Adam Goodes IS an ape!

Posted on May 25, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Adam Goodes is an ape! Yes, you heard right. Adam Goodes is an ape! Now that I have your attention, maybe we can discuss the statement sanely and rationally?

The media is abuzz. The verbiage of a 13 year old child has thrown both the AFL and the media into an absolute frenzy. There are headlines about “racial vilification”, there is blame being pointed at parents. Football club presidents are disavowing words made by people wearing their team’s colours.

With all the evil present in the world, one would think that the media might have more to say on truly important issues, but apparently not! Why? Because the media live for a story; particularly the political hot potato!

So let us analyse this story.

During the Collingwood v Sydney Swans match, a 13 year old child called Adam Goodes an ape. Adam stopped and pointed her out to security and she was ejected from the ground.

So let’s cut to the chase. Why is calling Adam Goodes an “ape” racial vilification? Why is calling Adam Goodes an ape a racial slur? I am white. I have been called a “big ape” previously in my life – and not as a term of endearment. So, pray tell, what makes this innocuous word a racial slur or racial vilification?

Then comes the hypocrisy. This girl and her parents are vilified as being first rate bogans before anyone had bothered to really understand what had happened. That’s right; the self-righteous media once again appointed itself judge, jury, and executioner of this girl and her family. Statements like “what about the parents” or “it’s not her fault she is only doing what she was taught” filled the airwaves before the true facts were known. Self-righteous hypocrites the media. In the words of Hinch, Shame, Shame, Shame!

Okay, same game. Murray McLeod-Boyle is on the boundary and is called an ape. He points out the same lass for calling him the same thing. What happens next? What does the media say now?

I am guessing the girl would not be ejected. I am guessing the media would tell me to ‘get over myself’ and ‘stop being so prissy’. Someone would tell me to “grow a pair” and “man up”.

Now, before you get all bent out of shape, ask yourself this question: How many other people at that game were ejected for yelling something at a player or an official? How many umpires had their eyesight questioned? How many umpires had the legitimacy of their parentage questioned? How many other people yelled out something that could have been construed as derogatory and yet were not pointed out by a player and consequently ejected? Then for the curly question: How many other players had this young lass labelled in some manner before this incident?

I can well understand Adam’s dislike at the appellation given to him by this lass. However, I see no racism or racial vilification in it. Thus, I am left wondering if Adam’s emotions did not contribute to this whole saga in a negative way. Did he overreact? Did Adam allow the emotion of “Indigenous Round” to colour his feelings erroneously? Had Adam taken a little longer to process the situation, would he have arrived at the same conclusion?

Now, let’s be really provocative. I am a Christian. I am constantly vilified. My love of Christ is dragged through the mud daily. I am subjected to hearing the name of the One I love used as a by word. My beliefs are constantly and systematically ridiculed by the popular media.

Let us look at one example. As a Christian, I believe that this world was created by and Absolute Sovereign, all knowing, all powerful, God. This position is ridiculed by the popular media. Instead, they insist that I believe that the world occurred through random chance, chaos, and a process which is now termed as Evolution.

So, to the self-righteous, self-preening, self-promoting, egoistical media, I say, Hypocrite! Your lies, false accusations, and blatant inconsistency are all damnable. During this game, there was not one ape, Adam Goodes, on the field. There were in fact 36! Yes; 36!!! Then there were a few dressed as umpires, coaches, and substitutes. Most of all, there were several thousand apes in the stands barracking and cheering. So says the theory of evolution!

So, then, where is the problem? This girl has been vilified for stating an evolutionary fact. This girl committed no crime. In fact, her language would equate to a Christian shouting at another person with the hugely insulting term “human”. Such harsh words.

According to evolution, Adam Goodes, everyone at that game, every other man, woman, and child on the planet is indeed an ape or at the very least, a monkey’s uncle. So where is the problem?

What we witnessed shows that there is indeed a great problem in our society. However, it has little to do with this girl or her parents. It has to do with the fact that, as a culture, we have rejected God and His standards. In place of this we have attempted to institute another religion. In this case, Evolution. The problem is that we simply cannot live in a consistent manner with this new worldview. As stated, Evolution tells us we are animals. Man is not set apart from the animals in anyway. He is just a more evolved version. So, what did this girl do wrong? Why is she vilified for stating what she has been taught by the governmental school system, media, etcetera?

Equally, having come from random events and random chance, there can be no absolutes – Evolution, Postmodernism – so there cannot be any such thing as right or wrong. Tell me again, what did this girl do …? No, you cannot use “wrong”. If there is no wrong, then there is no transgression. Please explain to me why she and her family were persecuted?

Enough said, I think you get the point. Evolution is taught readily. Evolution is believed readily. Yet, when we are confronted with the obvious effects of this dogma, we feel shame and we react – even to the point of vilifying a 13 year old child.

How proud all the media experts and commentators must feel. I mean to say, it must take a lot to subdue the antics of a 13 year old child whose only crime was to let a word fall from her lips. “Man up!”, media personnel. Answer truthfully. Have you said worse than this little girl? Have you thought worse than this child? Have you ever let foul language slip past your lips? Have you ever directed invectives at another person? Of course you have. In fact you will have reported on more debauched acts by our very own politician. You hypocrites!

The reason that this whole saga became a media circus was precisely because those doing the reporting were in fact apes with monkey’s for uncles.

Addendum: I would also add a personal word to Adam. You are respected as a player. You carry an obvious burden for your people. These things are admirable. Yet, as an enthusiast of the game, I have witnessed your on-field antics, at times. Thus, I would urge you, Adam, to listen to the old adage: When you point a figure at someone else, you point three at yourself. It is easy to appear in the media and tell of how you were affronted. Not so easy to lead by example.

Racism

Posted on May 2, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Racism! Now there is a conversation starter. There is little doubt that there is not a soul in the Western world who has not heard the term or witnessed an act that has been condemned as “racist”.

During the worship service on Sunday, Joe Morecraft raised the issue of Racism.[1] I must admit, it made me think. First, and woefully, it was the first sermon I had heard that made comment on such an important topic. Second, we live in a country where the “R” word is tossed about like political promises in an election year.

This led me to think that a few lines that might guide Christians through such a minefield may be of use. To this end, I endeavour.

Sadly, in the war to establish the mythical world of PC (Political Correctness), the first casualty was, indeed, the truth. People use much of the accepted nomenclature of PC, but do they ever really stop and ask what the term means.

A racist by definition is someone who considers their race to be superior and, consequently, all other races to be inferior. It is my contention that for such a view to be truly racist two elements must be prominent. 1. The viewing of external races must move from the idea of less to that of “other”.[2] In short, these others are dehumanised and therefore open to persecutory behaviour. 2. The persecution must be open and definable; whether this be aggressive and violent behaviour or the simple act of ostracising.

When we look around the world, we see many examples of true racism. Hitler is the prime example. It was also seen in the Rwandan Genocide of 1994, when the Tutsis were murdered by the Hutus. That this example is civil, and therefore classed as genocide, makes it no less a racist crime.

I would like you to focus on these examples momentarily because I want to dispel the first myth. Racism is not about different skin colours. As the above examples show, people of the same or similarly coloured skin can and do perpetrate violent, racist acts against one another.

This must be understood. The idea that racism is black against white; brown against yellow; or any other combination thereof, is myth. Racism is a disease of the heart, not of the skin.[3] It is a clash of worldviews, ideas, and ideals. Thus, any notion of skin colour or any other external as a motive must be discarded.

What defines racism is that the invective is directed to a people of a specific cultural or tribal group. If I hate one Australian, I am just a bigot. If I hate many, or most, Australians, I am a racist. Please understand this point well. Racism is the hatred of many in a specific culture or tribal group. Note, please, it is the same hatred, the same intolerance, the same bias. It is simply that it is given a new label when directed to the group.

In this way, it is like the old joke: To steal one man’s work is plagiarism; to steal many men’s work is research! Here, the essence of the adage is to assert that both situations involve stealing. It is simply that the label is changed dependent upon whether he steals from the one or the many. So, when discussing racism, the focus must be upon the heart that hates, regardless of whether it hates the individual or a group.

This leads us to dispel myth number two. This being the case, patriotism and justice, as but two examples, are not racism. Am I a racist because I love my wife and my family above other wives and families? Why then am I a racist because I would love my country above others?

When viewing the topic of justice, the Biblical command is that justice be equal to all. Thus, if a white man and a black man rob a bank together, why should one be given a different sentence? How is it racism to punish both equally?

To argue otherwise, is to state that there is no justice and no equality of persons before or at law. It is to basically accept the bribe and to allow the false witness, both of which are condemned in Scripture.[4]

Last, we encounter the big myth, myth number three – racism is Biblical! The obvious untruth of this statement should not need to be addressed. Sadly, however, it does.

I have heard people, like those belonging to the KKK, try and justify racism and murder on a Biblical basis. I have encountered an incipient racism amongst genuine Christians also. The common denominator seems to be the belief that the “mark of Cain”[5] refers to God turning Cain’s skin black.

The logic goes something like this: 1. Cain murdered Abel; 2. God turned Cain’s skin black as a sign; 3. All black people are therefore the descendants of a murderer; 4. Consequently, all black people are second rate and deserve death.

Even the genuine Christian, who may not want to “murder” all black people, still has some reservation regarding “that” skin colour and in some way views them as less – which should not be the case.[6]

So let us look at this supposed logic:

1. If a mark on the skin of Cain is God’s sign of displeasure, then we are forced to ask, what did the Indians, Asians, and Islanders do?

2.Why is it that the only presupposition acceptable is that God made man white and His mark of displeasure was to make the skin black? Maybe all men were made black and God’s mark of displeasure was to bleach us “whities”! Hmmm!!!

3. Reality check! No one knows what the mark was?[7] Speculation has led to the bizarre. Speculation has led to murder! Without any concrete proof as to what the sign was, how dare we take such radical action as to murder or to look down our noses upon another?

4. The stupidity of those who rely on this nonsense is seen most vividly when we look at the text of Scripture. Cain was given a mark so that his life would be preserved! The mark was not to set him apart for death, but to make sure that he lived. Thus, it is both stupidity and impossibility to argue that the mark is a sign that we can kill the one to whom it was given. In fact, to do so, according to the text, is to invite wrath seven fold.

5. Then we must come to some really startling thoughts. Anti-Semitism. Jesus is a Semite! White supremacists. I doubt Jesus is white! Then we have the wonder of Jesus death. For whom did Jesus die? Says Scripture: “Worthy art Thou to take the book, and to break its seals; for Thou wast slain, and didst purchase for God with Thy blood men from every tribe and tongue and people and nation.”[8] Oh dear! If Jesus died to bring men from every tribe, tongue, people, and nation, how then do we say that some peoples are less than people? How do we say that some skin colours are not worthy of temporal life, if Jesus died to give them eternal life?

If the Son of God loved peoples of all designs, how do we then say, on the basis of His Word, that it is alright to hate certain of these designs? One can only do so when love is replaced by hate.

Herein, we encounter the problem.

Of recent, at least in this country, the popular aphorism to counter the racist charge is, “I am not racist. I hate all people equally!” This saying came to my attention via a nephew. I confess that I have used it in jest. Yet, I now repudiate it. The simple fact is that when the Christian adopts such sayings as these, trite or otherwise, they are imbibing of the world’s standards.

The Christian’s response should not be one of hate toward his fellow man; nor should we be sucked into the modern jargon where the term hate is thrown around without care. Our maxim should be, “I am not a racist because Christ’s love constrains me to treat all equally!” If this is too long, then try, “I love until given reason to hate.”[9]

God judges the heart[10] and the action of the heart. As His people, so should we. As Christians, who know the depths and depravity of sin as well as the wonders of Christ’s redemption, we should never embrace any concept that judges another because of the colour of his skin, the shape of his face, or the colour of his eyes.[11]

Righteousness is and must be our only standard.[12] For this standard alone cuts true and straight. This standard alone looks beyond the morphology of man to see what he truly is. Moreover, the standard of righteousness applied must be God’s. Then and only then do we have an objective standard and a true measure.

The man who hates one is the same as the man who hates many. Change the label if you will, but it makes no difference. The heart that hates is the heart immersed in sin. The heart that hates is the heart untouched by Jesus Christ. Therefore, the heart touched by Jesus Christ must not hate any man on the basis of his skin colour or the region from whence he comes. The Christian, touched by redeeming love, must love. If hate becomes a necessity, it does so, not on the basis of outward appearance, but because of an ethical failure to adhere to God’s law.

The one who says he is in the light and yet hates his brother is in the darkness until now. The one who loves his brother abides in the light and there is no cause for stumbling in him. But the one who hates his brother is in the darkness and walks in the darkness, and does not know where he is going because the darkness has blinded his eyes (1 John 2:10-11).

[1] http://www.sermonaudio.com/sermoninfo.asp?SID=12161295822.

[2] In other words, the external race is not just a lesser form of myself; It is wholly other. This opens the door to maltreatment and death because you are not attacking another human or another of your kind. The object is determined to be other and this determination removes all ethics from the situation, manifests the persecutor’s superiority, and reinforces their perceived right to do as they please with the object.

[3] The Bible calls this disease “sin”! It is but one more example of man’s rebellion against God and his desire to rule in place of God. Racism is therefore, at its heart, repressive and suppressive. It must subjugate others in order to be seen to stand tall.

[4] Deuteronomy 16:18-20; Deuteronomy 19:18-19.

[5] Genesis 4:15.

[6] I have experienced this type of innuendo in regard to cross-cultural or mixed-race marriage. The one querying does not make overtly racist statements, however, there is a veiled concept that to marry into another race, is to marry down.

[7] It is particularly necessary to point out that the preposition used means “to”, “toward”, or “for”. Thus, Yahweh gave a sign to or for Cain. Yahweh did not set a sign upon Cain or turn Cain into a sign. Consequently, the whole concept of the “sign” being upon Cain, particularly, in his skin, is one that does not have a high degree of Scriptural warrant.

[8] Revelation 5:9.

[9] Whilst deserving of an article in itself, it must be stated that it is not wrong for a Christian to hate, contra the modern view. God is said to hate six things; there are seven which are an abomination (Proverbs 6:16). God is also said to hate divorce (Malachi 2:16). Jesus is said to “hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans”. More importantly, we see that Jesus commends His people for likewise hating these deeds (Revelation 2:6). In short, we must hate what God hates. Whilst our lives should be marked by love and charity, it is impossible for us not to hate that which God hates. To do otherwise would be utter unfaithfulness.

[10] Again, this is Biblical, not internal pietism. Jesus says that it is out of the overflow of the heart that evil comes (Mark 7:21-23). The evil action is produced by the evil heart.

[11] Some comment needs to be made about race and conduct. If you walk down the street every day for a week and on each of your journeys you are bitten by a purple, polka dotted dog, chances are that on the eighth day you will be very wary should a purple, polka dotted dog come into view. When referring to people, it is not racism to make the same mental note. This is where the whole concept of PC is an detestable. PC seeks to mask and thereby distort truth. Let me illustrate with regard to scientific principle. Science proceeds on the basis of observable facts. They also seek to establish credibility by observing said fact repeatedly. Why then is it racism if one observes a repeated fact amongst a particular ethnic group? As noted in the body of the text, it can only be racism when these people are ostracised or dehumanised because of that trait. Outside of that, you have a simple statement of fact – a truth. However, as noted, PC does not like truth, so it declares war on truth and seeks to mar it.

[12] “And He will judge the world in righteousness; He will execute judgment for the peoples with equity” (Psalm 9:8). “Righteousness and justice are the foundation of Thy throne; Lovingkindness and truth go before Thee” (Psalm 89:14).

Of Designer Babies and Murderous Acts!

Posted on April 29, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Our culture of death strikes once again!

Melbourne doctor, Mark Hobart, has hit the news for refusing to refer a couple to another doctor in order to perform an abortion.[1] Dr Hobart took his stand when he found out that the parents wanted to abort the child because it was the wrong sex. The parents only wanted a boy.

Sadly, this is not the first time the Designer Baby issue has raised its ugly head in this country. We have already witnessed the murder of twin boys for the same reason.[2] As technology advances, we can expect the “Designer Choice” to go beyond sex, to eye colour, hair colour, and any number of things.

This is a sorry state indeed. Yet there are worse things to be noted. Today, I was watching the Nine afternoon news. The story of this doctor came up for discussion. One of the panelists was 2GB’s Ben Fordham. He made comment on the issue. Two things in regard to his comment were noteworthy.

The first was the absence of Free Speech. You could see Mr Fordham struggling to choose words and to avoid saying anything inflammatory. He hedged the issues until he came out with the statement that “a healthy baby had been aborted.”[3]

This led to the second point. Mr Fordham added that “this was the thin edge of the wedge.” Well, I am sorry, Ben, you could not be any more mistaken. The wedge of which you speak came and went a long, long, long time ago!

We are entering a furore because this poor child was aborted as a result of it being the wrong sex. Supposedly, it was wrong to choose one sex over another. Yet here is the fallacy inherent in the stated opinion of Mr Fordham. Every abortion, well, the majority, is a choice. What is the difference in choosing convenience, prosperity, comfort, sleep, etcetera or the sex of the child? Nothing! Absolutely nothing!

This then cuts to the heart of that demon, Feminism. The acceptance of abortion was propagated on the basis that a woman’s body was her own and she had the right to “choose”. This is the demonic beast that gave birth to abortion and it has been the constant mantra of pro-abortionists to this day. I even had the displeasure of reading a statement by Hillary Clinton on Emily’s List. Said she, “I have met thousands and thousands of pro-choice men and women. I have never met anyone who is pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is not being pro-abortion. Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”[4]

The nonsense touted can be translated thusly: ‘We do not want to kill babies, but if upholding my right to choice means that babies are killed, then that is the collateral damage we will have to accept in order to uphold my inalienable right to choose!

So, here we are. The conundrum! The basis argued for the legalisation of abortion, is now becoming an unpalatable reality in the form of Designer Babies. Choice has now freely exhibited itself to a greater extent and its wretched consequences are unveiled for all to see. Seemingly, those that witnessed this unveiling have been repulsed.

Here, of necessity, we must make comment and pass judgement upon the futility of individual choice as final arbiter:

1. Choice has once more been exposed as a “nice” Humanistic ideal, but a poor and wretched guide. The ability to choose wisely presupposes that one has the moral ability to make a “right choice”. Such ability only comes through surrender to Jesus Christ and being clothed with the mind of God.

2. As those seeking abortions are rarely clothed with the mind of God, they are partakers of a mind that is hostile toward God. This mindset rejects life and clings to death. It rejects God’s voice and asserts individual right. The glory of God is not considered worthy; only the temporal comfort of the individual matters. Thus, external, moral, absolute revelation is rejected. Decision is made on the basis of internal, immoral, transient values.

3. This in turn leads to the worship of self and to the declaration of autonomy. Man, and man alone, has the right to govern his life, choose his destiny, decide upon values, and to commission any outside help to achieve the goals of his system. This all sounds good, in theory. Yet, in practice, it is the progenitor of diabolical monsters. Currently, Designer Babies. Recently, cannibalism. Do you remember the case in Germany? A man had longed to eat someone. He advertised and someone responded. The victim chose to be eaten![5]

4. This said, let us analyse Hillary’s statement: “Being pro-choice is trusting the individual to make the right decision for herself and her family, and not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.”

“To make the right decision”. The presupposition of this statement is that the person in question is moral and has the ability to make a morally correct choice. Given that most abortions are to hide sin, the moral integrity of the one choosing must immediately be questioned. Then, off course, in a Postmodern world, one is rightly entitled to question what right rightly means? Right!

“The individual”. In philosophical terms, we must ask, “What happened to the many?” Here, we clearly see the rank individualism of our day and of the human heart on display. There is no reference to others, particularly to the creator God. We are in a closed system in which the individual rules supreme.

“For herself and her family”. First, let me play the role of the stereotypic misogynist and ask, “What happened to the father?” If there is a family, all homosexual abominations aside, there must be a father. Where is his say in regard to his wife and his family? Second, and as a natural concomitant, we must note that the woman has governance – herself and her family. One seems forced to ask, “What happened to equality?” Why, at the very least, is this not our decision for our family? The answer is that Feminism was never interested in equality, despite the constant use of phrases like “equal rights”. It was interested in usurpation. It was interested in fulfilling the sinful desire within woman to rule.[6]

“For herself and her family.” In considering these words, we must also ask about the needs of a society. What role does the many play in the life of the one and vice versa? Societies must grow in order to thrive. At the very least, there must be the replacement of the existing population or the society withers and dies. The exaltation of individual choice as final arbiter is not only a road to anarchy, but a road to extinction. By allowing the exercise of the individual’s right of choice in regard to the immoral, the society becomes complicit in both the anarchy and the extinction. First, we are our brother’s keeper. That means that society needs to restrain the errant individual who is out to act foolishly. Whether this be procuring an abortion, a prostitute, or an illicit substance, society has an obligation both to restrain and denounce evil. Second, prosperity can never be had by a society when it refuses to restrain the errant individual. God cannot bless unrighteousness. Thus, allowing the errant individual to practice lawlessness will only beget and encourage more lawlessness, which, in turn, constrains God to withhold His blessing farther.[7] Third, the individual’s morality has serious consequences for society. Two moral individuals will form a moral family whose offspring will add to society through integrity and righteousness. The immoral individual will destroy family and beget destruction.[8]

“Not entrusting that decision to anyone wearing the authority of government in any regard.” This comment is a follow on to the previous point, but it deserves it own space. Note again, the rank individualism. No one, absolutely no one, has the right to govern this individual. Not a husband, not the Church, not even the State! This being the case, as touched upon in footnote 4, “Who becomes the arbiter or judge?” “On what basis is there a justice system?” Look at the various happenings in America recently. The Boston bombings. The shooting at Sandy Hook. We could even go back to Columbine. All those involved were denounced. Why? Were they not all individuals exercising their incontrovertible right of choice? If this is so, then how can they be condemned? Hillary has spoken – none shall judge the individual’s choice! “Ahh,” you say, “but that does not involve the murder of innocents.” Doesn’t it? Doesn’t it!!! Pray tell, what happens when the choice is to abort a perfectly healthy baby? Is not the child murdered? Does not that choice take life? In the case of the twins aborted, is this not mass murder? How is it different to Columbine or Sandy Hook?

What Hillary Clinton has stated, and what Emily’s List promotes through her quotation, is nothing less than anarchy and extinction.[9] If Hillary Clinton’s thesis holds true, then no individual can ever be held to account for any deed precisely because all deeds are a matter of individual choice and no individual is accountable to anyone for the choice made. In one fell swoop, Hillary has destroyed God, Law, justice, society, Church, State, Family, governance and so on. Poof! Gone!

In their place, the individual has been enthroned to rule eternally and sovereignly. But wait! There is more. The individual will also rule in tyranny, according to the capricious nature of their own laws and desire. Anarchy will be the first condition realised as individuals end up warring with each other as they each exercise their “right” to choice. War, as we know, has casualties. So, we head to extinction. This we do, gleefully; happy in the knowledge that it is our choice. Of course, we may wish for a better outcome. However, as our mantra is “individual choice above all else”, we must be content to simply board the train and allow it to take us to the terminal terminus of our belief.

Brethren, the right of choice is implicitly tied to the choice of right. The choice of right always trumps the right of choice. The right choice enables and permits the right of choice. It is so because the right choice declares the chooser to be a moral man of God and thereby permits him to exercise his right of choice.[10] In contradistinction, the right of choice by no means guarantees a right choice. In fact, demanding the right of choice shows a heart estranged from God and underscores the inability of that person to make a right choice.

Friends, I beseech you by the mercies of God; beware the right of choice demanded by the rank, God-hating individualist. It is a poison and a canker that harks back to the Man’s rebellion in the garden. It is no more than a modern manifestation of that old lie, “Did God really say?” It is Man once more expressing his desire to overturn God and His righteous rule by declaring himself fit and able to rule in God’s place.

Man’s choice may be to serve himself. Man’s obligation is to render total obedience to God through Jesus Christ.

[1] http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/victoria/melbourne-doctors-abortion-stance-may-be-punished/story-e6frf7kx-1226631128438

[2] http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/playing-with-nature-the-ethics-of-sex-selection/desc/

[3] This is noteworthy because it is how totalitarian regimes work. Although everyone is supposedly entitled their opinions, yet they are made to fear the public airing of those opinions.

[4] http://www.emilyslist.org.au/about-us/what-we-believe-in. Here, in fancy language is rank individualism. What are the consequences of this choice? Why are we crooked that two brothers detonated bombs at the Boston Marathon? Why is Obama so upset about the shootings at Sand Hook? He would back Hilary’s statement. These people made choices. What is the problem? The real question is the part about “right choices”. Who sits in judgement? At what point do we pass judgement on the rightness of this choice?

[5] http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/dec/04/germany.lukeharding accessed 02/05/13

[6] “She is here put into a state of subjection. The whole sex, which by creation was equal with man, is, for sin, made inferior, and forbidden to usurp authority, 1 Tim. 2:11, 12. The wife particularly is hereby put under the dominion of her husband, and is not sui juris—at her own disposal, of which see an instance in that law, Num. 30:6-8, where the husband is empowered, if he please, to disannul the vows made by the wife. This sentence amounts only to that command, Wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; but the entrance of sin has made that duty a punishment, which otherwise it would not have been.” Henry, Matthew, Matthew Henry’s Commentary on the Bible, (Peabody, MA: Hendrickson Publishers) 1991.

[7] This is no different to the exercise of discipline within the Church. If false teaching and errant behaviour are not corrected, they corrupt.

[8] For example, have we aborted the person who could have cured cancer or united fractured nations? We are also seeing generational breakdown. Fractured families beget fractured families. The single home begets single homes. The “seed sower” condones and begets “seed sowers”.

[9] Deuteronomy 30:15 – “See, I have set before you today life and prosperity, and death and adversity.”

[10] The saved man is given a new mind to exercise (Romans 12:1-2). He is expected to exercise it. He is expected to make wise decisions in pursuit of holiness and godliness.

AA

Posted on April 27, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

AA. These two letters, placed side by side, are a common sight today. They stand for a battery and bra size. It could be used to refer to the Australian Army or to an Anti-Aircraft battery. Its most familiar forms are probably: American Airborne and Alcoholics Anonymous.

Here, I would like to create a new acronym using these two letters – Arrogant America!

On the 11th of September, 2001, America and the world were reshaped by an act of terrorism. In the wake of that attack, the patriotic rhetoric followed. It was not the flow of a gentle stream. It was the torrent of a mountain gorge after heavy rain in the mountains above.

One may expect a degree of patriotism after such a devastating event. One would even say that some patriotic statements would be a natural psychological reaction to such a catastrophe. However, to this day, I am still puzzled by the degree of the rhetoric. What is more, I am absolutely bewildered by the lack of humility that was displayed.

That lack of humility caused me to pen the following:

What are these deep questions? Let us start with, ‘Why does not “God bless America?”’[1] ‘Why does America believe that she has something to offer the world when she is in turmoil?’ ‘Why does America state a belief in God and then ban His teaching from schools?’ ‘How does the President talk of “Justice” when the court system rarely delivers anything resembling justice?’ Last of all, Why does this nation exclaim, God Bless America! and then humiliate preachers of the Gospel whilst exalting Islam?

This leads us to the prayer mentioned earlier.

The prayer in question is used because it exemplified many of the themes found in other prayers. It was delivered by a female politician.[2] As she stood at the microphone delivering her invective, a picture formed in our mind. There stood this woman in front of a maddening crowd. The crowd was in a frenzy and they were being whipped up even further. How was this done? This woman had done the miraculous. She had captured the nation’s god. She held it out to the people. She demanded of this god that it act to do the will of the people. To excite the crowd further, she placed one hand on the back of the god’s neck and forced it to adopt a posture of submission. With her other hand she twisted the god’s arm behind its back. She forced it further and further. With each flinch made by this god, she made more demands. This god was to bless the nation. It was to mandate revenge against the evildoers, but it was to be blind to the transgressions of the nation. If this god would but do this, it would be allowed to remain as the nation’s deity. In the ensuing battle and victory, all the glory would belong to the nation. If they failed, they would once more capture this god and punish it for its second delinquency. After all, should not this god have protected the righteous from the outpouring of the infidel’s wrath?

When this woman spoke, nay, foamed at the mouth, she did not exhibit grace. There was not an ounce of contrition. One looked in vain for humility. She did not for one moment countenance the idea that this event may have been a judgement upon her nation, a wakeup call or a call to repentance. In short, this was not a person placing themselves before almighty God in a humble prayer. This was not the prayer of the faithful seeking wisdom of the Almighty. It was not the prayer of one who sought justice for the righteous at the hand of God. Rather, it was akin to a letter of final demand.

This prayer sounded very familiar. We remember reading something like it in an old book. We searched and found this ancient prayer. The similarities were striking. This ancient prayer was offered by a public official in a time of national crisis. However, there was an even greater similarity, namely, the attitude involved in offering the prayer. As we read this old book, we were also struck by the commentator’s appraisal of the prayer. It makes for interesting reading. The following is an excerpt from the book:

And He [Jesus] also told this parable to certain ones who trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and viewed others with contempt: “Two men went up into the temple to pray, one a Pharisee, and the other a taxgatherer. “The Pharisee [public official] stood and was praying thus to himself, ‘God, I thank Thee that I am not like other people: swindlers, unjust, adulterers, or even like this taxgatherer. ‘I fast twice a week; I pay tithes of all that I get.’ “But the taxgatherer, standing some distance away, was even unwilling to lift up his eyes to heaven, but was beating his breast, saying, ‘God, be merciful to me, the sinner!’ “I tell you, this man went down to his house justified rather than the other; for everyone who exalts himself shall be humbled, but he who humbles himself shall be exalted.”[3]

… This woman, as with the Pharisee, prayed to herself. She may have used the jargon of her culture’s religion, but she was not praying to the God of the Bible. As she prayed she brought herself under Jesus’ denunciation. She thought more highly of herself than she ought. She was not willing to pray, ‘Father (intimate and relational) thy will be done (humble submission) and grant wisdom that justice may be done in the earth.’ No. We heard, God (impersonal and aloof) we are going to find the people responsible and exact revenge (subversive). She “trusted in herself.” She trusted in the State. She was one who needed not a physician. Which raises the question, ‘Why did this woman even bother to call the doctor?’[4]

So, “Why revisit the past?” you ask. Simple. America is “thicker” than the proverbial plank![5] They have not learned the lesson so terribly taught to them over a decade ago.

Recently, two brothers set bombs at the Boston Marathon. These bombs killed three. What was America’s response? Once more the torrent of patriotism flowed. Once more pride, ego, bombast, and arrogance were the order of the day.

Only a day or two ago, I saw both the President and Vice-President giving speeches. There was nothing of humility and certainly nothing to do with Almighty God.[6]

Once more there was simply a hollow, patriotic rhetoric echoing a belief that America was, of itself, invincible. Note these words from Vice-President Joe Biden:

“Why this terrorist phenomenon the beginning of the 21st century, why? People say to me for they surely know they can never defeat us. They can never overthrow us. They can never occupy us. So why? Why? Whether it’s al Qaeda Central, or two twisted, perverted, cowardly knock-off jihadists here in Boston. Why do they do what they do?”

…“I’ve thought about it a lot, because I deal with it a lot, and I’ve come to the conclusion, it is not unique to me, but they do it to instill fear, to have us, in the name of our safety and security, jettison what we value the most, and what the world most values about us, our open society, our system of justice that guarantees freedom, the access of all Americans to opportunity, the free flow of information and people across this country, our transparency.”

“It infuriates them that we refuse to bend, refuse to change, refuse to yield to fear,” Biden said. “The doctrine of hate and oppression, they’ve found out, cannot compete with the values of openness and inclusiveness. And that’s why they’re losing around the world. The irony is we read about these events, we experience them. But the truth is, on every frontier, terrorism as a weapon is losing. It is not gaining adherents. And what galls them the most is that America does remain that shining city on the hill. We’re a symbol of the hopes and dreams of the very aspirations of people all around the world, people who live where they thrive. Our very existence makes a lie of their perverted ideology.”[7]

There is a lot in those statements. Let us, then, start our critique with the last highlighted comment – a shining city on a hill. This comment is really the salient point. America’s founders, being Christians, spoke of the new nation as a city on a hill. Thus, the term came to have particular relevance to Boston.

This reference from Matthew has to do with Christ’s disciples being the salt and light of the world.[8] Consequently, when the term “a city on a hill” is used, the shining has to do with the righteousness of Jesus Christ, not the indomitable spirit of Humanism. The shining is the “Light of life” that came into “the darkness”[9] and not darkness masquerading as light.[10]

Therefore, implicit in this terminology is the fact that the shining is the righteousness of Jesus Christ based on the fact that He is the exact representation of God in whom the fullness of the deity dwells. In short, the shining is capitulation and submission to the Law-Word of God. We shine only when we are obedient to all that the Father has commanded.

Therefore, Mr. Biden is naught but a deluded fool when he speaks of the magnificence of America in the terms that he does. For speaking thusly, he is not speaking of Christ and obedience to God, but of Humanism and the pride of man. This leads us to ask, What justice? What freedom? What openness? What transparency?

We are speaking of a country that practices open genocide. America has murdered millions of unborn children in the womb since 1973 and called it choice. I tell you that Saddam Hussein at his worst did not come close. We are speaking of a country where law enforcement can add the word ‘terrorism’ to a charge and you simply disappear; no judge, no lawyer, and no jury.

We are speaking of a country whose current President’s right to hold office has been constantly challenged because his birth certificate has been sealed. Sums of money have been offered to induce him to come forward and produce his birth certificate. Thus far, nothing. Transparency! This is not transparency. This is somewhere between opaque and “particulate soil in a colloidal suspension” – mud!

Then, when he speaks of “our open society”, this deluded man speaks not a freedom and truth, but of the acceptance of perversion. He speaks of letting homosexuals from the closet. He lauds the rights of those who kill children in the womb. He stands in awe of the euthanasic doctor who destroys the old and infirmed. He loves “openness” in so far as family and society are laid open to government infiltration and control for the exacting of unjust taxes and false government. What he will not tolerate, however, is the preacher of righteousness who speaks truth in God’s name. Then the “open society” closes ranks in order to silence, denigrate, and obliterate God’s name.[11]

America may still speak of God with a capital “G”, but the truth is that they, organisationally as a nation, have abandoned this God and his standards. You can add the words” God Bless America!” to the end of as many speeches as you like, but it will not bring God’s blessing.

When the heart chases darkness; when the heart wilfully rebels; when the heart is openly deceitful; taking the words “God Bless America” to your lips is treasonous and leaves one ripe for judgement. It is to acknowledge the God of the Bible. It is to acknowledge that He has revealed His standard. Yet, it is to belittle God by believing that you can deceive Him.[12] It is to ask God to be an absolute hypocrite. Yes, that is right. Americans are asking God to be a hypocrite. They expect God to protect them from evil doers, when they in fact commit more evil than their enemies!

This is the crux of the problem. America wants to be the “light on the hill”. However, they fail to appreciate two absolute truths regarding the light.

First, the light is righteousness. It is not freedom. It is not democracy. It is not the constitution. It is not the creating of a legal environment in which “every man can do right in his own eyes.” It is righteousness and righteousness alone. Righteousness is rightness before God. Rightness before God is obedience to God. Obedience to God is Jesus Christ and those who are in Jesus Christ. Therefore, the radiance of the light emanating from that hill must be Jesus Christ and all that His glorious name entails.

Second, America has a perverted view of how that light is to work. If I put a powerful light on the roof of my house, must it not of necessity illumine my house and my yard before it reaches to those of my neighbour? Americans walk around draped in cloaks with large hoods. These they use to hide themselves from the light, comforted by the fact that they do not need any such light. They shield themselves, yet hope that, as the light leaves their shores, it would gather intensity and help those to who it comes.[13]

Two fallacies. One, a light that is not Christ is no light. Two, the light must fall upon and illumine those closest before it can fall upon and change those far away.

America may have started out as a light on a hill. It may have shone brightly as it sought to obey God in Christ. However, as the Christian heritage has been jettisoned bit by bit, so has the true light. The Humanists could see the light diming and people began to ask questions. The humanists, being clever and deceptive, lulled you to sleep. Then, while you were sleeping, some humanists trotted to the top of the hill and switched globes.

The consequence is that you still see a great light. You think it is the same one your forefathers erected, but it is not. It is dressed up the same. It is described using the same language. Yet, you know it is not because the new light is cold and harsh, not warm and gentle. Those old enough to have witnessed the true light will testify that it was warm and gentle. It gave guidance in dark places. It was alive. It would take the lost by the hand and lead them to safety. Not so this new light. Its harsh light blinds. It beguiles. It does not warm and lead. It blinds and makes all to think that they are upon a safe path, when in fact they skirt a precipice.

America’s national anthem shows the old light. Its last verse says:

O thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand; Between their loved home and the war’s desolation. Blest with vict’ry and peace, may the Heav’n rescued land.
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation! Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just, And this be our motto: “In God is our trust.”
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave![14]

These words, rightly understood made America the land of the free and the home of the brave. It did make America a light precisely because their trust was in Almighty God. Today, this is no longer the case. They use “God” words that are hollow. They are left over from a bygone era. They have form, but they have no substance. All these words are, is a provocation in the ears of God.

How many wakeup calls must America receive? How long will she pretend?

America may be the land of the free (laughable) and the home of the brave (undoubtedly). However, she is also the home of the stupid and the arrogant. She is this because she has wholeheartedly turned her back on the living God and has turned aside to idols of her own making. This sin is bad enough in itself, but she multiplies her guilt by pretending to still serve God Almighty.

Such a provocation can only result in a manifestation of God’s judgement. This is seen every day. Shootings, murders, governmental disintegration, racial tension, violence, familial disintegration, governmental policies of nihilism, ineffective government, high taxation for no result, debt, not to mention 9/11 and Boston.

America the Arrogant; how she needs the humility of Christ! She has become like the ancient city of Babylon – strong, great – yet the heavenly voice cries out, “Fallen, fallen is Babylon the great! And she has become a dwelling place of demons and a prison of every unclean spirit, and a prison of every unclean and hateful bird.”[15]

This is the end of every nation that comes to believe that it is invincible apart from God. They abandon God. They delve into sin. They become abhorrent in the sight of God and God casts them down.

Is this not the pattern shown to us in Scripture? The Amorite. Israel. Judah. Assyria. Babylon. Egypt. America will not escape unless she repents.

America the Arrogant! Repent of your falsehood and your evil deeds. Repent and return to Jesus Christ, the fair and beautiful light you once new. Put away your arrogance and clothe yourself in the humility of Jesus Christ and, once more, be a light on a hill.

Australia, repent and do likewise, for we too are a stench in the nostrils of God.

[1] We do not have room to expand on this point. Suffice to say that the Biblical concept of God’s blessing is very much associated with peace. It strongly infers rest from all of one’s enemies. Strife, internal, external or both, would suggest a lack of blessing. Here, in summary, we simply posit the end of all things. God’s blessing upon His people is peace. No tears, no sickness, no evildoers. The swords will be turned into ploughshares. These themes can be found in any of the covenant documents.

[2] Please forgive the lack of specifics. As I sat watching this event unfold I began making mental notes. Unfortunately, what I should have done is tape it or use pen and paper to record specifics.

[3] Luke 18:9-14. The New American Standard Bible, (La Habra, California: The Lockman Foundation) 1977. All Scripture quotations are from this source unless otherwise noted. Emphasis added.

[4] Twin Towers: Symbol of Hypocrisy; Part 2 The Walls Came Tumbling Down.Available at: http://www.reformationministries.com.au/sfarticles/TwinTowers2February2002.pdf.

[5] The Biblical terminology is hard-hearted and stiff-necked.

[6] If anything was clearly apparent during this event it was the lack of reference to God. Maybe 9/11 pushed America into a more self-aware state of paganism. As natural crises in the past have caused people to abandon a superficial faith, so 9/11 may have (I would say, has had) this effect upon the United States.

[7] Viewed at: http://www.mediaite.com/online/joe-biden-calls-boston-bombing-suspects-two-twisted-perverted-cowardly-knock-off-jihadists/ ; 27/04/13. Bold added.

[8] See Dispelling Darkness for a commentary on our nature as light bearers. Available at: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2013/04/dispelling-darkness/.

[9] John 1:1-5.

[10] 2 Corinthians 11:14; 2 Timothy 3:5.

[11] Space simply does not allow for a list of things that contravene God’s law. Humility needs to be shown by us Aussies because our leaders, whilst not as blatant, are tarred with exactly the same spirit of godlessness.

[12] Psalm 94:8-11: “Pay heed, you senseless among the people; and when will you understand, stupid ones? He who planted the ear, does He not hear? He who formed the eye, does He not see? He who chastens the nations, will He not rebuke, Even He who teaches man knowledge? The Lord knows the thoughts of man, that they are a mere breath.”

[13] Jesus had something to say about a “speck” and a “log”, which would seem appropriate at this point. Matthew 7:3-5.

[14] Taken from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Star-Spangled_Banner. Please note the use of capitals. ‘Heaven’ and ‘power’ are both capitalised signifying that they are references to God Almighty. There is even a reference to salvation in that the “land” is rescued by God. It is in this knowledge that the forefathers could say, “In God is our trust.” They believed God. They believed His word. They believed His Christ. Thus, they had confidence to seek God’s blessing as a reward for their obedience. Equally, they could expect victory when they fought for the “just” cause. This was not a carte blanche view. It was a Biblical and covenantal view.

[15] Revelation 18:2.

Dispelling Darkness

Posted on April 25, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Don’t you just hate curly questions? You know the ones to which I refer. They put you on the spot. They make you feel uneasy. Your brain scrambles with the constant egoistical message, “C’mon dude! You’re a smart man. You can answer this!” Yet all that flashes before your eyes is something akin to that wretched web error: “Http 404 page not available!” In an instant, I am once more back at school and standing in the corner.

As perplexing and humbling as the “curly” question is, sometimes it has a great benefit. If we will lay our egos aside for just a moment, we will realise that the curly question may be a blessing in disguise. If we are willing, the curly question becomes to us Alice’s rabbit hole or the Pevensie’s wardrobe – it becomes a portal to a journey of discovery!

One such curly question came to my attention via a visiting missionary. He related how he had once been asked by a tribesman, “Where does the darkness go when the light is turned on?” I can imagine the surprise the missionary felt. Here you are to teach people concerning the Bible and you end up with a question that would puzzle most physicists.

Yet, the question has merit. I have found myself pondering this question from time to time. The more I thought about it, the more I saw that it was a profound question; the answer to which had far reaching implications. It brought to me a perspective on obedient Christian living that was life affirming, but which also shook me to the core.

You see, as Christians we are familiar with the conceptual use of light and darkness as parallels of good and evil. What is not apparent to most is that the statement just made is indeed false. Yes, it is what most Christians perceive. However, that perception is an error.

What do I mean? Simply this. It is a mistake to view the Scriptural use of light and darkness as just an analogy for good or evil. When we diminish these concepts to a mere analogy, we rob these concepts of their veracity and potency. In Scripture, light and darkness are not simply concepts used for illustrative purposes. They are real, powerful, inherent forces.

In other words, the Biblical authors were not at a script writing session discussing, “Okay. God is good. Satan is bad. What can we use to illustrate this concept?” As the discussion continues they stumble upon a correlation between good and light. “Aha!” the lead writer exclaims, “from now on good will be conceptualised as light and evil as dark!”

The reality is that evil is darkness and darkness is evil. Just as good is light and light is good. In Scripture, both are seen equally as inherent forces. They are, in a sense, tangible, palpable, intrinsic entities to be reckoned with.

To bring this issue into sharp relief, we need to think here in terms of antithesis. The basic presupposition of every Christian is, or at least should be, God is! This forms the building block for every piece of theology. God is. All that opposes God is not God, from God, or a part of God. God is infinite; the not God, finite. God is eternal; the not God, temporal. God is immutable; the not God, changeable.

This antithetic relation is also seen when viewing light and darkness. John says: “God is light, and in Him there is no darkness at all” (1 John 1:5). Note what John does not say. John does not describe God as light, similar to light, or like light. No, God is light. Consequently, darkness has no part in His essential nature.

James brings out this same dictum when he refers to, “the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation, or shifting shadow” (James 1:17). Whist this text seems difficult, at first, its intent is extremely clear. God is understood in the plural (lights) as emanating a perfect light from multiple sources. The effect of this light emanating from multiple points is to eliminate every shadow.

Think here of a sports match under lights. Given the state of the light and the limited position of the light towers, it is not uncommon to see four or five distinct shadows following each player. Imagine now the same game, but with more towers, betters lights, and, in particular, light from above and below. Now, the perfect light eradicates every shadow. No matter where the player moves, shadows are an impossibility.

The perfection of this light and its intensity is also shown to us when God is described as He “who dwells in unapproachable light” (1 Timothy 6:16). The truth of this is borne out by other Biblical texts.

Consider the events surrounding Moses encounter with Yahweh. Moses wanted to meet God face to face. In Exodus 33:18-23 we read the following exchange: “Then Moses said, “I pray Thee, show me Thy glory!” And He said, “I Myself will make all My goodness pass before you, and will proclaim the name of the Lord before you; and I will be gracious to whom I will be gracious, and will show compassion on whom I will show compassion.” But He said, “You cannot see My face, for no man can see Me and live!” Then the Lord said, “Behold, there is a place by Me, and you shall stand there on the rock; and it will come about, while My glory is passing by, that I will put you in the cleft of the rock and cover you with My hand until I have passed by. “Then I will take My hand away and you shall see My back, but My face shall not be seen.”

Here, Moses asks to see Yahweh’s “glory”. Yahweh says, “No!” Instead, Moses is granted permission to only see Yahweh’s “goodness”. Even now, with this limited grant, Yahweh still insists that he shall hide Moses in the Rock and cover him with His hand until He has passed by. Then Moses will be granted a look at Yahweh’s back. What was the result of this encounter upon Moses? He shone. Moses was, in essence, irradiated by the light of Yahweh’s presence.

We read of a similar type of event in the New Testament when Jesus confronts one Saul of Tarsus on the road to Damascus. Acts 9:3 states, “And it came about that as he journeyed, he was approaching Damascus, and suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him.” When Paul relates this story to King Agrippa, he describes it in these words, “At midday, O King, I saw on the way a light from heaven, brighter than the sun, shining all around me.”[1]

These accounts serve to show how intrinsically light is allied to the being of God. This connection is not just that of an analogy for the purpose of explanation or illustration. It is far more. It is in essence, ontological.

This fact is borne out by John. When he opens his gospel he begins with this ontological antithesis. Jesus, God’s Son, the very nature of God, [2] comes to the world and is light. The world, fallen and rebellious – the not God—is darkness. Jesus mission is to liberate His people who are lost or bound in darkness by drawing them into the light.[3] That light is God. Yet, it is also to draw men to Himself, for Jesus is God.[4]

This truth is also borne out when we look at some further statements of Jesus and events surrounding His life. Jesus is establishing a Kingdom. That Kingdom is life and light. It is so because the King of that Kingdom is nothing less than Life and Light: “But you are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, a people for God’s own possession, that you may proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called you out of darkness into His marvelous light”.

Consequently, when a parallel is draw, and the focus falls upon those barred from the Kingdom, we see them described as being cast into darkness. Indeed, all those who rebel against God are said to be in darkness.

[The unfaithful Israelite] shall be cast out into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 8:12).
Then the king said to the servants, ‘Bind him hand and foot, and cast him into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 22:13).
And cast out the worthless slave into the outer darkness; in that place there shall be weeping and gnashing of teeth (Matthew 25:30).
For whom the black darkness has been reserved forever (Jude 13).[5]
These are springs without water, and mists driven by a storm, for whom the black darkness has been reserved (2 Peter 2:17).[6]
And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day (Jude 6).

We must also take note of that peculiar event that took place as Jesus hung upon the cross dying. All the writers of the Synoptics tell us that the land was darkened from the sixth to the ninth hour.[7] Interestingly, the darkness did not descend when Jesus died, but as Jesus was dying. As the life drained from the Light of life, so darkness encroached. The symbol of God’s judgement came to the fore to show that His wrath was being poured out upon Jesus.

The potency of this statement is that darkness came at the precise time of noon. At the time when the sun should burn the brightest, it was snuffed out. What better cosmological testimony, to bear witness to the truth of Scripture, than to have the one created source of our light and life extinguish at the same time that Jesus, our eternal light and life, was being extinguished by God because He carried the sin of His people.

At this point many things could be said and need to be said about the wonder of Jesus’ death as life for His people. We need to understand His great substitutionary atonement. However, it is beyond the scope of this article to do so. For now, we need to focus upon the light and darkness. Jesus was light. God’s judgement, darkness. When Jesus fell under God’s just judgement, when Jesus was forsaken by God, the light failed and darkness enveloped the inhabitants.

When Jesus died, the light returned because the penalty had been paid. The debt owed had been repaid. God’s people had light and life once more. The true power of this fact had to wait until resurrection morn when Jesus arose from the dead. In essence, we still await its fullness in Jesus’ second coming. Yet, we have been given hints.[8] Note that when Jesus was transfigured His garments shone with exceeding brightness (Mark 9:3). On resurrection morn, the two Marys were confronted by an angel, whose “appearance was like lightning, and his garment as white as snow” (Matthew 8:23).[9] Then, when Jesus ascended, He is once more accompanied by two men in “white clothing” (Acts 1:9).

In short, we are given glimpses leading up to Jesus’ death, at Jesus’ resurrection, and at His ascension, that light is the dominant order of the Kingdom. This is put beyond doubt when we read in Revelation 4:5: “And from the throne proceed flashes of lightning and sounds and peals of thunder. And there were seven lamps of fire burning before the throne, which are the seven Spirits of God.” Note here the emphasis upon light in this text as it focuses upon God’s throne.[10] More importantly, we must note that the term for the “flashes of lightning” seen proceeding from the throne is the same term used to describe the Angels in Mathew 28:3 and Luke 24:4.

The brightness or radiance of God is therefore a tangible aspect that is reflected in those whom He possesses – His angels and His saints.

Okay. What, then, is the practical application for us?

Well, to answer this we need to return to the curly question? What happens to the darkness when light appears? The simple answer is that light dispels darkness. Light dissipates darkness.

However, more needs to be said. Imagine that you stand in the opening to a room. Before you is a thin veil to prevent leakage. The room is full of water. Suddenly, a large volume of air is pumped into the room. What would happen? You would get wet, very wet. You would be engulfed by one element as it was displaced by another. The same would happen if we reversed this process. This time you would feel a rush of wind.

Now for the challenge! Stand in a doorway in the dark. Flick the light switch and …! What did you feel? Any elements rush by? Did you feel the darkness running from the room? Did you find it hard to move around the rest of the house because there was now an extra room full of darkness spread out in the other rooms? Did you hear the darkness complaining as it moved passed your ear canals: “I wish they’d make up their minds. I was just getting comfortable and now I gotta shift!”

No, you felt nothing and you heard nothing. That is because the light dissipates the darkness by eliminating and overcoming it. We can think here of the space age ray guns. Unlike Captain James Tiberius Kirk, our ray guns are not set to stun, but to disintegrate. We are out to atomise and vaporise – even though these terms are in themselves inadequate descriptors.

When the light shines, darkness is overcome. It is dispelled. In the presence of light, darkness simply vanishes. It is destroyed and replaced.

This leads us to the “So what” of practical application.

Christian, strap yourself in! It is time for shock and awe!

In Matthew 5:14-16, Jesus gives His people a bit of a job description: “You are the light of the world. A city set on a hill cannot be hidden. Nor do men light a lamp, and put it under the peck-measure, but on the lampstand; and it gives light to all who are in the house. Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works, and glorify your Father who is in heaven.”

Wow! Shock and Awe. Jesus is not the light of the world. You are! Okay, Jesus is the light of the world, but so are you, His blood bought disciple. The consequence of being Christ’s disciple is that you are the light of the world. You are not as light. You are not like light. You are the light of the world. This light cannot be hid. It must shine. It must illumine. It must overcome the darkness. So says Jesus!

Just as Jesus is one with the Father, so we, as Jesus’ blood bought disciples, are partakers of the Godhead. We become as our God. We become lights. Our essential nature becomes one of light. We are, as it were, luminaries of and for Christ, the eternal Son of God.[11]

This constitutes the “Awe” part of “Shock and Awe”. What a great blessing it is that God has so completely saved us that we are left awestruck and pondering the statement of John: “See how great a love the Father has bestowed upon us, that we should be called children of God; and such we are” (1 John 3:1). We are! We are the children of God through Jesus Christ! Mind blowing; yet beautiful and wondrous.

Now comes the “Shock”. How should we then live as God’s children? What does it mean to be the luminaries of God’s family? What burden or obligation does this place upon us?

Many modern Christians will simply not like what comes next, but it must be said. Many will agree that the world is dark. I have spoken to a number of Christians in recent times who are of the opinion that the “end is nigh”, based on the ungodliness of our time and culture. Yet, almost to a man, they have had no idea of their responsibility as light bearers.

The simple fact is that the world will always be the world.[12] It will always be a dark, smelly, putrid place, full of death and dying until Jesus makes all things new.[13] The ungodly will never be Godly apart from Christ. The point of this is that the Christians of our day tend to circle the wagons and then sit around the campfire moaning about the darkness in the world. Well, wake up people! Who are the lights? You are!!! If it is dark, shine!

If the word is dark it is because we are abandoning our God given task to “let our light shine.” It may be worth noting the imperative at this point. We could, and probably should, translate this text as “Shine your light before men!” It is not an option. We are light bearers by nature, by consequence of our newness of life in Christ. They only way that we can fail to shine is by deliberately choosing to veil that light – when place ourselves under a container.

Consequently, the pertinent question is, “Are we veiling the light of Jesus Christ?” The further question is, “Are we aiding the ‘deeds of darkness’[14] by failing in our task to provide an all pervasive and prevailing light to this world in Jesus name?”

How do we veil the light? Simple. We drift into sin. We begin to judge right and wrong by a measure of our own making rather than by God’s revealed Law-Word. We even abandon the idea of right and wrong by adopting a false view of God’s love. We enter upon practices that seem good to us, by our measure and our standard, but which are frowned upon by God.[15]

We slip in this direction because we have given up on reading God’s word. We no longer say with the Psalmist, “Thy Word is a lamp to my feet and a light to my path” (Psalm 119:105). Rather, we have become enamoured with pragmatism and the theory of “what works”. We have fallen in love with the concepts that the World has taught us. We are concerned to comply with the latest law of the civil magistrate in regard to our operation and worship, but we will not heed the dictates of Almighty God on these same subjects.

Why is this? Sadly, it is because we have lost the object of our love, Jesus Christ. We have allowed the rank individualism of our age to fill our senses with the heady aromas of autonomy and thereby lead us from Christ. Man fell precisely because he thought of glory for self before glory for God. Unfortunately, we are tainted still with that trait. Even as Christians, we are tempted to follow the dictates and desires of self rather than the dictates of God.

This penchant has resulted in us desiring our own glory and happiness above that of our Christ. Therefore, we adopt practices in worship that make us feel good and we then feign and project our acceptance with God. We rearrange our family to fit what is most appealing to me and my needs, and then invoke the name of the latest guru to justify our action. We capitulate to the demands of the world for tolerance and equality and comfort ourselves in the knowledge that God has told us to love everyone.

When the wheels fall off and we are faced with a crisis, what is our reaction? ‘Oh, the devil made me do it!’ ‘The world has encroached. They are insidious.’ ‘Oh, the church did not help my family.’ Yes, we are back in the Garden. Having believed the lie all over again, we resort to the same inane finger-pointing as did Adam and Eve.

It is time for us to “Man up!” It is time to accept that we have sinned against the One Holy God of heaven and His blessed Son, Jesus. It is time to confess before God that we have been disobedient and that we have hid the light of Christ through unfaithfulness. It is time to reject the error and tear down the false idols we have erected. It is time, in true humility, to genuinely repent of these sins and turn away from all that does not glorify God. It is time to turn back to God’s word and earnestly implore Him to teach us, through the Holy Spirit, of His standards, precepts, and law. It is time for us to accept God’s word as our only standard, to accept it willingly because it is God’s word, and to echo Christ’s words – My food is to do the will of Him who sent me (John 4:34).

If we are concerned about the darkness then we must shine. That is our task. That is our nature as God’s children. If our light is hindered it is because we have forgotten our first love and have begun to crawl under a basket. I implore your brethren, by the mercies of God, repent and shine.

There is a modern chorus that contains the words, “Shine Jesus Shine”. Many sing it with gusto. However, does it make an impact? The song needs more emphasis upon the fact that we are Christ’s light bearers. Yet, in fairness, it does contain the lines, “As we gaze on Your kingly brightness. So our faces display Your likeness. Ever changing from glory to glory, Mirrored here may our lives tell Your story.”

The point is that we should not just be asking Jesus to shine. We should not just be asking Jesus to “Shine on me”. We should be asking Jesus to shine with the full radiance of His brightness through us. This is the weakness of this chorus. It is individualistic and “me” centred. “Jesus, shine on me!” No. no. Jesus, please shine through me! Jesus, please shine through your people! Jesus, make us into the luminaries of your nature! Jesus, use us to dispel the darkness! These should be our prayers and pleas before the throne of grace.

Brethren, we are the light of the world. Our God-given power is that we can eradicate darkness through our Christ-like lives. It is ours, not to curse the darkness, but to eradicate it. It is ours to disintegrate both its power and presence.

Again, my friends, please think about this one fact. If we are surrounded by darkness, it is we, the children of God, who are at fault because our light is not present so as to overcome the darkness. We are failing in our task to illuminate this world for and with Christ.

Where does the darkness go when the light comes? I do not care where it goes. I am happy that the Christ-light dispels darkness. I am happy that righteous lives dispel darkness. I am happy that Jesus righteousness replaces the works of the Evil one. I am happy when darkness is gone because it means that God’s people are obeying their God and living in the brightness of his countenance.

Brethren, why do we let the darkness pervade our land and our lives? Do we love Jesus so little that we will not surrender all to him for His glory and the glory of our Father? Do we love Him, who gave His all, so little that we will not give up certain pleasures for His honour? Is not Jesus, the very essence of Wisdom, worth our being wise in the making of ethical decisions that will glorify His name?

May we all ask ourselves the sobering question, “Am I letting my light shine before men so that my Father in heaven is glorified by the watching world?”

[1] Acts 26:13.

[2] Hebrews 1:3 – “And He [the Son] is the radiance of His glory and the exact representation of His nature, and upholds all things by the word of His power.”

[3] See Simeon’s prayer (Luke 2:29-32). See Zechariah’s prophecy regarding John, which had implications for Jesus (Luke 67-79). See the beginning of Jesus’ ministry (Matthew 4:15-16) Compare: John 3:19; 8:12; 12:46; Ephesians 5:8; 1Thessalonians 5:5.

[4] John 6:44; John 12:32; John 9:5; John 11:9; 2 Corinthians 4:3-6.

[5] Jude’s phrase here could be translated as the blackness of darkness, the gloom of darkness, or the gloom of the nether regions. The last of these is more interpretive. The importance is that it once more shows the fact that the nether world, God’s place of judgement, is a place where His essential nature is not. Thus, it is totally bereft of light.

[6] Peter here uses the same phrase as Jude.

[7] That is from noon to 3pm.

[8] One very clear hint is seen in the dead saints raised at the precise time of Jesus’ death. In Jesus’ death, men lived.

[9] See also: John 20:12; Mark 16:5; and Luke 24:4. Luke’s “dazzling apparel” has parallel to Matthews “like lightening”. The term expresses a gleaming brightness.

[10] Fire is throughout Scripture a covenantal sign of God’s presence.

[11] John 17: 9-11; 17-23: “I ask on their behalf; I do not ask on behalf of the world, but of those whom Thou hast given Me; for they are Thine; and all things that are Mine are Thine, and Thine are Mine; and I have been glorified in them. “And I am no more in the world; and yet they themselves are in the world, and I come to Thee. Holy Father, keep them in Thy name, the name which Thou hast given Me, that they may be one, even as We are … “Sanctify them in the truth; Thy word is truth. “As Thou didst send Me into the world, I also have sent them into the world. “And for their sakes I sanctify Myself, that they themselves also may be sanctified in truth. “I do not ask in behalf of these alone, but for those also who believe in Me through their word; that they may all be one; even as Thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they also may be in Us; that the world may believe that Thou didst send Me. “And the glory which Thou hast given Me I have given to them; that they may be one, just as We are one; I in them, and Thou in Me, that they may be perfected in unity, that the world may know that Thou didst send Me, and didst love them, even as Thou didst love Me.” See also 2 Peter 1:4.

[12] It is important to understand that the term “world”, when used by Scripture, often means ‘an ethical system that is opposed to God’s rule’. An illustration of the attitude implied is seen in the “kings and rulers of the earth” who plot against God and His Messiah saying “let us cast off their fetters!” It is a desire for autonomy. It is a desire to return to the Garden and once again challenge God’s sovereign right to rule.

[13] John 3:19: “And this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.”

[14] Ephesians 5:11

[15] Read the story of Ahaz in 2 Kings 16:10-16. Note how he sees a pagan altar, copies it, and brings it into Yahweh’s temple. Note his offerings and sacrifices. They are the Biblically prescribed offerings, but they are offered on a pagan altar. Consequently, they are not offered to Yahweh with a pure heart. This is simply religious motility, not true worship. It is syncretism. It is the blending of the true and the false, which renders all false and unacceptable to God.

Conservatism and an Election Year

Posted on April 20, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Good day Reformers,

I have been moved to forward to you the following link: http://againsttheworld.tv/?p=985

It features Jerry Johnson from Nicene Council. He is speaking on Conservatism in the political arena. Yes, he is an American. Yes, it reflects the American scene. Nonetheless, it is salient, relevant, and poignant. I well understand that many Australians have an aversion to American politics. For the most part, I share that aversion. However, truth knows no bounds and if we are able to learn something from one crumbling system that may help us save ours, then it seems to me that we should “listen and learn”.

We have long held that here in Australia we have two political parties representing two distinct views. Of these, the Liberal Party has been seen as the conservative party. Therefore, many Christians are drawn to vote for those candidates who stand under the Liberal flag. Yet, we have reason for pause. Is the Liberal Party really a conservative party? In terms of the previous question, ‘What does conservative mean?’

Recent events must cause us to question, along with our brother Jerry, just what we hope to gain through mere conservatism. Recently, I saw former Liberal Prime Minister, Malcolm Fraser, interviewed. Again, he noted that he resigned from the Liberal Party because it had become too conservative and had lost the original aim of its founder. He asserted that the Liberal Party had always been intended to be “liberal” — forward looking and progressive with a willingness to experiment.

When we hear things like this, I know that it helps me make sense of the Australian landscape. On at least two occasions, the Liberal Party has been given the majority in both Houses. The Australian people have voted for Conservatism and has been given a travesty. This explains why on these occasions there were no significant changes made or decisions taken to reverse trends of immorality and ungodliness.

These claims must also be weighed in light of the supposedly “conservative” modern Liberal Party. Where is this conservatism? Malcolm Turnbull is por same-sex marriage. My local Liberal MP, though voting against homosexual marriage, is nonetheless proud of her support and achievements as far as homosexual rights is concerned. Will a Liberal government ban abortion? Will a Liberal government give us Justice? Will a Liberal government overhaul the Family Court? Will a Liberal government abolish de facto relationships; change divorce laws; re-establish parental rights; etc., etc?

Part of our problem is the term “conservative”. A Conservative has always been viewed as one who would uphold “traditional” values. What we do not want to admit is that this conservatism is nothing less than Biblicism. It is in the Law-Word of God, the Bible, that we find all of these so-called traditional values. Thus understood, we must realise that as these conservatives drift further from a fundamental, Biblical, belief in God and His Christ, the less willing and able they will be to implement Christ’s principles.

Therefore, a godless party can never be a conservative party. They can masquerade. They can ride on coattails, but they will never truly be conservative in the sense of maintaining or reforming to the Biblical norm.

To borrow Jerry’s term – Brethren, in this election year, please think well upon it!

Note: This blog was originally circulated as an email. It has been posted because its relevance has increased since it was sent. The vote by the New Zealand parliament to acquiesce to the “homosexual agenda” has seen that particular fire fuelled once more in this country. Notably, we have had several more “liberal” leaders in the shape of Barry O’Farrel and Colin Barnett come out in support of homosexual marriage. So, if you live in NSW or WA it is now clear, if there was any doubt, that you do not have a conservative government. You have outright humanism under a different flag. Having said that, the simple reality is, as the email states, there simply is not a truly conservative party amongst the major political parties in this land.

Please think about this as we come to an election. As a Christian, you are obliged to vote for righteousness, not the party dad supported. Do not vote for one mob just because you dislike the other. Vote wisely. Vote righteously. Today, this means pray, pray a lot!

Leadership: A Reflection of the People

Posted on April 11, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

As a people we are often highly critical of our leaders, particularly those in the political sphere. These criticisms, on the part of some, can lead to bitterness and sheer hatred. Such has been evidenced in recent days with the passing of Margaret Thatcher, the former British Prime Minister.

It was, to say the least, disturbing to see people in the street celebrating and toasting her death. One person interviewed, filled with morbid glee began to chant, ‘The wicked witch is dead!’

There seems to this author to be several inherent problems with such callous displays.

1. Dictatorship: Whilst Maggie was nicknamed the “Iron Lady”, there is no evidence that she was a bloody dictator. One could understand great cheers at her demise, if she had been the instigator of death squads and midnight disappearances.

However, her greatest wrong seems to have been nothing more than a forthright and honest effort to rectify the failings in and of her nation.

2. Democracy: I am often puzzled by the reactions of the electorate towards representatives in power; by comments made in the media, particularly by politicians. England, like Australia, is a democracy – well that is what they would like us to believe! People are elected by the majority vote. Why is it then that some are so critical of people elected to office? Why is it that opposition spokesmen, especially those recently tipped from power, are so vociferous against their fellows?

It seems to me that we are unhappy with democracy or at least the form of democracy under which we toil. In regard to Maggie, the simple reality is that she was the longest serving British Prime Minister of the 20^th century. The majority of the British people thought that she was the best of the choices available for that period of time. Therefore, to gloatingly rejoice at the death of an elected representative is to mock democracy.

Now, I do not like Julia Gillard, our current Prime Minister. I do not like her for a substantial number of reasons. However, I must accept that our system has allowed her to become Prime Minister of this country. To do otherwise, is to attack the concept of democracy on which our country is founded. It is also, and this is the real issue, to agitate for a more despotic system of government.

This seems to be the point missed by most. To celebrate or desire the death of a leader when they have done nothing worthy of death is to inherently attack the system of government and democracy upon which our respective countries have been founded.

It is also, of course, a theological issue. It is to say to God that we are unwilling to rest under His providence. It is to say to God that we deserve other than that which He has given to us. Again, the problem with such criticisms is that they are based solely in the subjective opinion of the voter. The lazy person who has existed on government handouts will vote for the person who prolongs and increases these handouts and not for the government that is going to call him to account. Similarly, the person who works hard and pays taxes is going to vote for the person who, in their opinion, best uses those taxes.

The issue with both of these positions is that they are nothing more than subjective elements being expressed by fallen men. They are not the dictates of Almighty God.

3. Desert: This leads us to consider what I would think is the “elephant in the room” in regard to this topic.

What is man’s desert? Okay, I may need to be a little didactic. No, I am not talking about a waste region. I have not misspelled the word referring to that part of a meal that is full of sweet goodies. I am speaking of the archaic form of the word “deserve”. We most commonly understand it in its plural form in the idiom, “just deserts”. The phrase means to be given a reward, good or bad, for one’s actions. Consequently, we must explore the question of the desert of the voters.

In our modern Western democracies, we tend to see the voter as all powerful. It is people power in action. “Yea!” for us. We the people elect the representative most suited to the welfare of the people; and we the people are never wrong.[1] Well, at least this is the fundamental presupposition that we are taught and on which we are urged to vote.

However, if this fundamental presupposition be so right, why is there so much dissatisfaction with government? Why are governments so unable to resolve problems?

Please, unveil the elephant!! (Shield the children’s eyes!)

In our godless Western democracies, we shut God out of the picture. Therefore, we never stop to contemplate that, in regard to the election of officials, often God gives us exactly what we deserve! We never ask the question, “Has God given us the ruler we deserve and not the ruler we need?”

2 Samuel 24:1 states: “Now again the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, and it incited David against them to say, “Go, number Israel and Judah.” Here we see clearly that God is angry with His people. Israel had sinned and Yahweh was displeased with this sin. Yahweh’s method at this point was to “incite” the king to an action against the people in order to manifest that sin and bring judgement upon the people (c.f 2 Samuel 21:1 ff)

In light of such a statement, we must ask ourselves if our leaders do not act foolishly at times because the Lord God Almighty is indeed angry with us as a people. We are quick to react against seemingly silly and errant decisions on the part of our leaders, but do we ever stop to ask, “Is this foolishness a consequence of my sin?”

As that question resonates in your mind, do not forget the apostle Paul’s teaching in Romans chapter one. There, in verse 24, 26, and 28, Paul acknowledges that God “gave them up” to their sinful desires as a judgement in consequence of their sinful desires.[2]

When we view these two principles in combination, we are faced with the fact that, in the political realm, God will in fact incline to our cry as a people and give us what we want, not what we need. In short, God will give us our just deserts; the very thing that we deserve for our constant rebellion against Him.

David’s sin seemed innocuous. Yet it was devastating! What is wrong with counting heads? To us, maybe nothing. However, we must respect the text and note two important things. In 2 Samuel 24:10 David’s heart was stricken and he realised that he “had sinned greatly against the Lord.” Then in 2 Samuel 24:15we see that seventy-thousand men perish from the land as a result of the pestilence brought by God’s judgement.

David’s sin in counting the people may have been an act of foolishness that denied the protective power of Yahweh. It may be that he momentarily relied upon the numbers of men rather than Yahweh’s sovereign power. For us, the matter is really inconsequential. It matters naught what motive David had. At this juncture we need to hold fast to the two major premises of the text. First, Israel sinned. Consequently, the anger of Yahweh burned against Israel. Second, in order to bring judgement, David was provoked to an act if sin in order to facilitate the required judgement.[3]

Thus, when unpacked this text shows us clearly that the guilt belonged to the people and the people ultimately paid the penalty. The king was secondary in the incident. His actions were but the trigger. The obvious import of this text, its clarion lesson, is aimed at the people and not the ruler.

When these things are considered, we may well have an “Aha!” moment in which we realise that the circus in Canberra is a consequence of us as a people sinning before the Lord. It may be that we get a good glimpse at that elephant and realise that it is within our power to open the door and usher it away.

There is a distinct Biblical principle that shows that the people will never be better than their leaders. However, as we have seen, even when there is a good ruler, the sin of the people can cause that ruler to do foolish things with disastrous consequences for the people.

When we pour out our prayers to God in regard to our governments – and they certainly need our prayers – do we stop to offer a prayer asking for the forgiveness of the sins of the people? Do we contemplate that laws on homosexuality, abortion, and euthanasia, begin with the desires of many within our nation and not just with elected officials?

What then will be our response to this situation? Are we prepared to tackle these issues with our fellow citizens? Next time you are involved in a conversation and an expression of dissatisfaction is made, will you ask that person the question, “Has your sin put that person in office or brought this decision to the fore?”

It is sobering, is it not, to think that our sin as a people could be the very reason that God has allowed a Julia Gillard to be elected and to prosper, despite foolishness, opposition, discontent, and rancour?

If we desire to see Revival and Reformation in this land, then it is time that we, the people, began to confess sin and shun evil.[4] When we clean up our act and prove a desire before God for righteousness, maybe our Lord will relent and give us the governments we need to continue the pursuit of righteousness.

Next time you are apt to criticise or share in the criticism of the elected officials in this nation, can you please pause and ask, “Has my sin contributed to our current estate?” Then we need to ask ourselves what we are doing to quell the sin of the nation. Does my position allow me to instigate a programme that would see people sin less? Do I have the ability to teach and mentor in such a way that people would sin less? Am I willing to give up comfort in order to point out sin to people?

In an election year we would do well to ask ourselves these and similar questions. We are apt in our despondency to lodge a “donkey vote” or an informal vote. Yet it is worth remembering that the Donkey we have to saddle come September 14 may have a lot to do with the asses that voted!

Sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34). Does our sin, as a people, make for disgraceful government in our nation? Now there is a question to contemplate!

[1] Please see the following series of articles: John Jacques Rousseau, “The Social Contract” by Isaac Thomas: http://www.daniel244.org/blog/?p=239

[2] Verse 24 = “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity”; Verse 26 = “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions”; Verse 28 = “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.” Throughout this section there is an obvious cause and effect of covenantal judgement in place. God’s judgement was to allow people to be swallowed up in the depths of their desired depravity.

[3] It seems also fair to state that Yahweh’s use of David was also an act of divine grace. Whilst David’s sin supplied a trigger for Yahweh’s judgement, David’s heartfelt repentance also mediated the situation. David was given the choice of three judgements. David’s choice was option four – to throw him and his people upon divine mercy. Please also note that although it was Yahweh who “relented” and halted the pestilence, David nonetheless went out to the “angel of the Lord” and offered sacrifices. So it seems that David both caused the judgement of God to come, but through his relationship with God also mediated grace in the midst of judgement.

[4] See: 1 Kings 8:33-40.

Of Immorality and Back Doors!

Posted on March 27, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

The sad reality of the current political landscape is that it is dotted with liars and deceivers. Of greater concern is the fact that the populace expect politicians to lie.[1]

The foolishness of this is seen in our current Prime Minister. Julia Gillard has been exposed as a liar on at least three occasions. Now, please settle down and stop waving your Blue and Red flags. There is no cause for joy here. It is rather a call for introspection and reflective thought. My point is not that of being “pro” one team or other. It is the fact that our leaders lie – yes, on both sides and everywhere in between – and that they are not held accountable.

Regardless of what political party you back, ask yourself this question: “Forty years ago, would the leader of the party, especially if Prime Minister, held on to that position if they had been caught lying?” Now, we might all agree that politicians have always been skunk–esque, but if we are honest, we know that someone who blatantly lied to the Australian people of yesteryear would have been removed from office.

The absolute tragedy of all this is not seen in the political circus that governs us. Rather, it is seen in the hearts of the average Joe. The reason we expect politicians to lie and to deceive has to do with the fact that the average Joe has not been taught morals – real Biblical morals. Through State education, he has been taught a supposed set of morals that are little more than a subjective recipe for feeling good about himself.

This is replicated in society. Over the last couple of decades, I have noted how television promotes the virtues of lying. It is now prominent to extol lying as an indispensable part of the human psyche.

Again, contrast this with the societal situation of forty years ago. People, Christian or not, despised lies and liars. They understood that without truth, life fails. If there is no truth, then everything is truly flux. How do I defend my wife’s virtue, if I cannot believe her word? How do I defend my child against accusations of cheating, if I cannot believe my child’s claim of innocence? Maybe I should drive the wrong way down this one-way street because I cannot believe the person who erected the sign. When the police investigate the ensuing accident, how can they make a decision regarding fault apart from the concept of truth, fact, and reality?

What, then, are the ramifications of this? Well, it can be summarised in the old words, “Be afraid; Be very afraid!”

When society begins to accept lies and deceit as part of its normal operation, it will encounter problems. Look out your window, read or watch the news, and you will begin to see these problems. However, all this pales into insignificance by comparison when the breach of faith through lies is manifest in our politicians.

Dwell on this for but a moment and you will see the ramifications before your mind’s eye. Politicians must be honest and trust worthy. They hold our money in the form of taxes. They govern our lives by the implementation of law. They have the ability to incarcerate or expunge. Your lawful life today may be decreed villainous tomorrow.

Decidedly, I know that you do not want a thief as a bank manager; I know you do not want “Jack-the-Ripper” or “Al Capone” as the local Sergeant in Charge of Police. So why would we accept such characters as politicians when they have the ability to destroy not only our lives, but the lives of our children and grandchildren; not to mention the destruction of our culture.

Their deceit in matters is a heinous crime of the greatest degree. Let me try and illustrate this deceit.

Not so long ago, Australia was embroiled in a debate over the definition of marriage. The question was whether or not the definition of marriage would be changed from “one man and one woman” to something less defined. The motive for this was driven by a demand for equality on the part of the homosexual community.

After much debate, the Parliament voted, overwhelmingly, to maintain the current definition (98-42). There was much jubilation in Christian circles and many prayers of thanks to “Our Father in heaven”. Some, whilst pleased with the outcome, were nonetheless wary. What had we really achieved? On what had the politicians actually voted?

At that time, I wrote several pieces, which warned that whilst we had, in the providence of God, won a skirmish, we needed to understand that the battle still raged.[2] These articles were necessary precisely because the Government lies. Agendas are hidden. True motives disguised. Neutrality feigned. All the while, the Government deals in deceit.

Before us now, as a people, comes the Sex Discrimination Amendment. This little monster is a direct result of the Government’s agenda being realised through the acceptance of the Exposure Draft of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Bill 2012. Whilst many spoke against this Bill, it was adopted with few modifications. Now come the ramifications!

The Sex Discrimination Amendment is now proposed and open to comment. Lies and deceit!

First, if the parent that spawned this demonic offspring has been accepted, it is only a matter of process that is before us now. The Government is not interested in what we think or believe. This is deceit.

Second, the Government’s own information on this proposal states: “The Bill also seeks to extend the existing ground of ‘marital status’ to ‘marital or relationship status’ to provide discrimination protection for same-sex de facto couples.”[3]

Here, we have a huge pile of lies covered in the “special sauce” of deceit and you are expected to swallow it!

Did we not just have a vote to maintain the current definition of “marriage”? Well, yes we did! Okay. Next question. What does “marital” mean? A quick look through the dictionary says that marital means, “of marriage”.[4] Whoa up! This must be a mistake?

No, not at all. Welcome to Governmental lie, deceit, and collusion. Before us in this proposed amendment are the subtleties of evil. Let me attempt to unpack this for you.

One: The first step is to bring marriage down to the level of a mere relationship. It is devalued. There is nothing special about it in any manner. It is simply a matter of label. Is it a car or an automobile? I would do the “potato” thing, but it is lost in the written word. Consequently, marriage is just one type of meaningful relationship that has absolutely no magnificence to it. It is plain and ordinary.

So marriage is now just one kind of relationship.

Two: We must see that the marriage of man and woman is no different to the relationship of the homosexual. They are so similar that our Government believes that they can be placed side by side in this legislation. To discriminate on the basis of a homosexual relationship is, in the eyes of this proposal, no different from discrimination on the basis of marriage. Therefore, doing what God commands is no better than doing that which God condemns. Contrary to Romans 13, the righteous have no cause to look to the Magistrate for praise because the Magistrate sees all as equally acceptable unto god – the false god of State!

Three: Looking at the punctuation in the excerpt from the Government’s information, we need to also highlight the use of de facto. This term does not apply to heterosexuals in this instance. It clearly applies to homosexuals[5] who live together in a domestic relationship. In other words, homosexuals are given the status of de facto along with heterosexuals.

Once more we witness deception. The definition of de facto means “in fact” or “in reality”. It is the opposite of de jure, which means by law. The Family Law Act 1975 gives its own definition in terms of establishing whether or not a relationship is a de facto. For us the importance of this term is simple. De facto is used as a term to mimic marriage. This is where the term originated and it is the way in which it is still used today. Freethinkers who wanted to throw off convention found themselves strangely drawn to this crazy Christian notion of sharing lives. Hence, they needed some type of security from this life-sharing mimic. Consequently, rather than a Biblical covenant, they fell back upon a social contract. This contract was recognised at law as a de facto. They were de jure unmarried; yet they were de facto married.

Jump forward thirty-five years and the homosexuals are trying to gain acceptance using the same device. They have already been recognised at the back-end of the relationship – when the lawyers are called in to divvy up the chattels. Now, they are using the de facto status to claim equality at the entry point. Thus, the homosexual is claiming equality with the heterosexual mimic of marriage.

Thinking cap time! Can you see how at each step there is an implied equality? Marriage is equated with relationship. Heterosexual union is equated with homosexual union. Heterosexual mimicry is equated with homosexual mimicry.

For us, as Christians, we need to be awake to these subtleties of argument and definition. We are, to a large degree, in this predicament because the original status of de facto was accepted all too easily. In particular, there seemed to be a failure on the part of the Christians to understand the impact and implications of the new term. I sincerely pray that history will not repeat itself.

When scrutinised, we see that our Governments simply have no respect for their people. They have taken a vote on the definition of marriage. Yet, since that vote, they have implemented policy and legislation that tears at the heart of marriage. They have continued to elevate the status of the homosexual whilst doing their utmost to destroy marriage.

Lies and deceit in Governmental hands are terrible weapons of destruction. We are forced to trust Government every day. They know our most intimate details. We therefore have every right to expect that these people would be those who reject evil and cling to the truth. However, what we have seen in the past twelve months, with regard to marriage, is hypocrisy, lie, and deception.

When we are asked to put our trust in a politicians’ word, we must of necessity also ask whether the politician is “trustworthy”. What use is the oath or promise of a liar? There is an old joke, which asks, “How do you know when a politician is lying?” Answer: Their lips move! Sadly, this is no longer cynicism. It is reality.

Both the major Parties are committed in principle to homosexuality and homosexual equality. Therefore, you cannot trust one word from either camp in regard to upholding marriage, respecting families, or instituting ‘good old fashioned’ values. Promises, oaths, undertakings, and definitions mean nothing to these people precisely because truth means nothing to them.

If there be no love of truth, there can be no love of morality, integrity, honesty, and the Biblical principle of “swearing to your own hurt” – in other words, abiding by your word, even if it hurts you.

The modern politicians are not interested in humble service, they are interested in office. They are interested in being elected, not in being instruments of righteousness.

As we roll on to a Federal Election, I urge you to, “Beware the Lies!” Over the coming months you are going to be wooed, courted, and cajoled. You are going to hear grand claims left, right, and centre. Please, do not believe them. If you have opportunity, please, expose them.

If you have the opportunity to question a candidate, please ask them these questions: Do you lie? and Do you believe in absolute truth? Pointed? Yes! However, the answer will reveal a lot. If you experience hesitation or foot shuffling, do not vote for that person. If you get wrong answers, not only do not vote for them, but spread the word concerning them.

The issue of Marriage, its definition, its importance to society, its importance for the future of our country has been defiled by the lies and deceit of our Government.[6] This is now clearly apparent. The question then is, ‘What else has suffered through lies and deceit?’

Change will only come when we refuse to vote for deceivers; seek to expose deceivers; and make a lot of noise about lying politicians being totally unacceptable.

As far as it is possible with us, let us make this election about ending the false pretence of so many of our politicians; let us make it an election of truth.

[1] This article is a sad indictment all around. What you see underpinning this piece is the modern concept that “truth” is little more than a “personal opinion”. There simply is no concept expressed of truth being equated with a moral absolute.

[2] Both of these articles highlighted movement by either government or media to keep the homosexual “dream” alive. “The Battle Still Rages” came only weeks after the vote and shows that parental benefits were extended to homosexual couples.

[3] Viewed at: http://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Senate_Committees?url=legcon_ctte/sex_discrim_sexual_orientation/info.htm

[4] I am not giving a reference because I looked up four dictionaries and they all agreed.

[5] I refuse to give in to the PC language of same-sex. It is a term used for no other reason than to destigmatise and desensitise.

[6] Government here is to be understood as all our elected representatives. When you examine the situation, you will see the “running with the hares and hunting with the hounds” that is the hallmark of deceit. A person who is unwilling to tell you what they think, is a person unfit for any office. It is that simple. It is this ‘cloak and dagger’ behaviour that has lead to the acceptance of the myth of neutrality; to people believing that Religion and Politics do not mix; and that we suckers deserve to be fleeced.

Of Land Rights and Fleas on Dogs

Posted on March 15, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In a parliamentary miracle, all be it only slight on the scale of miracles, our Parliament put aside its differences recently to give us a piece of legislation aimed at recognising Australia’s indigenous population as the “first” Australians and the “original” inhabitants. This show of unity even included talk of a referendum in order to change the Constitution so as to reflect this new approach. (The enthusiasm for this measure seems to have waned somewhat in the days since the announcement.)

Anyone who has lived in Australia for a reasonable amount of time will be aware that the issue of “land rights” and that the fight for the recognition of Aboriginal peoples has been an ongoing saga. It is an issue that cripples this nation. It is a constant blight on this nation. It is an issue that continually tears at the fabric of this nation. It is indeed an issue that must be addressed forthwith for the sake of all who call this nation home.

However, as with so many issues in our day, if we address it on the basis of Humanism, we will fail. If we address it from a Postmodern view, we will fail. If we seek to bring some great Evolutionary answer, we will fail. The answer to the questions posed must come from God and from His Word.

1. The Evolutionist Speaks.

A. Survival of the Fittest:

As a good consistent evolutionist, my approach to the issue of the aboriginal peoples is easy. It is as simple as saying, “Let them die!” After all, is not the major tenet of the evolutionary system, “the survival of the fittest”? In this scheme, the weak are conquered. They deserve no mercy. All spoils belong to the victor.

This is no different to us allowing for the mugging of grannies. They are weak. They do not deserve to hang on to their handbags and valuables. If they want to keep their things, let them go to the gym and bulk up on protein shakes. Next, we can pick on people in wheelchairs. More easy targets? Kids! They are always ripe for the plucking – the downside is that they do not have much. The Aboriginal peoples are the cultural equivalent of the weak and infirmed.

Given this fact, I must ask, “Why should the aboriginal peoples be any different?” What makes them so special that the rules and principles of evolution do not apply to them? After all, do you not remember the full title of Mr Darwin’s work? Mr Darwin’s magnum opus was, “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life.” On the basis of this, it is easy to see that the Aboriginal people of Australia have been “selected” as a non-favoured race. Thus, we may accurately say, that the Aboriginal peoples, from an evolutionary stand point, have been deselected for preservation.

I am simply bemused by all the fuss. It is totally ridiculous. Evolution is taught in our schools and universities as an indisputable fact. Therefore, I cannot see why we are making such a fuss over this cultural minority who obviously belong to an outdated civilization that the evolutionary process has observably condemned to extinction.

Why should we care? Climate change is upon us. The quicker the aboriginals are snuffed out the quicker we find ourselves in a stronger position. In fact, we should be pushing to get rid of all the infirmed and weak. We are just wasting resources on them that could be put toward ensuring that we, the fit, survive the looming disaster!

B. The First People:

Then I must scrutinise the statement that these people are the first, original, dinkum inhabitants of this land. Once more, as a consistent evolutionist, I am not sure how these claims are substantiated. Evolution believes in long periods. Some suggest that the earth is three billion years old. Evolution also posits that things generally move from the simple to the complex. So, in the current case, the aboriginal peoples have no written literature to back up their claims. They rely on “oral tradition” and the interpretation of old paintings left on cave walls. (This suggests a high degree on unevolvedness when placed beside computers and satellites. This takes us back to the previous point.)

Given these facts, “How can we categorically assert, in consonant with evolutionary theory, that these peoples were the first inhabitants?” There are many questions to be raised here. One, there is the theory known as “Continental Drift”, replaced by the more modern view of “Plate Tectonics” (Illustration found at: http://pubs.usgs.gov/gip/dynamic/historical.html). This theory posits that at one point in the Earth’s history, 250 million years ago as indicated by the graphic, the landmasses were as one. This then begs the question, “Are we positive that no one else occupied this land?” As an ardent evolutionist, one must assert that man did not exist at these early times. I try to comfort myself with this. Yet, I am confronted with a nagging doubt – if evolution is true, it is possible that other life forms, similar to what we now call ‘man’, developed at an earlier stage but were subsequently eradicated by some genetic fault or catastrophe.

Two, I am also troubled by this “first inhabitant” language. As an ardent evolutionist, I am not sure how we can define the respective concepts of “first” and “habitation”? Evolution, being a process, means by definition, that we went through several stages in our development. At which of these stages do we declare that we had reached a sufficient level of cognisance or rationality to be able to say that we “inhabited” this land before anyone else?

Three, there is the distinct possibility that in another three billion years, those beings that evolve from us may look back at us and wonder why such primitives thought that they had the right to make such a claim. I must also consider the possibility that Climate Change may wipe out all traces of our evolution, feats, and civilisation, and that should intelligent life re-emerge at some stage in the future that there may not be a single footprint left to alert them to our prior existence and habitation. Therefore, it may not be prudent to make substantial claims when we simply do not have all the data needed to make such a declaration. This is especially so given that my worldview is based on flux, change, and chaos.

C. Sovereignty and Ownership:

Of necessity, I feel it only right to raise the question of ownership from an evolutionary point of view. My thinking on this was shunted into gear when I was introduced to a couple of films by my daughters. The film, Cats and Dogs, plus it sequel, well, quite frankly, they startled me. Here is a movie about a secret society of Dogs that is looking after humans. I realise that this was intended as a joke, but it started me thinking. I had noticed that my pet schnauzer, Einstein, had been acting differently. I have been noticing that rather than brining the paper to me with slobber on it, it was neatly folded, and upon opening seemed to have been perused already – the crossword having been completed was telling! Then, the other day, he seemed somewhat angry and would not let the paper go. In the end, the paper was torn and my reading experience somewhat diminished. However, the disturbing aspect of this encounter was that as he walked away, Einstein glanced back at me, and I swear that I heard him mutter, “I wish you would subscribe to the Wall Street Journal rather than that rag!”

So of course, I am now a little edgy, to say the least. You see, Einstein came with the house. The previous owner, an old lady, passed away, leaving the dog behind. We had been in the process of purchasing the house when this happened so we decided to adopt the dog. As you can well understand, I am now very much concerned that should Einstein evolve sufficiently, he may be able to lodge a prior claim to this property. If Einstein is successful, I would then be out of house, home, and pocket, regardless of everything I have put into both Einstein and the property. Then I must also consider the possibility that any others who have lived at this address prior to my arrival may come forward with similar claims.

As a paid-up member of “Evolutionists for Autonomous and Spontaneous Change”, I am concerned that this radical change may be happening in my lifetime. There are serious repercussions. So it would seem best that we not make any hasty laws that may become precedence for any similar challenges.

Now I will hand over to my Postmodern Humanist friend for the last comment in this section.

2. The Postmodernist Speaks.

A. Subjective Objectives:

As a Humanist and a Postmodernist, I welcome the opportunity to add to this debate and discussion. However, as I began to think through what I should write, I found myself at an impasse. As a Humanist I am greatly enamoured with the indefatigable and indomitable spirit found within man and the ability of his reason to triumph in any situation. Yet, as I thought about this subject, I was confronted by man’s cruelty to man and his seeming lack of compassion to his fellows. As I pondered further, I thought, “Surely, there is one example, one precedence, one principle, one piece of teaching to fall back upon?” Then it dawned on me, that there was not a one! My heart cried, “Alas, the subjective and transient cannot ever cure the objective and real!”

Here I was, attempting to deal with another person’s situation in time and space. Any advice given would have consequences for this person. I was not dealing with a subjective notion, but with flesh and blood. The consequence of my ideas would impact upon the vulnerable, the mortal, and the exploitable. This was not a case of firing arrows at the incorporeal spectre. No, it was a far more serious.

Then the penny dropped. How could I think this way? Postmodernism gives us no belief in the real. All is transient. Without any belief in an absolute, how can comment be passed upon “the first”, “the inhabited”, and questions of worth, ownership, compensation, and future? Unlike Existentialism that posited some semblance of truth and the absolute, even if it was only known and realised in the subjective, Postmodern thought does not even allow such a luxury. There simply is no truth. There simply are no absolutes. Consequently, meaning, purpose, justice, and infamy are all terms without definition and qualification.

Therefore, there is nothing that such a one as I can contribute to this conversation?

3. The Aboriginal / Indigenous Speaks.

A. Cultural Confusion:

“It is time to right the wrongs! As an Aboriginal elder, I speak for my people. It is shameful that until 1967 we were classified as ‘Flora and Fauna’! It is appalling that the oppression from white supremacists has been allowed to continue for so long and to the detriment of my people. It should never have taken so long for Mabo to be handed down and for our claim to “Native Title” to be recognised. We are the traditional owners of this land and our rights in this matter should never have been walked upon. We have every right to be recognised as the “First Australians” although we will continue to call ‘Australia Day’ ‘Invasion Day’!”

After this rousing speech, the elder sat down with another indigenous Australian to talk about matters. The second fellow says to the elder, “Look, could you please clear some things up, as I am a little confused?” Receiving the ‘nod’ of approval, the man continues, “Well, I once heard that great Australian and champion of our people, Mick Dundee, describe the situation thusly: ‘Well, you see, Aborigines don’t own the land. They belong to it. It’s like their mother. See those rocks? Been standing there for 600 million years. Still be there when you and I are gone. So arguing over who owns them is like two fleas arguing over who owns the dog they live on.’ “He is right, is he not? Do we not believe that we belong to the land? If this is so, why do we pursue native title and speak about “land rights” and being the “traditional owners”? It seems to me that being classified as ‘Flora and Fauna’ sits far better with our belief system. We come from the earth. The earth is our mother.”

He continues, “Whilst it is also true that the ‘white man’ has treated us poorly at times, should we not also recognise what he has done for us? It is widely accepted that when these people settled here, we aborigines numbered around 300,000 and that after an occupancy of some 40,000 years. Now we number around 500,000 and that after only another 250 years.”

The elder simply sat in silence. The only gesture was that of a furrowed brow and a stern look of indignation aimed at his fellow.

4. The Christian Speaks.

We have begun our discussion in a very different way. The purpose of this beginning is to show a number of inconsistencies when it comes to the discussion of land rights and ownership. It is by no means an overstatement to posit that this debate has been bogged down for too long in political speak and faulty agendas. This has happened precisely because all the cultures involved in this debate have abandoned God and have therefore tried to use their own subjective arguments to posit one right over another.

A. God Created:

So let us cut to the chase. God created the heavens and the earth and all they contain! Full stop! End of story!

As a Christian I am constantly annoyed by the fact that we are subjected to political nonsense because some people have a guilty conscience or seek to appease a minority group. In the current context, this is the bowing to the constant refrain that the Aboriginal peoples were the traditional land owners of what is today called Australia. As an example, it has become de rigueur here, in our part of the woods, for local councillors on official duty to open speeches by recognising the “traditional owners of the land”.

My annoyance stems from the following facts:

In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Genesis 1:1).
The earth is the Lord’s, and all it contains, the world, and those who dwell in it (Psalm 24:1).
For every beast of the forest is Mine, the cattle on a thousand hills. I know every bird of the mountains, and everything that moves in the field is Mine (Psalm 50:10-11).
Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created (Revelation 4:11).

I am offended and indignant that God, my God, the Bible’s God, is treated so very poorly by His creatures. Not only are they content to rebel, but they are eager to rewrite history in order to affirm their revisionist view. From Genesis to Revelation, God Almighty is declared to be the Creator and Owner of this world. How dare we insult Him by claiming that we as men have right and title to this earth before and instead of God! This truly is a case, as the Oracle Dundee spoke, of ‘fleas fighting over the ownership of the dog they are upon.’

Why is it that the Aboriginals receive recognition as the traditional owners, but this same council would not allow the name of Jesus on a table? How is it that this council can build a pavilion in a local park and dedicate it to the Aboriginals, but we cannot open a function with prayer to and in the name of the One True and Living God?

Is it not telling that in the world of PC, the revelation of the One True God (WCF 2:1) can be relegated to legend and myth while the myths of a cultural minority are elevated to fact! God Almighty cannot open parliament, welcome foreign dignitaries, or be invoked before sporting matches. However, it seems more than acceptable to invite loin-cloth clad men to dance, blow into hollow sticks, and to give expression to their religion as this will impart some magic or blessing to the event in question.

B. God Spoke and God Wrote:

Then there is the fact that the God of the Bible revealed Himself to His creation:

The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things revealed belong to us and to our sons forever, that we may observe all the words of this law (Deuteronomy 29:29).
The Lord has made known His salvation; He has revealed His righteousness in the sight of the nations (Psalm 98:2).
The heavens are telling of the glory of God; and their expanse is declaring the work of His hands (Psalm 19:1).
Let the name of God be blessed forever and ever, for wisdom and power belong to Him. And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; He gives wisdom to wise men, and knowledge to men of understanding. It is He who reveals the profound and hidden things; He knows what is in the darkness, and the light dwells with Him. To Thee, O God of my fathers, I give thanks and praise, For Thou hast given me wisdom and power; Even now Thou hast made known to me what we requested of Thee, For Thou hast made known to us the king’s matter (Daniel 2:19-23).
And the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us, and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only begotten from the Father, full of grace and truth. (John 1:14)
Surely the Lord God does nothing unless He reveals His secret counsel to His servants the prophets. A lion has roared! Who will not fear? The Lord God has spoken! Who can but prophesy? (Amos 3:7-8)
But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).

This is a substantial point. Consider the basic fact that there was not a time when this earth did not know of the revelation of God. Contra evolution, man was made a rational and fully functioning man with speech and the ability to communicate (Genesis 2:19-25). He did not grunt and procure women by hitting them on the head with a club. Man was able to communicate with God from the start. Adam could name the animals. Adam could name his wife. Adam could woo Eve with soothing words, love poems and sonnets – no clubs necessary! Man was able to receive God’s thoughts and hear His voice (Deuteronomy 5:22-27).

Again, it is very interesting that in our modern scientific age, we willingly scorn the written record of God for myths and cave paintings. How can this be? We do not believe in Captain Cook because of a cave painting or a legend. We believe in him because we have written records that attest to him. If I appeared anywhere today to give evidence and I merely pointed to a cave painting or an oral tradition, I would be a laughingstock. My research would be ridiculed because I did not refer to source documents and the like. My statements are not verifiable; therefore they are unacceptable to modern science. Well, at least until you begin to talk about the God of the Bible. Then source documentation means nothing. At that point, myth is acceptable and, indeed, preferable to the revelation of God. (Note the subtlety. The creation account of Genesis is considered “myth” and is therefore dismissed, even though it is codified. On the other hand, a non-codified oral tradition which is myth, whilst not being wholly accepted, is not ridiculed and dismissed, but is courted and given credence. )

It does not matter that archaeology has found the Bible accurate. It does not matter that there are peoples alive today that can attest to genealogies and trace unbroken lines back for many generations. No, this means nothing. All of this rational, verifiable, source material is unacceptable because it not only proves that God exists, but it proves that God exists and that He speaks to His creation!

Therefore, we will accept myth and cave painting over and above Revelation, History, and the Verifiable.

C. Conquered Peoples:

Although it is not popular to speak about “conquered peoples” today, the simple reality is that unless we do, we will never make sense of the conundrum before us.

At the heart of the debate over the ownership of this nation has been the Latin term terra nullius. This term is used to express the idea that the land was unoccupied, had no organised system of government, title registration, or deeds of ownership – or concepts of this nature. At the very least it means the ‘land of no one’. (Note the similarity with the Nullarbor Plain. Null / Arbor = The No Tree plain.)

Argument has raged over whether Australia was or was not terra nullius at the time of settlement. Most legal rulings upheld this concept until the “Mabo” decision in 1992. The key element of that ruling was that Australia was not terra nullius and that “interests in land and water survived the assertion of sovereignty by the Crown” (Macquarie Concise Dictionary).

However, what we must see is that the whole concept of terra nullius is a ginormous red herring. In Australian parlance, it is a “furphy”! Where did this principle come from? What made it the universal norm? If this is indeed the sole principle, then let us apply it equally all over the globe.

If we do this, there will be only two results.

The first result is positive. God must be recognised as the owner of the earth and the One to Whom homage is due. Why? For God alone has a documented right and title to the earth. His covenant Law-Word (the Bible) attests that He is the owner. It states unequivocally: “The earth is the Lords!”

The second result is negative. Because fallen man will not accept God as owner, the only other possibility is that terra nullius is pursued until utter confusion and devastation are realised throughout the world. Think this through. Who are the original owners? How far back do we go in trying to uncover the original owners? What system of substantiation are we going to invoke? Will we accept only written documents whether they be deeds or histories? Will oral traditions be accepted?

Let me give a few examples:

(i) The Biblical: When we look at the conquest narratives in Deuteronomy and Joshua, we are introduced to a number of conquered or displaced people. To whom should the land of Israel be returned if we set out to apply terra nullius? We are familiar with the modern claims, but as stated, there are ancient claims to be reckoned with from the pages of Scripture.

Now, I need to summarise, as to quote the texts would be too extensive. So, look at Joshua 10:3-5. There five kings are mentioned and they are defeated. Then in the verses 29-40 another six cities and various kings are defeated. In chapter 11:1-5 we see that “Jabin king of Hazor” rallies some other kings to come and fight against Israel. These too were defeated. In fact, Joshua 12:23 states that 31 kings in all were defeated.

Here is our conundrum. We dispossess Israel acknowledging the original inhabitant’s prior rights in accordance with the terra nullius principle – that is to say that these peoples had kings, structure, organisation, and settled in towns. Compared with the Aboriginal peoples of Australia, they were much more organised. Who then do we acknowledge as the traditional and rightful owners? To whom shall this land be returned?

It is absurdity to believe that of these thirty–one kings, none had come to power without conquest. In fact, the Bible tells us as much. Joshua 11:10 states: “Then Joshua turned back at that time, and captured Hazor and struck its king with the sword; for Hazor formerly was the head of all these kingdoms.” How is it that Hazor is no longer head? Did a generous king wake up one morning and divide his kingdom; parcelling out portions to his friends? Highly unlikely!

So our conundrum becomes more difficult. Which cities and territories are returned to Hazor? Then we need to look for further evidence of how this rule came about. Was that by conquest or inheritance?

(ii) England: Let us bring the argument up to date and make it a little more relevant. England is the original source for the predominant culture in Australia today. If we look back to her history, to whom do we assign ownership rights? Do we look to the Angles, the Saxons, or the Normans? What do we make of Viking visits? How do we factor into this the Roman conquest? We could then look at people like Queen Boudica’s uprising against the Romans to reclaim her father’s kingdom. (It is an aside, but the mention of the Romans begs the same question concerning all their conquests.)

We must of course ask, Which of these do we see as the legitimate title owners of England?

(iii) Oral Tradition: Last, we need to consider oral tradition and its accuracy. There was a time in history where oral tradition was used and it was accurate. However, as we have developed culturally and access to writing instruments has become more readily available, we have become less attuned to remembering histories in this manner. Equally, we must also consider that, in some cases, the ‘oral tradition’ has clashed with ‘Chinese whispers’ – which I guess is now un-PC and racist!??!

Recently, I saw a part of that television show, Who Do You Think You Are? The guest that day was actor John Hurt. He explained a part of his family history, regarding a male ancestor, and the stories that had been passed down within the family. The man was supposedly successful. He was meant to have certain ties. You know; all the things that would stand you in good stead in the England of that day. However, as the story unfolded, this person turned out to be an absolute shonk! He had been involved in shady deals. He had been dismissed from his position as a consequence of this corruption and so forth.

In the end, it seems that some alternate history had been invented to paint the family in its best light and this revision now became fact to the descendants of this man.

In terms of our discussion, we are forced to reiterate the question, ‘What substantiation methods will be employed?”

What is clear from this discussion is that this whole concept of terra nullius is pure bunkum. We have no legitimate way of researching what cultures were or were not “no man’s land”, if you will. We have no way of arriving at an absolutely concrete solution, other than adopting option one. This whole idea of trying to define who was or was not an organised culture with any type of right and legitimacy prior to this or that incursion is the prerogative of God alone; for He alone in omniscient! We as men could never work through all the possibilities. This is especially so considering the verity that we simply do not have all the facts at our disposal.

Like it or not, as far as history and ancient history is concerned, the only reasonable measure to apply is the concept of “conquered peoples”. Many in our day will reject this, but on what basis? The evolutionist thrives on such concepts. You have the fit versus the weak. Evolution says nothing of morality. It is the fit versus the weak. If you conquer, then you were meant to do so by the divine appointment of evolutionary principle. If you are conquered, then you have been, as stated by Mr Darwin, deselected for survival. Consequently, the evolutionist can have no quarrel with this concept as it is the only one that fits his worldview.

One could say that there was no war declared, but what does that prove? Many people have been invaded without a declaration of war. Equally, the Aboriginal peoples are exactly that, peoples, tribal groups. With whom would a treaty or declaration of war been made? Many emotive arguments are put forward, but in the end, none are effective.

The simple reality, which can stick in the craw, is that if we do not accept the “conquered people” standard, then we open ourselves up to confusion and devastation. It is that simple.

D. Confusion, Devastation, and Disintegration:

Some may wonder at this point, but it is necessary so that we understand what is at stake in this argument.

If we reject the “conquered peoples” perspective and try to force twenty-first century ideas and constructs into an eighteenth century event, we will end with turmoil and cultural disintegration that will help no one. By rejecting the “conquered peoples” theory and giving into the culture of “guilt” so prevalent in our day, we are setting all concerned with this matter on a path to destruction.

Look at how our society is being torn apart today. We have people talking about reconciliation, but their actions tear and rend. We have a situation where we are paying out huge sums of money to lease back part of our country from the Aboriginal population. We speak of the loss of freedom in countries like Russia and North Korea, yet here in our country you need permits to enter certain tribal lands. We have begun to have two standards at law. Our television can blaspheme the One True and Living God, but other programmes carry warnings so as not to offend the Aboriginal peoples. There are places some Australians are not free to go because they are deemed sacred to the Aboriginal peoples. Yet for a Christian to turn a homosexual away on genuine Biblical grounds, well that is sketchy and wrong!

However, this is but the tip of the iceberg. The Aboriginals of this land, whilst wronged in certain circumstances, have also benefitted and prospered under the new regime, if you will. Whilst news media carry stories and reports of death rates in indigenous populations, they fail to carry the stories that show how health care and access to health care has benefitted these people greatly.

I once remember a show featuring an Aboriginal elder in a wheel chair. Now we are mocked and harangued, but the truth is that in her culture she would not have been cared for at all. If she slowed down, she would have been left to die.

Here we come to the crux. If the Aboriginal peoples want out, then let them out, completely and utterly. If they despise the “white man” and his “invasion”, then let them forsake the white–man’s money, medicine, and culture in every way! Do not come to play Aussie rules, for that would be hypocrisy. Do not agitate to open Parliament, for that would be a compromise of the worst kind – celebrating the warlords that enslaved! Do not ask for housing or complain about living standards in Aboriginal communities where you are autonomous. Why seek help from the invaders.

People will criticise these sentiments. Yet, they are truth. Underneath everything, the Aboriginal peoples will lose more than they gain, if this current foolishness is pursued to its logical conclusion. This issue will tear this country apart. It will destabilise. The writing is already on the wall. We will have at least two law codes. We will have two sets of standard for conduct. We will create and fuel animosity. Guilt will be our motive and guide; and guilt is a terrible motive and an even worse guide! Decisions will be made by those in charge based not in right and wrong and a moral code, but by popularity vote, point scoring, and the typical smoke and mirrors routine of our parliamentarians.

The current course of action will solve nothing precisely because it is a political solution designed by politicians. Every time the politicians make one of these ridiculous decisions the average Aussie, the taxpayer, comes to resent the Aboriginal people all the more. It is wrong, yes, but it is understandable. The resentment comes not from a racist tendency, contrary to popular media, but because the average Aussie is tired of being squeezed, blamed, and manipulated. I tend to think that the Aboriginal peoples of this land feel a bit the same. They have soaked up the attention because it has given them some gain. However, the sooner they realise that they are political toys, the sooner we can sit down and work out a real solution.

E. God and Morality:

In the end, the only solution to this problem is God and His revealed morality in Scripture.

I have shunned all the attempts and requests to say “Sorry!” I have done so because, for the most part, they are political stunts that achieve very little. What is “sorry” when we are talking at the level which is necessary for this conversation? It is akin to the trite, “Now, shake hands. Good. Now we’re friends again!” deal employed in the schoolyard. As such I resent that this issue, as important as it is, has been turned into a politician’s play thing and made, thereby, into a trite spectacle.

What we need is a model, based in the Lord Jesus Christ, and called, Redemption! When we understand this, the trite “sorry” will give way to true heartfelt grief and genuine repentance at what has been perpetrated, covered, and justified.

I will not apologise that my ancestors came to this country. Despite the common rhetoric, these people did not come in a Man o’ War or bearing arms, as such. They came, many of them in irons. They came as prisoners. These people were displaced from their homeland, never to see kith and kin again. Some were deserving of this. Others were not. Then there were the free settlers who came simply looking for a better life or the opportunity to make something for themselves.

What I am ashamed of and what I grieve over; that for which I would readily apologise and seek true repentance, is the fact that my ancestors treated the Aboriginals, at times, in a heinous manner. There were conflicts in which people died. In these instances there was, on occasion no doubt, guilt on the part of both. However, it is simply inexcusable that permits were issued to allow the hunting (cold blooded murder) of Aboriginals. Equally, to have them classified as “flora and fauna” was reprehensible.

Whilst there is debate about the extent of massacres on the part of settlers and reprisal killings on both sides, the simple reality is that they happened. Numbers are irrelevant to some extent. That Aboriginals were hunted, poisoned, and driven off cliffs is the true shame. That it took far too long for settlers to be held accountable at law is shameful.

To try and surround or cover these happenings with the dust of a thousand political barrows being pushed in earnest is to make a mockery of the situation. Yet this is what happens. The murder of Aboriginals then was wrong. The murder of Aboriginals now is wrong. Just as the murder of infants today is wrong. Just as the slaying of the elderly is wrong and the taking of any life is wrong.

Welcome to the real issue, Morality. When we try to cover these instances and atrocities, whether then or now, against black or white, we show that we do not have a moral compass. Because of the lack of a moral compass, the proposed solutions by political means are inept, inadequate, and more likely to do harm than good.

We opened this article in the manner we did precisely to highlight the inability of the prominent worldviews of our day to actually say anything constructive, helpful, or reconciling in regard to this situation. We continue to dig the hole deeper, precisely because the dominant worldviews have no answer. What does Secular Humanism know of sin? What does Evolution know of forgiveness? What does Postmodernism know of reconciliation? What do any of these know of grace, love, atonement, and justification?

These terms are found only in Scripture. There alone are they defined. There alone are they given meaning, expression, and function. Therefore, it is to God and His morality as it is revealed by Him in the Bible and in the Person and Work of Jesus Christ that we must turn for any concrete answers.

5. Cultural Suicide.

At this point, we need to pull these various threads together and make a sound application using the Biblical data.

A. No Culture Without Christ:

The first point that must be made is that both the cultures at the centre of this argument are doomed to destruction if they continue on their current paths. This is a bit hard to swallow for autonomous man, but it is nonetheless the truth. You see, despite man’s group delusion, God made culture, not man! God, in Jesus Christ, therefore stands as judge over all cultures. A culture rises and falls at Yahweh’s command. A culture is sustained by its obedience to God or it is brought low by its rebellion from God.

And it is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings; (Daniel 2:21)
Arise, go to Nineveh the great city, and cry against it, for their wickedness has come up before Me … Then Jonah began to go through the city one day’s walk; and he cried out and said, “Yet forty days and Nineveh will be overthrown. (Jonah 1:2 & 3:4)
Now the men of Sodom were wicked exceedingly and sinners against the Lord … Then the Lord rained on Sodom and Gomorrah brimstone and fire from the Lord out of heaven, and He overthrew those cities, and all the valley, and all the inhabitants of the cities, and what grew on the ground … Now Abraham arose early … and he looked down toward Sodom and Gomorrah, and toward all the land of the valley, and he saw, and behold, the smoke of the land ascended like the smoke of a furnace. (Genesis 13:13; 19:24-28)
But when you see Jerusalem surrounded by armies, then recognize that her desolation is at hand. Then let those who are in Judea flee to the mountains, and let those who are in the midst of the city depart, and let not those who are in the country enter the city; because these are days of vengeance, in order that all things which are written may be fulfilled. (Luke 21:20-22)

The complete irony of the situation is that we superior, white, Europeans are trying to save – culturally from a Humanistic perspective – these poor Aboriginal savages, and many other cultures beside, but with what? I am reminded of a cartoon that I saw years ago. It was aimed at the Christians and was a challenge to people’s faith in God. It depicted the Ark, if I remember correctly. It is a small, crowded, wooden vessel drifting aimlessly. In the next frame a modern ocean liner, sleek and powerful, pulls alongside. People disembark from the Ark and board this modern wonder, captivated by its size and majesty. In the last frame you see these people sailing off into the sunset, pleased at their decision to abandon God’s method for that of the moderns. However, as the ship steams away, her stern comes into view for the first time, and we see that these hopefuls have boarded the SS Titanic.

This is the reality of our day. What do we think we are going to offer the Aboriginals? Electric toasters! A brand new energy saving air conditioner! Please, what they needed from us was the truth of the Gospel of Jesus Christ as the only hope of salvation for man or culture. They needed to be called out of darkness. They needed to be told to forsake their dark ways that only angered God and brought His wrath upon them. Our failure at this point, is one more of our shameful disappointments. (Please do not write. I know there were and are Christian missions. My point is that they have been and are ineffective.)

So what is it that we hope to impart to the Aboriginal peoples of this land and other migrants that are coming to our shores? Aids, abortion, euthanasia, homosexuality, genocide, hopelessness, political exploitation, tyranny, divorce, fornication, suicide, godlessness, murder, theft, covetousness, adultery, poverty, blasphemy, alcoholism, drug abuse, road rage, fraud, spam, hacking, rape, familial destruction, rebellion, sloth, high taxation, injustice, or something else from the cornucopia of evils?

You see, as it stands at this very point in time, the hand of the Lord is against this nation in totality, as much as it is against any one particular ethnic group that may make up this nation. The abandonment of God and of His Son, Jesus Christ, on the part of this nation has in essence doomed every ethnicity that makes up our culture. As the Apostle says, “There is none righteous, not even one; There is none who understands, There is none who seeks for God; All have turned aside, together they have become useless; There is none who does good, There is not even one.” “Their throat is an open grave, With their tongues they keep deceiving,” “The poison of asps is under their lips”; “Whose mouth is full of cursing and bitterness”; “Their feet are swift to shed blood, Destruction and misery are in their paths, And the path of peace have they not known.” “There is no fear of God before their eyes.”

In fact, it is fair to say that the current political attempt to gather all together into one under the banner of Humanism, labelled as “multiculturalism”, will only brings God’s judgement upon us more swiftly and harshly. Therefore, without Christ as the centrepiece of our culture we in fact have nothing to offer the Aboriginals or any others who come to our shores. We, like they of yester year, are ripe for the plucking. Our culture is one of death precisely because we have turned away from Jesus Christ the source of life. Consequently, we will reap the consequences of what we have sown.

B. We too are in line to be Conquered Peoples:

We spoke previously of the Aboriginal peoples as being “conquered peoples”. This term is unpopular in our day because of the evil bent on equality. However, the reader must understand that when this term is used here it is not based upon a racist belief that we have something in ourselves that makes us superior or better. It is used in the Biblical sense in which God prospers those who obey His word and He judges those who disobey. In His judgements, God is always just and He often uses other nations as the instrument of that judgement.

Earlier, we made reference to the conquest of Canaan by Israel. Why was that conquest possible? Well, there are a number of reasons, but one prominent one was the sin of the peoples in that land. Says Yahweh to Abraham, “Then in the fourth generation they shall return here, for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete (Genesis 15:16).” Further commentary is given in Leviticus 18:24-30: “Do not defile yourselves by any of these things; for by all these the nations which I am casting out before you have become defiled. For the land has become defiled, therefore I have visited its punishment upon it, so the land has spewed out its inhabitants. But as for you, you are to keep My statutes and My judgments, and shall not do any of these abominations, neither the native, nor the alien who sojourns among you (for the men of the land who have been before you have done all these abominations, and the land has become defiled); so that the land may not spew you out, should you defile it, as it has spewed out the nation which has been before you. For whoever does any of these abominations, those persons who do so shall be cut off from among their people. Thus you are to keep My charge, that you do not practice any of the abominable customs which have been practiced before you, so as not to defile yourselves with them; I am the Lord your God.”

What we learn from these texts is that there is no room for racism or some superior attitude based in man. Israel deposed the nations before them at God’s biding precisely because of the evil and wickedness committed by those nations. However, note very well, that Israel was warned not to practice the abominations of those nations and cultures lest they too be ejected from (spewed out) of the land.

The practical application of this is that the Lord God Almighty judged the Aboriginal peoples of this land for their sin and abominable practices. Contrary to popular opinion, the Aboriginal peoples were not pleasant, peace-loving, people who dwelt in animistic harmony with nature and each other, á la Pocahontas! These people were in part cannibalistic. They warred with each other. They knew both abortion and euthanasia. They could be at times very cruel to their own. Then there was the bigger issue, God! The peoples did not worship the One True and Living God. They had turned their back on the knowledge of the One True and Living God. As Paul says in Romans 1:22, 23 & 25: “Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.”

Thus, the Aboriginal peoples were, by God’s standard, ripe for the plucking.

Now look to Australia at large today. Are we any different from the Aboriginal culture of 200 years ago? No, not in the slightest! We have forsaken God and Jesus Christ His Son in order to worship the “creature”. Look at the list of sins given above. Our nation is guilty of them all and then some! So what is it that we think that we can do today for the Aboriginal peoples of this land or for any others? Yes, we can feed and clothe them. Yes, we can give them medicines. However, is it of any real advantage to be ushered into either the dining room or the medical bay of the SS Titanic!!

The very simple reality is that Australia today is ripe for the plucking. We are on the list of ‘to be a conquered people’. Sadly, the more we acquiesce to false religions, whether it be the Animism of the Aboriginal, the Koran of the Muslim, the “all roads to Rome” of the Universalist, the doctrines of the Evolutionist, or the idols of Humanism, the more we hasten both the day and severity of God’ judgement.

If we would help our fellows in this nation, regardless of their ethnicity, skin colour, locality, size, shape, or appearance, we must proclaim to them these things:

I am the Lord your God … You shall have no other gods before Me.
You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children, and on the third and the fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing lovingkindness to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My commandments.
I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.
For we know Him who said, “Vengeance is Mine, I will repay.” And again, “The Lord will judge His people.” It is a terrifying thing to fall into the hands of the living God.
It is a trustworthy statement, deserving full acceptance, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners, among whom I am foremost of all.
And such were some of you; but you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, and in the Spirit of our God.

6. Conclusion.

The cut and thrust of this article can be summed up in Proverbs 14:34: “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” All the political flurry in the world will avail us naught if we will not turn back to God, seek His face, and pledge as a people to live in obedience to His will and law. If we continue on our current course, we will simply continue to be a “disgrace” in the eyes of God.

We cannot save others when we are in our own cultural ‘death throws’ and in need of salvation ourselves. We cannot help the Aboriginal peoples of this nation to move forward in a positive way, when we once again offer them a poisoned chalice. What we need, what we all need, is to drink the living water found only in Jesus Christ.

God alone, through His Son Jesus Christ, gives life to men, nations, and cultures. Our help and our hope are in the Lord, the maker of heaven and earth!

A Battle Plan (Pt. 9)

Posted on February 27, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

4. The Pieces of God’s Armour.

“It’s about time!” may be the expression of some. It may even boarder on exasperation; “Finally, the Armour!” Yes, I have taken a different approach to this subject and I apologies for any tedium. This difference in approach may bemuse some, but it is not necessarily wrong. Much of the Christian’s modern warfare has been ineffective precisely because the areas addressed have not been adequately dealt with. If we fail to understand the difference between the big and little esses, then we have a defective view on warfare. If we fail to understand the targets of our warfare, then we too will be vulnerable. If we focus on the ‘authorities in the heavenly’ alone, then we miss the Biblical call to action. If we are all fired up about Christian Warfare, but fail to count the cost or to make the appropriate sacrifices, then we are nothing more than Quixotic dreamers ‘tilting at windmills’.

We can hold the very best of ideals and desire for the most positive outcome, yet, if we fail at one of these points, that outcome will not, indeed cannot, be realised. A highly polished suit of armour proudly paraded around your living room with the consequence that ‘mother needs to buy new blades for the ceiling fan!’ every few days, is hardly the concept of which Scripture speaks. It is of no benefit to enter one’s prayer closet and ‘curse the darkness’ or ask God for victory, then walk outside and when confronted with a situation, turn your eyes to the ground, close your mouth, and walk away. It is worthless to express an idea such as, “We need a Muslim terrorist to enter our church and open fire! It will wake people up!” when as a leader in Christ’s Church you have not made every effort to hold fast the truth.¹ The soldier needs the best armour and armament, for sure. However, the soldier behind that armour needs to be fit and skilled – attributes that only come through sacrifice. He also needs to be directed to the correct battlefield to oppose the proper enemy. There is little point in landing elite troops 3000 miles from the true battle field where the real enemy wreaks havoc!

Thank you for your patience.

With these things said, we are in a far better position to appreciate the nature of the “armour” in which Paul encourages us to be clothed. For now we will be the complete soldier.

Footnotes:

1. Yes, sadly, I had this very scenario placed before me. It was not expressed concretely, but it was nonetheless expressed. The sad element was that I had witnessed firsthand a number of compromises by this brother. It is despicable to court such an idea when, as a leader, you have not disciplined to truth; shot wolves; fed sheep; or really exercised the spiritual oversight required by Christ.

PostTenebrasLux

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