Tag Archives: obedience

Choose Belief (Pt 6)

Posted on by
Reply

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 by
Reply

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:

  1. Remove all Idols;
  2. Purify yourselves;
  3. 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.

Man’s Priority (Pt 4)

Posted on by
Reply

Sola Scriptura. This is the Christian’s, indeed, Man’s only rule for life and faith. Within the pages of Scripture, Man finds meaning and purpose. Man finds his priority for life.

The truth of this is evident simply by looking to our society. We have become used to people asking the question: “Why am I here?” Surveying society, we find people not only searching for an answer to that question, but also living a life in answer to that question.

When the Nihilist exists in what is little more than amalgamated moments of despair, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Materialist exists by gathering to himself an ever increasing number of objects, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Secularist exists in his Closed System, he is living out his answer to the question. When the Evolutionist exists in his Chaos, he is living out his answer to the question. When the alcoholic exists in his stuporous state, he is living out either his answer or lack of an answer to the question.

The tragedy encountered here is that each one thinks he either has an answer or has successfully avoided the question, when he has but grasped the air. Even more sorrowful is the fact that rebellious Man, turning his back to Scripture, has rejected the source of Truth and the one place in which he can find meaning and purpose, and priority. Sad, very sad!

Yet, there is a greater calamity still. Such calamity is witnessed when we view the redeemed man also turning his back to Scripture. The rebellious sinner does so precisely because he is a rebellious sinner. This is understandable. This can make perfect sense. The child of God turning his back to His Father’s voice! This is calamity. It is altogether preposterous. Yet, it happens – indeed is happening! Everyday across our nation, Christians go about their business without seeking the counsel of God. Having been bewitched by the philosophy of this age, they indulge their perceived freedom to govern their lives as they see fit. Consequently, they fail to live out the purpose for which they were created and redeemed.

Why am I here? Why are any of us here? What is our individual and collective priority? To worship the One True and Living God in purity through obedience![1]

As noted in the Part 3, Christians today have fallen into the age old temptation that plagued Israel – they have mistaken fervent, industrious, religious activity for true worship. Christians (and those claiming to be Christians ) turn up to church on Sunday; they run programmes; they busy themselves in worthwhile activities; they put money in the plate; they sing with gusto; yet this avails naught because God is displeased with these people for they do not worship Him aright. Whilst they come to His house, offer praises in His name, and comply with certain Biblical commands, the reality is that these are outward motions only. The heart is in a different place and comes to each of these activities with false motives and a different agenda.[2]

Now, I am sure that some will baulk at this assessment. Yet, this is the very evaluation that God made of Israel on several occasions. Israel conformed to the outward standards, but they did not follow in true heartfelt obedience to God’s Law. Yahweh, consequently, told them to stop brining their sacrifices and observing their New Moons because they were a burden to Him. [3] Fervency was not intimacy; practice was external not personal; adherence was rational not relational; and praise was contrived not congenial.

The pertinent question seems to be, “Why do we think that we are immune to that same folly?” When we have puppet shows instead of preaching; when the service is so burdensome that we need an in house coffee hut and an intermission; when we sing a majority of songs that start with “I”; when our personal enjoyment becomes the ‘yardstick’ of a good service; when we become willing to abandon important doctrines so as to attain a better turn out; when some of our churches have sound systems that would cause recording studios to blush; when we fracture Christ’s body; when we fracture families; when we condone sin and effectively trample the blood of Christ underfoot – How is it that we believe, contrary to all available evidence, that we are immune to that same folly?[4]

The Church is currently beguiled by unbelief precisely because She has imbibed deeply of the spirit of this age. Without question, successive generations, raised on a diet of Secular Humanism and rank Individualism, have brought these philosophies to the life of the Church. Man has been elevated. He is no longer a worm. Man is magnificent. Man is the measure. Man’s rational mind can solve all problems. Man therefore assumes the mantle of the “one” to be worshipped.

As a result, subtly to be sure, God’s glory is eroded. God is no longer the single focus. Man crept in slowly. Starting as a mere apparition in the corner of the eye, he slowly moved to become the focal point. As this process was taking place, the equal and opposite reaction began. God was shifted sideways until He became but a speck in the corner of the eye – present to the view, but no longer to be the mono-focus.

Given Man’s elevation, all that spoke poorly of Man had to be eradicated or toned down. Certain doctrines were dropped, modified, or spoken of only in hushed tones. The words spoken from the pulpit underwent change. The hymns known throughout the Church were slowly abandoned. New songs were written that reflected the new beliefs. Doctrinal standards were pushed into the background and remained only as a token of respect to the past. The result of this development is that we have a generation that imitates the external motions of a previous generation, but which function on a very different set of motives.

Subtly, Christianity has become completely subjective, focussing on “me” and “I”. Christianity has become a cosmic power to meet the needs of the individual. I tithe in order to get. I go to the church that I like for my enjoyment. I attend the place where I am comfortable. When seeking a new place to attend, they scope out any prospective congregations with the I. These prospects must be aesthetically pleasing to the I or they will not suffice. If any subsequent changes are made causing that congregation to cease being pleasing to the I, then a motion is put to leave and find somewhere else. The result? They I’s have it. The motion passes.

Worse than this atrocity – the individual Christian becoming the focal point in worship rather than God – was the second phase. Having elevated Man and having dropped those doctrines and terms that offended Man, it was not long before the distinction between Man the saint and Man the sinner disappeared. Thus, the most glaring change that has occurred in this regard is that sinful man has been elevated to be the centre of attention. The Christian does not focus upon an absolutely holy God nor does he focus upon his own redeemed brethren. Rather, sinful, unregenerate Man holds pride of place.

Sermons are no longer aimed at the true, obedient worship of God or edifying and equipping the Christian; rather they are aimed at saving and or pacifying the sinner. Quizzically, as the sinner does not like certain doctrines, they are dropped or minimised so that the sinner can be comfortable. The sinner, in the extreme case, is even offered certain jobs so that they will feel at home within the Church.

This happens across our nation every Sunday, yet people seem absolutely reluctant to admit to the obvious consequences of this process. God demands holiness and separateness, so we must ask, “On what basis do we form an amalgam?”[5] God’s word reveals that certain things must be preached as the means of salvation, so it must be asked, “How do we save a sinner if these requirements are dropped?”[6]

This is not rocket science. It is a case of dealing with hearts that have become hardened unto God; hearts that are listening to Man and not God.[7]

In opposition to this anthropocentric view and coddling of the unregenerate, the Bible instructs us specifically that Man’s priority is to worship the One True and living God and this in absolute purity. There is to be no “guess work”, “stabs in the dark”, “rough enough is good enough” or “God looks on the heart” type theology–which translates into Man doing what he thinks is right and acceptable.

On the contrary, Scripture, in words, signs, and figures, vociferously insists that God alone is to be worshipped and worshipped in the manner prescribed by Him. During the Reformation this principle came to be known as the Regulative Principle of Worship. Sadly, over time men have tampered with this concept to the point that it is either forgotten or obscured.

Nonetheless, the words penned by the Westminster Divines, enunciating the Biblical principle, hold true and should not be ignored:

…But the acceptable way of worshipping the true God is instituted by Himself, and so limited by His own revealed will, that He may not be worshipped according to the imaginations and devices of men, or the suggestions of Satan, under any visible representation, or any other way not prescribed in the Holy Scripture. (Deut. 12:32, Matt. 15:9, Acts 17:25, Matt. 4:9–10, Deut. 15:1–20, Exod. 20:4–6, Col. 2:23).[8]

What is amazing about this teaching is not the dogma itself, but the fact that it is so patent, so prevalent, so perspicuous, and so emphasised in Scripture, yet men seem unwilling or unable to grasp it.

Adam walked with God in the cool of the evening – fellowship / worship. This relationship was intimate. There was no barrier or hindrance. Then Adam transgressed. What happened next? Man was ashamed to dwell in intimacy with God. Fallen man could not reside before a holy God nor meet the demands for fellowship and worship. Man’s response? He hid. He is still hiding. Man distances himself from God because he cannot bear the light of truth that shines forth from God’s righteous Being and shows Man to be a sinner. It is important to note that nothing has changed in this regard. Sinful Man still hides from God in the 21st Century.[9]

This principle is clearly seen. Why do we not admit it and believe it? Adam hid. Adam did not make his way to God. At the first hint of God’s presence, Adam scarpered! This is the sinners MO when dealing with God. Likewise we see that it was God who called Adam’s name. It was God who made the blood covering for Adam and Eve.

In terms of our thesis, this is a noteworthy point. If sinful Man runs from God and His worship, “How do we humans believe that we can make God’s worship appealing to a rebellious sinner?” We compromise. We empty our churches and our worship services of the things that would offend the conscience of sinful Man. Hence, in orthodox circles we adopt many of the practices outlined earlier; in heterodox circles we abandon standards altogether and happily teach the principles of homosexuality, feminism, Secularism, Evolution and the like. In short, there is an attempt to legitimise paganism.

Man cannot come to God as he pleases.[10] Man cannot offer as acceptable worship that which is devised in his own mind.

Think, here, of the first murder. What was the setting? Worship! Abel, acceptable to God, presented an acceptable offering according to God’s design.[11] Cain did not. Cain became enraged, but he only had himself to blame. His offering was not accepted because he had adopted the “stab in the dark” approach. He had decided “rough enough was good enough”. Cain believed that God should simply accept his offering because he had made an effort to present something.

In other words, typical of fallen Man, Cain believed, not in obeying God’s revelation, but in the fact that Man can oblige God to look upon him with favour purely on the basis of Man offering a token gesture in God’s direction. Let’s be clear. In every form, this formula is favour or salvation by works! It is Man’s vain attempt to obligate God into rendering favour / salvation to Man on the basis of something that Man has done.

Note the pattern, please. First, Cain pays no heed to God’s standard for acceptable worship – showing his disbelief in God’s word as the only authority. Second, Cain despises the warning given by God to the effect that sin is crouching at the door. Third, having shown a gross disregard for the voice of God on these two occasions, Cain casts off all restraint, strikes out at his brother, killing him, rather than admit that he is a sinner. Cain was culpable. Cain stopped up his ears to the voice of God. Yet, like most sinners, he chose to blame the ‘righteous man’ for being righteous. Cain chose to blame Abel because Abel’s righteousness clearly showed Cain’s sin.[12]

Clearly demonstrated for us in this episode are several facts. Of importance, please note again, the sinner does not run to God, rather he runs from God. Also, the sinner cannot bring any worthy sacrifice that will be acceptable to God. In fact, as the sinner is the impediment to worship, refusing to hearken unto God’s instruction, he cannot offer anything that is acceptable and will therefore only and always react negatively when corrected. Thus, in terms of our worship today, why is it that we seek to cajole and placate the sinner? Why do we insist on a pragmatic means that runs contrary to Scripture? Why do we place the sinner before obedience to God?[13] More importantly, if we are so concerned for the sinner, why do we deceive him?

Lastly, please take serious note of the progression. Cain refused to listen to God and men died. When Cain refused to listen to God’s instruction and correction, he set himself on a course of destruction that ended in death. The instruction of God for worship was not heeded. The voice of God for correction and warning was openly dismissed. Such brazenness toward God could only manifest itself as a total disrespect for man – in this case, the life of his brother.

When we stop our ears to God today, on what path do we step? What consequences will come as a direct result?

Moving forward in history, let us consider the Exodus. When God called His people out of Bondage in Egypt, on what basis did He do so? Worship! God commanded Pharaoh to let His people go so that they may “go a three days’ journey into the wilderness, to sacrifice to the Lord our God.”[14] The intent of this statement is even more clear when Pharaoh finally caves, saying, “Rise up, get out from among my people, both you and the sons of Israel; and go, worship the Lord, as you have said.”[15]

At this momentous point in history, God reveals this singular point – salvation is to worship. One cannot be saved and not worship. One cannot worship unless saved. Salvation is worship, but it is a very specific worship. It had to be as God commanded. It happened not in bondage but in freedom. It happened in God’s land, not in a foreign land. It happened in accordance with God’s standards, not Man’s.

When Israel reached Mount Sinai they were given the Law. Why? So that they would live and worship rightly. What was God’s chief complaint and the reason Israel was expelled from the land? They did not obey God and worship Him appropriately, exclusively, obediently or willingly.

Again, how do we overlook this potent and recurring subject? How do we insist that the priority of the Church, the State, the Family, and the Individual, is something other than total obedience to and worship of the One True and Living God, revealed to us in Jesus Christ? How do we dethrone this God and put the rebellious sinner in His place? How do we do this in light of all that Scripture reveals on the matter of God’s worship in purity, by His people, in accordance with His standard? How do we? We do it precisely because of unbelief. We will not yield to the voice of the Lord.

Jeremiah’s words should make us tremble:

An appalling and horrible thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule on their own authority; and My people love it so![16]

(Part 5)

[1]           The word worship comes from worth-ship. It’s related to worthy as in “worthy is the Lamb.” To worship God means to give Him what He is worthy to receive.

            Worship is what will eventually unite the whole creation. The hearts of all men and the direction of all that lives will form a perfect harmony not around a conference table but around a throne. The end of [goal] life is worship. The goal of living is praise.

            When we offer proper worship, we are completely free.

            For a picture of freedom by worship, we should attend a football game at a stadium. Try to forget how unimportant the issue is, and disregard, for the present, the silliness of the spectacle. Just watch the crowd—all those people different from each other in color, opinion and character. On an ordinary day, in an ordinary room, you could not get six of them to say the same thing on any topic. But now they are unreservedly united while they cheer their team on. For a moment, at least, they are entirely free from every private worry. Nobody even thinks of the mortgage payments. The hope and happiness of every one of them is wrapped up in their team’s victory. The fans in the stadium are a perfect parable of freedom by worship.

            The goal of the cosmos is the praise of God. The universe will be free when all our streams of thought and all our aspirations converge on the throne of God.

            Today we may already experience something of the freedom and unity of worship. In those rare moments when our prayers turn to praise, we are free. Health, house, money, misery, even sin and guilt are forgotten when we climb the stairway of praise.

            In those moments when we have nothing to ask and everything to give, we make the great discovery that we were made for God—and that He and the Lamb are worthy of the worship of all that exists. And we find unity! Effortlessly we find each other in the praises of our God.

Andrew Kuyvenhoven, Daylight: Daily readings with the Bible (Paideia Press, St Cathrines, Ontario, Canada) November 9; Text: Revelation 5:11-14. Italics original. Bold added. Also available at: http://www.reformationalpublishingproject.com/pdf_books/Scanned_Books_PDF/Daylight.pdf

[2] Isaiah 29:13 ff; C.f Mathew 15:7-9.

[3] Isaiah 1:11-15; Jeremiah 6:20; Amos 5:21-24; Amos 4:4-5; Malachi 1:10; Isaiah 66:3; Micah 6:6-8; Jeremiah 7:8-11.

[4] We will attempt to answer this in the following paragraphs. The short answer is, “unbelief”! We have turned away from Scripture and adopted the standards of the world. Therefore, when we measure our efforts and or activities they seem acceptable only because we are using a false measuring device. We think we are above Israel precisely because we are affected by the same stupor – a stupor that blinds our eyes and dulls our minds to God’s reality.

[5] 2 Corinthians 6:14 -18: 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? For we are the temple of the living God; just as God said, “I will dwell in them and walk among them; And I will be their God, and they shall be My people.  “Therefore, come out from their midst and be separate,” says the Lord. “And do not touch what is unclean; And I will welcome you.  18 “And I will be a father to you, And you shall be sons and daughters to Me,” Says the Lord Almighty. See Isaiah 52:11 as the source quote, making this a Biblical standard. C.f 1 Corinthians 10:21-22 and Revelation 18:4.

[6] The most obvious example would be Paul’s statement that the “Law is a schoolmaster to bring us to Christ” (Galatians 3:24); yet we rarely use the term law let alone preach on it and from it. Here, the chain is complete. Having abandoned faith in the OT, we are in need of a new means to convert sinners. Thus, we invent rather than repent. We turn to our own ideas instead of turning back to God and His Word. A note must also be given on the sentence used. Man cannot save sinners. That alone is God’s work. However, if you listen to the moderns you would think that salvation was but a formula – do this, add that and voilà! This highlights the problem. Men were commissioned by God to preach the Gospel – foolishness to Man but the power of God unto salvation. Why? Salvation is not in believing, as such, but in receiving the righteousness of God through Jesus Christ. This is the “gift” Paul speaks of in Romans. The point being that we have subtly capitulated to the false doctrines that espouse that Man can act for his own salvation. Consequently, we use programmes and entertainments to try and convince Man to be saved.

[7] Ezekiel 3:4-11: Then He said to me, “Son of man, go to the house of Israel and speak with My words to them. “For you are not being sent to a people of unintelligible speech or difficult language, but to the house of Israel, nor to many peoples of unintelligible speech or difficult language, whose words you cannot understand. But I have sent you to them who should listen to you; yet the house of Israel will not be willing to listen to you, since they are not willing to listen to Me. Surely the whole house of Israel is stubborn and obstinate. “Behold, I have made your face as hard as their faces, and your forehead as hard as their foreheads. “Like emery harder than flint I have made your forehead. Do not be afraid of them or be dismayed before them, though they are a rebellious house.” Moreover, He said to me, “Son of man, take into your heart all My words which I shall speak to you, and listen closely. “And go to the exiles, to the sons of your people, and speak to them and tell them, whether they listen or not, ‘Thus says the Lord God. Ezekiel 5:11 – So as I live,‘ declares the Lord God, ‘surely, because you have defiled My sanctuary with all your detestable idols and with all your abominations, therefore I will also withdraw, and My eye shall have no pity and I will not spare.

[8] WCF 21:1. Westminster Assembly, The Westminster Confession of Faith, (Oak Harbor, WA: Logos Research Systems, Inc.) 1995.

[9] If you have any doubt about the veracity of this statement, I beg you, please read Romans chapter one and pay full attention to what Paul has to say, especially at verse 32.

[10] John 6:44; John 14:6; Numbers 4:17-20; Leviticus 21:16-24.

[11] At this point, we must do justice to the text by acknowledging that the offering is tied to the offerer. The text says that God had “regard for Abel and his offering”. The word order suggests that the offering was acceptable because the offerer was acceptable. The same thing is said of Cain. God did not just disregard Cain’s offering. God had disregard for Cain himself. This is important for our thesis as it categorically shows that the offering cannot transcend the offerer. In short, even the perfect offering will be impeded by the imperfect offerer. Once more, then, we are confronted with the Biblical fact that sinful Man cannot find acceptance with God on his own terms.

[12] This is the modern principle in action. Holiness shows the sinner’s deficiency in the eyes of a Holy God. Therefore, everything that would have this effect must be eradicated. Cain destroyed Abel in order to remove the holy object that convicted him of his sin. We are doing this very thing today when we drop or change doctrines. When we change our language. When we reduce our standards. The tragedy is that in doing so we are taking away God’s appointed means of salvation and we are failing to allow this absolute holiness to be a spur to genuine awe and wonder in worship. The result of this is that we rob sinner and saint.

[13] Again, people will baulk at this. Yet it is true. I have witnessed many sermons of late that are almost universally applied to the sinner. It is rare to hear the sermon that encourages the Christian to be a better father, husband, son, employer, employee, friend, companion, lover etc. The current decline in Christianity’s impact on our world is explicitly tied to this subject. As we have turned from God, we have forgotten what we are to be, thus sermons seek to convert sinners (but rarely achieve as the Gospel has been made null) but Christians are not taught to be mature and Christ like. Hence, the downward spiral begins by denying God’s absolute right to be worshiped; it continues in the paucity of true worship; consequently the Christian’s maturity and sanctification are passed over. In the end, there is no salt and light, so the world becomes smelly and dark.

[14] Exodus 3:18.

[15] Exodus 12:31.

[16] Jeremiah 5:30-31.

Sola Scriptura (Pt 3)

Posted on by
Reply

If we are to effectively reform the Church in our day, we must begin by turning back to and embracing the Scriptures as our only rule for life and faith. We must return to the solas of the Reformation and to the cry – Sola Scriptura!

This wholehearted return to Scripture as our only and final authority is necessary in order to counteract each and every attempt by man, yes, even redeemed man, to govern autonomously. Even as the redeemed of the Lord, we still show the tendency of Adam to question God’s perspicuous statements and commands and to believe that we can construct or invent a better way – even if we are not so bold as to state it in these terms!

Let me outline two prominent errors found in the modern Church:

1. The New Testament Christian: This position, implicitly or explicitly, denies the authority of large portions of the Bible, namely, substantial parts of the Old Testament. Those holding to this position would avow that they believe the Bible, however, when pushed, you would find a tacit acknowledgement that the Old Testament is passé to the Christian.

Let us be clear. These people believe the Old Testament. The problem is that they believe it only as history. They believe it as a set of events that have transpired. What they do not believe is that the Old Testament has actual authority to guide and direct their lives. As noted elsewhere, the Old Testament is largely viewed as ‘examples to follow and sins to avoid’. The Bible is not viewed as a single, authoritative whole.[1] Thus, there is absolutely nothing whatsoever ‘Thus says the Lord-ish’ about these Old Testament portions.

2. The Age of the Spirit: This group takes very seriously the fact that the New Testament teaches that the Holy Spirit has come in power as a sign of the New Age. So seriously do they take this teaching that they, in effect, lay down their Bibles. These, too, see the Bible as passé, albeit in a slightly different manner to group one.

Where the first group would claim that “the Bible” is authoritative, they restrict that authority to the New Testament and often to words directly attributed to Jesus. Thus, they have, at the very least, an interesting concept of “the Bible”.[2]

This second group tend to accept much of the Old Testament. However, their belief in the Spirit sees Scripture subordinated to the Spirit’s leading. Their teachings in this area prompt people to give up on the study of Scripture for a higher and more enlightened path. Thus, regardless of what they say about the Bible’s authority, it is in effect overridden and superseded by a belief in the Spirit’s superiority.

Both of these errors present themselves differently (symptoms), yet they derive from the same source – a failure to believe the totality of God’s word. Room does not permit an in-depth hermeneutical discussion on interpreting the Old Testament. Suffice it to say that what should be clear to all, based on Biblical example, is that the Old Testament is nowhere debunked in Scripture as passé.

On the contrary, we see the exact opposite.

When Luke introduced John the Baptist and sought to describe his mission, Luke quotes directly from Isaiah 40:3-5. When Jesus is taken into the desert to be tempted, Luke shows that His defence against Satan is the very Word of God – “It stands written!”[3] When Jesus revealed Himself and His mission to the world, He did so by quoting Isaiah 60:1-2.[4] When the Rich Young Ruler asks Jesus for direction, Jesus points him to the Ten Commandments.[5] When Herod asks where the Christ is to be born, he is answered with a quotation from Micah.[6] When Paul wants to prove that all men are dead in sin, he quotes from the Psalms.[7] When Paul wants to prove the cardinal doctrine of salvation – justification by faith – he quotes Hosea, Genesis, and a Psalm.[8] When Matthew wants to prove the virgin birth of Jesus, he does so by quoting Isaiah 7:1.[9] When Jesus confronted the disciples on the road to Emmaus, to what did He appeal in order to instruct them? He appealed to the Old Testament: “And beginning with Moses and with all the prophets, He explained to them the things concerning Himself in all the Scriptures.”[10]

The Biblical evidence, in regard to the written Word and the work of the Holy Spirit, shows no sign of conflict. This evidence points to a priority, not a conflict. What may surprise some is that priority is given to the Word. The picture we are shown is that the Holy Spirit authored the Word and then uses that Word to guide men.

Peter declares:

But know this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God (2 Peter 1:20-21).

When John records Jesus’ words in relation to the coming of the Holy Spirit, we are told that the Spirit will convict[11], bring to remembrance Jesus’ words, [12] and speak from Christ.[13] In other words, The Holy Spirit does not come with His own message and His own ideas. He comes as an extension of Jesus. He brings back to the mind the words Jesus spoke so that the Apostles can convey them correctly – whether by word or in writing.

Jesus is the Living Word. The Holy Spirit enabled men to write down the things which Jesus spoke and which testify to Him – the written Word.[14] As such, the Bible does not contradict the Living Word. As such, the Holy Spirit does not lead to, contradict, or establish different truths, principles, or standards than those established by God and revealed by Jesus. As such, the directions of the Holy Spirit will never contradict the instructions given in Scripture – whether by God, Christ, angel, prophet, or apostle.

Let us also note a simple occurrence in the Bible. When Paul commended the Bereans he noted that they were nobler because they “searched the Scriptures” (Acts 17:11). He did not commend them for greater revelations in the Spirit. He did not commend them for having access to mystical powers. No, they were commended for going back to God’s authoritative revelation of Himself.

This is important, for at this point, Paul simply mimics His Lord. Think back to Jesus’ encounter on the road to Emmaus. Why did Jesus rebuke these two disciples? Unbelief – “O foolish men and slow of heart to believe in all that the prophets have spoken!” (v 25) Later, after these disciples had returned to the eleven in Jerusalem, what gift did Jesus give to the disciples? Did Jesus endow them with mystical abilities? Did Jesus give them over to substantial operations of the Holy Spirit? No. Jesus simply ‘opened their mind to believe the Scriptures.’[15]

Jesus, the Living Word, the very Son of God – a man fully endowed with the Holy Spirit and able to impart it to others[16] – directed men back to God’s authoritative word, the Holy Scriptures. This was Jesus modus operandi.

When speaking to the Pharisees and in order to prove his point, Jesus asks this question, “Did you never read in the Scriptures?” and then immediately quotes from Scripture.[17] A little latter, Jesus points out the reason for the Pharisees error: “You are mistaken, not understanding the Scriptures, or the power of God.”[18] Once more, Jesus makes the statement and then appeals to Scripture to give the correct teaching.

Also, Jesus and the Apostles are fully aware that the happenings, current in their day, were events that had been predicted in Scripture. Therefore, Jesus can say:

  • But all this has taken place that the Scriptures of the prophets may be fulfilled.[19]
  • I do not speak of all of you. I know the ones I have chosen; but it is that the Scripture may be fulfilled, ‘He who eats My bread has lifted up his heel against Me.[20]

Likewise, Paul states: “For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures.”[21]

Last, let us consider Pentecost. Some may assert that some of the texts used to substantiate our claims predate the outpouring of the Holy Spirit and therefore do not have validity. However, any and all objections fall completely flat when we examine the text of Acts. There we see that the Holy Spirit is poured forth (Acts 2:1-4). The next scene we have is that of Peter preaching. Peter’s sermon (2:14-36) uses around 570 English words. Of these, some 250 are direct quotations or references to the Old Testament Scriptures.[22]

If the Holy Spirit’s outpouring superseded Scripture, why does Peter immediately appeal to Scripture rather than use some other esoteric means? Is it not also interesting that Peter appeals to Scripture to prove that the catalytic event that caused the initial commotion (v 6) was in fact the promised coming of the Holy Spirit? Having established from Scripture that the coming of the Holy Spirit was a valid Messianic event, Peter continues with his sermon in order to prove that Jesus was the prophesied Messiah – a fact also established by Scripture.

When we view this text, we must immediately be struck by the fact that the Holy Spirit did not move Peter away from Scripture and to some arcane means; rather He moved Peter to Scripture. In this text, we see that the Holy Spirit incites Peter to validate His own appearing by appealing to Scripture. Again, this is significant. The Apostles had been told by Jesus that the Comforter would come. These men knew that Jesus had predicted and commanded this very event. Yet, Peter does not appeal to Jesus. Rather, following his Master’s example, Peter appeals to Scripture as his final authority. Like Jesus, Peter was content with, “It stands written!”

When we pull these threads together, we are faced with the immovable fact that both the aforementioned positions, and any variations based thereon, are erroneous because they have no Biblical support. Constantly and consistently we see the writers of the New Testament place themselves under the authority of God’s word. Even Jesus, the Son of God, did not presume to be heard on His own. Jesus took His stand on God’s revelation and in doing so gave credence to the fact that He speaks that which He heard from the Father.[23] In exactly the same manner, the Holy Spirit sought vindication, not in new revelations and teachings, but in the prophetic utterances inscripturated in God’s word.

In closing out these proofs, it may be informative to consider the fact that God Himself holds to and stands by His written word! Consider Isaiah 65:6-7:

Behold, it is written before Me, I will not keep silent, but I will repay; I will even repay into their bosom, Both their own iniquities and the iniquities of their fathers together,” says the Lord. “Because they have burned incense on the mountains, And scorned Me on the hills, Therefore I will measure their former work into their bosom.

The lesson? If we say that we love Jesus; If we say that we walk by the Holy Spirit; If we say that Jesus is our example in life; If we understand that salvation means obedience; If we dare to call God, Father; then we must listen to and live by every word that proceeds out of the mouth of our Father God. No other standard is acceptable. No other standard carries power. No other standard comes with a Holy Spirit backed guarantee.

We cannot pay lip service to this doctrine. We cannot say that we believe the Bible and then come up with a belief or excuse that sets the Bible and its authority aside. We cannot state that we believe the Bible and then set out to pit its authors against each other as though they are confused and divided. We cannot claim a mission based on Biblical warrant and then devise a mission plan in and of ourselves without further reference to God’s revelation. We cannot claim to worship God and then ignore everything the Bible teaches on worship. We cannot claim that marriage is Biblical and then ignore God’s pattern for that marriage. Finally, we cannot make claims that are unsupported by Scripture on the basis that we have taken to the Bible with a pair of scissors!

The redeemed in Christ must submit to God the Father and all that has been revealed by Him for this is the humble estate of God’s true child. It is the estate in which we acknowledge that our Father is all wise and powerful. It is the humble estate in which we acknowledge that He is and we are not! It is the humble estate in which we accept that our Father knows the end from the beginning and that all things will fall out according to His purposes, plans, and power. Therefore, the obedient child trusts the Father, especially when he does not understand and things do not make sense, and rests entirely upon His Father’s word as true, faithful, and correct.

 Part 4

[1] This view comes to the fore clearly when men operate on the principle that unless an OT concept is restated in the NT it has no validity.

[2] It was a similar view that led to Theological Liberalism. They said the Bible “contained” the Word of God. However, where the orthodox would understand this in the sense that the Word was contained in the Bible in the same manner as a bucket contains water, the Liberal understood it to means that the bucket held other than pure water. This subtle change led to a range of manmade methods by which the ‘true’ words of God were to be discovered. The obvious fact of this action was the equal declaration that some of what was in the Bible was not God’s word. When we deny God’s authority we are bound to invent belief and action based on our authority, desire, or limited understanding. Therefore, in the Church today we often invent programmes to fill perceived holes in the Bible when, in reality, the hole is in our understanding because we have been unwilling to listen to God’s instructive voice.

[3] Luke 4:4, 8, 12.

[4] See Luke 4:18-19.

[5] Luke 18:18-20.

[6] Matthew 2:6.

[7] Romans 3:10-18. Quoting portions of Psalm 14; 5; 140; 10; 59 & 36.

[8] See Romans 1:17; 4:3 & 4:7-8.

[9] Matthew 1:23.

[10] Luke 24:27.

[11] John 16:8.

[12] John 14:26.

[13] John 16:14.

[14] It must be remembered that this process was not new and only relevant to the New Testament. We are apt to forget that when the New Testament writers referred to Scripture, they were speaking of that which we now call the Old Testament. Thus, Peter’s statement says more about the Holy Spirit’s operation throughout the Old Testament than it does, in essence, concerning the New Testament. Some may find that a little hard to swallow. What is meant by the statement is this; when Peter wrote those words, he had in mind primarily the Old Testament – the Law, the Writings, and the Prophets – and not the works of the New Testament. What Peter says is true of the New Testament. Yet, from his standpoint, he was affirming the role of the Holy Spirit as the author of Scripture – the older canon. He asserts that the Old Testament is authoritative and reliable precisely because it is the Spirit authored Word of God.

[15] Luke 24:45.

[16] John 20:22.

[17] Matthew 21:42.

[18] Matthew 22:29. Consider also the account already cited in which Jesus engages with the disciples on the Road to Emmaus and then with the Eleven.

[19] Matthew 26:56.

[20] John 13:18 & 17:12. See also John 19:24, 28, 36, 37.

[21] 1 Corinthians 15:3-4.

[22] Peter quotes Joel 2:28-32; Psalm 16:8-11; Psalm 132:11; Psalm 110:1.

[23] John 8:26.

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

Posted on by
Reply

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.