Belief in God’s Revelation (Pt 2)

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

If the Church’s primary ailment is unbelief,[1] then throwing another programme at a perceived symptom will do very little. As we noted in the introduction to this series, treating the symptom is but a slowing down of the death process. It is not a cure.

Therefore, if we are to counter the ailment effectively, we must counteract the underlying cause. In this case, we do not need to institute yet another new programme. We simply need to encourage people to a true and profound belief in all that God has to say. We need to believe the whole counsel of God.[2]

I cannot pinpoint the exact date on which we decided by consensus to give up on believing God’s truth. It is fair to say that there has always been elements within the Church that have questioned what God has to say and have affirmed doctrines that are not in keeping with God’s revelation.

In the modern era, I believe that World War Two had a lot to do with the loss of faith and belief. Prior to WW2, Theological Liberalism was on the rise. It robbed the Scriptures of everything supernatural and internalised both faith and epistemology. In this trend, Theological Liberalism was but following the Secular trend of the exalted self.

When war broke out and millions of lives were thrown into chaos with people being forced to witness and endure brutalities scarcely heard of, people rightly sought answers. Sadly, Theological Liberalism had no answer. Liberalism could not impart understanding. It could give no reason. Most certainly, its comforts were but hollow words; heartless and without warmth.

Not surprisingly, Man began to question the point of a religion that could not provide answers to the basic questions of life.[3] Thus, Man turned further from the Church and found the warm embrace of Rationalism. This was but a natural step as the exalted self had been long courted by Rationalism. The Liberals had caused Christianity to be transformed into a mere shadow of its former self. This new emaciated Church was gaunt precisely because it had been taught to feed upon Man and not upon “every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.”[4]

At this point, we had a culture that was enamoured with the exalted self and the basic tenets of Individualism. From that point, we have simply witnessed an outworking of this process. We have seen our society completely dominated by rank Individualism. We witness it every day in the death of society and the fragmentation of our culture.

What of the Church? How has she faired? Well, to use terminology from WW2, She is absolutely “shell-shocked”! 1977 saw this trend of disbelief culminate in what came to be known as Union. At that time, the majority of the Methodist, Presbyterian, and Congregational churches were rolled into one body, which we know today as the Uniting church.

One only has to look at the resultant state of that new body to see how disastrous the doctrines of the exalted self were and are. This body is almost devoid of any semblance of Christianity. It is noticeably void of anything closely resembling a belief in ‘the authoritative word of God’. Its doctrines are based not in Scripture, but in Secularism and Humanism.

What then of other denominations and those that refrained from joining the Union? Regrettably, the process of disbelief has largely continued unabated. It has to a lesser or greater degree infiltrated most denominations. The result of which has been disastrous.

Here is the problem. Having given up on God’s word as the source of truth, many denominations have drifted into a modern form of Liberalism. As we noted in the introduction, this is the sinister aspect of this ailment. Without a foundational belief in God’s word as their only authority, they will continue to drift. The one thing they must do is the one thing the exalted self does not want to do – completely trust God!

Tragically, this false belief has also had a major impact on those reform movements that have sprung up. When some good folk looked around the Church and saw that She was not having an impact upon the world; when they saw dwindling numbers; when they witnessed injustices; when they realised that people were not being converted, they set out with all good intent to improve things.

Enter the sinister ailment once again. When these people set out to find a cure they failed to realise that they had been so indoctrinated by the exalted self that they simply produced more symptoms. Rather than return wholeheartedly to the God of the Bible and His wondrous revelation, they looked to Man for wisdom. If the Bible was consulted, such consultations were completed in a selective manner; choosing only those texts that seemed to legitimise the new approach.

Consequently, when Church numbers dwindled, demography was proposed as the solution. When church services were poorly attended, entertainment was embraced as an answer. When fallen men found certain teachings unpalatable, the response was to reject those doctrines or to hide them from public view. When desires for different forms of worship were voiced, the corrective was found in the deliberate fragmentation of Christ’s body. When Sexism was raised as a criticism, all barriers were cast down – gender neutral Bibles were invented. When the Government enacted laws on vilification and equality, the reaction was to disown more doctrine and to simply remain silent.

All of these correctives, responses, reactions, and answers have availed naught precisely because they come from the same poisonous root. They are delivering more poisoned fruit, more symptoms, because they are the inventions of Man and not the declarations of God.

As well intentioned as these brethren may have been in their desire and efforts for reform, they failed to realise and react to the true problem, unbelief! As a consequence of this failure, their efforts realised and propagated a new set of errors (symptoms). Therefore, these labours have not led to the Church’s healing. On the contrary, She has been confined to Her sickbed for a prolonged stay.

If we truly want to realise a healthy Church; be a vibrant community of faith; attain to a faithful and pure Bride; offer up spiritual sacrifices; and be a holy priesthood, then we must truly, with all our heart, mind, and soul, believe God’s word and trust to His ways.

If there is one text that we must understand, it is Isaiah 55:8-11:

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; 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.[5]

Anyone who is the least bit familiar with the Bible should know that God’s ways are not Man’s ways. Man’s wisdom is foolishness to God[6] and God’s true wisdom is not accepted by Man.[7]

Therefore, if we truly desire to see a healthy, vibrant, obedient, worshipping Church, we must put to death the exalted self and be pleased to wholeheartedly and tenaciously cling to the prescriptions of Almighty God – whether it makes sense to us or not!

Believe! As Jesus said, “Did I not say to you, if you believe, you will see the glory of God?”[8]

Part 3

[1] Hebrews 3:17-19 gives us a harsh reminder of the consequences of unbelief and the need we have to always guard against it – And with whom was He angry for forty years? Was it not with those who sinned, whose bodies fell in the wilderness? 18 And to whom did He swear that they should not enter His rest, but to those who were disobedient? 19 And so we see that they were not able to enter because of unbelief. Deuteronomy 8:20 sums up the Old Testament equivalent – Like the nations that the Lord makes to perish before you, so you shall perish; because you would not listen to the voice of the Lord your God.

[2] Acts 20:27. The KJV uses “counsel”; the NIV “will”; the NASB “purpose”. ‘Counsel’ and ‘purpose’ are probably the better translations in that they imply the necessity of interaction and compliance on the part of the hearers.

[3] This is, of course, an irony as the alternate religion embraced by Man gave no answers to life’s questions either. It would seem that there was enough capital from the Christian worldview left in the bank to inspire some optimism. World War 2 completely shattered any remaining optimism and the subsequent years have shown that the bank account is continually in the red.

[4] Deuteronomy 8:3.

[5] The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977. Emphasis added.

[6] 1 Corinthians 3:19 – For the wisdom of this world is foolishness before God.

[7] 1 Corinthians 1:20-25 – Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the debater of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world? For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not come to know God, God was well-pleased through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For indeed Jews ask for signs, and Greeks search for wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to Jews a stumbling block, and to Gentiles foolishness, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

[8] John 11:40. Yes, taken from a different context, but the principle holds. How do we expect to see the magnificent works of God in this world if we will not believe God’s word and what He says He will accomplish through that word?

Programme or Belief

Posted on October 3, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

There are, no doubt, many problems with the Church today. We may well say that the Church is sick. Like any illness and the necessary diagnosis, the physician must be able to distinguish the disease from the symptoms.

Much of what we see in the Church today are but symptoms of the disease. We can attempt to treat these symptoms, and they certainly need to be addressed, however, if we do not treat the underlying cause, we will be consumed by treatments that never lead to a cure.

Imagine a man with a festering sore on his leg. He goes to a doctor who does nothing but clean the wound, excise any dead flesh, and then redress the wound. In the end, this man will lose his leg and possibly his life. Yes, he is being treated, but only at a superficial level. The treatment will go on. The treatments will change as the wound grows and the necrosis consumes more of the man’s flesh. Yet, in the end, all you are doing is treating the symptom.

Whilst these treatments are necessary, the doctor must also address the cause. He must prescribe an antibiotic or antivenene to deal with the underlying source, otherwise the visible manifestation of the problem will only become more obvious, more serious, and, eventually, life threatening.

The Church is sick. Many have ideas about what is wrong. However, most are only looking at the symptoms. Suggestions about new programmes for this or that are promulgated and the appropriate propaganda developed. The trouble with this approach is to be found in the methodology itself. Where in the Bible do we read of “programmes”? How do we know that these are the panacea?

The Gospel is not a matter of having the appropriate programme; it is a matter of belief. As God’s creature, regenerate or not, we are obligated to believe what God says is true; not reinvent truth to suit our opinions, outlook, or self-established purpose.

Therefore, it must be said that much of the sickness in the Church derives from varying states of unbelief.[1] We are simply unable or, worse, unwilling to believe the Word of God. This unbelief manifests itself in various ways, but these manifestations are but symptoms of the greater and more sinister ailment.

The sinister nature of this ailment is to be seen in the fact that unless we begin to trust God and take Him at His word, we will never find the cure; for belief is the cure. All we will do is engage ourselves in another programme, which is nothing more than symptom chasing. We will swap bandages and bathe wounds, but we will not realise a cure.

You see, the whole “programme” philosophy is one that is suggested by the world. It is not something you will find in God’s word. Thus, the very fact that we tend to solve problems by “throwing another programme at it” clearly demonstrates that we have lost faith in God and His absolute Word. Consequently, we are seen to be following an ungodly philosophy in trying to bring health to the Church.

When we examine the Bible, we do not see programmes; stepped projects, or 5 point plans. The Biblical approach is very simple. It consists of a basic dialogue – God speaks; Man listens. Viewed differently, God speaks and Man either obeys or disobeys. Consequently, Man is either blessed or cursed.

The beauty of this system is its simplicity. If the Church is not prosperous we need only ask two questions: “Are we persecuted for righteousness sake?” or “Are we under judgement for disobedience?”

When the questions are this simple, we do not need “committees” or “programmes”. We simply need to exchange the “worldly programme” or “lie”, as Paul would term it, for a Biblical approach: 1. Listen to and believe God; 2. Act obediently upon His command.

Part 2

[1] In general, we may believe the key doctrines regarding Jesus. However, as soon as we move from these into essential everyday applications – also important doctrines – we see a great divergence.

Of Problematic Preferences

Posted on September 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In the wake of the recent election, we have heard several calls for electoral reform. These calls have been put forth because of the interesting minority groups who have landed a seat in the senate. Personally, a couple of “normal” people might just help put some sanity into our political system. Anyway, I digress.

What puzzles me most about these calls for electoral reform is that I have not heard a direct reference to overhauling the system as it pertains to the House of Representatives. This is by far the greatest need.

Anyone who has stumbled through our previous writings will be aware of our total dislike for the preferential system of voting that we have in this country. I object to it because it is a total sham that makes a mockery of the whole process of democracy.

In essence, people are duped into voting under the guise of democracy. However, if you are not diligent to number all boxes, the candidates end up deciding where your preferences will go. Even when you number all the boxes, the candidates end up deciding where your preferences will go. There is no “opt-out” section. For example, in this year’s ballet there were several candidates and parties that I would not desire a single vote of mine to support, but I have no option to make this view known.

Then there is the major objection – preferential voting skews the result!

At this point, I want to make it clear that I am not out to discuss the pros and cons of a particular Party or Candidate. This is purely an exercise in number crunching to show how Preferential Voting skews results.

Many in this country celebrated the demise of One Nation. People from the two major Parties openly gloated when One Nation not only failed to win the 12 seats they projected, but were wiped from the political landscape. As we have noted previously, on first past the post, One Nation would have claimed 15 seats.

That is history. So let us talk about the “now” and the fallout from the last election. What I want to illustrate is the fact that the election results are skewed by Preferential Voting. As you read, please keep the question, “How different would our nation be?” floating in the back of your mind.

I live in the seat of Indi. In our seat, the sitting Liberal member lost her seat to the Independent by 437 votes. This is supposedly the “democratic” result. My question is this, “How does someone who was 12000 votes in front on the Primary vote lose their seat by 437 votes?”

In Indi, the sitting member of Parliament had a 13% margin after Primary votes – 12000 votes – and they lost! Interesting concept of democracy, is it not?

As a consequence of my living in this area, I may be open to charges of “bias”, so in the interest of fairness we will look at some other results.

Clive Palmer wants to win the seat of Fairfax and become Prime Minister. That seat has gone to a recount as Mr Palmer won the seat by only 36 votes after preferences were counted. Once more, a skewed result! After the Primary count, the Liberal candidate had 41.3% to Mr Palmer’s 26.5%. In other words, the Liberal candidate enjoyed an approximate lead of 15% – 12000 votes – and he looks like losing. Again, how do you lead by 12000 votes and lose? Let me also ask this question, “Would you prefer a decision based on 12000 votes or on 36?”

Let us now consider the seat of Barton. This seat is a close contest indeed. Yet, what we see is that the waters are once more muddied. In this seat, the Liberal candidate leads, after preferences, by 489 votes. After the Primary vote, he led by 1525 votes. In this case, it does not look like the result will be altered, but, as stated, it muddies the water. The result is made to be a closer contest than it is in reality.

Then there is the seat of McKewen. In this seat, the Labor candidate is 345 votes in front with the counting of preferences. Yet, after the Primary count, the Liberal candidate was 2751 votes in front.

In showing these figures, I will be accused of being Pro-Liberal and so on. That is not the case at all. These results are from the closest seats at this election and simply illustrate how Preferential Voting skews the result.

In an attempt to put this in perspective, let me give an analogy. Like an election, we have a horse race that “stops the nation”. It is called the Melbourne cup.[1] Image that this prestigious race has been run. There is a clear winner. This horse won by lengths, not just a nose. Yet, as you scan the crowd, no one is excited or jubilant. You quietly ask yourself “Why?”

In hope of an answer, you ask a passerby, “Why are the winners not happy?” “Winners! Winners?” comes the reply. “There are no winners yet. The jockeys must get together and vote on who they think should have won the race.” Puzzled, you thank the stranger and move on. Then you hear the announcement that “such and such” has won the Melbourne Cup. You are even more bewildered now as you can clearly recall that the horse announced as the winner was obviously an “also ran” that finished well back in the pack.

Let me ask, “Who would settle for such circumstances?” Let’s extend the analogy – the Stawell Gift; the Olympics; World Titles; Little Athletics; or your child’s school sports. If your child crossed the line first in his school sports and was then placed second last, I am fairly certain that your course of action would be to remonstrate with the officials and not to console your child with a dissertation on the ‘democratic process’. Where would we settle for anything close to this? Yet, that is exactly what we do every time we go to an election.

In order to make this point as clear as possible, I would like to return to the topic of Pauline Hanson and the seat of Blair.[2] In 1998, Pauline Hanson lost this seat and the vitriol began. Then again, did she lose?

After primary votes, Pauline Hanson was, in round figures, 7000 votes in front of the Labor candidate and 10,000 in front of the Liberal candidate. From my perspective, this is a clear win. Now let me ask you, “Who won the seat?” If you were to say, as logic would predict, that the Labor candidate in second position won, you would be dead wrong! The winner was the Liberal candidate who placed third, near on 10,000 votes behind. Pauline Hanson lost to this person on preferences by 4632 votes.

Think this through. The bronze medallist ended up with the Gold Medal and the person who crossed the line first was given that heartless dissertation on “democratic process.”

If we are to have electoral reform, let it begin with the removal of this ridiculous Preferential Voting system that skews results and ultimately denies the democratic principles it claims to uphold.

[1] This analogy in no way condones horse racing, gambling, and the ills associated with the industry.

[2] Here again, I am not concerned as to whether you loved or hated this woman. My question is, “Do you believe that this result was in anyway fair and just?”

Losing my Religion 2

Posted on September 12, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Who exactly is Benny criticising here?

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

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

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

So says the Humanist Manifesto 1933:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[3] Jeremiah 17:9.

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

Losing my Religion

Posted on September 11, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[6] Collins: sv Secularism.

Kevin, Who won’t be in Heaven

Posted on September 6, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Lord give wisdom!

As a Christian, respect for one’s elders is paramount.[1] Being courteous and polite to those in authority is also a Biblical requirement.[2] Yet, with Gary North, citing Elijah, sometimes it is necessary to “ridicule the ridiculous”. In that case, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal and their false god.[3]

In the present, our current Prime Minister has brought himself to the point of ridicule for being ridiculous.

In his first tilt at the top job, Kevin Rudd adopted the slogan Kevin 07. After he ridiculed the asker of the following question: “Mr Rudd, do you believe in Jesus Christ?”, I altered the slogan to, Kevin, Who won’t be in Heaven!

Sadly, nothing of a resurrected Kevin Rudd has caused me any pangs of conscience for labelling him so. Rather, to the contrary, he has continued to amass evidence that substantiates the fact that Kevin Rudd is a Humanist in whom the Spirit of God does not dwell.

The happenings of this week, with particular reference to Q & A on Monday night, have simply brought his ungodly attitude into stark relief. These happenings simply cap off or crown the growing pile of evidence. However, these happenings have also highlighted some other failings, not on the part of Kevin Rudd, but on the part of the Church in this country.

Much has already been said about Mr Rudd’s reaction on Q & A, so I do not intend to go over those points again from a moral standpoint. What I would like to do is examine the whole issue from the perspective of apologetics – the defence of the faith. We recently posted a three-part series designed to encourage people to combat the language and tactics of Secularism. The need is all the more dire because we saw Mr Rudd use these tactics on Monday night. Equally, we witnessed the lack of a cogent response on the part of Christ’s representative.

1. The Heavenless Kevin.

Kevin won’t be in heaven not because he belongs to the Labor Party, but because he continually denies Jesus Christ the Son of God. On Monday night, Mr Rudd used the word “Christ” several times. He did so in the adjectival form Christian. He spoke twice of a “Christian conscience”.

A Christian, by definition, is a disciple of Christ. The appellation is taken and worn precisely because the Christian identifies with Jesus Christ in both His person and His work. It is not, in any way, reasonable to call yourself a Christian simply because you think sandals are cool or you have empathy with the idea of helping people – especially when the rest of your life fails to measure up to the many other ethical stipulations outlined by Jesus. Yet, this is exactly what Mr Rudd has done and is doing. Kevin Rudd claims to have a “Christian conscience” when in reality he has a “–ian conscience” for there is no Christ in it.

Sadly, Mr Rudd is allowed to mock Christ because few, if any, in the Church are willing to label him as a Hell-bound heretic for fear of seeming judgemental and harsh. The Church’s love of the pluralistic peace-at-any-cost theory has meant that we are expected to endure our beloved Jesus being mocked by this man. He claims to be a Christian; therefore he must be treated as a Christian – all evidence to the contrary!

This is nonsense position for the Church in this nation to hold. Jesus said, “By their fruit you shall know them.”[4] Look at the fruit. Where is a genuine loving submission to Christ Jesus on the part of Mr Rudd? Does Kevin Rudd really support, believe in, and promote Jesus Christ in His person and work? Not at all.

On Monday night Kevin Rudd:

Publically ridiculed a Christian brother (from his claimed standpoint).[5]
Publically held the Scriptures to ridicule – exciting a frenzied response of cheering and clapping from the audience.[6]
Publically denied the authority of Scripture.[7]
Publically denied God’s revealed standard as the basis for rationality.[8]
Publically committed epistemological suicide by claiming a “universal principle” from the Bible whilst denouncing the Bible as authoritative.[9]

The pertinent question is, “Why is Mr Rudd allowed to get away with this nonsense?”

2. Brother Matt:

This brings me to the really difficult part of this article; criticising a brother in Christ.

Most articles have defended Matt in regard to the way he was treated and rightly so. However, without wanting to defame this brother, I believe there are some good lessons to be learned from this encounter.

First, let me state that this is not an exercise in superiority or any such. I understand what it is like to be in a crowd as the minority. I can only imagine the difficulty of facing television cameras and a seasoned campaigner like Kevin Rudd. So, I honestly say, “Well done!” to Matt for being willing to subject himself to such a situation for the cause of Christ.

These truths notwithstanding, there are issues that need to be faced:[10]

The death of the Old Testament and its authority.
The idea that faith destroys reason.
The idea that the Holy Spirit trumps preparation.
The idea that “nice” triumphs over evil.
The idea that the New Testament alone is our authority.
The idea that “love and tolerance” are universal Biblical norms.

In many encounters one or more of these concepts seem to be present when Christians seek to defend their faith. When one or more of these concepts are present, it becomes almost impossible to defend the Christian faith.

How do we truly argue for marriage if we do not believe that the Old Testament is God’s authoritative word? If the Old Testament is nothing more than “examples to follow and sins to avoid”, on what basis do we argue exclusively for heterosexual marriage?

Matt rightly quoted Jesus, but seemed to miss the particular emphasis that Jesus made. When responding to the Pharisees, Jesus answer came as a quotation from two Scriptures, namely, Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Matt highlighted the second quote, but missed the first reference – a reference that would have put Mr Rudd on the spot. You see, Jesus first words on marriage are, “He (God) made them male and female!” Squirm, Mr Rudd! Squirm!

The importance of Jesus’ statement is incalculable. Mr Rudd is a New Testament man. Out with all that dodgy Old Testament wrath, anger, and righteous law stuff. Away with it! He wants the New love and grace Testament that allows him to wiggle around ethical dilemmas on the basis of Jesus’ universal principle of love. However, right here, in Jesus’ words, the wheels on Mr Rudd’s bicycle went square and he should have been tipped off in ignominy.

After all, here is Jesus, the pinnacle of New Testament altruism; the Liberal’s poster boy – no blasphemy intended – and yet He is heard to say, “Marriage is between one man and one woman; homosexuals need not apply. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into!” So, where does Mr Rudd go from here? He must either dismiss Jesus or attempt some gross reinterpretation of Jesus’ words. At either point, you have the upper hand. The door is open to ask Mr Rudd why he insists on calling himself a Christian when he so readily denies Christ. We could also ask him about reinterpretation – If everything is so interpretable, how can he be sure of the accuracy of your universal principle of love?

Again, I reiterate that it is much easier to argue these things from my study and without a television audience. So please understand that this exercise is not that of picking upon or defaming a brother. It is a lesson in encouragement. I desire my brethren to learn so that we can all do better. To know God’s word so that the answers are ready to hand in any situation. To be able to articulate Biblical arguments. If you cannot, please do not put yourself in that position. To understand, as Jesus showed, that the Old Testament is authoritative Scripture. To understand that the Holy Spirit will give wisdom and guidance, but equally that we must do the hard yards of learning as well.[11]

Mr Rudd’s fervent attacks on the Christians of this nation have exposed some weaknesses. We have not seen published denunciations of Mr Rudd at a denominational level – furthering the myth of godless government. We have witnessed confused and unBiblical reasoning particularly with regard to homosexuality – the myth of God’s absolute love for all. There has been no authoritative challenge to Mr Rudd’s heretical Liberal position – the myth that the Bible is not supernatural. We have to face the fact or should have faced the fact that we have imbibed too much of the world’s philosophy—the myth of neutrality. Foolishly, we have put down our Bibles and have tried to reason after the wisdom of this age rather than in the Power and Wisdom of the age to come.

Another lesson, applicable to the moment, would be that of heeding Paul’s words to Timothy: For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline (self-discipline, prudence). Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.[12] On account of our Secular Government’s institution of laws that attack righteousness and gag any who would point out that the emperor is “butt naked”, we have become a people who are loath to speak out. We have become fearful of falling foul of Big Brother. Hence, we need to be reminded that the Gospel life requires courage.

This courage is needed in terms of confrontation. It is the courage Matt displayed to open his mouth in a stacked forum and to endure the ridicule of an egoist. Alongside of this, however, we need the courage to kneel before God and confess that we have dropped the ball; to confess that we have not borne the name of Jesus aright and that we have seen it trampled because we were afraid to speak. It is the courage to open our Bibles and, in its holy light, amend our ways so that we conform to the image of Jesus Christ. It is bathing in this light so that our minds are transformed into suppositories (repositories) of God’s wisdom. This is Biblical courage.

On the other side, we have the cowards, like Kevin, Who won’t be in heaven, for they take out a pen and rewrite the Bible to suit their own fallen nature. They hold out to ridicule any who challenges them because they have no foundation. Therefore, they must mock. In taking this course, they come under severe judgement: But these men revile[13] the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.[14]

Our challenge and our calling are to be so armed with the Wisdom and Word of God that we cause the mouths of such men to be silent in the presence of a Thrice holy God. It is only when these men are forced to stop flapping their gums that they might be still and know that Jesus Christ is God.

[1] See: Leviticus 19:32.

[2] See: 1 Peter 3:15 (with gentleness and reverence); 1Timothy 2:2; Romans 12:17-18; Hebrews 12:14.

[3] See: 1 Kings 18:20 ff.

[4] Matthew 7:20.

[5] His attack on Matt Prater was simply undignified. He attacked the man and not the ball. Having no sound argument he had to attack the man and win the crowd. It is his only play. I believe that they call this “bullying”. I thought that there were laws against such things? Equally, there was very little of 1 Peter 1:22 seen in Mr Rudd’s conduct.

[6] When Mr Rudd equated believing that the bible condemns homosexuality with the idea that this then means that we should still sanction slavery, the audience erupted in support. Note 1: Mr Rudd did nothing to stop this in an effort to engender respect for Jesus or Bible. Note 2: Mr Rudd showed utter contempt for the text of Scripture.

[7] Mr Rudd spoke of a “good Christian conscience”. “Good” by whose standard? If you deny God’s word as your authority, then how do you objectively verify “good”? You do not. It is a subjective assessment and, as such, it is not worth a crumpet – well, it is like a crumpet in that it seems solid, but when you turn it over it is full of holes!

[8] Mr Rudd started with his conscience, moved to “born that way”, and then started on the philosophical, “if you accept that premise”. Immediately, he is building upon a false foundation. His conclusion must be erroneous because his premise is faulty. Mr Rudd started with, “God has not spoken and if he has it is now culturally irrelevant” and from there the teddy bears took him round and round the garden and ended up tickling his own ears and ego.

[9] If the Bible is passé, it is passé completely. One cannot deny whole sections and then claim one principle. Nor can one claim a single principle that overturns all other teaching, for such a principle would overturn the principle itself.

[10] These issues need to be faced regardless of whether Mr Rudd is ousted tomorrow – a happening for which I sincerely pray. Regardless of the election result, these issues remain as thorns in the side of the Church and will continue to be cause pain until extracted. It must be remembered that Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott are both apples from the same tree.

[11] The Biblical reference to relying on the Holy Spirit in the defence of the Gospel all sit in the context of persecution – being dragged before kings and princes. I think it a mistake to apply these texts to a situation where prayer and study (all Spirit governed) can be made beforehand. Luke 12:12; Matthew 10:19; Luke 21:14-15. C.f Ezra 7:10; Acts 17:11; Acts 18:28; Acts 17:2; Luke 4:17ff.

[12] 2 Timothy 1:7-8.

[13] The Greek literally says to blaspheme.

[14] Jude 10-13

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.3)

Posted on August 24, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

What then has been the point of this survey and the points made? Our purpose is to equip Christians, and any who will listen, for the current fight.

Over many years now, I have watched people capitulate because of the Secularist’s penchant for warring with meaningless words and using stigmatised labels. The Secularist’s rarely present a cogent argument. They bully and shame with their invented and stigmatised language.

Regretfully, Christians have capitulated to this language because they have not stayed true to their own Biblical worldview. Christians have thought the World’s thoughts and not God’s. They have reasoned with the World’s philosophy and wisdom and not with God’s.

Consequently, when the Secularist’s “name it and blame it” the Christians cave. They do not want to be unloving. They do not want to be homophobic. They do not want to stigmatise. They most certainly do not want to be bigots.

Yet, herein is the problem. We worship a holy God Who is a bigot. God says, ‘This is right and that is wrong!’ Not only does God make these pronouncements, He institutes Laws that back them up and give them force. God’s way is heterosexual marriage. Therefore, adulterers and homosexuals are condemned. God loves truth. Therefore, the false witness is condemned.

God’s salvation is Jesus Christ and Him crucified! No alternates, no compromises, no points for human inventiveness. God loves some things.[1] God hates other things.[2] God says He will accept this and that He will reject that.

The relevance for us, as Christians, is that we were created in the image of God and then recreated in that image through Jesus Christ. Thus, we come full circle in our worldview and arrive back at the requirement that we must, as analogues of God, think His thoughts after Him.

When we refuse to do this, we are compromised and we begin to give ground. We are afraid of making some forthright statements because we do not want to appear unacceptable to the Secularist and his concepts when, in fact, we should be terrified to the core of betraying God and His revealed standard.

We have arrived at this point because of an absolute reduction in Christianity. Through various influences, modern Christianity has given up on Culture. It is only interested in saving the individual soul and getting it to heaven. Thus, politics, social constructs, cultural mores, God’s Word, and a whole raft of items have been “blessed” into obscurity by being deemed unnecessary.[3]

As a result, the need to win individual souls fuels a flurry of activity, much of which is aimed at answering the foolish question, “How do we not offend the pagan?”[4] Consequently, we are urged to drop a range of Holy Spirit inspired, Authoritative truths from Scripture.

Here, the Secularists have done their job well for we find the Church trying to adopt alternate words and sanitised language. God is reinvented. He never gets angry. He accepts all without question. Commonly, God is said to love everyone equally and without fail.

If this is so, we must jettison the doctrine of sin. If sin is out, we must also toss overboard the doctrine of Hell. As God is so accommodating, we are obliged to drop from our language all words of commission. We cannot use words like must, ought, obey, observe, should, or oblige (whoops!). The Ten Commandments must become the Ten Suggestions. Christ’s statement, “If you love me you will keep my commandments” is reinterpreted to, “I would be pleased if you loved me and tried to stay within My suggestions; but it’s okay if you do not.”

In all seriousness, I now ask, “Based on these new ideas, what message do we take to the world?” If God loves everybody equally and makes no demands upon a person at the personal level, then what is the purpose of the Church or Christianity?

This is precisely why we fail. We are not prepared, in the current argument, to state that God hates homosexuals and thereby put the smell of fire and brimstone into people’s nostrils. ‘No, no, we cannot do that, it might offend.’ will come the reply. Now for the real question – “Who would we rather offend Man or God?” Do we offend Man by trampling on his invented concepts or do we offend God by pretending that He is not the measure of all things?

By our adoption of the World’s standard we have given ground in this battle. We are unable to argue with the Secularists because we have naught to say. We do not want to state the truth because the Secularist has his shame labels prepared and is just waiting to plaster us. So we modify our stand. We try to use moderate language. We try to argue logic and statistic rather than, “Thus says the Lord!”

To illustrate this, let me give an example from a recently televised interview. At the centre of this interview on the ABC was a Christian fellow (more haranguing; I lost the links) who had been a homosexual and had been converted. Opposing him, were the other interviewees who denied the Bible with all the standard fallacies. At one point, the interviewer asked this Christian, “Aren’t you being Judgemental?”

A few comments must be made. First, there it is, the stigmatised language. The Christian is accused of being ‘judgemental’. I do not recall questions of a similar nature being presented to the others. Questions like, “The plain reading of the Bible seems to denounce homosexuals. Why then do you as a Christian not believe the Bible?”

Second, and this is more to the point, the Christian gentleman was slightly taken aback with the question. He responded by saying that ‘they come to me, I do not go out to them.’ The inference was simple. I am not out on the street peddling my wares, people come into my shop.

Please note that the question was not answered, it was deflected.

Without wanting to seem critical, this is an example that has been witnessed over and over in this and other debates. The Christian is unsure and maybe unprepared, so they look for a diffusive answer.

Why back peddle when we can advance? When asked about being judgemental, would not a good reply be, “No more than you are being by asking that question!” In other words, what is the position and agenda of the interviewer? As we have noted, they have a world view; they are not neutral; so hold them to account by their own standard.

“You have inferred that my position is judgemental. Well, yes it is. God decries homosexuality. Therefore, I take my stand on His Word and oppose this practice on His authority. Now, let me ask, ‘On what basis do you judge me?’ Your question clearly implies that my position is unacceptable to you; please explain your hypocrisy. Why is it wrong for me to dislike their belief, but it is acceptable for you to dislike my belief?”

Brethren, Countrymen, this is how we must begin to react to the war of meaningless words and the stigmatising labels that make up the arsenal of the Secularist. To agree that they are correct is to explicitly deny God’s word. It is to say, in essence, truth does not exist. It is to agree with the Secularist in saying, ‘relativism is the order of the day and meaning is what we give to any particular thing.’ When this is done, we have agreed that Man is god and we have aided the God-haters in the overthrow of the One True and living God.

Therefore, brethren, hold fast to what is good! God is good. His Word is perfect. It is a lamp to our path. It is God’s wisdom that confuses the wise of this age. It is God’s word alone that is our power.

So let us imbibe deeply of that Word (living and written) so that we may answer the fool when he speaks with a Heavenly wisdom that cannot be refuted. Let us shred the Secularist’s worldview, his meaningless words, and his wretched labels with the Divinely appointed scissors found in God’s word – the weapons appointed for the tearing down of strongholds!

Let us fight this war in God’s power, with God’s tactics, dressed in God’s armour. Let us give up on the feeble wisdom of this World and apply the mind of Christ, in Who are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

May I therefore encourage you to equip yourself with understanding in these matters. Arm yourself. Prepare yourself. Then, the next time you encounter meaningless words and stigmatising labels, you will be able defeat them and turn the battle for Jesus Christ.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed!

[1] 2 Corinthians 9:7; Psalm 37:28; Psalm 87:2;

[2] Proverbs 6:16-19; Deuteronomy 12:31.

[3] This is illustrated very clearly when some Christian Commentators feel it necessary to explain to Christians why they should be involved in politics. See: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/07/10/god-politics-and-elections/.

[4] The question is foolish precisely because it is unBiblical. 2 Corinthians 2:15-16: For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 1 Peter 2:7b-8: But for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,” and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. 1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.2)

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

Enter the abuse of language and the courting of hypocrisy!

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

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

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

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

A worldview in action looks like this:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How so you ask? Consider the following:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Part 3 for the Application)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.1)

Posted on August 23, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] Colossians 2:3.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

A KRuddy Doomsday!

Posted on August 20, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

Gee, I wonder if we will now go viral.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Did Paul miss anything?

Wickedness √

Greed √

Evil √

Envy √

Murder √

Deceit √

Malice √

Gossips, you bet! √

Slanderers √

God haters √√√√√√√

Insolent √

Arrogant √

Boastful √

Inventors of Evil √√√

Disobedient to Parents √

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[4] Galatians 6:7.

[5] Psalm 33:10-12.

PostTenebrasLux

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