Marriage is Life: AP Version

Posted on June 23, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

(This version was produced for the Australian Presbyterian. It is a shorter version, but also includes a few comments that the original version does not. It is only 1200 words. Print it out and hand it to your friends. Lord willing, it will help you have some worthwhile conversations on the topic of Marriage.)

There is little doubt that, in Australia today, we are experiencing a clash of worldviews. Over the last decades, the Secular Humanist attack upon Biblical Christianity has gathered pace and it recently presented to this nation a new challenge.

Christianity, both as a belief and a worldview, has been systematically attacked in this country for at least fifty years. In that time, attacks have been mainly focused against the application of Biblical law. Examples of this may be seen in the erosion of (traditional) marriage. The concept of both “de facto” relationships and divorce were popularised and de-stigmatised. By stealth, therefore, marriage was undermined. Its significance and importance was devalued. Marriage was relegated to the status of a cultural relic from the bygone age of “religion” and non-enlightenment.

This diminution of perspective is attributable to Humanism’s attack on the application of Biblical law. These attacks stem directly from the fact that the Secular Humanist denies the existence of the Bible’s God (Psalm 14:1). With God removed, the Secularist believes himself free to set about making this world after his own image in order to rule by his own law. Consequently, the Secular Humanist has sought to erode any law explicitly based in Scripture.[1]

The question is, ‘What is next?’ What is Humanism about to attack and redefine after its own design? The answer is apparent. We have, of recent, witnessed the introduction of several bills to Parliament for the sole purpose of altering the Marriage Act; primarily allowing for homosexual marriage.

This is an escalation in the war. No longer are the Humanists simply attacking the peripheries – the application of Biblical law – they are now insisting on attacking God directly by redefining Man. This battle is not about the (human) tradition of marriage as a legal union. This battle cuts to the heart of Man and his sexuality as male and female and impinges upon the fact that marriage is God’s precise design and mechanism for perpetuating life to and for His absolute glory.

The question that must be asked is, “Why is homosexuality and homosexual marriage Biblically wrong?” To answer this, we must turn to the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) of Genesis.

In this text there are some fundamentals that simply cannot be ignored:

First, is the simple but important fact that Man is made in the image of God.

Man is not, therefore, a self-determining creature from the black swamp who “got smart” and decided to make something of himself. Man is not the Mark 4 in monkey design. Man is not chaos, chance, randomness, coincidence, or accident. He is not a cosmic virus virulent upon the earth as some type of intergalactic plague – with the earth hoping for a vaccine! Man is not the meaningless transient dream of the existentialist!

On the contrary, Man is the product of the perceptive absolute will of Almighty God. No mistake. No design flaws. Made in fullness! Made in perfection! Man, made as God planned. Man, endued and imbued with every power, grace, gift, talent, ability, faculty, facility, and function that God intended him to possess. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Second, God’s Man was created in plurality! Man is made in God’s image and he is made male and female. Like a coin, Man was made with two sides. Both image bearers. Both endued with God’s gifts, talents, and purposes. When the two are brought together in the marriage covenant, the whole becomes far greater than the sum of its parts.

This position must be understood, for it is the essence of any and every rebuttal to all schemes which attack Man and Marriage.[2] In Genesis 1:28, God pronounces a blessing upon Man. Part of that blessing is that Man should be fruitful and multiply. God’s Man, made in plurality, covenanted in unity through marriage, can receive this blessing and bring it to fruition.

Humanism’s Man cannot! It does not matter how much semen you pour into a man’s rectal cavity or how many attempts are made to fashion the perfect phallic symbol, Man’s futility can never replicate or replace God’s fertility! God made Man male and female. God gave them perfect fertility and bodies designed and equipped to fulfil Man’s assignment within God’s purpose and plan.

Before proceeding, we must say something simple about that plan. Please note that the text of Genesis 1:26-28 has to do with God’s dominion. That is to say, the fundamental aspect of that text is both the Rule and Worship of God over all and throughout all the earth. The mechanism by which this is achieved is the prosperity of the womb in covenant marriage and the subsequent education of that fruit in the fear and knowledge of God. In short, it is covenant prosperity to the glory of God. Thus understood, heterosexual Marriage is the key to life.

When marriage is pictured Biblically, we see that it is far from a cultural convention or tradition. It is a widely practiced principle precisely because it is a Creation Ordinance stamped onto the heart of every man. Marriage, sexuality, progeny, God’s rule, and God’s worship are all writ as writ upon the heart of Man by the finger of God. These components are who we are as Man. They cannot be erased, imitated, or substituted. It is only when male and female are brought together in the covenant of marriage that all of the blessings specified by God will flow freely and abundantly in fulfilment of God’s design and purpose. Then, and only then, are we truly the Married Man.[3]

Therefore, the homosexual desire for marriage is not simply a desire to change a rule or definition in regard to marriage. Rather, it is a diabolical attempt to redefine Man according to the idols of Humanism. It is an attempt to rebuild Man without any reference to God, His purpose, or His glory. This basically means that Man must be smelt and recast. Consequently, the new proposition is nothing less than an attempt to destroy Man. In short, it is death of Man in the Death of God!

Marriage is not a human institution, convention, or cultural tradition, Statist or otherwise. Marriage is the inherent consequence of Man being created male and female in the image of God. Marriage, therefore, is not only bound to Man as male and female, but it is bound up in the essential nature of Man as male and female. It simply cannot be imitated by male/male or female/female relationships. Marriage is not a mere mechanism to legitimise sexual behaviour. Whilst this is a right component, we must see that marriage only legitimises sexual behaviour of the type which accords with God’s design and purpose, thereby manifesting absolutely His rule, worship, and glory. Therefore, homosexual marriage must be repudiated as a travesty.

Marriage is life! That is, one man and one woman in covenant union before God and to His glory. Marriage is life!

Footnotes:

[1] Well, not quite. He has eroded the laws that require restraint of carnal appetite and pleasure. He is rather keen to keep the laws regarding murder and theft as he wants to live to enjoy his greed and hedonism!

[2] Whilst texts like Leviticus and Romans are helpful and instructive, they tend to be limited to a sexual expression. By returning to Genesis, we are looking at the very design and purpose of God for Man.

[3] No comment here is directed toward childless couples or those God has called to a single life.

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Posted on June 22, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

The Biblical Worldview and its Implications.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

[3] Genesis 1:31.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

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

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

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

[8] John 7:7.

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

[10] Romans 1:32.

[11] Psalm 2:1-2.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[19] Ecclesiastes 3:11.

[20] 2 Corinthians 6:14-16.

[21] Psalm 1:1.

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

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

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

[25] Colossians 1:13-17.

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

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

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Posted on February 6, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

5. God’s Authority:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

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

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

[4] See Ezekiel 37:1ff.

[5] Hebrews 3:8-11.

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

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

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

[9] 1 Timothy 3:15.

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

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

Praying in Difficult Times: A Response

Posted on April 23, 2014 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

Introduction:

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

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

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

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

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

So pray. This is where we must start.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Advice on Prayer:

So how and for what should we pray?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Addendum:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. Then there are the clear New Testament imprecations.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[2] Matthew 6:9 ff.

[3] Exodus 15; Deuteronomy 32.

[4] Luke 1.

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

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

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

[8] 1 Peter 4:17.

[9] Romans 10:14.

Choose Belief (Pt 6)

Posted on December 19, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

This series has ranged over a number of topics. However, it has only ever had one central theme – believe God! Believe what God says about Scripture and in Scripture. Believe what God says about Himself. Believe what God says about Man. Believe what God says about worship. Believe God!

The modern Church faces many dilemmas precisely because She has turned Her back on God’s revelation as the source of truth. We have imbibed so much of the World’s philosophy that we find ourselves unwilling to believe what God has revealed for our instruction (See Roman 15:4 and 1 Corinthians 10:10-13).

This unbelief comes in many guises. It may come as an a priori belief that the Old Testament is dead. It may come as a presupposition in which individual freedom is exalted. It may be realised by a position that sees the New Testament as radically different to the Old Testament. Could it be based on the modern educational tenets, which have led you to believe that the Bible must be verified in scientific terms?

Whatever the reason, the simple fact is that many Christians refuse to believe and submit to the whole counsel of God. They treat the Bible like a grocery store, wandering about and only choosing the items that they desire. Similarly, they pass by that which is of no interest, even to the point of avoiding some isles altogether.

The problem then becomes a very simple one. If they are asked the question, “What does your supermarket sell?” they will not be able to provide a comprehensive answer. Some items may be brought to mind with a “I have not purchased that, but I do remember seeing it in my travels.” What then of those isles or areas that are never traversed? What items are located therein?

Let’s apply this analogy to Scripture.[1] You are asked by a friend, “What does the Bible teach on …?” How comprehensively – as in accurately – will you answer? Is this topic in your favourite Isle? Is it in a spot that you pass, but one to which you have payed little attention? Maybe, it is in one of those isles into which you never venture.

If this analogy is true of you, then it is necessary to admit that any answers given to this question may not be accurate. This lack of accuracy will be directly proportional to your ignorance. Yes, this is affronting. Yet, it is, nonetheless, true.

If we altered the analogy, say, to fixing a lawnmower engine, you would agree. You would openly state that as you do not know enough in regard to the internal workings of a single cylinder motor, it would be foolishness to proffer an answer of any substance, at least without some serious caveats. However, as we are Christians and Christians are meant to know their Bibles, we are reluctant to show similar restraint or offer the appropriate caveats.

Then, there is the case in which, tweaking the analogy, you know what’s in the isle, but you will not go there because you simply do not like the product. In this case, you know what the Scripture says at certain points, but choose to ignore it and adopt some other position because it suits you or your circumstances better.[2]

It matters little into which of the categories any individual may fit. The simple reality is that if you fit one or the other, you are guilty of unbelief. You simply do not want to know what God says or you openly deny what God says.

Again, some may not like this. Certainly, you will not like it if it applies to you. However, just stand back for a moment and put self aside. If what is said here is true, just as a general principle, would you agree that the outcome is less than acceptable? In other words, would you agree that it is less than acceptable to deny a command or teaching of God? Would you further agree that having passed by God’s teaching, we are more than likely to pick up and apply a false principle from another source?

I am sure that most agree with these concepts in the abstract. The point of contention is the application to our lives. However, just as in the main body of this series we pointed to obedience as being related to holiness and sanctification, so now, we would relate this analogy to faith. Is not faith the believing of all that God has stated?

Therefore, what we are arguing for is that the Church return to Her status as a community of faith; a community of believers; a community that faithfully believes all that God has spoken.

The power of the Reformation was not in its men. It was not in the rediscovery of one salvific doctrine, such as justification by faith. Its power and influence came from the fact that the Reformers believed that God governed all things and all areas of life by His word. There was not, then, in their schema an area to which the Bible was not applicable by direct statement or derived principle.

Consequently, the West was shaped by the application of God’s word to all of life. Government, taxation, family, work, education, and yes, the doctrines of salvation, were all given new life because they were transformed and re-formed according to God’s standard.

We are about to enter 2014. Does God’s word still influence these areas? Do you believe that God speaks to these areas in His word? Do you believe that God’s word should be applied in all these areas? When you argue a point, do you say, “Thus says the Lord!” or is it more, “The latest scientific journal says …!”

Few would argue that the Church is in decline in this country and in the West in general. Every day Christians are faced with a new challenge. We are unstable and weak precisely because we are a house divided. We rest on opinion rather than on God’s revelation.

There is only one answer. We must take our stand upon God’s word. We must believe all that God has revealed for our instruction.[3] We must be prepared to take our stand on God’s revelation, for it alone is power, authority, and truth.

Brethren, let us be rid of unbelief. Let us cry out, “Lord, we believe! Help our unbelief.”

[1] The supermarket is the Bible. The isles can be individual books or portions of the Bible. Products could represent individual teachings, doctrines, and the like.

[2] Biblical examples would be: the ‘woman at the well’ and her evasive answer to Jesus regarding her husband or Ahab refusing the message of the true prophet, Micaiah, because “he would not prophesy good concerning me, but evil.”

[3] Romans 15:4 & 1 Corinthians 10:11.

Your Sunday Best (Pt 5)

Posted on December 11, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

As Man has shifted his focus in worship from a transcendent, absolute, holy God to himself and to his own gratification, we have witnessed a patent transformation, not only in the form of worship, but also in the form of the worshipper.

In recent years, I have had many discussions on the topic of an appropriate dress code for worship. Most have been with the younger generation and, of these, some have been family members. The objections put forward are telling in themselves. Apparently, one has to be comfortable in order to worship. One must recognise that God looks on the heart. One must not offend a brother who has less than you. One must be able to connect with the stranger who comes in off the street, and so on.

The common denominator in all of these objections is that they focus on man. As such, they are all exploitable because there is no quantifiable standard. What constitutes “comfortable”? Is not “comfortable” a subjective term? Hence, I could state that I am quite comfortable when I am butt naked in a hot bath. Does this now become an acceptable form for my appearing at Church? God looks on the heart – does that mean that our “wayside pulpits’ now carry the words, “Worshippers Welcome. Clothes Optional”? Wear nothing or everything, for God only views the heart. Our poorer brother! Must I now ring him every Sunday and ask what he is wearing, just so I do not turn up dressed slightly more upmarket and create an offence? As for the stranger, if my connection is not even skin deep and relies completely on my “threads”, well …!

About now, the scorn and derision will be forthcoming from those who hold to these views. Apparently I am overstating the case; going to the nth degree; and just being, ‘plain ridiculous’! Am I? Not in anyway. What I want to show is that when we move from God, the immutable and absolute standard, we move into the subjective. When we move into the subjective there is no absolute, no right or wrong, there is only the opinion of the individual.

In the context of worship, this means that each individual decides for himself what it is that God should receive in worship, the method by which He should receive it, and the quality of the thing offered, right down to the worshippers attire. However, as we have already seen, when the opinions of the individual are at the forefront of the decision making process, God’s revealed standard means little. In fact, God is not in view because the individual is consumed by the exalted self.

In opposition to this, when we come to worship God truly, none of these objections even come into view. When we are consumed by the offering of praise and worth to our Saviour God, these objections pale into insignificance. When I am consumed with God, my comfort is of little importance. When I am consumed with God, I realise that my heart and everything else about me, is laid bare before God’s all seeing eye. When I am consumed with God, I am not looking at clothing labels and nor is my brother. When I am consumed with God, the stranger will be welcomed in compassion – “for you were strangers once”![1]

Tragically, the result of worshipping God in accord with our standards rather than the Biblical standard is that we Christians have begun to reflect an extreme casualness in the way we worship God. This is seen both in how we present for worship and what is offered as worship. This is the consequence of taking our eyes from God and fixing them upon Man. Subtly, we have imbibed a false doctrine that maligns God as unimportant and dismisses His holiness as a standard for our conduct and appearance.[2] As a result, the modern Christian, especially the young, present to worship God, bleary eyed, yawning, late, and dishevelled, but supposedly ready to worship in spirit and in truth. Methinks not!

Okay, yes, it is easy to criticise. It is easy to point fingers. In this case the finger pointing is essential and that for two reasons: First, to highlight a major sickness (issue) within the modern Church; Second, to show that it is a problem by pointing to the Biblical data.

You see, when I have had the aforementioned discussion and I posit that the Bible does have something to say about dress codes, I am invariably met with a blank stare, a look of derision, sheer disbelief, or a ‘New Testamenty’ – “God looks at the heart!” thus endeth the discussion![3]

So let us look at the evidence.

First, let us look at our culture. Now, to be sure, culture is not authoritative. However, it is instructive. It has rightly been said that “culture is religion externalised and made explicit”.[4] This means that when you view culture, you are viewing the application of the major ideologies or religion(s) of that culture.

Now, very few, if any, would dispute that our culture has undergone a transformation, and that not in a good way. Most would perceive that there has been a general downturn in morals, ethics, and standards. This is particularly so when we talk about law, justice, honesty, and so on. What of the dress standard? Is it not also true that we have seen a major decline in the way people dress? Gangsters are mimicked. Hats are worn sideways and backwards. Faces are shielded by hoods as though the wearer were allergic to light or ashamed of their very being. Modesty has all but become a forgotten term.

What is at the root of this downturn? It has, no doubt whatsoever, to do with the fact that as a nation we have abandoned God. In exactly the same way that this piece contends that Christians have pushed God aside in worship, so we have pushed God aside nationally as a people. We threw out the old religion, Christianity, with its holy God and His pernickety rules and embraced new religions that gave Man freedom – Secularism, Humanism, Evolution, and others. Each let Man off the leash, to run free in the park, but what was the consequence? What happens when a fallen creature is given unbridled freedom?

Well, look around you. The downward spiral you witness every day is a direct result of this nation swapping religions. Murder, mayhem, theft, despair, PC, homosexuality, promiscuity, divorce, abortion, etc., etc., are all a result of the new religion. The incongruity for us as Christians is that we quite happily recognise this downturn in regard to the big moral issues, but we skirt the question when it comes to the lesser and more personal item like a dress code.

For those old enough, think back to the term, “Your Sunday best”. Whenever you were required to go anywhere of note, you would speak of ‘putting on your Sunday best’. Implicit in this statement is the fact that the best was reserved for Sunday, God’s day, and for His worship. Culturally, we had a regard for God. Culturally, there was honour for God. Sunday was a day of rest and worship. It was a sanctified day, a day set apart to God, and as a culture we reserved our best for that day.

It is also noteworthy that at that time, the dress code was generally of a higher standard. Modesty was in vogue. People did not appear down the street in their pyjamas. Hats were worn for a purpose and as part of a standard. They were even worn correctly.

Yes, people can mock, but it does not alter these facts. Simply put, when God was honoured in our nation, we saw a higher standard all around, including in personal hygiene and appearance.

Sadly, the national trend of jettisoning God was expedited by the Church’s capitulation on many fronts, but particularly in regard to worship. As a child I remember that many preachers wore robes and or dog collars. Yes, even in some Protestant denominations. At the very least the minister would wear a suit.

Then came the influence of the new religion, and regrettably it held sway over a good number of the clergy. They began to argue for dumping the robes and dog collars. Sure, they started off in suits, but as they had no objective standard, it was not long before the tie was abandoned, the jacket became uncomfortable, it was cheaper to by jeans, and so on.

As the dress standard amongst the clergy waned, so did their standard in a number of other areas. With the clergy actively lowering their standards, it would not be long before preaching on these topics evaporated. Without preaching, “How would the people hear?”

This is a simple cause and effect scenario. Lamentably, it is more than a scenario. It is a matter of history.

As stated, this is not authoritative, but it should show, to any who are genuinely interested, that when God was honoured our standards and the standards of our society were far higher. The degradation caused by apostasy is not just seen in sexual perversion and the aborting of the unborn. It is seen in us, Christ’s people, as we succumb to the standards of the new religion instead of maintaining the holy standard of righteousness given by God.

Let me ask, seriously and genuinely, “Where would your “Sunday best” gain you admittance?” The footy? The pub? The museum? Would you wear it to court, if summoned? Would you wear it to a wedding or civic function? Would you wear it to meet Premier, Prime Minister or Queen?

Second, let us turn to the Biblical evidence.

At the outset, we must state that a major problem with many topics like the one before us is that Christians have been robbed of an ability to study the Bible. Proof texting became the rage. In so doing it taught Christians that if a doctrine was not stated in a single text of a few words, then it must not be in the Bible.[5] Consequently, Christians, in studying this topic, would look up a concordance under “dress code for worship” hoping that they would find a reference to Hezekiah 12:24 – When thou comest unto worship, wearest thou thy bestest suit, adorned (pronounce the ed) sufficiently with a tie of matching character.

Of course, purists like myself look predominantly to verses 25 and 26:

When thou comest unto worship, wearest not upon thine feets the cultural icon of the ‘thong’, nor adornest thy body with that abominable shit of T. Knowest thou not that any buttonless shirt be unholy. Also present not they body clad in the jean even though it dost have the holy name ‘Levi’ writ upon it. Be thou shaven or bearded. Comest thou not unto worship with thribble growth.

However, having looked and found nothing, they conclude that the Bible is silent. Yet the Bible is not silent. Not even close.[6]

Our first text is Genesis 35:1-4. There we read:

Then God said to Jacob, “Arise, go up to Bethel, and live there; and make an altar there to God, who appeared to you when you fled from your brother Esau.” So Jacob said to his household and to all who were with him, “Put away the foreign gods which are among you, and purify yourselves, and change your garments; and let us arise and go up to Bethel; and I will make an altar there to God, who answered me in the day of my distress, and has been with me wherever I have gone.” So they gave to Jacob all the foreign gods which they had, and the rings which were in their ears; and Jacob hid them under the oak which was near Shechem.[7]

The first thing to notice is the context of this text. It is firmly planted in the context of redemption and worship. God calls upon Jacob to move to Bethel – the House of God – and to build an altar there. In response to this call by God, Jacob undertakes a covenantal clean up. Jacob gives three commands to all under his authority:

Remove all Idols;
Purify yourselves;
Change your garments.

For those committed to the view that dress is unimportant in the worship of God, point three becomes a real challenge. If God only looks at the heart, why is Jacob concerned with how his people look?

However, if we are going to give the text the respect it is due we will see that there is a logical progression. First, true worship calls for the destruction of all other gods and idols. This is but a precursor to the Sinaitic command, “You shall have no other gods before Me. You shall not make for yourself an idol, or any likeness of what is in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the water under the earth. You shall not worship them or serve them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God”.[8]

Having put away the external symbols of falsehood, the people were called upon to purify themselves. They were to repent, to turn fervently to God and embrace all His ways. They were to hold Yahweh as the one true God. The Hebrew word behind our term “purify” is quite strong. Wilson states that it means “to be ceremonially clean, clear, or purged from moral pollution; to be cleared from the penal consequence of sin.”[9] Not only this, the form of the verb means that they are to cause themselves to conform to the required state. Therefore, they must purify themselves, make themselves clean, and make themselves acceptable.

Before moving on to discuss the garments, I would like you to note the pattern and principle established so far. These people were pagan or, more appropriately, polytheists. Although Jacob had met Yahweh, he had allowed his wife to have a household idol. This being so, it was unlikely that he had taken a tough stand with any of his servants who were from foreign nations. Their casual attitude to religion was manifest in their external appearance. Not only did they have household idols, but presumably they carried trinkets and talismans. The reference to “the rings in their ears” is most likely due to the fact that they were a talisman or an actual depiction, in miniature, of a foreign god.

Clearly established, then, is the principle that the inward belief was represented by the outward and external action and dress of the people. Therefore, when Jacob called his people to repentance and purity they had to cast off the old appearance that promulgated the false religion and clothe themselves in a manner that disseminated their dedication to Yahweh.

When this principle is properly understood, it makes absolute sense that the command to “put way idols” and to “purify yourselves” is followed by a command to “change your garments”. The change of heart was to be reflected by the discarding of one external appearance and the embracing of another. Thus, Keil and Delitzsch remark:

The burial of the idols was followed by purification through the washing of the body, as a sign of the purification of the heart from the defilement of idolatry, and by the putting on of clean and festal clothes, as a symbol of the sanctification and elevation of the heart to the Lord (Josh. xxiv.23).[10]

It was necessary that the change in heart be reflected by an external change. It is strange, then, that this concept seems so foreign to the modern Christian, for we are talking nothing other than sanctification. The believer of any age should be marked as different by the fact that the external and observable is different. If it be but the same as the pagan, how are they to be distinguished? If “the old has gone and the new has come” why is there nothing distinctive about the new? If, in terms of Psalm 40, we have been lifted from the pit, out of the miry clay, been given a rock upon which to stand, and have had a new song placed in our mouth, why is it that we are tuneless and look as though we have just competed at a mud wrestling tournament?

Despite what those of the opposite view may think, these are valid questions. The simple reality, established as Biblical warrant by this text, is that our outer attire should be a part of our Christian witness and worship. Just as our actions and our words should always be to God’s praise, so should the way we dress. This article focuses primarily on worship, but the principle has currency for the rest of life. We are to be a Christ exalting people who bring Him glory by taking dominion over this earth in His name. Taking dominion is nothing other than bringing Christ’s rule by His principles over the world – starting with ourselves.[11] Nowhere should these principles and our obedience to them be more evident than in our corporate worship on the Lord’s Day.

Rather than dismissing this text and the principle embodied in it as a cultural anachronism, we would do much better to cherish it and through it better and more elegantly worship the One Living and True God, through Jesus Christ, in the Holy Spirit.

Love for God should make conformity to this principle an offering a joy and not a burden. Focus upon God’s worth should, indeed, makes us forget about ourselves. Rushdoony rightly said: “Respect for God from the time of Genesis to the present has meant such cleanliness as a sign of respect.”[12]

Our second text is found in Exodus 19:10-15:

The Lord also said to Moses, “Go to the people and consecrate them today and tomorrow, and let them wash their garments; and let them be ready for the third day, for on the third day the Lord will come down on Mount Sinai in the sight of all the people. “And you shall set bounds for the people all around, saying, ‘Beware that you do not go up on the mountain or touch the border of it; whoever touches the mountain shall surely be put to death. ‘No hand shall touch him, but he shall surely be stoned or shot through; whether beast or man, he shall not live.’ When the ram’s horn sounds a long blast, they shall come up to the mountain.” So Moses went down from the mountain to the people and consecrated the people, and they washed their garments. And he said to the people, “Be ready for the third day; do not go near a woman.”[13]

Moses has led the people out of the land of bondage and to redemption. He has led them to the foot of Mount Sinai and to their God. At this point, the people are about to meet God in a very personal way. In preparation, Yahweh sets forth His principles of worship so that the people can enjoy their worship of Him without fear. Consequently, the requirement of holiness is stressed by a command to “consecrate” and another to “wash” their garments.

When these texts are viewed together we see that they are set in the context of redemption and worship. Whether that be at the familial level (Jacob) or at the corporate / national level (Moses) the principle remains the same. Redemption / salvation is to worship and that worship is to take place in accord with the standards that God has set.

Equally, it must be seen that God’s standard not only impacts the composition and structure of worship, but that the worshipper’s comport is also in view. In both these texts, it is God who states that the external appearance of the worshipper must reflect the consecrated or holy estate into which the worshipper has been brought.

As we move forward in redemptive history, we see Yahweh hand down His Law to His people. In that Law there are strict guidelines for worship and purification. Not surprisingly, we encounter many occurrences in which the washing of the outer garment is required in order to complete the purification rite.[14]

Those who disagree with the position espoused will claim that these are ceremonial laws that have passed away and are no longer binding. Even if that be granted, would we not be wise to apply ourselves to understanding the principles involved and applying them to our modern situation?

In reality, it is hard to see how these key elements can be dismissed as passé. Are we not talking about redemption and worship? Are these not concepts that transverse the Testamental divide of the moderns? Are we not talking of core principles that transcend time and reach into eternity precisely because we are speaking of the attributes and character of God?

With these questions in mind, let us leave the Old Testament and look to the New Testament. This shift is not because we are not satisfied with the Old Testament data as some of our readers may be, but because it is important to see that the Scriptures are unified on this subject.

When people think of the New Testament teaching on the subject of clothing, many will think of that solid New Testament principle, which states that “God looks on the heart”. This is a fundamental New Testament statement that shows forth the unity of Scripture. It does so because this solid New Testament passage is actually found in 1 Samuel 16:7!

The second principle that many would focus upon is that found in the book of James. In chapter two, verses one through nine, James speaks of the rich man and the poor man in the assembly. However, his argument does not have to do with the standard of dress or cleanliness, but with the attitude displayed by Christ’s people. Instead of palavering to the rich and despising the poor, the Christian should have been courteous to both. Judging by external motives alone is declared by James to be “bad reasoning”.

Why pander to the rich man when he is the one who exploits / dominates people and takes them to court in person? Why despise the poor man when he is in fact an heir of the promise, called from the foundation of the world, and washed clean in Jesus blood? The point of James’ argument is simple – our discernment should be spiritual and not simply based on sight.

Does James contradict our thesis? No. As stated, James is speaking to a different issue. If we were to focus upon the issue of clothing in worship and ask James for advice, I am sure it would go along the lines of the rich man helping the poor man to take a step up.

Does the New Testament have any other data that may help us? Yes, it does. Let us start with the opaque and work toward the perspicuous.

Matthew 22:1-14 contains the parable of the Wedding Feast. As this is a parable, we need to make sure that we do not stretch the evidence or deal falsely with the text. However, that does not mean that evidence or principle cannot be gleaned from the passage.

Of interest for us are the verses eleven and twelve, which read: “But when the king came in to look over the dinner guests, he saw there a man not dressed in wedding clothes, and he said to him, ‘Friend, how did you come in here without wedding clothes?’ And he was speechless.”

At the outset, we must understand that this text presents some difficulties. Commentators are unsure as to how to bridge the gap between verses ten and eleven. Were the guests to hurry home and dress appropriately? Did the King provide the garments? These are questions of debate.

What is not unclear, given the King’s response, is that there was a standard of dress appropriate to a wedding function. Calvin says:

There is no point in arguing about the marriage garment, whether it is of faith or a holy and godly life; for faith cannot be separated from good works and good works proceed only from faith. All Christ wants to say here is that we are called by the Lord under the condition that we be renewed in our spirits into His image, and therefore, if we are to remain in His house … we are to practice the new life so that our appearance … may correspond to our honourable calling.[15]

Calvin’s words, at this point, echo what has already been established, namely, that our external appearance (dress or behaviour) must reflect the reality of Jesus Christ as a holy and righteous King. As Kingdom participants, we are to be different and identifiable by that difference. Importantly, that difference should reflect the higher standard held by the Christian precisely because Jesus is his King.

A second text in the opaque category may be that found in Matthew 17:2 – “And He was transfigured before them; and His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.”

We will not attempt any great commentary on this passage. We simply wish to pause long enough to note that whatever happened to Jesus in the transfiguration also affected Jesus’ clothing. Jesus’ face shone and so did Jesus’ garments.

Transitioning from the opaque to the perspicuous, our first port of call is James 5:2 – “Your riches have rotted and your garments have become moth-eaten.” In this text, James is condemning the rich by showing how “their sins will find them out.” James points out that their riches are really nothing of significance for they will not pass God’s test. Their clothes are rotting and their gold and silver have rusted (v 3).

Like the parable of the Wedding Feast, this text is a negative example that shows the Biblical principle that the internal and external are inextricably linked.

Last, we would present a number of texts from the Book of Revelation:

Revelation 3:4-5– But you have a few people in Sardis who have not soiled their garments; and they will walk with Me in white; for they are worthy. ‘He who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments.
Revelation 4:4 – And around the throne were twenty-four thrones; and upon the thrones I saw twenty-four elders sitting, clothed in white garments, and golden crowns on their heads.
Revelation 6:11– And there was given to each of them a white robe; and they were told that they should rest for a little while longer, until the number of their fellow servants and their brethren who were to be killed even as they had been, should be completed also.
Revelation 7:9, 13-14 – After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude, which no one could count, from every nation and all tribes and peoples and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed in white robes, and palm branches were in their hands … And one of the elders answered, saying to me, “These who are clothed in the white robes, who are they, and from where have they come?” And I said to him, “My lord, you know.” And he said to me, “These are the ones who come out of the great tribulation, and they have washed their robes and made them white in the blood of the Lamb.
Revelation 22:14 – Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city.

Despite the reservations of many, the Book of Revelation is not a deep mystery to which there is no understanding. On the contrary, much of its teaching is plain. Essentially, we see in the Book of Revelation King Jesus waging war against the enemies of God. As part of that picture we are introduced to the magnificence of the salvation won for us by Jesus and the heavenly scene of glorified saints at worship.

These themes are presented to us right from the start when Jesus comes to seven struggling congregations and speaks to them in person. In those places we see that the heavenly warfare is played out on the earthly stage. We see covenant sanctions, both positive and negative, set before the people as a spur to righteousness and as a deterrent from sin.

In the congregation of Sardis there is a delusion present. Most think they are alive when in fact they are dead. However, Jesus points to a few who have not “soiled their garments”. Their reward is that they will “walk with Jesus in white”. Then Jesus encourages us all by stating that the one “who overcomes shall thus be clothed in white garments”.

Similarly, the church of Laodicea shared a related delusion. They thought themselves rich and clothed in fine raiment when in fact Jesus condemns them as poor and naked (3:17). Jesus urges the Laodiceans to come to Him for all their needs, including “white garments, that you may clothe yourself, and that the shame of your nakedness may not be revealed” (v 18).

These words to the Church are important for us as they give a setting for all the following references to “white robes”, “washed robes”, and “white garments”.[16]

It is important that we allow Scripture to speak and to show us the continuity found in the Book of Revelation. In that place, the saints are always in white. Soiled clothing and nakedness (the two inappropriate standards) are replaced by white robes washed and made clean in the blood of the Lamb.

Please take this in. We are not introduced to clean and changed hearts, though that be true. We are not given intricate details on justification by faith, though that be true. Rather, we are shown the true nature of our redemption in a simple picture – we are given clean white clothes to wear.

When this evidence is brought together the consistency from Genesis to Revelation cannot be denied. God clothed Adam and Eve in the garden and He clothes the saints in Revelation. Throughout we see that the outer garment is a sign of the heart’s relationship to God. The naked must be clothed. Those with soiled garments must remove them and wash them or they must change them for a new set. Likewise, we see that this change of clothing is always associated with God and His worship.

In conclusion, we once more need to challenge those who would readily dismiss the teaching of these texts. After all, we are talking about two concepts that are familiar to every Christian – holiness and sanctification. As the redeemed of God in Christ, the fact that we are reclothed through regeneration should also be evident in us possessing a sanctified and elevated approach to God’s worship. In short, our standard of dress on a Sunday should reflect the fact that we are bought with a price, that we are washed and sanctified, and that we have no greater joy than to meet with God’s people to show forth His eternal worth.

We have argued elsewhere that heaven, rather than being a tantalising dream, should be a standard for our present reality and lives. The import of this statement is simple. If it is true of heaven, then it should be a goal here and now. To say this is simply to express the prayer Jesus taught us in different language – Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.

When we glimpse heaven through the pages of Scripture we see the exalted saints of glory gathered together in white gleaming robes, surrounded by angelic beings, worshipping God and the Lamb in purity. This is our goal. This should be that for which we strive earnestly and unceasingly now.

Salvation is worship. Salvation is worship in purity. Worship is showing forth God’s worth. How do we show God His worth, when we offer Him second best and worse? Did not Yahweh condemn Israel for brining blemished sacrifices? Yes. Yahweh even went so far as to say, ‘How many of your governors would be happy with these offerings?’[17] Yet here we are, the enlightened of the space age, and we will not understand two basic concepts: 1. God demands and deserves the best of everything; 2. All offerings must be offered in accordance with His command.

Part 6

[1] Deuteronomy 10:19

[2] Much of this harks back to comments made previously to the effect that large portions of Christendom have dismissed large portions of the Bible, namely the Old Testament. As they dismiss its teaching as authoritative they are a priori unwilling to listen to and learn from the principles taught therein. As it is in Israel that man is primarily taught how to worship an absolutely holy God, closing those pages can only be detrimental for our understanding and practice of worship.

[3] It may be worth noting that this “New Testamenty” text actually comes from the Old Testament and can be found in 1 Samuel 16:7. It is picked up thematically in Luke 16:15, but it is not directly quoted.

[4] Henry van Til, The Calvinistic Concept of Culture.

[5] This was before the new religion of the exalted self caused them to lay there Bible’s aside and rely on their own judgement.

[6] Once more, a part of the problem is that the “New Testament” Christian will not read the Old Testament or simply dismisses its teaching. Thus, vital and pertinent evidence is discarded.

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

[8] Exodus 20:3-5.

[9] William Wilson, Wilson’s Old Testament Word Studies (MacDonald Publishing Co, McLean, VA.) SV: Pure, Purge, Purify.

[10] Keil and Delitzsch, Old Testament Commentaries (6 vols) volume 1, pp. 242-243.

[11] For those questioning the legitimacy of this process, may I point you to Jesus’ words in the Great Commission – Teach the nations to obey (keep / guard / protect) all that I have commanded.

[12] Rousas John Rushdoony, Genesis (Ross House Books, 2002) p. 230

[13] The pertinent verses for our discussion are 10, 14, and 15. The rest are included to give a context and to help the reader grasp the gravity of the situation.

[14] Please see: Leviticus 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, & 13 as examples. Compare with Leviticus 17:16.

[15] John Calvin, Matthew, Mark, Luke, Vol 2. P. 109. Italics added.

[16] There are also several references to “bright / white linen” etc.

[17] Malachi 1:8.

Belief in God’s Revelation (Pt 2)

Posted on October 9, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

For My thoughts are not your thoughts, Neither are your ways My ways,” declares the Lord. “For as the heavens are higher than the earth, So are My ways higher than your ways, And My thoughts than your thoughts. “For as the rain and the snow come down from heaven, And do not return there without watering the earth, And making it bear and sprout, And furnishing seed to the sower and bread to the eater; So shall My word be which goes forth from My mouth; It shall not return to Me empty, Without accomplishing what I desire, And without succeeding in the matter for which I sent it.[5]

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

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

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

Part 3

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

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

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

[4] Deuteronomy 8:3.

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

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

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

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

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In Part 1, we attempted to lay a solid foundation on which we might stand and from which we might argue. As we discuss the possibilities in regard to our future as a nation, it is of vital importance that we first comprehend both the standard and the goal.

Too often have Christians and the Church gone to battle without a clear vision before their eyes of what they are seeking to achieve. This lack of a precise goal is a manifestation of them using the wrong standard.

So let us be clear. In this particular battle our goal is not to stop homosexual union. Our goal must be nothing less than the eradication of homosexuality.[1] This may seem ultra-radical, but it is the position demanded by our Standard – the eternal, abiding, authoritative Word of God!

Be assured, the goal of our enemies is not just homosexual union; it is the eradication of God, Jesus, and Christianity – at least as a force to shape culture, and preferably in totality. We should have no less a goal. Shocked again? Why? Are we not at war in a “winner takes all” battle? Is not our motivation conformity to the image of Jesus in all things?[2] Does this not mean thinking God’s thoughts after Him?[3] Does this not mean loving God and the things He loves and hating that which He hates?[4]

I can already hear the clamour of the moderns. They will speak of love, tolerance, and turning the other cheek. Thus, I pose one question: Whom do you esteem more, God or the rebellious sinner?[5]

We will never win these major political and cultural battles as long as we hold to these two erroneous beliefs: A) The Church is not called upon to fight / the Church only fights when attacked; B) God is not interested in either politics or culture.

Option A, let’s call it “Christian Pacifism”, robs the Church of any opportunity to take back lost ground or to conquer. The Church is either decimated and loses everything or it fights when attacked in the hope of hanging on to the little that remains. Thus, once the din of battle subsides, these Christians lay down their arms and go back to sleep. This group never think of staying in their armour and launching attacks against the enemy in an effort to win lost ground, fortify the front line, and prepare for another advance!

Option B, the position of the Individual Salvationist,[6] means that we Christians have absolutely nothing to contribute to any political or cultural battle. It is that simple. Sadly, such a position is not only a denial of Scripture; it is a denial of Jesus Christ.

More importantly, however, is the fact that if you hold these views and you walk onto the battlefield, you will be aiding and abetting the enemy by hindering the army of Jesus Christ.

Blunt? Yes. Necessary? All the more so.

Without a standard and a goal, the battle is lost before we begin. Therefore, we have sought to say some things which need to be said so that we can genuinely put our shoulder to the plough knowing both the task and the goal. This is done in order that we should not fail and turn back.[7]

With this said, we are now in a better position to discuss the question of a referendum on homosexual union and the appropriate response to that proposal. The following discussion will look at a number of issues and attempt to give guidance for these difficult times.

A. God Has Spoken: The first point is very simple. A referendum on the part of the Government in regard to homosexual union is invalid and illegal. God has spoken and man has no right, ability, or authority to overturn the clear statutes of God.

We argued at length in Part 1, not just concerning homosexual union, but in regard to homosexuality itself. What we must see is that, regardless of the flag flown, successive Governments have ventured outside of their God-given authority and begun to legislate and call for opinion on matters where no discussion is warranted. God has spoken. Our simple task is to obey through implementation and conformity.[8]

In the context of a looming election, we are no doubt bracing for the inevitable speech by the victor in which they will speak of having a “mandate”. Again, in the current humanistic political sphere, where Man reigns supreme, it seems that the “man-“ is interpreted as meaning, ‘Man has spoke, so it is commanded!’ In truth, all a Government ever receives is a “God-date”. It is not the wish of Man for Man that is to be observed. It is the command of God for Man that is to be obeyed at all cost.

Therefore, calling for a referendum on homosexual union is a gross error. It is to fly in the face of God. It is nothing short of our nation writing another Humanist Manifesto: “We the people of Australia totally reject the Bible’s God and His sovereign governance over us. Our hatred of Him is so vast and so thorough that we chose to live under His divine wrath and inimical disposition toward us as a consequence of this rejection, rather than humble ourselves and obey. Signed – The Citizenry of Australia.”

A referendum on homosexual union is a haughty act on the part of man and Government, to say the least. Yet, it is no less so than all the decisions taken by successive Parliaments, which gave homosexuality credence and standing in the public eye and before the courts.

God has spoken. Man and Governments must render obedience in all things. We must note provoke God by overstepping our authority and making decisions that run contrary to His command.

All that a referendum will do, at one level, is cause all Australians to share the Government’s guilt. This referendum is akin to David’s numbering Israel.[9] That was a haughty act that intrinsically denied the command of God and His sovereign protection of that nation. It brought a devastating judgement.[10] Now we seek to be equally pretentious by denying God’s clear command and, in essence, state that we are capable of ensuring our own prosperity into the future.

This is our stand. A referendum is morally wrong because God has clearly spoken.

B. Australia 2013: Now comes the difficult part. We live in a fallen world and ethical choices need to be made. How do we respond if this referendum should go ahead? What should our stance be if we are compelled to vote? What impact can we have during the campaign? Is voting a sin? These are just a few of the many and, no doubt, prevalent questions in people’s minds.

It is beyond me to give concrete or absolute answers here. What I seek to do is help you think your way through some of the issues and to arrive at a Biblically reasoned response.

1. No Concrete Answers: I am unable to give concrete answers and firm direction on these issues. This is not because I seek to “wimp out” on my brethren when they are in a difficult situation. It is simply because, at this point, there are too many unknowns and too many variables. Equally, the only thing able to bind our consciences is God’s word. Here, then, I seek to serve my brethren by giving direction where possible; by laying down principle, by urging you to think, pray, and act; and by laying out, as best as it can be anticipated, some of the issues to be faced.

2. Christians Must Think and Act: As noted already, the question of a referendum has divided Christian commentators. In light of this many Christians will be tempted to place this issue in that proverbial basket labelled “Too Hard!” Therefore, it is essential that, while we have time, we try to understand the situation into which we have been placed. We are obligated to do this.[11] The Christian way should never be to simply “opt out”. Donkey and informal votes are not, at least should not be, the accepted or argued way for the Christian. God gave us a brain.[12] God gave us a new heart.[13] God gave us His Spirit.[14] God welcomes us into His throne room in order to hear our prayers and petitions.[15] It is ours to use our renewed minds to think our way through the possibilities in light of God’s wisdom found in God’s word.[16] Surely, this is what it means to be transformed so that we can be Salt and Light to the glory of God!

3. Be Prepared: “Robert Baden-Powell explains the meaning of the phrase: The Scout Motto is: BE PREPARED which means you are always in a state of readiness in mind and body to do your DUTY. Be Prepared in Mind by having disciplined yourself to be obedient to every order, and also by having thought out beforehand any accident or situation that might occur, so that you know the right thing to do at the right moment, and are willing to do it. Be Prepared in Body by making yourself strong and active and able to do the right thing at the right moment, and do it.”[17] This is sound advice for the Christian, even if the application needs a little tweak. Too often Christians are defeated because we refuse to be prepared in advance. We have time. Are we using that time to equip ourselves?[18]

4. Action: When it comes to the idea of a referendum, there are three options, roughly speaking, for the Christian. 1. Do not vote on moral grounds. 2. Decide to vote, even if under sufferance, in order to deprive the enemy and magnify God. 3. Decide not to vote, but to be active in campaigning. Okay, a little explanation. At no point do I say, “Do nothing.” That is not a Christian approach. If you decide not to vote, action should still be taken. Whether it be prayer or some other action of a militant nature; we should do something. I urge you not to complete a “Donkey Vote”. Neither make a typical informal vote. If you vote informally, do not mess up the form incoherently. Write something positive like, “Jesus Christ is Lord! – not KRudd”; “God has spoken, man must obey!”; or even write out a Biblical text. Whatever path we do choose before God in light of His wisdom, we must act, we must shine, we must glorify God. Whatever our path, it cannot be inaction. Similarly, if you are convinced to campaign, do so righteously and to God’s glory. This is not to say that you “soft-pedal” or be all “airy-fairy”. Speak truth. Speak it vigorously. Speak it vociferously. Speak it in love. Speak it with integrity. Speak it unashamedly.

5. Some Variables:

A. Referendum v Plebiscite: We need to understand the difference. A brief explanation of these two terms is: A referendum is binding and alters the constitution. A plebiscite is nothing more than a gigantic and expensive opinion poll – it is worth about the same as a politician’s promise![19] If we are forced to vote, then we should argue for a referendum. Why? A referendum will result in a change.[20] A plebiscite will do nothing, particularly if the motion is defeated. A plebiscite has also now been rendered utterly useless and nothing more than a gross obscenity for, as we speak, the Labor Government has said that they will implement homosexual union at some point.[21] So what is the point of a plebiscite? Mr Rudd has set his sail – who cares what the people think! Thus, if a vote comes, it must be a referendum. It must deal with the issue. It must clear the air.

B. The Question: Importantly, any referendum must ask the right question and it must provide for a just outcome. If the question is put in terms of recognising God’s view of marriage in the constitution, then there is a lot to gain. If said motion is defeated, we return to the status quo of relying on an Act of Parliament. This option at least provides for the possibility of a better outcome. If, however, the question deals specifically with homosexual union and it is unanimously defeated, then, as I understand it, the majority voice will gain nothing and we are back to the status quo of relying on politicians and an Act of Parliament. This is simply lose / lose. We can either be subjected to homosexual union or listen to their endless banter until they browbeat Parliament into granting their request.[22] This is raised because, as we noted in Part 1, the evil agitators gained the desire of their hearts and the politicians voted. They Lost!! Yet it did not stop them. Thus, the question posed must be fair, accurate, just, and aimed at ending this issue positively. Equally, we must remember that Labor has now promised to implement homosexual union. Thus, even if Mr Abbott finds himself in the Lodge after the election that, in itself, is no guarantee that this issue will be laid to rest. Imagine a day in which Malcolm Turnbull “knife’s” Mr Abbott and the leadership changes. What then? Remember that, although not having any time for Julia Gillard, she did oppose homosexual union and that would have made some in her party stand with her in the last vote, regardless of it being a conscience vote. So whilst I oppose the concept of this referendum, I equally acknowledge that it may also be a glimmer of light.

6. Democracy and Politicians: I have some dear and respected brethren / colleagues who are convinced that this issue should be settled by the politicians. I agree that these people have been elected and that they should do their job. The trouble is, they do not!

We had a vote on legalising homosexual union. It was resoundingly defeated. Upon its defeat did any politician seek to ensconce the outcome by fortifying marriage? No! Were any measures taken, given the positive result, to sure up marriage, to make the agitators cease, or to insist that no more bills be presented on the topic? No! In Part 1, I argued for a view of limited democracy? I did so because the whole process of democracy in this country is a farce. Yes, the people vote in an elected official. Then what? That individual goes about doing what they think or what their party tells them.

Mr Rudd is trying to make a huge issue out of the fact that the Coalition members were not allowed a “conscience vote” on the issue of homosexual union. This is just farcical. On how many of Mr Rudd’s policies were Labor politicians given a “conscience vote”? If Labor politicians had been able to have this freedom on the “mining tax”, “carbon tax” “pink bats” and other policies, would Labor have been in its recent mess? Would any or all of those schemes have seen the light of day?

Then there is the even bigger question. Is a conscience vote in keeping with the democratic principle? I will answer, No! If a democracy is that – a rule by the people – then the freedom to express a particular point outside of Party politics is indeed necessary. However, it is not the freedom of the politician’s conscience that should be in view. Rather, it is the freedom of the politician to represent the views of his constituents.

Seriously, friends (even enemies), think about this. Our modern form of democracy gives us the right to elect a representative. At the cessation of that process, our democratic right is obliterated by party politics, and a “two-party-preferred” system. Some argument can be made that our democratic right does not even go that far, being truncated by preferential voting.

Consequently, with all due respect to my colleagues who hold this position, “What do we really expect from these elected officials in this corrupt democracy?” Mr Rudd talks up a conscience vote on homosexual union, but then tramples on the very concept of democracy by announcing that Labor will make homosexual union a reality. Do people not see this glaring inconsistency?

Consequently, on one side of politics there is a leader fully dedicated to homosexual union, who despite his promise not to take a “national lead” on this issue, has committed his party to making homosexual union a reality. Even with a conscience vote the leader’s attitude is going to sway votes in their direction. On the other side of politics, the leader has said no to homosexual union and will not let (for now) his people have a free vote.

Whilst Mr Abbott’s position is the correct one – though I suspect for all the wrong reasons – the simple, stark, cold reality is that neither side is representing a democratic position. Both transgress the simple principle of representing the people. Neither side are really listening to the people.[23]

Mr Rudd is whipping up the issue of homosexual union and broadband for one reason – he sees these as the point of connection with younger voters. So, even at this juncture, Mr Rudd is not listening to the people, but to a subset of people. Thus, he is not arguing democracy, but demography. Mr Abbott, for whatever reason, has refused to allow a vote, which equally strikes at the democratic principle. I mean, truly, if we accept the conscience vote as a form of democracy, then we should be demanding that Mr Abbott change his mind and allow such a vote. After all, the elected representatives should be able to represent, feigned or genuine, their constituents.

The current situation should really call for pause and a complete rethink of what we mean, particularly as Christians, when we speak of democracy and of elected officials doing their job. Can we trust people who lie? Can we trust the adulterer? My federal member believes whole-heartedly in homosexuality and in maintaining the “traditional” view of marriage. Can I trust her? Not on your Nelly! Why, because she, like most, is guided by pragmatism and not absolutes.

7. Conservative Australia: Some Christians, whom I respect, are wary of a referendum because they wonder whether God’s truth would be voted in, even if the right process is allowed and the right question posed. My belief is that this position underestimates the general clime of our nation.

One of the reasons many homosexual protagonists have backed away from the idea of a referendum on homosexual union is because they know that it does not have public support. Whilst Australia may not be a righteous nation, it is to some degree “politically conservative.”

This conservative nature was highlighted with the rise of One Nation. Regardless of your particular feelings concerning Pauline and that Party, you should morn over what happened to her and the One Nation Party. This marked a dark day in Australian politics and showed that democracy, whilst touted, was simply not welcome. This political party became popular very quickly. It began to poll better than most other minor parties and it became a real threat. Thus, the big boys banded together and set out to destroy this fledgling party before it could become a real power, thus extinguishing the heralded democracy of our nation.

Why? Very simple. One Nation began to put forth different policies that had credibility. They did not offer the same, old, tired, lame excuses. They were willing to try something different. They were willing to recognise morality in governance. Moreover, they were advocating a change.[24] As a consequence, they gained a real following. For whatever other lack may have been present, the rise and demise of One Nation showed that Australia has a conservative outlook. It showed that people were sick and tired of only having two choices – Dumb and Dumber!

For this reason, the homosexual lobby has focussed on changing the minds of politicians rather than changing the mind of the people. This is why Tony Abbott has come under so much pressure for not allowing a “conscience” vote on the issue. The proponents of homosexual union want to deceive people into thinking that the only reason that the last vote was unsuccessful was because of this limitation.

Thus, they continue to add pressure to the fickle politicians who want to be re-elected. So we see Mr Windsor[25] and Mr Rudd both changing their mind on this issue. Did they have a moral change or a political change of heart? In other words, could they see the writing on the wall and so make a decision in order to gain the votes of a vocal minority in order to save their political careers?

Having moved amongst my countrymen, I do not believe there is anywhere near the support for homosexual union or homosexuality that is touted in the media. People feel they must support things in public because they fear Big Brother. However, take them aside and have a quiet chat and their view is very different.[26]

8. PC – A Dangerous Thing: The simple reality is that Australia is being held to ransom at the barrel of the PC gun.[27] People are simply not free to state what they believe and to discuss the topic. People are constrained and restrained by legislation, workplace policies, and employment contracts; all of which is nothing short of the forced Governmental indoctrination of its citizens.

When a Government cannot present a reasoned debate that convinces its citizens, it turns to tyranny, force, and coercion. The irony found in our tyrannical Government is that they claim to be rationalists who subscribe to reason as the basis of their belief system, yet they are unable to give a credible reasoning for their actions. How bizarre!

Anyway, the point is this: the Government has no rationale for the implementation of homosexual union. Therefore, it will readily stifle debate and enforce its will through the abhorrence that is PC. So, in looking toward the future, we must be willing to attack PC, to stand against its insidious methods of gagging, and to risk its weight falling upon us. Make no mistake, if we get to a referendum there will be a campaign and there will be debates. If we argue as I have urged – arguing against homosexuality in general – or simply against homosexual union, we will be opposed by all the legislation enacted to the honour of the pagan god “PC”.

9. Girding the Loins: In times like these we cannot afford to have a spirit of timidity. We cannot back away from the fight simply because it seems that we are opposed by the many. Remember Gideon. Remember Jericho. Remember Joshua. Remember, it is Yahweh Who fights for us. It is in Yahweh’s army that we march.

This army must fight at the command of its Captain. However, the army must remember that its Captain is not constrained to “save by many or few!”[28] When God is for us, who is there to oppose? With the Psalmist should we not also exclaim, “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread?”

Conclusion:

Whilst I oppose the idea of being compelled to vote on a topic on which God has already spoken vociferously, I am equally open to the fact that God may be presenting His people with a great opportunity. I realise that some will see that position as “confused” or me as having a “double standard”. If that be the case, I guess I will have to cope.

Such issues aside, it is necessary that the Christians of this nation not miss a God-given opportunity. Many issues divide Christians for many reasons. On the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union there is a greater degree of unity. Therefore, at this present time, we have been granted an opportunity to garner support for Biblical reform. It would be a pitiable situation if this opportunity were not seized.

As is clear from this article, our problems as a nation go far beyond the issue of homosexual union. That topic is nothing more than a spiritual and cultural barometer. What it clearly shows is that the needle is pointing to a deep low; that is if the needle has not already fallen from the hub in disgust, lying dormant at the bottom of the dial!

My aim is to stir people’s hearts for Revival and Reform. Yes, highlighting inadequacy and error can be seen as pessimism or an overly critical spirit. However, I count such terms as naught. The simple, basic truth is this: Honest appraisal must come before any attempt at renovation! You would not buy a house on the basis that it had an expensive, solid-timber, hand crafted door, complete with a costly stained-glass inset, while the rest of the house was desperately in need of repair. You would not sit there, shivering as the icy wind blew in through cracks in the wall, simply admiring the door, convinced that the house is in excellent condition. So why do we seek to unleash such deception upon ourselves at a national level.

Having pointed out the deficiencies, we need to now set about taking whatever opportunities we have to rectify the situation.

Imagine, the referendum is fair, the question just. God hears the cries of His people and marriage between one man and one woman is enshrined in the constitution. Wonderful. Then the fallout. We would have a constitution that is at loggerheads with international treaties and other “Human Rights” garbage. Our Equal Opportunity Commission would be in a conundrum. How can we be had up for vilification if we are being but constitutional?

Imagine the public declaration of the Gospel of Jesus Christ that could take place during a campaign. Yes, there may be / will be opposition. Nonetheless, we would have just cause to publish Christ’s word daily in our newspapers; daily opportunity for Christ’s word to be spoken on radio. Any attempts to gag would simply furnish us with more material on which to comment. Gagging would provide us with more opportunities to speak Christ’s word to yet one more godless situation. It would further enable us to point out man’s natural hatred of Christ and His standard. It would provide us with plentiful opportunities to command, Cease, Desist, Repent, Live.

As stated, our consciences are to be bound to God’s word and by God’s word. Thus, my number one encouragement is this: Do not give up searching the Scriptures in these difficult times. It is God’s word alone that will furnish us the necessary wisdom to fight appropriately and succeed.

Secondly, do not give up on prayer. Pray often. Pray vigorously. Also, pray wisely and pray toward something. Let us prove to God that we are convinced that there is a particular course of action that is right. Encourage your brethren to pray, even if their ideas and convictions are different. The point is that we should swamp God’s throne with our ardent prayers; thereby showing that we are engaged and interested participants in the establishment of His Kingly rule over his Kingdom. As to the fact that our prayers may differ – tis naught. A perfectly wise God can adjudicate that situation most adequately.

Let us approach this situation with courage in Jesus Christ and with a positive outlook. Whilst the situation may be chaotic and less than perfect, that by no means translates to the fact that God cannot work or that He will not work. In fact, Scripture shows us that it is at times of greatest despair, when man’s resources and hope are expended, that God often works the greatest.

Salt and light. If we will not preserve and shine, who will? Tis our task to work for the establishment of Christ’s Kingdom. Whether the days be good or evil is not ours to choose. It is ours to live faithfully in every age. To live to God’s glory and to proclaim that it is God’s right to rule all institutions and all nations through Jesus Christ.

“The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.” “And in the days of those kings the God of heaven will set up a kingdom which will never be destroyed, and that kingdom will not be left for another people; it will crush and put an end to all these kingdoms, but it will itself endure forever.” “And the Lord will be king over all the earth; in that day the Lord will be the only one, and His name the only one.”

Eschatologies and prophetic views may differ, but these words sum up our raison d’être. This is that to which we are obliged to work and to which we have been called. This is our cause in Australia in the year of our Lord 2013. Will you join with me in this fight for the glory of Jesus Christ our King?

Footnotes:

[1] Let us also be clear on this point. I focus on homosexuality because of the topic and context. However, all institutions have a responsibility to eradicate everything that is sinful. We need to bid homosexuality, “Be gone!” Along with this, we also need to include abortion, euthanasia, murder, divorce, de facto relationships and the like. Equally, we need to oppose theft in all its forms – excessive taxation, unjust weights, manipulated dollar, manipulated fuel prices, and so on. We need to remove tyranny and bring freedom. We need to re-establish justice. Our society needs to undergo transformation through the Lordship of Jesus Christ. In short, we need another Reformation.

[2] Romans 8:29.

[3] “How precious also are Thy thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them!” 139:17

[4] “Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way.” Psalm 119:128. “Whom have I in heaven but Thee? And besides Thee, I desire nothing on earth.” Psalm 73:25.

[5] “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men.” Acts 5:29; “I call heaven and earth to witness against you today, that I have set before you life and death, the blessing and the curse. So choose life in order that you may live, you and your descendants, by loving the Lord your God, by obeying His voice, and by holding fast to Him; for this is your life and the length of your days, that you may live in the land which the Lord swore to your fathers, to Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, to give them.” Deuteronomy 30:19-20; “And He said to him, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ “This is the great and foremost commandment.” Matthew 22”37-38.

[6] These are those that believe the Gospel is only about saving individuals. Politics and Culture are but unholy distractions. These will only get involved in these battles if they are constrained by external forces.

[7] Luke 9:62.

[8] Allow me to draw an Ecclesiastical analogy. Some years ago the congregation I then attended was vacant. A meeting was held by the Interim-Moderator in order to expedite filling the vacancy. One of the questions posed was, “What do you want in a minister?” This opened the door to all sorts of ridiculous statements, including, “We do not want anyone dogmatic!” (If the desired candidate is to believe nothing and have no convictions, we may as well have stayed vacant!) My point here is very simple – Scripture tells us absolutely what an Elder / Minister must be. We did not need a popular consensus or a democratic vote on the principle qualities that the Elder / Minister must display, for they are codified in Scripture. Neither do we need Governments holding opinion polls on homosexuality. Our perspective on that has likewise been codified in Scripture.

[9] 2 Samuel 24: ff c.f 1 Chronicles 21:1 ff.

[10] Both accounts record that 70,000 died in the ensuing pestilence.

[11] “Therefore be careful how you walk, not as unwise men, but as wise, making the most of your time, because the days are evil. So then do not be foolish, but understand what the will of the Lord is.” Ephesians 5:15-17.

[12] Without getting into a debate regarding Eschatology, we would point out that the book of Revelation contains two challenges for people to think and apply their minds. Revelation 13:8 and 17:9.

[13] Jeremiah 31:33: “But this is the covenant which I will make with the house of Israel after those days,” declares the Lord, “I will put My law within them, and on their heart I will write it; and I will be their God, and they shall be My people.” John 14:1: “Let not your heart be troubled; believe in God, believe also in Me.”

[14] John 16:8-11: “And He, when He comes, will convict the world concerning sin, and righteousness, and judgment; concerning sin, because they do not believe in Me; and concerning righteousness, because I go to the Father, and you no longer behold Me; and concerning judgment, because the ruler of this world has been judged.”

[15] Hebrews 4:16: “Let us therefore draw near with confidence to the throne of grace, that we may receive mercy and may find grace to help in time of need.”

[16] Romans 12:2: “And do not be conformed to this world, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind, that you may prove what the will of God is, that which is good and acceptable and perfect.” Paul, at this juncture, insists on the renewed – Biblical – mind so that we may in fact understand God’s will, which is always acceptable and perfect.

[17] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scout_Motto

[18] We would do to remember and heed Paul’s exhortation to Timothy to be “ready in season and out” 2 Timothy 4:2.

[19] A plebiscite would be useless. The Government is well aware of the numbers who oppose this change, just as it is well aware of its own agenda and treaty obligations. As such, a plebiscite would be a colossal waste of money which would do nothing to turn back the tide in this nation.

[20] Again, there are many variables. However, in an effort to be constructive I assume a number of issues, such as a fair question and a victory for God.

[21] “LABOR has given a strong indication same-sex marriage will be legalised, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s righthand man declaring the party will make it happen. Deputy Prime Minister Anthony Albanese made the declaration while being interviewed on a youth radio station. But Mr Albanese later sought to clarify his comment, saying the issue was still a matter for a conscience vote and that history showed the Labor side of politics had always been the one to reform gay and lesbian rights.…

Asked on Triple J’s Hack show if Labor would make gay marriage happen, Mr Albanese, restricted to one-word answers, said: “Yes”.” Read more:

http://www.news.com.au/national-news/federal-election/albanese-signals-marriage-equality-8216will-happen8217-under-labor/story-fnho52ip-1226673375150

[22] Space does not allow for a full discussion, but I believe that any referendum should come with a “sunset clause” or moratorium. We had a vote on this issue. The homosexuals lost. Yet, as we have noted, that vote did not put the issue to rest. Thus, if homosexual union is again defeated, there needs to be a stipulated time before it can ever be raised again. If this is not done, the political circus will continue.

[23] Let me illustrate with two examples, both from the supposedly conservative side of politics. Jeff Kennett allowed a “conscience vote” on legalising marijuana, yet at the same time ruled out ever allowing a vote on the reintroduction of the death penalty. John Winston Howard turned tyranny to an art form with the “gun buy-back”. The real tragedy in this saga was seen when “backbenchers” began to speak up for their constituents. They were told publicly to go back and silence the voters. So where is democracy? What voice do the people really have? Put this to the test. Walk down the street – any street – and I guarantee you can start a conversation with a complete stranger on this issue in no time at all. I equally guarantee that the response will not be positive. It is a sad reality, but the depth of despair is summed up in the old joke, “How do you tell when a politician is lying? Their lips move!”

[24] How many times have you heard a politician in opposition tell you how ridiculous certain government policies are, yet, when the opposition gains power, they do not rescind or repeal these policies?

[25] This was penned before the recent announcement that Mr Windsor would not contest his seat at the next election.

[26] Before leaving this point, let me highlight just how our political landscape is radically altered by our corrupt system. In the election that saw One Nation decimated, they had hoped to win 12 seats. As we know, they did not win a single seat – or did they? My memory is a bit hazy, but, at that time, I smelled a rat and spent hours trolling through election results. If memory serves correctly, on a first past the post result, One Nation won 15 seats. Again, I cannot remember the exact number, but I believe that Pauline Hanson was something like 10,000^{^[26]} votes in front at the end of primary voting.

Analogy time! Imagine the outcry if, at the end of the horse race, the winner was relegated to last place because of a straw poll conducted amongst the jockeys as to who they thought should have won. This is what is happening at every election in Australia. How different would Australia be if we had a system that recognised the first past the post or the majority primary vote?

[27] Dr Ben Carson spoke at the Nation Prayer Breakfast in the US this year. His speech is worth listening to in its entirety. May I encourage you to listen to the first six minutes of his speech, in which he says some very salient things in regard to people being easily offended and the impact of PC. If time is short, simply listen to one minute of this speech. Between 5:05 and 6:02, Dr Carson, speaks directly to the PC culture. He labels it as a “horrible thing” and as “dangerous”. He notes that it “muzzles people.” View at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFb6NU1giRA

[28] 1 Samuel 14:6.

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)

Posted on July 6, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

[This article was begun some months ago when the issue of a referendum was first raised. Due to circumstances, it has been worked on in an ad hoc fashion over that time. I feared that it had become irrelevant with Kevin Rudd taking back the Prime Ministership and that it may end up in the bin. However, Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union and his statements of recent show that this issue is still very much alive. Some aspects may be dated. We now know that Tony Windsor will not be standing for re-election. However, it is hoped that the bulk of the article will still prove helpful. RM]

The issue of homosexual marriage refuses to go away.[1] Why is this? The simple answer has to do with, a) agitators who will not give up until they achieve their goal and, b) Christians who will not engage in this fight in an appropriate manner.

Those in favour of homosexual marriage managed to have a bill introduced to Parliament in 2012, which sought to rewrite the Marriage Act by changing its definition. After months of debate throughout society, the vote was taken and the democratically elected officials voted the bill down. Not only was the bill defeated; it was significantly defeated (98-42).

Did this stop the agitators? No, it did not.[2] Why did it not stop them? The answer here is twofold.

First, it must be understood, and we have made this point in previous articles, that the vote taken by the Parliament was only a vote as to the definition of marriage. It was not an in principle vote against homosexuality. In other words, the vote was not a total rejection of homosexuality as an invalid and unacceptable lifestyle. Rather, it was a vote concerning the extent of homosexual recognition.

Second, because the aforementioned vote was not a complete rejection of homosexuality, the agitators have continued to be buoyed by Government policy and world events. We have highlighted the fact that the Gillard Government has made major concessions to the homosexual movement.[3] In recent months, we have seen both the New Zealand and French Parliaments vote to accept homosexual marriage. The consequence of which was to once more fuel the issue here in Australia.

Given the inability of our elected officials to deal satisfactorily and morally with this issue, we must ask, “What now?” The most recent proposal came from the Independent MP, Tony Windsor. His suggestion is that an additional question be added to the referendum planned to be held at the upcoming election.[4] Naturally, the additional question would deal with homosexual marriage.

This is a very simple plan. It is an effective plan. It is a definite plan. It is also a plan that has well and truly placed the “cat amongst the pigeons.” Thus far, we have seen some Christians support the idea[5] and some Christians reject the idea.[6] Certain political parties embraced the idea and then distance themselves from it. Social commentators have raised concerns about what effect a referendum and the associated advertising may have. Then, amusingly, certain homosexual lobby groups have shied away from the proposal.[7]

“Referendum or no referendum?” that is the question.

As noted, I would agree with certain aspects of Mr Windsor’s proposal. A referendum should put this issue to bed once and for all. The proposal is simple. The proposal is democratic. This proposal would tell us what the Australian people are actually thinking in contradistinction to what the news polls suppose we are thinking. A referendum would put the issue beyond the reach of politicians and political speak.

The question, however, that must of necessity be asked is, “Are these aspects the right and only issues in this debate.” The answer to that is a resounding, “No!” Here, we enter the heart of this debate. Here, we must look at the issues that are being pushed aside by most, if not all, in this debate.

1. Man’s Logic v God’s Authoritative Word:

One of the constant irritations in debates of this nature is the way in which Christians seek to argue logic and trend rather than God and His word. In The War was not Won, I noted:

I know a good few Christian organisations who have fought hard in this and other battles. I do not in any way wish to detract from them or their work. However, I would posit that the events of recent years have shown us that the so called “logical” arguments are of little value. … We are witnessing a war based on definitions. Unless we come to the table armed with God’s word, then we will simply be trading “logic” for “logic” or human understanding for human understanding. The only thing that makes the Christian’s argument impenetrable is the very fact that it is God’s word! We have no magical ability bestowed upon us. Our faculties are not made magically better than other men. Our strength lies in the Word of God.[8]

It is time that we Christians came to these arguments armed solely with God’s word – the sword of His armoury![9] There is a place for secondary arguments; but they are just that, secondary. Such arguments must follow as an adjunct that witness to the truth of God’s word. They can never be allowed to supplant the primacy of God’s word either as the foundation from which we speak or as the content of that speech.

Allow me to attempt to elucidate. In theology we speak of “Natural” and “Positive” penalties when speaking of judgements upon sin. Berkhof explains:

There are punishments which are the natural results of sin, and which man cannot escape, because they are the natural and necessary consequence of sin. … The slothful man comes to poverty, the drunkard brings ruin to himself and his family, the fornicator contracts a loathsome disease, and the criminal is burdened with shame and even when leaving the prison walls finds it extremely hard to make a new start. … But there are also positive punishments, and these are punishments in the more ordinary and legal sense of the word. They presuppose not merely the natural laws of life, but the positive law of the great Lawgiver with added sanctions. They are not penalties which naturally result from the nature of the transgression, but penalties which are attached to the transgression by divine enactments. They are superimposed by divine law, which is absolute authority.[10]

It is fundamentally important that we grasp this point. When we as Christians wade into battle, we do so to glorify God and to stop sin. We go forth in the name of Jesus Christ and cry out, “Cease. Desist. Repent. Live!” Concerned for the holiness of our God, we seek to stop every action that robs Him of His glory or besmirches His great name. The implication of this is that we are dealing with sins specifically proscribed by God as Lawgiver. Consequently, there is no logical link between the sin committed and the negative covenant penalty imposed by the sanction of God.

Lost? Let me explain. What logical link is there between neglecting the worship of Jesus Christ, poverty and famine? What logical link is there between sexual promiscuity and exile (loss of sovereignty)? What logical link is there between familial adultery and childlessness? To our modern and Humanistic way of thinking, we would reply, “Nothing!” However, if we explore God’s word, we will see clearly that in God’s Law these are the exact positive penalties attached to each of these transgressions.[11]

Whilst it is evident that there is indeed a system of cause and effect, the effect is not a logical consequence. In terms of homosexuality, we may see that the natural penalty of homosexual activity may be a divorce or the acquisition of a “loathsome” disease. What we do not see, what we refuse to see, is that the prosperity of our nation, its ability to produce, the stability of the seasons, the moral clime of the nation, the safety of our wives in their beds and our children on the street, and a myriad of things beside, are all linked to the acceptance or rejection of homosexuals and homosexual practice.

Everyone is aware of the current agitation on Climate Change.[12] Around the world there is a constant outcry about the dangers of Climate Change. I hear all sorts of reasons being advanced. Do you know what I do not hear? This admission: “For we have sinned against the Lord our God, we and our fathers, since our youth even to this day!”[13] We hear nothing in regard to the fact we are being punished and chastised for our rebellion against God.

Australia is toying with homosexual marriage as is Britain and America. France and New Zealand have legalised it – as have other countries. Heretics are crawling out of the woodwork—like the false prophets of old crying out “Peace! Peace! When there was no peace”—telling us that homosexuality is a “gift of God” and that people are “gay by divine right.”[14] This bemuses me. If all this is “so right” in the sight of God, why are our respective nations “so messed up”? If this is right before God then it constitutes righteousness. God says He will look to the “righteous” and that He will bless “righteous” behaviour. So, where is the obvious covenantal blessing (positive command for our good) of God upon our respective nations?

How do these false prophets explain Australia’s drought? How do they explain New Zealand’s earthquakes? How do they explain America’s ever decreasing prosperity and plunge into unpayable debt? How do they explain the downward spiral of Britain from ‘world power’ to third-world war zone?

The short answer is, “They cannot!” At least, not without denying God as sovereign Lawgiver all over again and admitting that we are products of chance; that our prosperity and the rise and fall of nations is just a “per chance” or “happenstance” on the timeline we call history. (Oops! Sorry. My bad. Of course they do this. They call it Evolution, Humanism, and Post Modern Thought, to name but a few.)

There is no human logic, research, or empiricism to be argued here. The only logic (right judgement) is to believe the revelation given by God and accept that, by God’s standard, all is not “rosy in the garden”; and this precisely because we have sinned and are therefore experiencing the application of the covenantal penalty to the covenantal transgression.

We can front our politicians with the so called “logical”. We can quote statistics. We can cite papers by PhDs. Yet none of these things says that the acceptance of homosexuality is an abhorrent deed that should not be practiced because it is an offence to Almighty God. None of these simply says, No![15]

More importantly, none of these papers speak with authority. None of these papers have the ability to command the consciences of sinful men and to tell them to stop suppressing the truth of God. None of these papers have the authority to either rebuke the conscience or liberate the conscience unto Jesus Christ. In short, none of these papers can transform. That process can only be worked by Divine authority and that authority is God’s word.

Dr. Joe Morecraft III is absolutely correct when he states that arguments of logic and empiricism are a ‘denial of the Christian faith.’ Says he, “Knowledge and morality are absolutely impossible unless we presuppose the truth of the Lordship of Christ and the Divine authority of the Bible over every area of life.”[16] Spot on! However, beware the pitfall. We cannot have a half-baked cake. We cannot give mental assent only and say that we believe in accordance with Brother Joe and then forsake that principle for research and the words of men.

It is for this reason that we must go into battle with the offensive weapon of the Lord – The Sword of the Spirit.

Brethren, the first point is a very simple one. If we are going into battle with any expectation of victory, then let us throw down our piddly pen-knives and go armed with The Sword of the Spirit, which is the Word of God; For the word of God is living and active and sharper than any two-edged sword, and piercing as far as the division of soul and spirit, of both joints and marrow, able to judge the thoughts and intentions of the heart.[17]

2. Morality v Equality:

Beginning with the Word of God is essential for a successful Christian defence because it helps us to cut through the extraneous material thrown up by our opponents. The lens of God’s word helps us to see through the smoke and mirrors. Armed with the Sword of the Lord, we are enabled to peel back the layers of lies and deceit and expose the true condition we face.

In the battle regarding homosexual marriage, we must be sure of the true enemy so that we can apply the full force of God’s word to that point. Taking on God’s word and wisdom will ensure that we are not distracted and led from the path chasing tangential arguments and ideas.

Of priority, we assert that the idea of homosexual marriage is an argument of morality and not equality. Hence, from here on in, reference is made to homosexual union.[18]

Homosexuality is illegitimate. Homosexuality is an abomination and a depraved activity. Homosexuality is condemned by God.[19] Homosexuality is the pinnacle of man’s rebellion against God and therefore falls under the full weight of His righteous wrath.[20] So says God – Father, Son, and Holy Spirit! Therefore, any discussion in regard to homosexual practices or homosexual rights is first, foremost, and only a moral issue!

Yet, we do not hear this anymore – even from the Christians!! We Christians have become so focused upon the “logical” refutation of the particular point before us that we have forgotten the bigger issue. The question before us is not, “Should homosexual union be legalised or recognised?” but “Should homosexuality be recognised or accepted?”

These are very different questions. The first merely feeds the rebellious desires of the homosexual lobby. The second places the homosexuals back in the closet and then pushes the closet of a cliff!! Oh dear! How un-PC of me. Well, in the words of Sgt Major “Shut Up”, “Oh dear. So sad. Never mind!”

The longer we Christians (and our nation) refuse to acknowledge, preach, proclaim, and insist on God’s order, the longer we will suffer the plague of homosexuality with all its attendant and destructive ills.

As a moral issue, homosexuality can only be discussed under two words and from one perspective. Those two words – two very unpopular words today – are, “Right” or “Wrong”. The one perspective is God’s. If we begin at any other place, we have lost the battle before we have even begun.

My friends, please understand this. As a moral issue, the discussion is only in regard to the rightness or wrongness of homosexuality and nothing else. If we begin to discuss the ancillary, then we fight on the enemy’s terms.

Let me illustrate this point for you. Recently, I heard a discussion on this topic in the context of a proposed referendum. A female was interviewed as part of a panel. She began her discussion and in the space of no more than two sentences changed her language three times. She started with “homosexual marriage” moved to “marriage equality” and then ended with the passionate “Australians just want everybody to be happy”.[21]

In these two sentences there was a transitionary move from the moral / ethical, to the cultural / legal, finishing strongly with the emotional – the modern god of happiness. Note this well, please. These transitions are used all the time. They are used to disarm and confuse. They are nothing short of Psychological Warfare. These terms are used to disguise reality and to deliberately lead people away from discussing homosexuality on moral grounds.

Asking Joe Average whether he wants “everybody to be happy” is a very different thing to asking him, “Do you believe homosexuality is a legitimate lifestyle?” Yet, this is exactly what happens in order to bluff and beguile the average person on the street.

Footnote four contains a link to the interview with Fred Nile on this issue. I would now encourage you to go and view that link. Note this same attempt on the part of the interviewer to use language that distracts from the real issues. Note how that language makes any who oppose seem to be “Draconian”, “half-witted”, or just part of the “religious lunatic fringe”. Also note, please, how Fred Nile fails to indentify the real issue and continues to talk only of homosexual union.[22]

At this point, we must also highlight the current desire to speak of “marriage” as a mere tradition. Again, by taking this route the proponents of homosexual union are trying to remove the topic from the realm of morality and place it into a cultural context. As such, marriage becomes no more than choice, culture, or habit. They attempt to move it from the realm of God’s jurisdiction to that of Man’s; from Divine commandment to cultural choice.

Brethren, the second lesson is also simple. We must come to this argument armed with “Thus says the Lord God…” because this is a moral issue. It is a case of right or wrong based in God’s revealed Law-Word.

This issue is not equality. The issue is Morality!

3. Democracy v Theocracy:

Here, we arrive at the real thought provoker. Here, we arrive at one of the greatest problems in the modern Church – Epistemological Hypocrisy. Wow! Big word. So let’s explore.

Epistemology is, in general, the “theory of knowledge”. It looks at how we know, why we know, and what we can know. It is fundamentally important that the Christian grasp and understand the significance of this. It is so because the Christian believes, or should believe, that one can know. The Christian does not believe that they are in an unintelligible world that has no reality or purpose and which is naught but a transient dream in the mind of the individual. On the contrary, the Christian believes in a world created by God. Therefore, there is knowledge of order, purpose, justice, morality, right and wrong.

In contradistinction to this is our current world – the world of the “Postmodern” era. In this world, knowledge and the ability to know are questioned or denied. The ramification of this is that the predominate philosophy of our day, the theory that guides the people in power, is one in which there are no absolutes and, therefore, no right or wrong. In such a world, democracy and the collective choice of the individuals is hailed as supreme.[23]

This brings us to discuss the Epistemological Hypocrisy of the Church. If we went to church this Sunday and conducted a straw poll on the questions, “What is the Church’s authority?” and “Where do I find God’s instruction?” I am sure we would have high percentages tell us that it is God and the Bible. In short, Christians would affirm that their epistemology is based in God’s revelation of Himself. This has led the Church, throughout history, to affirm that the Bible is the only rule of life and faith for all.

The problem is that we have become Epistemological Hypocrites. What we affirm with our lips, we do not affirm with our actions. This was made clear two decades ago at a church I then attended. A group came to the church with a questionnaire. It had, I believe, twenty questions. Ten were asked positively. Ten were asked negatively.

When asked the positive question regarding Scripture, the answer was around 90% in the affirmative. In other words, the majority of respondents believed that the Bible was our only source of authority. However, when the practical question was asked – a question along the lines of, ‘When people ask for advice you give or seek guidance from …?” – the percentage of those who used the Bible plummeted dramatically.

This is Epistemological Hypocrisy. We Christians say that we believe God. We say that we live by God’s word. We say that we obey God’s commands. We say that we desire obedience to God’s Law. We go into our church services and pray lofty prayers asking God for guidance, for wisdom, for discernment. We are even emboldened to ask for God’s blessing upon our obedience. Yet, we walk from the building and begin to implement that which seems good to us. We enter into cultural and political debates armed with the toothpicks of human research rather than the Sword of the Spirit.

This leads to the challenge. Christian, why do you support an unbridled view of democracy? Whilst it has become an unpopular view and a word to be shunned, the simple reality is that this world and our nation must be Theocratic.[24] We must live under, by, and for the rule of God.

The best that a Christian should say is that he believes in Limited Democracy. This is a view in which man has some ability to vote into being certain rules. Yet, intrinsically, it also sets up a very high and strong fence around a range of issues and sets a banner on that fence: “God has spoken. Man may not encroach!”

In regard to the question of a referendum, I object, not because I fear the outcome, but because God has spoken. Consequently, the issue of homosexuality and homosexual union is beyond the determination of man – either as an individual or as a parliament. This is the same with Euthanasia, Abortion, Taxation, Property Ownership and a whole host of things. God has spoken. Man’s task is to listen and obey.

Here, then, is the quandary. The Church has fallen for the modern mood of Individualism. The idea of “having a vote” and “expressing our own opinion” has become a joy to us (research v Word). We see this in the modern desire for choice. Man simply wants to be free to choose his own destiny. This sounds okay, but at heart it is once more a return to the Garden and a grab for God’s throne. It is to visit Psalm Two and see the kings and judges of the earth conspiring to throw off God’s rule, and therein, God’s Law and God’s Christ.

Sadly, the Church has become complicit in this gross sin. She has desired Her own path. As such, She has played the harlot. She has not remained faithful to Her Groom, the Lord Jesus Christ. In modern parlance, She has become a Feminist and joined the noisy chorus demanding freedom from Biblical headship.

If we are to have victory, we Christians and the Church, must confess this sin and repent. We must live our epistemology consistently. We must deny Democracy and call for Theocracy. We must remember that we are not members in a club with voting rights, but citizens and ambassadors from a Kingdom. Our job is to live out and declare the message of the Great King.[25]

When we grasp this point. When we affirm, on the basis of a Biblical conviction, that we subscribe to a limited democracy that sits below the Theocracy, then we will be more inclined to say, “Thus say the Lord God…!” and to understand issues from the point of God’s morality and God’s sovereignty.

4. Homosexuality v Heterosexuality:

God’s revelation shows that it is one man and one woman who are to be joined in a legal unification – a legal unification that we have termed as marriage. Even if we take into account the times we witness multiple wives in Scripture – something tolerated, not commanded or sanctioned – it is exactly the same pattern, man with woman / women! The number of the wives may change; their gender never does.

Here we must once more throw out the challenge by use of analogy. Your child is shown, by you, a picture of an animal. That animal is large, grey, four-footed, has a trunk, is equipped with tusks, eyes, mouth, and has very large ears.

You now ask your child to name the animal. Your child studies the picture and jubilantly exclaims, “It’s a donkey!” Bewildered, you ask, “Why do you say it is a donkey?” Contemplatively, your child replies, “Well, it has large ears. It has a mouth. It has eyes. It has a tail and it stands on four legs.” Continuing, your child confidently asserts, “It must be a donkey because a donkey has all these!”

You see, like the child, the homosexual and the homosexual lobby try to justify their perverted view of gender and sexuality on the basis of similarity. Yet such is absolute nonsense. We would not let our child call an elephant a donkey based on similarity. Rather, we demand that our child call an elephant an “elephant” based on its unique qualities that set it apart. In essence, the label “elephant” cannot be applied willy-nilly to any animal. The term brings to mind an exact representation. The label and the form go together.

So it is in terms of marriage and sexuality. Marriage is a term that applies to the covenantal union of a male and female with the implication of all that God intended for and through that covenantal union. Marriage is the label. Male and female is the form. This is the majestic, mighty elephant – powerful, strong, and robust.

In comparison, you have the donkey that is homosexuality. The similarities in form do not entitle it to appropriate to itself the label. It is that simple. Sharing big ears and having four feet does not transform a donkey into an elephant. Likewise, the fact that homosexuality is one side of the gender coin; that some travesty of sexual exchange may take place; that some type of relationship may be present, in no way qualifies this parody to appropriate the label “marriage”.

Form and label go together. Alter the form and the label does not apply. To use the label for a different form is theft. It is the path to confusion and anarchy.

5. Life v Death:

At this point we are going to be, to the modern mind, rather provocative. No excuses are made. No apologies issued. These things must be stated.

The Dominion / Cultural Mandate[26] clearly shows that Marriage is God’s design for life. God placed male and female together in covenant union – marriage – in order to be fruitful and bring God’s rule over the earth. This design fit perfectly with God’s blueprint for life. God planted seed in man. God deposited eggs within woman. He gave to the woman a womb – a secret place within her wherein God would knit life and bring forth posterity. These create generational family. They provide nurture, care, love, and discipline. They train. They sacrifice. They live.

Homosexuality cannot copy this pattern. Homosexuality is, by definition, barren and dead. Eggs without seed and seed without eggs. Life cannot be brought forth by these relationships without intervention or further depravity. Historically, nations that have embraced homosexuality have died out. One does not need to be a genius to figure out why.

Homosexuality is death. Its form is death. Its label is death. Heterosexuality is life precisely because God gave a form that could be and is fruitful. God placed a man and a woman together – form. That form is called marriage – label. This form and this label are life.

Now to be really provocative, but, nonetheless, truthful. Homosexual union is an impossibility. It is so because homosexuals are abominations proscribed under pain of death. The union which they seek is “until death do us part”.[27] Biblical fact – their dead!! The dead do not marry. The dead cannot marry.[28]

You will now tell me that such a statement is unpalatable. The slaves to modernism will tell me that such statements are harsh, unloving, intolerant, and not in keeping with Jesus’ philosophy, and so on ad nauseum. These are the same people who have rejected the term and concept of Theocracy in order to be comfortable in the modern world. These are those who simply reject the order God Almighty in His holiness has imposed.

Remember, the issue is not equality or happiness. It is Morality and Righteousness. It is life or death; blessing or curse. It is nothing less than the Righteousness of God revealed as Law that flows from the essential holiness of His character; the Law given to us in the totality of Scripture.

When viewed correctly, the unpalatable and intolerable is found in those who would vindicate, approve, and accept that which God rejects as abhorrent!

God’s Law-Word states:

Leviticus 18:22: “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.”
Leviticus 20:13: “If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”
Deuteronomy 23:17-18: “None of the daughters of Israel shall be a cult prostitute, nor shall any of the sons of Israel be a cult prostitute. You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God.”
Romans 1:24-27 & 32: “Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, that their bodies might be dishonored among them. 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. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error … and, although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.”
1 Corinthians 6:9: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
1 Timothy 1:8-11: “But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous man, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.”
Revelation 21:25-26: “And in the daytime … its gates shall never be closed; and they shall bring the glory and the honor of the nations into it; and nothing unclean and no one who practices abomination and lying, shall ever come into it, but only those whose names are written in the Lamb’s book of life.”[29]
Revelation 22:14-15: “Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life, and may enter by the gates into the city. Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.”

Whilst the moderns try to reinterpret Scripture and make God to be as a babbling fool with no coherence, the simple reality is that God speaks clearly, consistently, and unequivocally in and through Scripture. Homosexuality is death! This is God’s verdict. Homosexuality, in any form, is death. It should be punished with death here. It will certainly be punished with the “second death” in eternity.

There is nothing ‘God-like’ in homosexuality. There is nothing noble in homosexuality. There is nothing righteous in homosexuality. There is no life in homosexuality. The Bible unanimously condemns this practice as rebellion. The Bible issues forth one sentence upon homosexuality. It is a lifestyle deserving of death.

In light of such evidence, how is that Christians and society today can accept homosexuality as not only legitimate but as having more right than the Law of God? How is it that we so comfortably speak of loving a practice that God hates, which He calls an abomination, and which He proscribes with death? Indeed, there are unpalatable and intolerable things stated in regard to homosexuality. However, such things are not present when God’s truth is declared. Truly, the unpalatable and intolerable are realised when men, and particularly Christians, proceed to call “good” that which God has called both an evil and an abomination.

To continue with this type of speech in favour of that which God has soundly condemned is to invite God’s vigorous judgement upon our nation. It is to bring death to our nation and to our culture. It is to say goodbye to peace, prosperity, and fertility and to invite calamity, debt, and death.[30]

Conclusion:

Brethren, I would ask you to think upon these issues – deeply and at length. In Part 2, we will attempt to look at the issue of a referendum in regard to some of the practical aspects. However, at this point, please consider the issues raised. Are you thinking God’s thoughts after Him or are you a conduit of Humanistic philosophy? Is your political theory founded in the “whole counsel of God” or on a few texts scattered here and there with which you are comfortable or, even worse, upon some wayward humanist’s theory?[31] Do you believe that it is God’s right to rule our nation here and now? If so, how are you seeking to implement that rule? If not, why do you deny the sovereignty of God in Jesus Christ?

These and many other questions must be asked and answered. For our part, we are only too happy to stir up the hornet’s nest of theological beliefs. Why? We are in this mess because the Church in this nation has subscribed to the many modern philosophies that have destroyed truth. Now we seek to bury any point of difference. We seek to side step any issue that may mean heated discussion or see our popularity take a ‘2 point’ dive in the weekly “popularity” contest.

If we would have an impact for Jesus Christ, a lasting impact, then we must ask and answer the hard questions. It is only in wrestling with those questions and seeking God’s answer to them that we will be in any way equipped to fight and to win. It is this wrestling that Paul commended. It is this procedure that leads to “the equipping of the saints.”

Therefore, before we can proceed to any sort of practical lesson, we must first learn the theory. We must first wrestle with God’s word of truth and seek His wisdom as to His standard and how that standard should be appropriately implemented.

Continue reading: Part 2

Footnotes:

[1] Many, including myself, pondered what motivated Mr Rudd’s change of heart on homosexual union. I am now of the belief that it was a necessary condition imposed by some for their support in his reclaiming the leadership of the Labor Party and, thereby, Lodge. In one of his first speeches he raised homosexual union alongside of “broadband” as issues dear to the young of this nation. Yes, that is it, all our problems will be solved by faster internet speeds and homosexual union. This is a man peddling an (imposed) agenda, not a man bent on fixing the things he broke in Kevin Mark 1.

[2] This is in itself interesting. The agitators made much of the idea of “democracy”, yet when the democratically elected officials voted, they were unwilling to live with the outcome of the vote that they had sought. Note this well, please. The homosexual lobby sought this vote. The homosexual agitators sought this vote. When the vote was taken, they lost. So it is very reasonable for the populace to now ask these people to “shut up” and to “go away”. They achieved the vote they so desperately wanted; yet, like children in the playground, “they took their bat and ball and went home” when the decision did not go their way. So much for democracy!

[3] Please see The Battle Still Rages, The Essence of War (Pt. 1) and especially, The Essence of War (Pt.2).

[4] See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/windsor-calls-for-gay-marriage-referendum-20130428-2imu6.html. Accessed 07/05/13

[5] See: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/political-news/nile-calls-for-black-and-white-choice-for-voters-20130429-2ip0m.html.

[6] See: http://www.saltshakers.org.au/component/content/article/85-front-page-news/1078-our-response-to-calls-for-a-referendum-on-same-sex-marriage.

[7] This is very amusing as these same people seem to be constantly telling us that the majority of Australians support homosexual marriage. If this is true, why not embrace the referendum? After all, it is a “dead cert” if what they have claimed publically is true.

[8] Available at: https://www.reformationministries.com.au/blog/2012/11/the-war-was-not-won-the-battle-still-rages/.

[9] See Ephesians 6:10ff. It is interesting that most Christians know this passage by heart. Ask them about the sword and they will say a good many things. Yet, frisk them as they go into battle and said sword is conspicuous by its absence. It is high time we believed God’s Word and trusted to it. Not just in the comfort of our theoretical Bible studies, but in the heat of battle. Christians, if you are tired of fighting and losing, take Ephesians to heart. Put on God’s battle armour. Stand firm. Swing the sword and watch the power of God at work.

[10] Louis Berkhof, Systematic Theology: Banner of Truth Trust (1939) p 255.

[11] See: Deuteronomy 28:15-19: “But it shall come about, if you will not obey the Lord your God, to observe to do all His commandments and His statutes with which I charge you today, that all these curses shall come upon you and overtake you. “Cursed shall you be in the city, and cursed shall you be in the country. “Cursed shall be your basket and your kneading bowl. “Cursed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock. “Cursed shall you be when you come in, and cursed shall you be when you go out.” Deuteronomy 28:23-24: “And the heaven which is over your head shall be bronze, and the earth which is under you, iron. “The Lord will make the rain of your land powder and dust; from heaven it shall come down on you until you are destroyed.” Deuteronomy 28:36: “The Lord will bring you and your king, whom you shall set over you, to a nation which neither you nor your fathers have known, and there you shall serve other gods, wood and stone.” Leviticus 20:20-21: “If there is a man who lies with his uncle’s wife he has uncovered his uncle’s nakedness; they shall bear their sin. They shall die childless. ‘If there is a man who takes his brother’s wife, it is abhorrent; he has uncovered his brother’s nakedness. They shall be childless.”

[12] This is but one issue. All the countries to be mentioned have major law and order issues. They all murder their own children in genocidal acts. They are threatened by a rising tide of false religions, not least of which is Humanism. Their governments are all unable to produce a quality countermeasure to the problem. Why is that if it is simply a logical case of cause and effect?

[13] Jeremiah 3:25

[14] Please see the “High Priestess” Oprah sowing her perverted view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bBnzUVFTOek.

[15] These papers and statistics may state things that are true. Yet, as they are not authoritative, the homosexual lobby will rally its statistics and its PhDs to counter these claims. Again, it becomes “logic” against “logic” and “opinion” against “opinion”.

[16] See” Refuting Abortion from the Bible. Available at: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cEszNTt1R3U.

[17] See: Ephesians 6:17 and Hebrews 4:12.

[18] Please do not understand this as a statement in favour of “civil unions” or “registers”. It is simply a statement that we need to recapture the language. Marriage is God’s covenant term for a man and a woman. Not only should it not be used of others, it cannot be used of others. Please see: The War of Words at: http://againsttheworld.tv/?p=614.

[19] See: Leviticus 18:22; Leviticus 20:13; Deuteronomy 23:18; 1 Corinthians 6:9-10.

[20] See Paul’s argument in Romans 1:26-27. It is important that we understand all these texts on homosexuality as the Bible presents them. These acts are not denounced because they show a lack of hospitality or they are abusive of younger persons (pederasty). These comments are just the “smoke and mirrors” of sinful men. Homosexuality is condemned because it is, 1. A deconstruction of the image of God in man; 2. A deconstruction of God’s order in creation – God made man male and female; 3. A deconstruction of God’s marriage covenant – one man with one woman. 4. A deconstruction of God’s creational institution – the family. 5. A deconstruction of God’s appointed order for His rule and His glory in the earth. Being these things, it is the consummate symbol of man’s rebellion against God. Being thus, it is also God’s consummate judgement against man – He gave them over! (Romans 1:24, 26, 28.) Man wanted freedom from God’s rule and law, so God gave man over to the depravity he so craved. Thus, homosexuality is a manifestation of man’s rebellion against God and of the futility into which man is plunged as a result. Homosexuality is the clearest expression of the futility of life to which sin leads.

[21] It is probably worth highlighting the obvious fallacy in this statement. I for one do not want everyone in Australia to be happy. I truly desire that the murderers, rapists, and paedophiles suffer for what they have done and pay the appropriate penalty. This is called justice. If you can murder and be “happy”, then true justice is, of necessity, absent.

[22] Please understand, I support Fred. He is a true unsung hero in this nation. He is one of Christ’s true champions. However, it seems that there is a failure to grasp the crux of the matter or, as has become the case, people are afraid to state the truth lest they fall foul of the evil vilification laws that have been introduced to this country. Thus, in the attempt to choose words carefully, the content is watered down. This is a secondary issue to do with language, but one worth noting. The evil doers are able to “flower” their language to the point of lying, knowing that their opponents cannot tighten or firm their language to the point of truth without crossing a boundary enforced by the law of the land. Yet, these have the audacity to speak of equality!!

[23] Please see: Of Designer Babies and Murderous Acts for comments upon the “right of choice”.

[24] As stated, the term Theocracy has become an unpalatable word in our day. Thus, I boldly ask, “Christian, if you despise this term, what form of governance do you aspire to see?” Do you really believe in Democracy? Do you believe that 51% makes for right every time? Do you believe we should have votes by the people on topics such as homosexuality, abortion, euthanasia, adultery, witchcraft, divination, and the like? Should we live our lives content to ebb and flow with the desires of our society? Are you going to allow your family to vote on whether your daughter should be allowed to move in with her boyfriend? Do you propose a democratic vote on abortion should she fall pregnant to said boyfriend? Would this perspective be in keeping with Ephesians 4:14-15 or 2 Corinthians 7:1? What do we do when we encounter texts like: “Thy word is a lamp to my feet, And a light to my path. I have sworn, and I will confirm it, That I will keep Thy righteous ordinances” (Psalm119:105-106). “How can a young man keep his way pure? By keeping it according to Thy word. With all my heart I have sought Thee; Do not let me wander from Thy commandments. Thy word I have treasured in my heart, That I may not sin against Thee” (Psalm 119:9-11). “But Peter and the apostles answered and said, “We must obey God rather than men” (Acts 5:29). Christians have come to despise the term Theocracy because they have been led captive by the nose to a false belief. The simple reality is that when you pray the Lord’s Prayer – Thy will be done of earth – you are asking for the Theocracy to be realised here and now. When you utter any of the texts cited above, and a myriad besides, you are asking for the Theocracy. When you pray for obedience, you are asking for conformity to the rule of God – Theocracy!! Friends, it is time we got over this hurdle, embrace the legitimacy of the term, and went about our Master’s task of teaching the nations to obey all that Jesus, King and All Powerful Sovereign, has commanded.

[25] The term theocracy receives a lot of bad press in our day because too many Christians have been seduced by the world’s views and have been taught that the Old Testament is outdated and obsolete. If you are one of these, then let me put before you some “New Testamenty” type texts that spell “theocracy” in a different way. Do you believe in the Great Commission? Yes! Okay, please go and re read it. Yes, read the text, please. Note that there is nothing there of the modern view of saving individual souls (Qualification needed, but that must wait for another time?) What you will see is “teach the nations to obey all that I have commanded!” Is this not Jesus stating the Theocratic principle in different language? We might also add, in this context, Jesus’ words, “all authority Has been given to Me … on earth.” 1 Timothy 6:15b-16: “He who is the blessed and only Sovereign, the King of kings and Lord of lords; who alone possesses immortality and dwells in unapproachable light; whom no man has seen or can see. To Him be honor and eternal dominion! Amen.” Here, the Apostle proves the case. God is absolute King. It is His to have dominion forever! Jude 24-25: “Now to Him who is able to keep you from stumbling, and to make you stand in the presence of His glory blameless with great joy, to the only God our Savior, through Jesus Christ our Lord, be glory, majesty, dominion and authority, before all time and now and forever. Amen.” Please note Jude’s timeline. Some admit to Theocracy and to God’s rule over the earth, but they make it a future thing; something that happens only after Jesus returns. Such a perspective is not shared by Jude. He ascribes dominion to God in Christ “from all the ages”, “now”, and “to all the ages”. Ephesians 1:20-23: “He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead, and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age, but also in the one to come. And He put all things in subjection under His feet, and gave Him as head over all things to the church, which is His body, the fulness of Him who fills all in all.” Please note Paul’s agreeance with Jude. Jesus is given dominion over all, not only in this age, but also in the age to come. The clear implication is that Jesus is King and all other authorities must yield to His Lordship. This means that all authorities on earth, whoever they may be, are obligated to obey all of God’s commands in Christ Jesus. Theocracy, New Testament style; Old Testament style; Biblical!

[26] Please see: Marriage Is Life!

[27] Once more, in viewing these words, we see how the marriage covenant has been attacked and eroded. Marriage is life and it is for life. The moderns, even when accepting the institution of marriage, still agitate against God’s design by railing against this phrase. They prefer gooey out-clauses like, ‘as long as we both shall love.’ Thus, even these fail the test of true marriage. They want the label, but they are still subtly seeking to alter the God-ordained form.

[28] The point here is very simple. If the magistrate followed Biblical law, homosexuals, along with murderers, kidnappers, rapists, to name a few, would be put to death. It would therefore be a physical impossibility for such people to demand anything, let alone proceed to a covenantal union that was “for life” and which terminated “at death”.

[29] Scripture here affirms the deathly quality of homosexuality. These persons are banned from the Kingdom. They are outside in the darkness. This is what Jesus and other Biblical writers call the “second death” – “But for the cowardly and unbelieving and abominable and murderers and immoral persons and sorcerers and idolaters and all liars, their part will be in the lake that burns with fire and brimstone, which is the second death.” (See also: Revelation 2:11, 20:14) The clear implication is that these people are dead once and proceed to the second death.

[30] Morality demands that we as a nation complete a rethink on a number of topics. Not only is it high time that we Christians reject homosexuality, full stop, but it is time that we also began to reject all heterosexual perversions that encroach upon the sanctity of marriage. For too long have we remained silent on topics such as fornication, sex before marriage, adultery, and de facto relationships. These are all baby–steps to the acceptance of the ultimate perversions of God’s order as realised in homosexuality and bestiality.

[31] You may recoil from this approach, but it is necessary. I remember only a few years ago having a conversation with a relative who attends a supposedly conservative denomination on a similar topic. This was his position: Marxism most closely approximates the Christian position! Sadly, too many Christian leaders have recoiled from Biblically critiquing such theories with the consequent result that young minds are lead captive to falsehood.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Tag Archives: Bible

Marriage is Life: AP Version

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt.5)

Of Shepherding Shepherds (Pt. 4)

Praying in Difficult Times: A Response

Choose Belief (Pt 6)

Your Sunday Best (Pt 5)

Belief in God’s Revelation (Pt 2)

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)