Hell: It’s Just Too Much

Posted on February 10, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Last week we published a post entitled the Hypocrisy of Humanism. The point of that post was to focus upon the obvious double standard and fork tongues employed by the Humanists when they use the phrase Freedom of Speech. The example in that post was of Stephen Fry’s ability to publically call God “stupid” without repercussion or outcry from those most apt at ‘kicking up a stink’ when they claim to have been aggrieved.[1]

Today, we witness another abuse. This time the source of our complaint is some structured editing or dubbing to mask a clear Biblical statement.

Darrell Waltrip, ex NASCAR driver and Christian, was invited to be the key note speaker at this year’s US National Prayer Breakfast. This event has made some headlines of recent because, in the midst of rampant Humanism and the presence of a God-hating President, the organisers have actually invited speakers who believe in prayer and, more importantly, the God of the Bible Who alone hears prayer. This year was no exception.

Waltrip’s speech focused on certain aspects of his life, including the car accident used by God to draw Waltrip to salvation. As a result of this accident, Waltrip was confronted with the reality that his life could have ended there and then. This led to the inevitable question of where eternity would be spent. Waltrip knew that he had never made time for God and that he had certainly not lived for God’s glory. Thus, he rightly concluded that his eternity would have been one of Hell-fire.

At this point, Waltrip turned the tables and challenged the audience. Boldly, he stated that “Good people go to Hell”. He then went on to proclaim the Gospel truth that it is only those saved and repentant sinners, washed in the blood of Jesus, who go to heaven. Pointedly, Waltrip then added: “If you don’t know Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior, if you don’t have a relationship, if he’s not the Master of your life, if you’ve never gotten on your knees and asked him to forgive you of your sins, or if you are just a pretty good guy or a pretty good gal, you’re going to go to hell.”

Well done Waltrip.

Now the interesting thing, and the complaint of this post, is that one of the video clips viewed dubbed to silence the words “going to go to Hell”.[2] Interestingly, the dubbed version appeared on a page with this headline: “Atheists Outraged After NASCAR Legend Says This About God and Salvation.” Hmmm? So the people who do not believe in God or Hell are now outraged. Why? Do they feel sorry for Mr Waltrip because he is deluded? Not at all. It has to do with Freedom of Speech. These atheists want to be free to not listen to any speech that reminds them that they are under obligation to obey God and His law. Consequently, they campaign vigorously and complain vociferously so as to allow only that speech which does not challenge them to obey or remind them of their obligations.

Once again, we see the insincerity of these Humanists who demand the right to be able to say what they want in pursuit of their ideals and goals, but then deny that same right to those who would oppose.

There is great hypocrisy in the dubbing of these words. Let’s face it, the atheists of Hollywood are always using the term “Hell”. It would be hard to find a modern shoot-em-up movie that did not use the word at least once. We remember Kurt Russell’s portrayal of Wyatt Earp in Tombstone. Toward the end, as he sets out for vengeance, he yells, “Tell them I’m coming and Hell’s coming with me!” So, obviously, some parts of Hollywood believe Hell is real. Obviously, you are allowed to use this term in public on certain occasions. After all, it’s not very tough to wave your shotgun around and scream, “Tell them I am coming and that imaginary place of the deluded Christians is coming with me!” or “Tell them I am coming and that the non-existent, unpleasant, supposedly hot, eternal residence of the unrepentant is tagging along!” Whimper. Does it not seem the tiniest bit foolish to breathe out virulent threats when the thing threatened is imaginary or non-existent?

No, the point is that Wyatt is out for justice. In the Christian worldview, Hell is a place deeply associated with ultimate justice. It is the place wherein God’s just wrath is poured out upon those who despise Him. This is Hell. This is the truth of Hell. It is this truth that Hollywood chooses to exploit for its own convenience when it suits them.

Can you see the hypocrisy? The atheist can steal a Biblical term and misuse it all he likes whilst at times keeping the original and Biblical meaning. Apparently, what you are not allowed to do is stand up as a Christian and use that word in its original and Biblical meaning! Somehow, it has become an error of the highest order for a Christian to use a Biblical word, filled with the Biblical meaning, the meaning given by none other than Jesus Christ, God and Saviour.

Boiled down, the thief can make use of his ill gotten gain as he likes; whilst the original owner of the item is pilloried for using his item as it was intended. The atheist can malign and ridicule by using a stolen term for sport, parody, or travesty, but the Christian cannot use a Biblical term as it was intended. Hmmm!

Neutrality is once more shown to be a myth!

[1] Since Fry’s outburst, Google has been interrogated looking for the proponents of Equality to rise up and denounce the outburst. Thus far we have searched in vain. Criticisms have come from Christians and Christians have responded, but we cannot find those Humanists, so concerned with justice and freedom for all that they introduce religious vilification laws, coming out with weighty denunciations. It may be worth adding that Fry has apologised saying he took aim at none in particular. Yet, he surely would have known that he was criticising the Christian God, for his complaint does not fit any other god but God.

[2] http://tellmenow.com/2015/02/atheists-outraged-after-nascar-legend-says-this-about-god-and-salvation/.

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.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt 3)

Posted on October 2, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

Right now, you no doubt have many questions running through your mind as a consequence of reading the previous articles in this series. You may agree with certain points. You may disagree with certain applications. This is to be expected when the proverbial boat is firmly rocked. However, I hope, like the Bereans, that we will turn to Scripture and search out our agreement in the light of God’s word. After all, every belief and every action must have genuine Biblical warrant. Therefore, to be obedient to our Lord, we must look past the external tags, the “We have always done it this way!”, and the paralysing exasperation, “What else will we do!”

Our obligation is to search out and live in light of the Biblical data. Thus far, that data has shown us that we cannot hold to two masters, two worldviews, or two fundamental presuppositions. Likewise, we cannot believe that the elders are God’s appointed authority for the good and holy governance of His blood bought Church, whilst asserting that such an institution is dated or in need of supplementation. Such a philosophical contradiction is simply untenable.

As posited previously, if we are to rebuild genuine esteem and belief in the institution of Eldership, we must begin by cutting off everything that would seek to undermine and supplant that institution, no matter how subtle its influence in this direction.

So let us look at a few reasons as to why elders should be preferred to counsellors in the Church.

4. God’s Institution:

The first and most obvious reason is that the eldership was instituted by God. Eldership existed during Israel’s captivity in Egypt and was given specific form and structure in the wilderness under Moses[1] and continued in existence to the day of Jesus. As such, it was naturally taken across into the New Testament Church and continues to this day (and forever?).

This point needs to be underscored. In our Reformed history, it is tragic that most look for the foundation of the Eldership in the New Testament only. Our creeds, confessions, and theologies are almost Dispensational in their desire to see Eldership as a new or mostly new office instituted by Apostolic warrant.

Rushdoony rights states:

The origins of the church theologians place in the Old Testament. … Strangely, the government of the church is not likewise sought in the Old Testament, although the New Testament is clear that the familiar pattern, and even the name of the office, elders, was derived from the Old Testament….[2]

Strange indeed; yet true.[3] Consider the following statement:

We know nothing about the origin of this office. There appears to be elders in Jerusalem (Acts 11:30). There probably is a connection between the Jewish council of elders that conducted the business of the synagogue, but did not play a role in worship, and the elders of the Church.[4]

Please note the categorical followed by the maybe – we know nothing, but there probably is! This inconsistency is unexpected given that we Reformed people do not like surprises or the unknown. It is even more surprising given our Doctrine of Scripture and the Biblical evidence that this doctrine unearths for us.

For example, in our theology we have no problem admitting that Moses is a type of Christ[5] and that the Church existed in the Old Testament.[6] Why, then, do we suppose that God’s Church, of old, was ungoverned? Why would we suppose that a new form of Church government needed to be invented?

These questions are posed precisely because the Biblical evidence gives us no right to assume that the “congregation of Israel” was ungoverned or that the New Testament Church[7] had to hurriedly find a model of governance. When we examine Scripture, we see something very different.

After the re-formation of the eldership in the wilderness, we see that elders take a more prominent place in Israel. Such is the evidence that we would need many pages to enumerate all the Old Testament passages regarding eldership. Consequently, we will cite just a few before moving to the time of Christ and on into the embryonic Church, the newer.

The first thing we need to see is that the elders went with Moses and Aaron. We often think of these two great men acting alone. However, this was not the case as far as God’s intent was concerned:

The elders of Israel will listen to you. Then you and the elders are to go to the king of Egypt and say to him, ‘The LORD, the God of the Hebrews, has met with us. Let us take a three-day journey into the desert to offer sacrifices to the LORD our God.” (Exodus 3:18)

We must also grasp the significant fact that the elders of Israel are always portrayed as being in the company of God’s appointed leaders; as taking over leadership in their absence; and in performing significant rites.

Passover – Then Moses summoned all the elders of Israel and said to them, “Go at once and select the animals for your families and slaughter the Passover lamb.” (Exodus 12:21)

Worship at Sinai – Then he said to Moses, “Come up to the LORD, you and Aaron, Nadab and Abihu, and seventy of the elders of Israel. You are to worship at a distance.” (Exodus 24:1)

After the defeat at Ai – Then Joshua tore his clothes and fell facedown to the ground before the ark of the LORD, remaining there till evening. The elders of Israel did the same, and sprinkled dust on their heads. (Joshua 7:6)

Israel’s Faithfulness through Elders – Israel served the LORD throughout the lifetime of Joshua and of the elders who outlived him and who had experienced everything the LORD had done for Israel. (Joshua 24:31)

Kingship – When all the elders of Israel had come to King David at Hebron, the king made a compact with them at Hebron before the LORD, and they anointed David king over Israel. (2 Samuel 5:3)

Leaving the Old Testament, let us move forward to the time of Christ.

Please note these three texts:

Matthew 15:1-2: “Then some Pharisees and teachers of the law came to Jesus from Jerusalem and asked, ^“Why do your disciples break the tradition of the elders? They don’t wash their hands before they eat!”

Matthew 16:21: “From that time on Jesus began to explain to his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things at the hands of the elders, chief priests and teachers of the law, and that he must be killed and on the third day be raised to life.”

Acts 4:5-8: “The next day the rulers, elders and teachers of the law met in Jerusalem … They had Peter and John brought before them and began to question them: “By what power or what name did you do this?” Then Peter, filled with the Holy Spirit, said to them: “Rulers and elders of the people!^”

In these texts, we witness both the prominence and continuity of data regarding the eldership, both of which are almost universally ignored. We know of the Pharisees, the Sadducees, and the teachers of the Law, but how often have you noted this group called the elders? These elders have traditions. Jesus states that He will suffer at the hands of these elders. When the embryonic New(er) Testament Church is persecuted in the persons of Peter and John, the elders are there and Peter, by the Holy Spirit, addresses them directly.

So it is that we must see that eldership was not some dinky concept that Moses invented in the wilderness so that he could get a bit more “me time”. No. This was a serious institution in Israel for the governance of God’s covenant people. Even though Israel had good familial governance through heads of families and tribes, it was pleasing to God to add to this the office of Elder. Therefore, we should neither view this institution lightly nor be surprised that it is brought into the New(er) Testament Church without fuss.

Here, again, we must challenge ourselves. When we speak of elders in the New Testament Church, we immediately think of the Pastoral Epistles, Timothy and Titus, and of Paul’s instruction to them regarding the standards for the office. What we miss with this singular focus or blinkeredness is the prominence of their position already highlighted throughout Scripture.

The Book of Acts is the record of Christ’s embryonic fulfillment Church moving forward at Her Captain’s command. It is replete with information that is of great use to us in our day. Have you ever noted the place of elders in the Book of Acts?

The term elders – always plural – occurs eighteen times in Acts. Eight of these references are to the Jewish elders. The rest, the remaining ten, refer to the Christian elders. Now, please note that nowhere do we witness an initiation, a ceremony, a command, or any other process of inception. These elders arrive on the scene and are fully accepted, without a whimper, as the authoritative officers for the governance of Christ’s Church (as they always had been).

We first see the Christian elder[8] in the context of those to whom Barnabas and Paul (Saul) would entrust the alms collected by the Antiochian[9] church.[10] The elders took receipt of these alms and were presumably responsible for their distribution. Next, we see Paul and Barnabas appointing elders in the Church. In this instance the context refers to the four local churches of Derbe, Lystra, Iconium, and (Pisidian) Antioch.[11] Please note, once more, that there is no fuss or bother involved at this point. These commissioned men appoint elders and the church accepts them.

In following the chronology of Acts, we now come to one of the most significant texts. We are all familiar with the Council at Jerusalem as outlined in Acts 15. Whilst there are different views on this Council, certain things are beyond dispute. This Council had authority. It did so because of its makeup. However, this makeup was not in and of itself Apostolic. Please be aware that five times the term Apostle is used in conjunction with the elders. That is to say that every time the Apostles are mentioned in chapter 15, the elders are mentioned right alongside.[12] Hmmm, interesting. Yes?

So who was it that took over the governance of the Church when the Apostles were not around or once they had been promoted to glory? Yes, it was the elders. Then we must ask, “Have we seen this pattern before?”

With this said, let us leave Acts and move into the Book of Revelation. When reading Revelation and with your gaze fixed upon the sublime worship of God in which praise is offered to God by the Seraphim, the angelic host, and the saints, have you ever noticed the role or presence of that other group? Yes, I speak of the elders.

When we view Revelation chapter four, we are immediately introduced to a vision of God Almighty upon His throne. What comes next? Angels? Seraphim? Spirits? Saints? No, none of these. After being introduced to God and His throne, we are introduced to twenty-four elders who sit upon their own thrones in the presence of God.[13] Then, and only then, are we introduced to the four living creatures.

In Revelation, these elders are referred to twelve times. In 5:14, 11:16, and 19:4, these elders are involved in worship. They are said to fall down or to fall on their faces before God and to worship Him. In 5:8 they are said to fall down before the Lamb. They are also shown to sing unto God (5:9, 11). Most striking, though, of all these is the text of Revelation 5:8 – And when he [the Lamb] had taken it [the Book], the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb. Each one had a harp and they were holding golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints.

The import of this text is monumental for our understanding. As we noted earlier, many do not look for the establishment of eldership in the Old Testament. Yet, here, in this resplendent heavenly vision, we see correlations that cannot be dismissed.

In our view, the Eldership is re-established and re-organised in Exodus 18. In Exodus 19, God speaks to Moses and says, “Now if you obey me fully and keep my covenant … you will be my treasured possession. Although the whole earth is mine, you will be for me a kingdom of priests and a holy nation.”[14] This theme of being kingly-priests is picked up several times in the New Testament. Peter calls us a “holy priesthood” before referring to us as a “royal priesthood”.[15]

Returning to Revelation, we see that John, in his opening comments, addresses the saints in exactly the same manner – “To him who loves us … and has made us to be a kingdom and priests to serve his God and Father.”[16] The next reference occurs in Revelation 5:10, two verse after the text under consideration, and says, “You have made them to be a kingdom and priests to serve our God….”

With this information in mind, think back, please, to Revelation 5:8. Here we see the elders, the governors and representatives of the people, falling down in worship before the Lamb. Question, “What is the Church’s priority?” It is the worship of God. Again, think back to Exodus, why did Israel demand to leave Egypt? It was so that they could go forth and worship God.[17] What happened in Exodus 19 after the mention of the kingly-priests? Did not the kingly-priests worship at the foot of the mountain? Did not the kingly-priests meet with their God?

Then we ask, “From what did these elders in Revelation 5:8 arise?” Was it not their thrones? What image comes immediately to mind when you think of a throne? Is it not kingship?

Now we are forced to look at what these elders were holding. First, we note that they possess a harp. What would the harp be used for? Is it not the worship of God? The Psalmist certainly thought so – “I will praise you with the harp for your faithfulness, O my God; I will sing praise to you with the lyre, O Holy One of Israel.”[18] Equally, if we look at Revelation 15:2, we see the victorious possessing harps. With these instruments, verse three, they sang the song of Moses and of the Lamb. How interesting! Moses is not despised. His song is not ridiculed or cast out as irrelevant because it belonged to type and shadow. No, no! Much rather, it is incorporated into the fullness of the worship of God—Servant and Son together praising the Father, God Almighty.

Second, we see that the elders hold censors full of the prayers of the saints. Why would these elders hold these prayers? Could it be that they are going to offer them before God, the Almighty? Could it be that their song of praise is infused with the prayers of God’s people on earth? Such would seem to be very probable. What role, then, would we ascribe to the elder at this point? Would we not rightly designate him a priest?

If so, we see kings who are priests worshipping God and the Lamb. Moreover, we see these elders rightly representing the people who are also designated as kingly-priests. Thus, the evidence for the unified Biblical doctrine of eldership seems very solid. Also, the potency of these visions underscores the roles that the elder must undertake as part of his commissioning.

Conclusion:

Although this has been a very quick look at some of the Biblical data surrounding the Eldership, it is hoped that your horizons have been widened as to the chronology and importance of this institution. It was given substance through Moses. It was not revoked by Jesus. It was affirmed by Apostolic practice and warrant as normative, and, if that were not enough, we are shown that the elder operates in the heavenly worship of the One Living and True God.

Thus, unlike social workers, psychiatrists, and counselors, when you deal with an elder and the eldership you are dealing with those who are ordained by God. They operate as God’s instruments for His glory and they operate on God’s authority alone. This should, indeed must, signify something of great importance to every Christian. To willingly sidestep the elder, is tantamount to trying to sidestep the living God.[19] God gave us this institution for a reason, to despise it in favour of Worldly substitutes is a fatal error.

[1] Exodus 18:24-26. The first mention of elders in Scripture is in Genesis 50:7. This reference is to the elders of Egypt. In Exodus 3, we see, as part of Moses’ commissioning, that he is sent to gather the elders of Israel (3:16). When Moses returns to Egypt, he first gathers the elders together so that Aaron can explain all that Yahweh had commanded (4:29-30). After the elders are given instruction, there are demonstrations of power before the people. When they hear that Yahweh is concerned for them, they bow down and worship. Apart from some obvious patterns and clues that shall become more apparent as we progress, it is necessary to see that right at the beginning of redemptive history, nationally speaking, the elders were at the forefront.

[2] Rousas Rushdoony, Systematic Theology, (Vallecito: Ross House Books, 1984, Vol. 2), 679.

[3] See also: Alexander Strauch, Biblical Eldership: an urgent call to restore Biblical Church leadership, (Littleton: Lewis & Roth Publishers, 1995). The first five chapters of this book are useful. The major weakness, however, is the fact that he passes over the Old Testament foundation for eldership. He vacillates, speaking of an apostolic institution, but then tacitly admits some prior form or information that guided their model.

[4] Van Genderen and Velema, Concise Reformed Dogmatics, (Phillipsburg: P&R Publishing Company, 2008), 736. Emphasis added.

[5] Geerhardus Vos, Biblical Theology, ([1948 Eerdmans] Edinburgh: Banner of Truth Trust, 1975; reprint 1985), 104

[6] Van Genderen and Velema, 677. These do not make the link as strongly as Charles Hodge, who, in one sentence, states: “The conclusion is that God has ever had but one Church in the world.” Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology, (Grand Rapids: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, reprint 1989, Vol. 3), 551. See also The Belgic Confession, Article 27.

[7] As noted, it is our view that the Church is one. It would be better if we could hold this conversation without the Old Testament / New Testament bifurcation. However, this pattern has become so entrenched that many find it difficult to grasp arguments when the pattern is not present. Please understand that when this bifurcation is used, we intend no radical discontinuity of a Dispensational variety. Rather, we are referring to the two chapters of the Bible, which make a complete book, as the source of our authority.

[8] Acts 11:30.

[9] This is Syrian Antioch.

[10] A “cat among the pigeons” question may be: Given the evidence from Acts 11:30, would we better term the seven from Acts 6:1-7 as elders rather than deacons? I think I felt a shudder! Think this through please. Remember, Acts 6 does not give these men a title. We have applied a title and an office to them. Calvin argues that the deacons operated under the elders and so the two pieces of information are not incongruous. That however is an argument from silence. If we put the concept of Acts 6 with the information of Acts 11, we have evidence to suggest that the missing institution is not, in fact missing. Just some food for thought.

[11] Acts 14:23. Derbe may be exempted from the list

[12] Note, please, that the letter circulated by this Council also bore the name of the elders (15:23).

[13] These twenty-four thrones are mentioned in Revelation 4:4 and 11:16.

[14] Exodus 19:5-6.

[15] 1 Peter 2:5 & 9.

[16] Revelation 1:5-6.

[17] Exodus 3:18ff. In these passages the term “sacrifice” is prominent. However, in the Old Testament context, sacrifice is worship. See Exodus 3:12 for the term “Worship” and the setting of the context.

[18] Psalm 71:22.

[19] Romans chapter 13 states that there is “no authority that is not from God”. It also states that those who resist that authority will be punished.

Of Shepherding Sheep (Pt 2)

Posted on September 1, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Beware the False Standard)

Alright, now that we have “stirred the pot” and hopefully piqued your interest, we need to set about explaining why Humanism and Rationalism are so dangerous and why adopting their methods will spell disaster for the Church.

2. Secular Standards are Poison:

The absolute problem with Humanism and Rationalism is that they are, at heart, Secular or Anti-God. Thus, not only should they not, but they simply cannot inform the Christian. The Secularist’s basic presupposition, in Nietzsche’s words, is, “God is Dead”! On the contrary, the Christian’s basic presupposition, in Schaeffer’s words, is, “He is there and He is not silent”!

Thus, we are faced with two mutually exclusive systems.

As each piece of knowledge in each system is based upon the one presupposition, there can only be agreement between the systems when the adherents of the systems are inconsistent with their presupposition. For example, I have heard David Attenborough, an evolutionist, talk both of ‘creation’ and ‘design’. How does an evolutionist, whose base presupposition denies the existence of God and in His place posits that the worlds exist through time, chance, and chaos, ever use the terms ‘creation’ and ‘design’? Similarly, I hear Christians use the term ‘luck’. How do those who believe in an all Sovereign God use such an inane term?

Therefore, it is only when we are inconsistent to our basic presupposition and to our worldview that we can find any common ground with the opposition.

This then means that if we supplement our elders with secularly trained people, we are immediately compromising. As Brother Posthuma rightly asked, “How can someone who is not one with us in faith even begin to comment on let alone promote such matters [of the intimacies of the Christian life]?”[1] The answer is, “They cannot!”

Some will baulk at this. There will be Christian counsellors who have now spit their coffee all over this article as an involuntary reaction to what they have read. Nonetheless, like Brother Posthuma, we must push on. Jesus said, “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.” This means that in all of life there is no neutrality. We often use the old adage, ‘to sit on the fence’, meaning that a person has no position on a particular point or is refusing to take sides. This, however, is not a possibility when it comes to Christianity. We are either for Christ or against Christ – ethically, philosophically, spiritually, and physically.

Let’s pause here and take a breath. Some of our readers may be struggling with the terms and concepts that they have just read. This may be, to them, nothing short of highfalutin gobbledygook. So, please, let me simplify things with explicit teaching from Jesus. Our Lord gave the following wisdom and guidance so that the Church would be equipped to face challenges in all ages. Says our Lord: “Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves. By their fruit you will recognize them. Do people pick grapes from thornbushes, or figs from thistles? Likewise every good tree bears good fruit, but a bad tree bears bad fruit. A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit.”[2]

What I wish you to see is the inherent philosophical principle in Jesus’ declaration, namely, that an object cannot contradict its true nature. The wolf may dress as a sheep, but in the end, its actions will be lupine[3] not ovine.[4] Two trees may share similar foliage. They may look alike to the eye, but an examination of the fruit will bring instant identification. Similarly, each piece of fruit bears within itself the seed that will duplicate the inherent nature of its own species.

Let us now apply this to the case before us. Elders are men who are both born again and appointed to office by the Spirit of God. They are so because they are to govern in a spiritual[5] manner over the Kingdom. As such, their inherent nature is that which is born from above and draws upon the three Persons of the Trinity for all aspects of their ministry. No matter what detail of their lives we would examine, we should see clearly that the root extends into and draws its nourishment from “the river of the water of life … flowing from the throne of God and of the Lamb”.[6]

In opposition to this, the Secular counsellor comes to the Church offering us a ‘truck load’ of Humanistic ‘wisdom’ that has proceeded forth, not from the mouth of God, but from experts, research, and academia. This ‘wisdom’ is highly credentialed, flowing forth from prestigious universities. It can be seen to be used to great effect in the world. There is even an introductory offer with a free set of steak knives! So, why delay? Let us grab hold of this offer and do ourselves a good turn! Besides, helping out our overworked elders and our burdened brethren can only be a good thing, right? After all, what harm could it do?

Well, it could kill! Yes, in fact, it will kill. (Do I hear more coffee being sprayed?) Okay, let’s go back to Jesus’ words – wolf = wolf; sheep = sheep; good tree = good fruit; bad tree = bad fruit! When the Secularist comes to you, he does so without the knowledge of God[7]; he does so without the wisdom of Christ[8]; and he does so without the power of the Holy Spirit.[9] His root is not extracting nourishment from the river of life, but from the pit of Hell. He is of his father the devil, whom Jesus pronounced to be a murderer and liar.[10] Why then would we invite such a one into the midst of God’s people, mistakenly believing that any good could come from the words he would speak?

Let me be frank. Would you invite a local prostitute to give your daughters lessons on how to apply makeup and do their hair? Would you invite a homosexual to give your sons lessons on health and obtaining a suave dress sense? Methinks not. I am confident that I would hear much dissention and many rumblings and words akin to, “These do not have the mind of Christ. They have no place in the Church and certainly no place instructing our children.” To which I would reply, “Preach it, Brother!”

Why, then, the gross inconsistency in our thought processes and actions? Why is it that Christians and Churches seem to think that secular counsellors can be of any assistance whatsoever to the Church? Why do we either invite into our midst or send our people out to those who imbibe of a poisoned root and who, by their nature, must bring forth poisoned fruit?

Why does life insist on receiving counsel from death!

3. The Christian Counsellor or Beware the Lupine in the Ovine:

In speaking of the Secularist and his inability to say anything to the Church, we may have received a few hearty, “Amens!” However, we must now move to the more sensitive and controversial area and address the so-called Christian Counsellor.

As Brother Posthuma noted, this area needs to be treated with sensitivity because it has become very popular for Christians to consult counselors of all types.[11] However, like every pastoral situation, the need for sensitivity cannot override the demand for God’s truth to be spoken. Thus, straight talk should not be construed as insensitive talk.

As we broach this subject, I would ask that you remember what has just been said about Secularism, for it is extremely relevant at this point. You see, most Christian counsellors take on that title after some study within the realms of the secular. That may be a degree, a diploma, or some other course. It may have even come from a “Christian” college.

The question for us, however, is not that of the external, but that of the data on which the external is built. Thus, you may well have a fine Christian man who genuinely seeks to serve his brethren. Having seen or experienced hurt and pain, he decides that counselling would be a boon. To achieve this, he heads off to an institution to be trained. Here, we encounter the problem. If the institution is purely secular the young man will be saturated in ungodly data. If the institution is Christian, there are no guarantees that it is God’s truth that flows through that institution.

There are many in the Church who peddle nothing but baptised secularism. That is to say that these people take the latest and greatest secular idea, rip a verse or two from the Bible (verses out of context add more aroma), feed it through the pepper grinder, then sprinkle it generously over said idea. Then there is the obligatory quick prayer, followed by a little holy water, and “voilà!” the latest concept in Christianity. The final product is rushed off the assembly line and hurriedly pressed into service. Many doe not question such practices because they either stand in awe of the prestigious establishment peddling such concepts or they themselves do not have the Biblical knowledge to adequately critique the concept.

The problem is that, regardless of the model, you end up with lupine in the ovine – your sheep smells and acts wolfy!

When a Christian seeks to become a good counsellor by following the ideas of the world, studies secular counseling techniques, or has been trained in the secular sciences, then he is trying to live as though neutrality exists and is achievable. He is found to be vigorously pursuing the impossible, namely, the melding of two contrary worldviews. This is nothing short of a fool’s errand. It is a sheer impossibility. The futility of this comes from Jesus’ mouth – “No man can serve two masters”!

In essence then, the young man returns to his home to begin counseling. People trust him because he is a Christian. However, like Snow White, they are unaware that inside the fruit on offer there is poison. The amount of poison will depend on how much Humanism was imbibed, but poison there will be.

You see, the Christian’s counsel is only as good as his conformity to Scripture – the Biblical data. In this he is like the preacher. We believe that the preacher preaching truth preaches God’s Word. To the degree that he is unfaithful, so that word ceases to be the Word. Thus, the Christian may counsel, but whether he is indeed a Christian counsellor depends on whether or not the counsel given is thoroughly Biblical.

Let me illustrate with reference to Christian education. Many, if not most, Christian teachers gain their qualifications through a secular system.[12] Does the fact that the State says that they are now qualified as educators mean that they will be Christian educators? Many would say, “yes”, but they would be mistaken. To be a Christian educator is not simply a case of being a Christian with a teaching degree. No, no, no! A Christian educator is a Christian, yes, but a Christian with a sound Biblical worldview; who teaches from the presupposition that God is; and, as a consequence, passes all facts through this one true paradigm.

I recently went for a job at a Christian school. I sat across from the principal and outlined this theory as Christian education. He was amazed. His reaction told me that he had never heard such a thing before. Yet, here he sat as the principal of a prominent Christian school. His concept, like that of so many, was that a Christian with a teaching degree equalled Christian education.[13]

This said; let us take the analogy back to counselling. A Christian may well counsel, but true Christian counselling is found in the content of the counsel and not in the adjective used to describe the counsellor. One would hope that adjective and content would go together, but, alas, it is not so.[14] Therefore, all Christian counsellors, to be worthy of the title, must first prove that their counsel is Christian – that which belongs to Christ!

This then begs the question, who should provide the examination in which the counsellor is proven to be bona fide? The only Biblical answer available is, “the elders”.

Thus, unlike our good Brother, it is my contention that we do not open the gate to Counselling, Christian or otherwise, in the Church, nor wait for a superfluity of the “university trained”, but rather return to a studied application of God’s appointed means, the elder. The first step in this process is to lock the gate, apply a padlock, and post a large sign that reads, “Do not open. Trespassers prosecuted!” This must be done because we cannot build esteem for the institution of eldership whilst actively undermining it. Such is to work at cross purposes. It is to be the “double-minded” man condemned by Scripture.[15]

In prophetic voice, the question becomes, “How long will we hesitate between two opinions? If the LORD is God, follow him; but if Baal is God, follow him.”[16]

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

[2] Matthew 7:15-18.

[3] Wolf like.

[4] Sheep like.

[5] By using the term “spiritual”, we do not intend any type of dualism or include any suggestion that the elder’s governance does not extend to the physical. The term is used in the sense that the elder’s wisdom, motives, ethics, and power are other worldly. Theirs is the power of the coming age – the Age of the Holy Spirit. These are of the Kingdom that has come in Jesus Christ. These are of the Kingdom of God. They have nothing to do with the principalities and powers of this present age.

[6] Revelation 22:1.

[7] That is, a true and intimate relationship with God.

[8] Colossians 2:2-3.

[9] Romans 8:9&14.

[10] John 8:44.

[11] This has tragically become the norm as more and more Christians have abandoned the Biblical concept of sin and embraced the humanist model (Medical model) of blame shifting.

[12] This is almost universal now as the Secular hierarchy insist on tickets for almost everything, including profession registration.

[13] It will not surprise you to hear that, later in the interview, another on the panel insisted that they had to teach evolution in order to comply with regulations and provide a good education.

[14] In essence, a so-called Christian counsellor can give rubbish advice if his data is coming from a poisoned stream. On the other hand, the secular counsellor could pull out some gems if they, contrary to their nature, offered Biblical wisdom. I have a Christian friend who criticised the position outlined in this article. He contended that he had heard a secular counsellor who had given good counsel. On further evidence, said counsellor was found to be a Jewess who took seriously the writings of Moses.

[15] James 1:8.

[16] 1 Kings 18:21.

Of Shepherding Shepherds

Posted on September 1, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(Eldership in the 21st Century)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

1. Rationalism:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] John 21:15-19.

[4] Matthew 23:1ff.

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

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

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

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

[9] This is an imperative or command.

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

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

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

[13] The same term as previously used.

[14] John 10:12-13.

[15] Romans 8:7.

[16] Titus 1:5.

Homosexual Paranoia

Posted on April 30, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
‘If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog[1] into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)
For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.[2] (Revelation 22:15)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] The term “dog” is a derogatory word used throughout Scripture. Its specific meaning needs to be gauged from the immediate context. Here, I take the term “dog” again as a specific reference to the homosexual and his practice. This designation is based on several facts. First, given the general list included at this point, “dog” must mean more than simply a non-Christian or someone who is disobedient. Second, whilst the term “immoral person” had its roots in homosexuality, its meaning became much more general. Hence, the “dog” must be something more specific. Third, some commentators speak of a sevenfold classification at this point. To achieve this they included the terms “love and practice lying” in the list. I tend to think that the ‘love and practice of lying’ qualifies the five sins listed. In other words, these five sins have at their heart that which is equivalent to blasphemy, namely, the mocking of God by mocking His true standard. As such, the “dog” mocks God as the Creator and Designer of man; the “sorcerer” mocks God as the sole Revealer; the “immoral person” mocks God as law giver; the “murderer” mocks God as Sovereign life-giver; and the “idolater” mocks God as the Sole Object of man’s worship. Thus, at every step, there is the practice of lying and a love of that practice. This accords perfectly with Paul’s statement in Romans 1:32: “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Praying in Difficult Times: A Response

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

[One of our readers asked for some guidance in regard to knowing how to pray in this time of chaos. The following is a reply to that request. It is by no means all that can or should be said, however, we hope that the basics given will help you to establish a strong and confident prayer life. For those interested in additional reading, can I please recommend Andrew Murray’s, Waiting on God.]

Introduction:

In answer to your question, Nina, I believe we need, as always, to take our guidance from God’s word. I understand the despondent tone of your question. Sometimes it seems as though we are about to be swept away in the flood because God appears distant or unaware of our circumstances. At other times, it may seem as though our prayers bounce of the ceiling. What is important, at this point, is to discern between our subjective perception of the situation and the objective reality. In other words, we need to distinguish between our perspective of the situation, based in our feelings, emotions, and limitations and God’s perspective, based in His immutability, promise, and sovereignty.

In all such cases, we must remember the promises of God – “Then the Lord appeared to Solomon at night and said to him, “I have heard your prayer, and have chosen this place for Myself as a house of sacrifice. “If I shut up the heavens so that there is no rain, or if I command the locust to devour the land, or if I send pestilence among My people, and My people who are called by My name humble themselves and pray, and seek My face and turn from their wicked ways, then I will hear from heaven, will forgive their sin, and will heal their land. “Now My eyes shall be open and My ears attentive to the prayer offered in this place. “For now I have chosen and consecrated this house that My name may be there forever, and My eyes and My heart will be there perpetually”(2 Chronicles 7:12-16); “And whatever you ask in My name, that will I do, that the Father may be glorified in the Son” (John 14:13); “Since then we have a great high priest who has passed through the heavens, Jesus the Son of God, let us hold fast our confession. For we do not have a high priest who cannot sympathize with our weaknesses, but One who has been tempted in all things as we are, yet without sin. Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need” (Hebrews 4:14-16).

God is listening and is attentive to the prayers and petitions of His people. These prayers, imperfect and stuttering as they may be, are corrected and amplified by the Holy Spirit and by Jesus (Romans 8:26-27; Hebrews 7:25). Thus, we should have great confidence in prayer. We should not hold back from prayer because of uncertainty. We must pray – even if our prayer is, “Lord, I do not know what to pray. Please, teach me.”

So, the first thing that I would encourage is prayer itself. This may seem silly, but it is a necessary exhortation. I have personally witnessed the decline of prayer in the Church and have seen prayer meetings fold when a congregation has run into strife. Such actions would tend to indicate the lack of a substantial prayer-life in that congregation in the first place. However, the real tragedy is that, in the heat of battle, the cries of the saints fell silent. The warriors were severed from their General when this important line of communication was cut. When this happened men began to rely upon other men rather than upon God, the Rock of our Salvation.

So it is that I reiterate: the first point in praying successfully is committing to a regular time of prayer. We cannot be held back by any excuse. Prayer is communication with our God and Father through communication with Jesus, our Lord and Saviour. To make an excuse for not praying is to say that the … is bigger than or more important than God. It is to say that you desire God less than …! This should never be.

So pray. This is where we must start.

Second, let me say a few things in general about prayer. Prayer is communication with God. It is the essence of communication in our familial relationship that is our redemption in Jesus. As such, it is fundamentally important. We would not accept the overtones of a wife who asserted that she loved her husband even though she had no desire to talk to him. So why should we accept the protestations of the Christian who asserts this same reasoning in regard to God?

Nothing should stop us from expressing our desire for God and coming to Him in prayer.

This said, it is also important to continue the analogy. There are many successful marriages, but most are conducted differently. There are essential aspects that are the foundation of these marriages, but they are no doubt implemented differently. In a similar way, our prayer lives will differ from person to person, but they should nonetheless display the same essential qualities.

Therefore, I am not going to say that you should lock yourself in a prayer closet for X minutes a day or that you should pray X times a day. What we must do is make sure we incorporate all the essential items into our relationship with God. So, using marriage again, there are aspects of the husband / wife relationship that are on display to all;[1] there are aspects that are intimate and private. By this I mean that there are times when prayer should be spontaneous – it happens on the spot and in response to an event. It may be an audible, “Praise the Lord!” It may be an audible, “Forgive me Father! for I have sinned.” It may be the cry of the heart at news that saddens. Each is acceptable. However, we should also aim at intimate times with God; special times that are just ours – times when we pour out our hearts in adoration, praise, and request. Times when we place before God a request made known only to Him—so that when it is answered we may yet have more reasons to magnify the Lord for His goodness and sovereignty which is directed toward His children.

For young Christians, and even seasoned Christians who have not been mentored adequately, the thought of an intimate prayer time can be daunting. Questions flood the mind. What if I say the wrong thing? What if I use the wrong word? What if my mind goes blank?

My response is theologically stunning – Who cares? God desires to fellowship with you. He has loved you from eternity in Jesus Christ. You are now His newly born child. He loves you immensely and wants to be the significant part of your life and to fellowship deeply with you. Do you think for a moment that the Father of all fathers is going to ‘switch off’ because a word is mispronounced or faltering?

Do you know of any earthly father that was repulsed at his child’s first stammering effort of ‘dada’? I would think not. In fact, most parents engage in fierce rivalry to see which can evoke the ‘dada’ or ‘mama’ first. Then they crow over these faltering words. Therefore beloved, do not ever bring to mind such thoughts. Your Father in heaven knows you are but a new born child and that your words will falter. He cares not. He too will crow (in a non-proud, holy sense) that His newly born child has uttered His name, no matter how imperfectly.

Equally, remember that when these words fall from your mouth, you are not alone. Not only do you speak to your Father, but you sit upon the knee of your elder Brother, Jesus. Like all elder brothers, he will understand and make known for you the desires of your heart, even if your words are inadequate.

So please, beloved brethren, do not let such thoughts cloud your mind and prevent you from starting that intimate, familial conversation, “Abba, Father …!”

If these concerns are not eased by this inadequate advice, then pick a passage of Scripture. The Bible contains many prayers. Maybe the Lord’s Prayer.[2] Maybe Moses’ song.[3] Maybe Mary’s prayer.[4] Then, of course, there are the many Psalms that could be prayed. Each of these can provide a basis for building a vibrant prayer life.[5]

Advice on Prayer:

So how and for what should we pray?

First, I believe sincerely that we need to get “fair dinkum” with God. When we pray, as in all things, God knows the true desire of our hearts. It seems that in our modern world, we pray nicely, politely, conveniently, shortly (for we do not wish to disturb God too much), and ineffectively.

Yes, our prayers should be reverential. We most certainly should remember “the Fear of the Lord” when we pray. However, such truths should not lead us to sterile prayers. Learning from Biblical men and women, we must learn to wrestle with God. The Psalmists’ prayers were not sterile. They poured their very hearts out to God. Jesus is shown to wrestle greatly with God in the garden, asking that the “cup” may pass from Him. We see the prophet question God concerning His tactics in whom He would use to judge Israel. Nowhere do we see a rebuke for such prayers.

So not only is it important that we pray, it is important that we pray earnestly and honestly. We need to tell our Father that we do not understand; that we are confused; that we do not feel that we can hang on much longer. We need to go to our Father and say, “You have promised …! I am not seeing this promise fulfilled. Help me understand.” We need to positively express what we are feeling so that we are not guilty of trying to deceive God – thinking one thing but praying another.

Equally, we need to express to our Father our desire. We need to be willing to ask God to act (Psalm 119:126) and to do something. I am convinced that we do not see many prayers answered today because we do not actually ask God for anything. We are too trite and polite to really get to the crux of the matter and to ask God for specifics.

Second, we need to own our guilt. When we come to prayer, we often look at the mess “out there” and look at the failings of others. Biblically, we seem to get a different picture. When Isaiah saw the vision of the Lord (Isaiah 6:5) he exclaimed, “Woe is me!” He started with “I am” before he got to the people. Similarly, we see Jeremiah pen these words, “For we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, since our youth even to this day (3:25)”.

Taking these lessons, we need to begin by asking the Lord to forgive any personal shortcomings and sins. We need to sincerely ask the Lord to show us our failings and the areas in which we need to improve (Psalm 139). This is the prayer equivalent of taking out the log so that we can see the speck. The Lord will not hear us if we are praying hypocritically.

Therefore, we must ask ourselves the potent questions in regard to obeying God, before we demand answers from our politicians. What are our attitudes to the purity of God’s worship? How will a pagan government respect God’s day, if the Christian and the Church do not? What are our attitudes to God’s word? How will a pagan government respect the authority of the Bible when Christians and the Church do not? What are our attitudes to sexuality and its correct expression? How will a pagan government uphold the sanctity of marriage when Christians and the Church are silent on ‘sex before marriage’, fornication, divorce, and homosexuality? What are our attitudes to God’s rule? How will a pagan government submit to God’s rule when Christians and the Church do not?

Third, when we pray nationally (for or concerning our nation), we need to pray toward a Biblical end – the glory of God! Here, instruction can be gleaned from passages such as 1Timothy 2:1-2: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.”

At once, we need to note, highlight, state, and reinforce the fact that civil government is a minister of God. Too often, it would seem that Christians do not know how to pray in regard to the State because they have been led to believe that the State has the right to do whatever it wants. Apparently, in the New Testament we have a realisation of Psalm 2:3-4. Apparently, the kings of the earth have successfully thrown off the fetters of God. This is exactly what we should believe given the proclamations of the moderns.

However, this is nonsense and it borders on heresy. In Psalm 2 God was victorious having established His Son upon the throne. The nations, as a consequence, were issued with an ultimatum – kiss the Son or perish! Where in the New Testament do we see that this message is any different? Nowhere! The New Testament writers quote Psalm 2 to show that Jesus was the One begotten of the Father and given rule over the nations.[6] Revelation 19 clearly picks up this picture given in Psalm 2 and again applies it to Jesus. So, the kings of the earth are still under an obligation to yield to King Jesus.

This fact is even evident from the text of 1Timothy 2:1-2, quoted above. Why are we to pray for those in authority? Is it not so that we can lead peaceful lives in all godliness and holiness? Pray tell, how do we live a peaceful and Godly life if the “authorities” are rightly entitled to impose chaos and ungodliness? The obvious intent of Paul’s instruction is to the end that the “authorities” would be godly and God-honouring.[7] To be this, they must self-consciously submit to God’s rule; ipso facto they must obey the Biblical principles that lead to peace and godliness!

A similar principle is found in the Lord’s Prayer. What are we praying for when we utter the words, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven”? Are we to believe that there are calls for homosexual recognition in heaven? God forbid. I gag just writing those words. Therefore, if the perfect righteousness of our God, the standard prescribed and upheld in heaven, is to be “done” here on earth, should we really be saying to the government that they are free to rule as they see fit? May it never be!!

Consequently, we should never be afraid or unwilling to pray against governments and government officials. If it is right to pray, “God’s will be done!” then it is also right, read ‘mandatory’, that we pray against anything that would exalt its will against God. These, we are to destroy (2 Corinthians 10:5), not prosper.

Therefore, if we pray for the inviolability of marriage as God ordained it, we must pray against those things which attack it. As such, we would pray against homosexuality, fornication, adultery, divorce, try-before-you-buy, and the like. If it is right that God’s law be the standard for our nation, then we must pray for this and pray against any other false standard. If we would see revival in the Church and reform in our nation, then we must pray for those men who preach and proclaim Christ truthfully and pray against those whose speak falsely.

Fourth, when principles like these are brought together we must see that our prayer life, when broken down into its constituent parts, consists of two things: Positively, prayer for God’s glory and those who seek and act to His glory; Negatively, prayer against all that oppose God’s right to seek His own glory.

As noted in What a Ruddy Mess, I am currently asking God to decimate the Labor Party, the Greens, The Democrats, and those independents who gave Julia Gillard power. I do so because, in terms of Psalm 2, these people conspired against God and His Christ. The untrammelled desire for power on the part of some meant giving into demands to foist unrighteousness upon this nation, moving us further under God’s judgement. Their banding together in unrighteousness has created untold suffering. Therefore, I pray against them. I do so that God would be glorified. I do so that God would be vindicated. I do so to prove before God that not all have bowed the knee to Baal. I do so that these would be held to account and thereby be a practical demonstration of the fact that unrighteousness is a fool’s errand.

However, along side of this prayer is a prayer that God would also do some cleaning and clearing within the wider Church. There are too many pulpits occupied by windbags whose efforts amount to nothing more than them being oxygen thieves. These stand in pulpits and actively disown God’s word. They spend 20 minutes denying Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour. They encourage godlessness and disobedience by proclaiming false messages. Then there are prayers to teach other pulpiteers the meaning of courage; others to teach them the meaning of humility; and more still that they would rightly distinguish between a God-anointed calling and a vocation!

This I do because the Scriptures teach me that a strong nation is a nation squared away in the things of God. So judgement and renewal must begin with the household of God.[8] It is the revival of the Church that will lead to the reform of our nation.

Thus, my bedrock prayer is that we would have a true Spirit filled revival of Christ’s Bride in this country. Not a fluff and bubble supposed revival, but the genuine article such as this nation has never seen before. I pray for true men of God to be raised up. Men whose only fear is God. Men equipped in God’s word and ways – men who know righteousness and how to live it.

For me, the end is not just political reform. My goal is the rule of Jesus Christ over every institution; the individual, the family, the Church, and the State. God’s word reveals that this path is tied inextricably to the Gospel of God, which is the power of God unto salvation. This Gospel alone can save every one of these institutions. However, it is all but useless if it be not faithfully proclaimed.

As Paul says, “How will they hear without a preacher?”[9]

Therefore, as stated, my bedrock prayer is for a true movement of God’s Spirit to the Revival of the Church in this nation so that there will be a true, powerful proclamation of Jesus Christ, the King. In this not only will paupers, but princes and kings, once more be authoritatively issued with the Divine decree to yield to Jesus Christ. Then, and only then, with hearts, minds, and wills subdued by God’s Divine power, will men act in obedience to Jesus Christ. Then will God’s grace restrain evil and prosper righteousness. Then will men and governments bow the knee to Jesus and accept His rule.

Then, contrary to popular opinion, will true righteousness be legislated and act as a protection for the righteous and a restraint to the ungodly. Then our children will once more play in the streets and our wives and daughters walk alone without fear. Then we will lead peaceful and tranquil lives. We will do so because “Godliness” will be the standard and not fallen Man’s “mannishness”.

Conclusion:

Prayer is not as complicated as some would make out. It is a simple matter, at heart, of going to prayer and earnestly praying for God’s glory in Jesus Christ. As noted, there is also a clear implication that we would also pray against that which does not bring glory to God or to Jesus Christ.

Problems are usually encountered when various Christians express their opinions as to what does or does not glorify God. Here, again, the solution is reasonably simple – turn to the pages of Scripture! What lessons do we learn? What is proclaimed to glorify God? What things are said to dishonour God?

Once we have exercised the “Berean Attitude” then all that remains is to implement that knowledge in our lives and our prayers. Pray! Pray often. Pray earnestly!

Then we have the last essential ingredient. Pray expecting that God will keep His promises to hear your pleas and act. Pray the promises of God, not only expecting Him to keep His word, but asking Him to do so. Pray confidently knowing that the same elder Brother who helped your first faltering words still willingly aids and magnifies your prayers in the Father’s throne room.

Dear Sister, I hope that this has given some direction that will be of benefit in your current situation. God bless you as you pursue faithfulness in His service.

Might I also add that those who read this article will need to do some extrapolating. What is said here is applicable in many areas. Thus, we may refer to Governments and Politics; yet one could equally say Businesses, Bosses, Water Boards etc. Equally, we could speak of Fathers and Families. So, please, do not take this article as being a treatise on “Imprecations against the Government”. I urge you, by the mercies of God, to look at the principles exemplified and apply them to the situation you may face.

Addendum:

I am aware that the question will be raised in regard to praying against people or asking God that people be brought low under His judgement. Thus, I will attempt a few words in explanation.

A. We must be wary of our modern era. Too many niceties have been added to God’s account; niceties that we do not find in Scripture. Therefore, we must be extremely careful that we are not countering God’s desire by actively expressing a common falsehood. As one example, many Christians today are more concerned with the sinner than they are with the glory of God. Such a switch leads to all kinds of errors. So, when asking questions concerning persons and God’s judgement, we must always view the issue from God’s perspective. His sovereignty and holiness demand nothing less.

B. What do we do with the imprecatory Psalms and the many other imprecations found within Scripture? This is a particularly curly question for those who believe that such imprecations are unchristian. Sadly, many in the Church today express this exactly sentiment because they have not heeded the warning of the first point – they have been seduced by the philosophy of the world.

C. It is not wrong for the Christian to pray against people or to seek God’s judgement upon them. Admittedly, this must not be done hot-headedly or without humility. Nonetheless, it is a perfectly acceptable part of the Christian walk.

I would like to continue in point form to hopefully make understanding these points easier:

A. The Bible is God’s word. All Scripture is God breathed. This includes all the imprecations.

B. Many who disapprove of the imprecations attempt to drive a wedge of some sort between the Biblical Testaments.

C. Such a view is false precisely because there are imprecations in the Newer Testament.

D. Jesus quotes from Psalm 69 in John 2:17; John 15:25. Psalm 69:21 is applied to Jesus in Matthew 27:34.

E. Paul quotes Psalm 69:22 in Romans 11:9-10.

F. The quotations of this Psalm by Paul and Jesus do not give it validity; they simply confirm and reinforce its existing validity as God authoritative word.

G. Then there are the clear New Testament imprecations.

H. Paul: “If anyone does not love the Lord, let him be accursed.” 1 Corinthians 16:22

I. Jesus: “And you, Capernaum, will not be exalted to heaven, will you? You shall descend to Hades; for if the miracles had occurred in Sodom which occurred in you, it would have remained to this day. Nevertheless I say to you that it shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom in the day of judgment, than for you.” Matthew 11:23-24

J. Jesus: “Woe to you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! …“Truly I say to you, all these things shall come upon this generation.” Matthew 23:29 & 36. (And they did!)

K. Whilst not exactly an imprecation, we see that John, echoing Jeremiah, forbids prayer for certain sins: “If anyone sees his brother committing a sin not leading to death, he shall ask and God will for him give life to those who commit sin not leading to death. There is a sin leading to death; I do not say that he should make request for this.” “As for you, do not pray for this people, and do not lift up cry or prayer for them, and do not intercede with Me; for I do not hear you.” 1 John 5:16 c.f Jeremiah 7:16. See also Jeremiah 14:11ff.

L. On a more personal level, we see two instances in the New Testament in which imprecations of a type are enacted. In Acts 13:4-12, we read of Paul’s encounter with “Bar-Jesus” a magician who was hindering Paul’s preaching. The salient verses are 10-11: “You who are full of all deceit and fraud, you son of the devil, you enemy of all righteousness, will you not cease to make crooked the straight ways of the Lord? “And now, behold, the hand of the Lord is upon you, and you will be blind and not see the sun for a time.” The other, also in Acts, is Peter’s interaction with Ananias and Sapphira. In Acts 5:9 we encounter the significant text: “Behold, the feet of those who have buried your husband are at the door, and they shall carry you out as well.” In both cases, the Apostles uttered words that had an immediate effect upon those to whom they were spoken. In both cases these parallel the imprecation in that the effects were negative.

M. Lastly, let us throw in a really curly one. Psalm 35 is an imprecatory Psalm. In verses five through eight we read: “Let them be like chaff before the wind, With the angel of the Lord driving them on. Let their way be dark and slippery, With the angel of the Lord pursuing them. For without cause they hid their net for me; Without cause they dug a pit for my soul. Let destruction come upon him unawares; And let the net which he hid catch himself; Into that very destruction let him fall.” Please note the role of the Angel of the Lord. It is almost universally held that the Angel of the Lord is the pre-incarnate Christ. The moderns will no doubt find such a link offensive. Those who believe the Bible will simple see it as consistent with the New Testament’s affirmation that Jesus is appointed as God’s judge (Acts 10:42; Acts 17:30-31).

N. This is the testimony of God’s one Word revealed in Jesus Christ and authored by the Holy Spirit!

O. Practically, we must be responsible and humble in dealing with this knowledge. It is not ours to simply waltz around the place calling down curses. However, what we are shown clearly is that such an action is not wrong given that it is done in appropriately.

P. The appropriate measure seems to entail persistent rebellion and opposition to the proclamation of the Gospel message.

Q. Importantly, and this to reinforce the point already made, imprecations are not a means of personal vengeance. They are an avenue for the vindication and establishment of God’s glory. (Please also remember, when dealing with such issues, the hatred with which a holy God views sin.)

R. In light of this, I personally have no issue asking the Lord to deal with our treacherous Government and particular politicians who have openly waved their fists at God; who have ridiculed His people for bidding them “repent and live”; who have mocked those who have asked them to yield to God’s command; who have scorned Jesus Christ and the path of life; and who, in terms of Romans 1, have actively encouraged others to sin all the more and “hang the consequences!”

S. In fact, in such circumstances, I fail to see that there is any other legitimate path for the Christian. In Psalm 139:19-22 David says, “O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against Thee wickedly, And Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies.” When we analyse these words, we are forced to ask, “What is David’s intent?” If we can get past the emotive language, what we see is a man seeking nothing more than conformity to His God. If we look throughout the Psalms, let’s take Psalm 119 as an example, we see David laud God’s law. It is His life (vv 81, 97). He loves this Law so much that he would rather be dead than be without it. In this context, David concludes, “Therefore I hate every false way” (vv 104, 128).

T. Is this not our goal? Romans 8:29 states categorically that the end result of our salvation is that we would be “conformed to the image of His Son”, Jesus. Hence, we should be willing to identify with our God in all things. That means loving what He loves and hating that which He hates.

U. Lastly, this conformity must be expressed in all our desires and aspirations – lived and prayed!

[1] No, I am not suggesting any type of Pharisaic mimicry.

[2] Matthew 6:9 ff.

[3] Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32.

[4] Luke 1.

[5] Here, I would add an exhortation and a caution. If you adopt this practice, you must commit to praying two other prayers. 1. Lord, teach me to pray. 2. Lord, teach me from these examples in Your Word. The caution, do not refuse to grow in prayer! I know Christians who have walked with the Lord for many years and their prayer life is stunted. They pray pre-written prayers out of such booklets as “Daily Bread” and their graces are those rote learnt as children. Again, these are acceptable starting places, but they make for an inadequate and pitiable finish line. Thus, these two prayers must be attached, like training wheels, so that the novice is upheld. However, like training wheels, the rider cannot rely on them forever. The rider must develop skills so that the training wheels can be discarded. If this does not happen, the rider is forever limited by the restriction imposed by those wheels. At this point, the aid becomes a hindrance and a limitation.

[6] See: Acts 4:25-26. It is also worth noting, in the context of Christ’s dominion, how often Psalm 2’s statement that “He shall rule them with a rod of iron” is picked up in the New Testament. See: Revelation 2:26-27; 12:5; 19:15

[7] Paul’s argument in Romans 13 clearly bears out this point. In that text, Paul calls the magistrate a minister or servant of God.

[8] 1 Peter 4:17.

[9] Romans 10:14.

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 Evangelism of Despair: Preachers v Laity (Pt 2)

Posted on March 3, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

PostTenebrasLux

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