairs, not of spiritual or religious matters.” When we put these two sets of data together the problem should be apparent. To be a secularist is to be someone who is faithless, creedless, and beliefless.

If this were the case, the secularists would all be the ultimate pacifists. They would sit quietly in the corner and say nothing for they would not have anything to say even if they were prompted to speak. Having no creed or belief they would have no principle on which to base statement or opinion.

As we know, secularists are not generally like this. On the contrary, they are vociferous in voicing their opinions and telling us how and by what standard we should live.

The same conundrum is highlighted in the Collins dictionary under the head secularism. There, we are told that this term means: “1. Philosophy – a doctrine that rejects religion, esp., in ethics. 2. The attitude that religion should have no place in civil affairs.”[6]

Note, please, the use of the word “doctrine”. Does not such a word have religious overtones? So, we are, in essence, being told to reject one set of doctrines in order to adopt a different set of doctrines. Throw out God’s doctrines; accept and operate on Man’s doctrines! Does that sound like a faithless, creedless, beliefless worldview to you?

How do we arrive at an ethical standpoint without a set of morals? How do we arrive at morals without a set of beliefs? It is completely impossible to have a set of ethics based on nothing. Even situational ethics or absolute subjectivism have some type of belief system that inform them. No man is born or operates within a vacuum.

Then we are told that religious attitudes should have no place in civil affairs – this after telling us to believe their doctrine!

Let’s cut to the chase here. What is the difference between an atheist and a secularist? Nothing. One is the application of the other. The person first denies God (atheism) and then tries to build a world without reference to God (secularism).

At this point, we are once more faced with the myth of neutrality. The moderns use terminology to imply that “the religious” are biased and they, the areligious, are unbiased, impartial, and neutral. Yet, as we have seen, their terminology is somewhat contradictory.

No man is born in a vacuum. No man is impartial. No man is unbiased. Every man has an outlook on life which can be termed as his religion. This outlook may change, but he can never be devoid of a basic world and life view.

Therefore, when we read that the “Britons are less religious” now, we need to understand what is really being said. Britons are not becoming theological marshmallows without belief, opinion, and conviction. Rather, they are changing their belief, opinion, and conviction.

A survey conducted in 1983 was compared to a recent survey. These are the results:

The Church of England has declined from 40% to 20%.
Non Christians tripled from 2% to 6%.
Those with “no religion” has risen from 31% to 48%
The Congregation of Rome has stayed steady at around 9%.

When these numbers are “crunched” what we see is that the 20% no longer represented by the C of A are represented as non-Christians (+4%) or those with no religion (+17%). What we witness is a shifting of camps, not and abandonment of belief, opinion, and conviction.

Equally, we should not be surprised at this shift. As the C of A has become increasingly Liberal – a supposed Christianity devoid of Saviour, miracle, and purpose – the congregants have realised that they can be the same person without the burden of an external framework and the demands of a formalised structure.

This denomination in England, like others here in Australia, has stopped preaching the truth. Instead, they have adopted a worldview that opposes God and robs God of His glory, wonder, and being. In the end, it is but a small step to alter the capitalisation of words. God becomes god and man becomes Man.

People do not give up on belief, opinion, and conviction; they simply go into business for themselves; open their own throne room; and begin governing for themselves. These have not lost their religion. They have simply established their own in opposition to God.

Proverbs 23:6 – For as he thinks within himself, so he is.
James 4:4 – You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.
Proverbs 12:5 – The thoughts of the righteous are just, But the counsels of the wicked are deceitful.
Psalm 10:4 – The wicked, in the haughtiness of his countenance, does not seek Him. All his thoughts are, “There is no God.”
Psalm 53:1-3 – The fool has said in his heart, “There is no God,” They are corrupt, and have committed abominable injustice; there is no one who does good. God has looked down from heaven upon the sons of men, to see if there is anyone who understands, who seeks after God. Every one of them has turned aside; together they have become corrupt; there is no one who does good, not even one.

[1] http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/fake-products-may-be-dangerous-choice/story-e6frfkui-1226716422841?utm_source=News&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=editorial&net_sub_uid=6214180

[2] We use this term in its true sense of being without a religion. It is not a misspelling of irreligious.

[3] Little Oxford Dictionary, The Clarendon Press. 1986.

[4] Collins English Dictionary, Harper Collins; 4^th Edition, 1998. Meaning 5. The example given is” Football is his religion.”

[5] Oxford Australian Essential Dictionary and Thesaurus, Oxford University Press; 2^nd Edition ,2008.

[6] Collins: sv Secularism.

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.

A KRuddy Doomsday!

Posted on August 20, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In 1987 R.E.M. released a song with the refrain, “It’s the end of the world as we know it.”

In Al Gore’s world of “Inconvenient truths”, Global Warming, evaporating ice caps, and diminishing polar bears, cataclysmic statements and apocalyptic prophecies are nothing new. Add to this the prophetic intrigue of the Middle East and the “Second Coming at any moment” brigade and, I admit, it becomes difficult to come up with an attention grabbing headline.

Not being easily deterred, I thought we would have a dip anyway. So, here goes:

World to End – 100 days after Rudd’s re-election!

Gee, I wonder if we will now go viral.

Anyway, back to the now. Like all sensational headlines, there is a snippet of truth involved. The embellishment helps to capture attention. With that attention grabbed, the true essence of the story unfolds.

So, let us cut to the chase. No, the world will not end if Kevin Rudd and Labor are re-elected. This is the embellishment. The essence of truth is that, Australia well might! Kevin Rudd has now publicly proclaimed that, should Labor be re-elected, he will introduce legislation to legalise homosexual union in this nation within 100 days! Ready. Everybody sing together– It’s the end of Australia as we know it!

As we have noted elsewhere, homosexuality and homosexual practice are, by God’s standards, the epitome both of Man’s rebellion against God and God’s subsequent judgement upon Man. Over the last decades, we have been forced to accept homosexuality more and more. With this acceptance, we have seen a correlative downturn in the moral standards of our nation. So, a very legitimate question is, “What is our destiny, should homosexuals be given complete equality?”

The moral decline has reached the point where people over the age of 60 are often seen to be shaking their heads. They wonder what has happened to their country. They struggle to make sense of the happenings around them. It is equally true that people of all ages are bewildered at some of the goings-on within this nation. We are hearing, more and more, the aphorism, “That is un-Australian!” People realise we, as a nation, have a serious problem. They know this because they confront the reality of it every time they step out their front door or turn on their televisions.

The problem with our nation is that we have been turning further and further from God’s revealed righteousness in Jesus Christ. God and Jesus are no longer, in the minds of most Australians, revered members of the Holy Trinity. Rather, They have become its; the Personal has become impersonal; the Absolute minimised; the Real mythologised; and that which should be reverenced by the lips of men is little more than adjectival descriptor of the worst order – “OMG!” and the like.

What we have truly failed to grasp as a nation is that ideas have consequences. When our forefathers embraced Christianity, they did not simply embrace a couple of vague principles regarding Sunday. In embracing Christianity, our forefathers embraced a system of thought that made sense of the world. Christianity made the world interpretable. It spoke of right and wrong. It gave a moral directive. It gave hope. It spoke of a future.

Not content with this view any longer, primarily because of God’s strictures, the modern secular wisdom dictated that we jettison the notion of God. That seemed like a good idea to many. It meant freedom for the individual. No more of those stuffy rules that were supposedly designed to “keep the man down.”

However, by abandoning God as our organising principle and Absolute we have also turned our back on His wisdom and on those rules and morals that ensured much of our safety and prosperity. When God ruled, we knew evil. We knew what it looked like and we punished it. Now, we are not so sure. We have no guidance and therefore, by necessary consequence, all is “up for grabs”.

Having installed the new wisdom as ‘the god’, we are now beginning to see the fruit of this poisoned tree. Every man is encouraged to do what is right in his own eyes. Rebellious Man celebrates this new found freedom. Yes, it is wondrous, right up until another free-man uses his freedom to take your life, rape your daughter, steal your goods, demand the government give your wealth to another, plunders your nations economy, burdens you with foreign debt, cripples your prosperity, destroys your culture, revokes your freedom, destroys your peace, robs you of your security, turns princes to paupers, and extols the virtues of worthless men.[1]

If you think things are bad now, then you need to have a serious rethink. Should Mr Rudd be re-elected, the destruction of this nation will, in principle, be complete when he pursues his doomsday clock of homosexual union. If this comes to fruition, our nation will only plunge deeper into depravity – we will live out the ugliest scenes from all those apocalyptic films.

Why is this chord struck? It is struck, for a number of reasons, chief of which is that this is God’s revealed position. In Romans one, Paul speaks of three acts of judgement by God against Man’s rebellion. First, Paul addresses the fact that man rebelled in regard to God’s worship. Second, emphasis falls on Man’s rebellion against God’s design for sexuality in Family. Third, Paul looks at Man’s rebellion against God’s order for society.

The flow of Paul’s argument is very clear. There is an implicit downward spiral. Man’s willing dysfunction in regard to God and His worship, leads to dysfunction in the Family and Society. Obvious, also, is the fact that when Paul addresses the area of Family, homosexuality is decried as the acme of rebellion against God’s design and purpose.

Paul then moves on to look at the general tenor of society when gross rebellion takes hold and is fostered. He does so in these words:

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful.

Did Paul miss anything?

Wickedness √

Greed √

Evil √

Envy √

Murder √

Deceit √

Malice √

Gossips, you bet! √

Slanderers √

God haters √√√√√√√

Insolent √

Arrogant √

Boastful √

Inventors of Evil √√√

Disobedient to Parents √

If you are honest, Christian or not, you must admit that Paul has “nailed it!” Every one of these things is prevalent in our society to a degree that we have never known before. People shake their heads in bewilderment precisely because these experiences are relatively new.[2]

What does this have to do with homosexuality? Everything! As we have noted, Paul is unequivocal in his stating that homosexuality is the acme of rebellion in the “familial” sphere. Therefore, if we see this nth degree rebellion of homosexuality embraced through Government legislation, we have every reason to believe that nth degree Societal rebellion will not lag far behind.

We have already witnessed the correlation between moral declination and the rise in the (political) acceptance of homosexuality. We have witnessed this in Paul’s Scriptural analysis and we have witnessed it first hand in our nation’s history. Why then would we refuse to believe that the total acceptance of homosexuality would result in anything less than a total moral collapse within society?

Kevin Rudd, with a rabid hunger for power or in a trite and inane attempt to win votes, has promised to bring this nation to the brink and then plunge it into the abyss – all under the guise of Political Correctness and noble mindedness, of course. Kevin Rudd, masquerading as a Christian, has set this country on a collision course with the very God he claims to serve or to Whom he professes to pay heed.[3] From this gross hypocrisy and blatant blasphemy there will be no turning back. God will not be mocked.[4] No nation can continually ‘thumb their nose’ at God and survive.

To be fair, the other side are not offering a genuine solution either. In the most real sense, both major parties and most minor parties are bereft of any authentic answer, specifically because they all refuse to acknowledge God as the only secure foundation for this nation.

Our nation does not need more empty political policy announcements. It does not need any more ‘chest beating’ by inept leaders. Enough of the “We will fix the economy!” nonsense. Away with all the hollow, hackneyed rhetoric on “health and education.” We do not need any more voices of rebellion. What we need to do is to heed and obey The One solitary voice: “Repent!”

The Lord nullifies the counsel of the nations; He frustrates the plans of the peoples. The counsel of the Lord stands forever, The plans of His heart from generation to generation. Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord…![5]

[1] Proverbs 3:31-32: “Do not envy a man of violence, And do not choose any of his ways. For the crooked man is an abomination to the Lord.”

[2] Our land was never pristine, morally speaking. Thus, we are not so naïve as to suggest that some things have not been seen before. However, it is also apparent that we have witnessed very new revelations of evil and on a scale not witnessed before.

[3] It is little wonder that Mr Rudd describes himself thusly: “And like myself, this bloke is a bit of a god-botherer (aka Christian). Although a little unlike myself, he is more of a capital G God-Botherer”. If this is truly how Mr Rudd views himself, then why not drop the epithet “Christian” altogether?

[4] Galatians 6:7.

[5] Psalm 33:10-12.

Spare the Rod, Spoil the Child!

Posted on July 30, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Here we go, again! Once more the parents of this land are being maligned, humiliated, and slandered by being compared to schoolyard bullies and street thugs.

Last week the Royal Australasian College of Physicians (RACP) called for the smacking of children to be banned. Their argument – smacking a child may lead to greater problems long term. Their particular concern seems to be that smacking a child may lead to mental heath issues.

Naturally, to bolster their claims they cite “research” and the “worst case scenario” that has presented itself in our society – the death of a child. So, what are we to make of this demand, the so-called ‘research’, and the claims that smacking is detrimental? Well, I may just be frazzled at the moment, but the best I can muster is a giant “raspberry”!

This call is just one more Humanist claim from out of the pit. It simply does not stack up when analysed. It is in truth a claim that is contrary to fact, flies in the face of facts, and conveniently ignores related cogent arguments.

As a Christian, I reject this call and the basis on which it is made. I will discuss this in more detail later. At this point, I would like simply to deal with some aspects that should appeal to all Australians.

1. Outcomes: In this current claim, much is centred upon the possible detriment to the child, particularly, in the area of Mental Health. This is the bad. What about the “good”? What about the proven good that has come to our society through discipline, including corporal punishment?

How many generations in this country benefitted from being disciplined? How many people, as individuals, were made into better and more productive members of society through discipline?

2. The Slippery Slope: It was my personal experience to live through the transition of from strap to no strap in the public education system. I know you will find this difficult to believe, but on occasion I found myself on the receiving end of that strap. Subjectively, I may protest my innocence; objectively, I must state that it reinforced the necessity that each man discipline himself for his and society’s betterment.

That to which I can equally attest is the fact – on view for all to see – that the removal of discipline from the public education system and the constant pressure upon families to cease disciplinary action has seen the public education system and the family crumble to the point of being the begetter of plagues that are rife upon our nation.

Teachers have left the system in droves because of discipline issues. I know of some, personally, who have had breakdowns because “the little darlings” have all the “rights” and cannot be disciplined. In the last fortnight, I witnessed a report noting that teachers in Queensland had been paid something like Ten Million dollars in compensation. These teachers had been physically assaulted as well as being mentally abused and slandered through the social media outlets.[1]

Now, let me ask the honest question. If you are 35 years old and above, did you witness this type of behaviour by school children? The honest answer would be, possibly, but it was extremely rare. Is it “rare” today? Now, it is common.

Given this most obvious decline in the standard of behaviour amongst our young, the question must be asked, “What impact has the removal and denial of discipline as a valid societal tool had upon our children and our culture?”

3. Oops: I know it is not much of a title, particularly for such a solemn topic, but it is apt. In the midst of these new claims to once more enforce the “nanny state”, the RACP seem to have overlooked one simple problem – children are currently abused in Government systems and with the knowledge of governmental agencies and those in power do nothing! OOPS!!!!

Let me once more bring to your mind the case of little Daniel Valerio. He was killed by his mother’s boyfriend. Everybody who could know, knew. What did they do? Nothing! This quote from a web article:

The tiny injured face of little Daniel Valerio impacts on your soul and conscience just as devastatingly as it did when this photograph, taken by police, was first published after his violent death at the hands of his mother’s boyfriend in 1990. This photograph was taken by police following ‘an incident’ reported by the child’s mother, Cheryle Butcher. Prior to Daniel’s death, laws in the state of Victoria did not require doctors, teachers, etc, to report suspected child abuse – Daniel was seen by no fewer than twenty-one health workers in the months before his death and yet nobody did or said anything to save him. Daniel’s own brother Ben, who was only four years of age, repeatedly told adults about Aiton’s [mother’s boyfriend] abuse of them. Just days before the child’s death police visited the house and saw both brothers bruised and battered – the brother went and fetched the stick Aiton had used on him and Daniel to prove what Aiton was doing. This child was four years old and trying to get the attention and help they needed; the police instead believed Aiton’s claims that the brother’s injuries were from playing and being ‘smacked by their mother’. Just days later Daniel was dead.[2]

This from another report:

The images of a bruised Daniel Valerio, a child failed by official inaction, were again splashed about in the media.[3]

Moving forward to the now, we have seen little Kiesha Weippeart’s mother , Kristi Abrahams, jailed for 16 years for her murder.

Read this, and genuinely weep:

Court documents have revealed murdered Sydney girl Kiesha Weippeart suffered years of abuse at the hands of her mother, including being bitten and burnt with a cigarette.

Kristi Abrahams has pleaded guilty to murdering the six-year-old, whose remains were found in bushland in Sydney’s west in 2011, eight months after she was reported missing.

Documents released on the second day of her sentencing hearing reveal the Department of Community Services (DOCS) put Kiesha into foster care after Abrahams bit her on the shoulder at the age of 15 months. But the child was given back to Abrahams, who had anger management counselling.

The papers reveal that when she was three, Kiesha told a DOCS worker her mother had burnt her with a cigarette. The papers state that DOCS had received various reports of injuries to Kiesha from neighbours and family members. Education officials went to Abrahams’s home several times because Kiesha was only at school four times in her life.

School teachers and other witnesses had reported bruises on her face and head.[4]

I in no way wish to make light of these tragedies. However, we cannot escape two essential facts. First, both these cases have been used as a justification to “ban smacking” in our society. Second, in both cases the authorities knew of the genuine abuse and did nothing of an effective nature to save the abused.

Pray tell, how do the authors of this new call propose to police a complete ban on smacking when the current authorities cannot police gross cases of abuse? What do these advocates of a “nanny state” propose for the “may”, “might”, and “possible”, when we have seen the incapability of the authorities to save from the actual?

Then there are the questions of proof, the overzealous Social Worker, the definitions of abuse[5], and a myriad of questions beside.

4. Mental Health: I do not hide my disdain for psychology and psychiatry. One of the reasons for that disdain is seen in the justification for banning smacking – possible mental health issues.

This phenomenon has become the excuse of our day. People are no longer evil; people no longer do wrong; people no longer behave badly; people simply have a mental health issue. What, pray tell, is this beast known as a “mental health issue”?

Why is it that mental health issues only cover poor behaviour? When the Boy Scout helps the old lady across the road, the brain brigade does not sit back and say, ‘Oh, that lad has excellent mental health!’ Yet, when a lad knocks over an elderly lady and steals her bag, he has mental health issues that stem from some trauma in the past – something that is not his fault!

Abortion was illegal in most parts of Australia. Yet abortion thrived. Why? Mental health issues. A person says that they do not think they can cope with having a baby – despite hundreds doing it every day – so permission is given to kill the baby.

Again, what is this beast called “mental health”? How many generations of Australians were raised with discipline and respect and yet did not suffer from this monster?

The simple reality is that psychology and psychiatry have given us generations of non-copers and blame-gamers who seek to shift the responsibility for their poor choices in behaviour to someone or something else.

Now, let us cut to the chase. A 23 year old male steals a handbag. Mental health issues! Which of the millions upon millions of interactions in that person’s 23 years is to blame? Was it the fact that his mother did not buy him that ice cream? Was it the fact that he was smacked – say for taking money from mum’s purse? Was it the fact the he received a stern talking to from police for shop lifting? Was it the fact that a complete stranger gave him a lift when his car broke down? Was it the fact that his friend spent many hours helping him to learn algebra so that he did not fall behind? Was it the fact that his pet goldfish, Twinkles, died when he failed to feed it?

Which of these or the many unwritten events becomes the trigger? Maybe, as we have indicated, he simply had a propensity for stealing stuff. Thus, there is no mental health issue, only a distinctly moral one.

5. A Clash of Worldviews: This brings is to the crux of the problem – anthropology. How do we view Man?

As Christians, we acknowledge that Man, although being made in perfection, is now a fallen creature – a sinner. As such, Man is seriously messed up morally. There was a television series titled, Men Behaving Badly. That title sums up Man and his condition.

This being the case, Man needs correction and that correction needs to begin when we are but children. The moral deficiency needs correction in two areas. First, the child needs to be taught morality. They must be taught God’s law so that they know the standard to which they must attain.[6] Thus, parents are told to train their children by the implantation of the right information.

Second, alongside of this mental and inward training, there is also to be practical and external training. This is to be both positive and negative in form. As we have seen, Deuteronomy instructs the parents to train the child in all of life. This does not only mean that they should use experience as a teacher, but that they should model true practice in their own lives. Parents should positively exemplify Godly practice for their children. (None of this “Do as I say and not as I do!” garbage.)

However, it also falls to the parent to correct wayward behaviour. When the individual fails to self-discipline then the one in authority over that individual has both the right and responsibility to impose discipline.

Scripture is very forceful on this point and some may be surprised by the words they are about to read:

He who spares his rod hates his son, But he who loves him disciplines him diligently (Proverbs 13:24).

Note well, not to discipline your child is the equivalent of hating them! Note also, please, that the rod is clearly mentioned. Whilst it is true that discipline does not always mean “smacking”, the simple reality is that discipline must include smacking or corporal punishment. If you spare the rod, you hate your child and you cannot claim to be disciplining your child. You cannot claim to be operating for their good.

Why should we discipline our children in this manner? We do so because it is commanded by God, but also exemplified by God. This is how God treats us as His children precisely because He loves us:

For whom the Lord loves He reproves, Even as a father, the son in whom he delights (Proverbs 3:12).

“My son, do not regard lightly the discipline of the Lord, Nor faint when you are reproved by Him; For those whom the Lord loves He disciplines, And He scourges every son whom He receives.” It is for discipline that you endure; God deals with you as with sons; for what son is there whom his father does not discipline? But if you are without discipline, of which all have become partakers, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Furthermore, we had earthly fathers to discipline us, and we respected them; shall we not much rather be subject to the Father of spirits, and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as seemed best to them, but He disciplines us for our good, that we may share His holiness (Hebrews 12:5a -10).

At the conclusion of this quotation from Hebrews we see that discipline by the rod is for our good. The quotation from Proverbs shows us that the true motivation for discipline is love. Consequently, Scripture claims that this type of discipline is truly necessary and has eternal consequences:

Do not hold back discipline from the child, Although you beat him with the rod, he will not die. You shall beat him with the rod, And deliver his soul from Sheol (Proverbs 23:13-14).

If we fail to take heed of the Scripture’s counsel at this point, then we do little more than plunge a dagger through our own hearts:

The rod and reproof give wisdom, But a child who gets his own way brings shame to his mother. … Correct your son, and he will give you comfort; He will also delight your soul (Proverbs 29:15-17).

In opposition to this clear Biblical teaching, we have the modern religion of Humanism and its many faulty doctrines. Humanism does not accept God’s pronouncements concerning Man. Humanism tells us that each Man, deep down inside, is good. Man behaves erroneously only because of external factors or environment. This is little more than the “Noble Savage” concept restated for the modern mind.

As a consequence of denying God’s order, these moderns seek to attribute Man’s known and constant failings to other indeterminable and unquantifiable sources. Thus, instead of “sin” we have “mental health”. As these “mental heath” issues are environmental, these modern crusaders insist that Man’s environment be changed so as to provoke a good and positive response from the individual. However, a pertinent question is, “How far will they go with their demands for a modified environment?” Smacking today, What tomorrow?

The trouble with this nonsense is very simple – their theory is constantly denied by observable fact. Children who have been smacked and disciplined have turned out to be essential and productive members of society whilst those who have been indulged have plunged into chaos. Children who are smacked belong to happy households. Children who are smacked are well adjusted. To have any credibility, these moderns must be able to show that the majority of those who were smacked now suffer from debilitating mental health issues. Equally, it must be observable that the un-smacked are pictures of mental health.

Is this the case? No, it is not. As we have shown, the lack of discipline has caused great harm to our society and the negative impact continues to grow.

The parent who loves his child and seeks his good will discipline him, up to and including the rod. Yet the Humanists want you to hate your child and cause great travail to your own soul. This travail is evident all around us. We have been bullied into giving up on corporal punishment and the travail of souls is all around us as a consequence. How blind these Humanists are and how committed they are to the hatred of God and His standard!

In short, the Humanists and their calls to ban smacking are no different to the kings, princes, and judges of Psalm 2 who have taken their stand against God and against His Anointed. They state, without shame, that God is wrong. In doing so, they show themselves to be of the same rebellious nature as those they seek to excuse. They themselves reject discipline and the constructs that lead to life, so, as per Romans 1, they cheer on the rebels and seek to give them reasoned excuses for their rebellion.

This is the clash of worldviews. Do we believe God’s view of Man or do we believe Man’s view of Man. I would expect the Christians to side with God and His revealed word. For those who are not Christians, I hope that some of the empirical arguments presented may show the fallacy of these regurgitated claims made by the Humanists in regard to smacking.

6. God’s Family: Before leaving this issue, it is absolutely necessary to say something about family. In this article I have cited two tragic cases. What I want to highlight here is that both involved broken homes. Daniel was killed by the mother’s boyfriend. Kiesha was killed by her mother, but the boyfriend (not the child’s father) did nothing; nothing that is except hide evidence and participate in a ruse.

Have you noticed how often these “horror” stories involve fractured families? Rarely do you see such atrocities in families that follow God’s pattern.

Again, the Humanists are not highlighting facts like these. I wonder why? Could it be that all the promoted and enacted libertinism is in fact the cause of our societal decline? These Humanists have caused the breakdown of the family. Now, faced with the consequence of their own doctrine, they must seek to shift the blame – following their own dictates of non-accountability.

7. Morality: This issue must also be touched upon. The case of Daniel Valerio was used to introduce Mandatory Reporting to Victoria. This is Big Brother’s response in a “nanny state”. It is a grab for power and the tyrannical rule of the people.

The question is this, “Why do we need a law compelling us to take action when a child, or anyone for that matter, is being genuinely abused?” Again, libertinism destroyed morality – Humanism threw out God’s standard – and now we need the false god of State to tell us that we need to take action against child abusers. So, so, sad.

God tells us to deal with unrighteousness and injustice. We threw God and His law out claiming it to be passé, but in reality giving rise to our hatred of Him. Now, we are paying the penalty with the lives of our children because Man, being set free from God’s morality, no longer understands that he is obligated unto his neighbour, whether it be child or adult, for his good. The moral man acts to stop abuse. He does not take out his camera, film the violence, then post it to YouTube.

Conclusion:

Man once more seeks to throw off God’s standard. Man seeks to break down the family from yet another angle. Every success Man has in this endeavour brings our society one step closer to anarchy and catastrophe.

We have shown here, in a cursory way, that it is the lack of discipline that is causing so much harm in our families and therefore in our society. Even the abuse is itself a lack of discipline on the part of the abuser. What the abuser needs is restriction, self-imposed preferably, not freedom to create more destruction.

As we have told Man that he is free; as we have told Man that he is accountable to none but himself – and even this is optional; as we have told Man to “just do it”; as we have told Man to, “not get angry, get even”; as we have told Man that morality and absolutes do not exist; so we have spiralled further out of control and found ourselves with more hurt, harm, disillusionment, dysfunction, and despair.

As a parent and a citizen, I am fed up with Humanists blaming parents for all the supposed wrongs within society. If parents are failing, it is because the Humanist have taken away God’s rule book and insisted, nay forced, parents to conduct their parenting by a set of flawed ideas and concepts that will only bring ruination.

You can choose to listen to God the author of life and our Creator – use the rod and raise an honest child in whom your soul will delight or you can listen to the Humanists – spare the rod, spoil the child and pierce your heart with a dagger.

As for me and my house, we will follow the Lord!

[1] As to the pressure placed on families, I am sure we have all experienced situations where we or other parents have shown a reluctance to discipline in public for fear of what others may think or from fear of being “dobbed in” as a child abuser. Again, Big Brother has made people fearful of fulfilling their God-given responsibilities.

[2] http://www.bigfooty.com/forum/threads/daniel-valerio-a-tragic-symbol-of-the-system-that-is-still-failing-our-children.993458/. Spelling and punctuation corrected.

[3] http://www.watoday.com.au/national/dad-ben-valerio-is-carving-out-a-life-despite-cruel-start-20100920-15jqw.html.

[4] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-06-25/relatives-cry-as-extent-of-injuries-to-6yo-revealed/4778946.

[5] This is a valid question. Have you noted how smacking is now equated with or defined as a type of abuse. This is a recent invention designed to indoctrinate and persuade people to a view that discipline is bad. The title of this article was once a common adage that expressed an accepted truth. Now that too is turned on its head – spare the rod, perfect the child / use the rod, abuse the child. These changes are subtle, but they are there and they are wielded deliberately. Once again we are faced with psychological warfare.

[6] “Hear, O Israel! The Lord is our God, the Lord is one! 5 “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might. 6 “And these words, which I am commanding you today, shall be on your heart; 7 and you shall teach them diligently to your sons and shall talk of them when you sit in your house and when you walk by the way and when you lie down and when you rise up.” Deuteronomy 6:4-7. “Train up a child in the way he should go, Even when he is old he will not depart from it.” Proverbs 22:6. See also Ephesians 6:4.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Category Archives: Society