Daily Archives: November 5, 2012

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 2): The Door was Ajar

Posted on by
Reply

In our first article, we looked at the specific question of whether or not the legalising of homosexual marriage would lead to the legalising of polygamy. Our answer was both “possibly” and “definitely maybe”! The more erudite answers came as a twofold response. First, we needed to understand that legalising homosexual marriage would not hurt the cause of the polygamists. Second, and of greater importance, is the fact that the polygamists have the same opportunity now, regardless of what happens with homosexual marriage. We saw that the “potentiality” for all types of perversion had been introduced long ago. What we are experiencing now with homosexual or polygamous marriage, is not the beginning of a journey upon the Slippery Slope, but a siding along the way. Exactly how far along that journey we are will only be known with hindsight. The important aspect to grasp is that the journey has well and truly begun.

The aim of this particular blog is to try and build upon the foundation already set. Space simply did not allow for a well rounded treatment of the main principle in the former blog. The main point of the previous blog was “Relativism” and its impact upon culture – poorly defined though it may have been. Here, we intend to pick up this point and attempt to illustrate it more fully.

We must understand and grasp the fundamental principle that Relativism begins with the dumping of the Bible’s God as in any way relevant to salvation, life, and culture. Once God is denied, we simply have no objective reference point. At this instant, we have essentially committed ourselves to grope in the dark. At this point, we have set foot upon the Slippery Slope. Our journey begins at this point and no other. We do not wait for the first hiccup to present itself and then search for the big, mushroom-shaped, red button labelled “panic”! No. We should have panicked at the very thought of jettisoning the knowledge of the One, True and Living God. This is the scariest thing possible for man (Deuteronomy 4:24; Romans 1:21-23; Psalm 10:4). After this, everything is a cakewalk.

This principle can be well illustrated by looking at Israel’s history. In Judges 21:25, we read these disturbing words: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Most would interpret these words as referring to an earthly king. This seems a little redundant as a monarchy had not yet been established in Israel. The more potent interpretation would be to understand these words as stating that Israel had broken covenant with Yahweh by denying Him as their true King and Monarch. When Israel rejected God’s Law–Way, they reaped the negative covenant sanctions and they began to grope in darkness. They had no answers to the cultural torment of the day. Only when Yahweh had mercy and raised up a Judge did light appear to the land. Further proof for this position can be found in 1 Samuel 12:12 – “When you saw that Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon came against you, you said to me (Samuel), ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ although the Lord your God was your king”; and Deuteronomy 17:18-19 – “Now it shall come about when he (a king) sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law … And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes.” In these texts we are clearly instructed, a) that Yahweh was always Israel’s true King; and b) that even when an earthly king reigned, he was to be nothing less than an analogue of Yahweh. He was to learn and know Yahweh’s Law so that he could govern Yahweh’s people appropriately. Scripture shows Messiah as Yahweh’s true King, established in God’s place of rule, Zion, and ruling as Yahweh would and does rule (Psalm 2:6). Thus, abandoning God as the absolute touchstone is nothing less than setting foot on the “Slippery Slope.”

With this established, we need to ask the pertinent question, “Have we rejected the God of the Bible as our objective standard for salvation, life, and culture?” One would hardly think that an answer is required, but just in case you are unsure, we answer, Yes! Absolutely! Most Definitely! Of course, some will not be happy with such a weak and compromising answer, but it would seem that we are faced with incontrovertible evidence that support such statements. As noted previously, we live in a Postmodern world. Although some may debate this term’s legitimacy and definition, it has nonetheless passed into common usage. I prefer ‘Applied Modernism’ as a term. However, at the end of the day the label is redundant. What is important is that we understand that we live in a world that denies, from an epistemological and philosophical perspective particularly, that anyone can know anything, that reality is, and that absolutes exist. In such an environment, language, knowledge, and concepts are relegated to the scrap heap. We cannot even begin a discussion because there is nothing to discuss, no prior learning to inform us, no means of communicating, and no mean of verification. Thus, the question concerning the rejection of God answers itself. In such a milieu, to talk of an absolute God that reveals knowledge and seeks man’s obedience to His Law is to speak “molecules to moo cows”!

One further observation is requisite. At any one time, there is going to be a variety of worldviews in the public square. The parable of the Tares and the Wheat (Matthew 13:24-30) indicates that there will be a mixture. The deviant belief, by extrapolation, is the false belief sown by the enemy. That the false belief exists is not necessarily the problem. The setback is encountered when the false belief dominates. It can only have one detrimental consequence, namely, that God is robbed of His glory. This happens because God is not gloried in by His creation, thus requiring God to impose the negative covenant sanctions, which in turn results in God not being able to glory in His creation. This results in a necessary downward spiral (See Romans 1.). Therefore, when the Enlightenment came and effectively caused, not one nation, but a hemisphere or a globe to reject the knowledge of God as their epistemological standard, the final product had to be relativism – decisions made by the finite, for the finite ,in the finite.  The conclusion of the matter? We are well and truly on the “Slippery Slope”.

The consequence of this is that we must understand that any perversion is possible. In rejecting God, we have left the door unlocked and slightly ajar. We can blame the Homosexual Lobby for the current dilemma, but that would be a mistake. Just as it would be foolish to blame them if polygamists were to be encouraged by any gains they make. Again, understand well, the door was ajar! When the Homosexual Lobby came knocking on the door labelled “Equal Marriage”, they did not force it; they did not jimmy the locks. Not at all. The energy of each knock imparted, opened the door wider until there was no impediment. It would not have mattered what perversion arrived at the door or what “barrow” they were pushing. Once that “barrow” impacted the door, it would have swung open. The rejection of God unlocked and set this door ajar a long time ago.

Who is to blame for this mess? The Enlightenment? The homosexuals? The polygamists? Well, essentially the Church is, for she has abandoned Her call to be herald, watchman, teacher, and preserver. We have arrived at this point precisely because the Church failed to proclaim the One Word (Jesus) as the rule of the One God over this earth and that in its (His) fullness. Therefore, it is futile to play the blame game, in terms of worldly agendas, and it is futile to speculate concerning what perversions may walk through this open door. Our only valid response at this point is to ask, ‘How do we stop this cursed slide?’ For the tradesmen among us, the question would be, ‘How do we seal the doorway and reattach the locks?’ It is in answering these questions alone that we can find the right remedy.

As the Church has left the door ajar by Her failure, so it is encumbered upon the Church to remedy the situation. That remedy calls for the Church Herself to abandon relativism and to return to the prophetic utterances given Her. The Church must cease with the uncertain sounds of compromise; with the platitudes that desire peace at any cost; with the voice that whispers because She has no confidence in the content of Her speech; with the anti-covenantal view that says that She can be happy and prosperous while living in open rebellion to Her Lord, Jesus! This She must abandon for the clear, confident, and uncompromised proclamation, “Thus says the Lord God!”

This alone “places the wood in the hole” and locks it tightly. This alone will secure the door against whatever perversions may come a knocking. This alone will lead us back to the place of covenantal blessing in which the gracious mercy of our God will establish for us peace and security from without and within (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). This alone will seal the door and lead our nation from death to life.

The Slippery Slope (Pt. 1): Homosexuality to Polygamy

Posted on by
Reply

Due to the work of Peter Stokes and his merry band at Saltshakers, I became aware of a debate that is beginning regarding the “Slippery Slope!” As most are aware, Australia is in the throes of debating the issue and legitimacy of homosexual marriage. This has led some, in particular the social commentator Andrew Bolt, to question where we may end up if homosexual marriage is passed into law. Once we step upon the Slippery Slope, what will be our terminus? Typically, those who disagree with the rightly concerned come forth with the classic, hackneyed drivel and proceed to label their opponents as “scaremongers”, “panic merchants”, “the ill-informed”, and a number of less flattering terms. As I was well ‘edumacated’ in playground politics, I know that sticks and stones may do a little damage, but names are of no consequence. In point of fact, life has taught me that when your opponent must resort to name-calling, he no longer has anything legitimate to say. Thus, we must not be distracted from the question by name-calling and labelling.

Our priority must be to address the concerns raised. Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage lead to polygamy? The very real and simple answer to this specific question is: We must wait and see! The more categorical answer is: Be absolutely convinced that this change of legislation will open the door further, if not remove and discard it altogether, and allow all types of relationships to walk through! That is an absolute given. The only question is, “In what guise shall they be?”

I would like to discuss this topic and prove the point by looking at the whole concept of the Slippery Slope under three headings; Rednecks, Marriage, and Relativism.

1. Rednecks: First, let me note that I do not care for this term. I use it because it has been popularised and invokes an immediate and vivid picture in a person’s mind. Second, I am one. By the world’s standards, I am a misogynist, redneck, homophobic, right-wing, religious fundamentalist. Personally, I prefer the term “Biblical”!

Anyway, we country folk grew up accustomed to having firearms in or around our general vicinity. This was normal. No panic. No big deal. Then as the world progressed, such activities became frowned upon. The governments began to steal legitimate items owned by law abiding citizens. Naturally, some people objected. They made cogent arguments regarding the right to defend themselves and the foolishness of disarming the general populace in case our country found itself at war or being invaded. Naturally, these cogent arguments were met with solid, well–researched replies that went something along the lines of “Na na Na na na; Conspiracy theorist!” When those being robbed pointed out that there was a small Muslim country to our north that was vastly populated and who may, one day, desire to expand their living room, the replies came in the form of scorn and ridicule.

Anyway, the scorn and ridicule continued for quite a while. Today, I do not hear this scorn and ridicule. The vociferous voices have grown strangely quiet. Why is this? What changed? Did people all of a sudden come to understand that firearm ownership was legitimate? Did the government realise that it had overstepped the bounds of its legitimate power? No, nothing so heartening. What happened? Listen closely and I shall tell you a tale. ‘In the year of our Lord, 2001, Osama gave up on using a gun; for a more sinister plan in his head had begun. Fly planes in to Towers, ‘Yes! That is a plan!’ Planes into towers, reducing them to rubble, to dust, and to sand! When the dust and the smoke had settled that day, three thousand souls had been taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2002, the terrorists Paddy’s bar in Bali they blew; Killing bystanders, tourists, and folk, who had gathered for naught but a drink and a joke. In this much smaller and lesser display, still two hundred souls were taken away. In the year of our Lord, 2005, other acts of terror for which they did strive; this time in London and Bali once more, people did see the blood and the gore. Suicide bombers had mounted attacks from which sixty odd souls would never come back! Here in Australia the grief you could see, for all of these events impacted on We.’

What changed? People received what we colloquially call a reality check!” In this instance, the term “reality check” may be a misnomer. For, in essence, nothing concerning reality had changed. People had simply been woken up to the potential that had been present all along. Scorn and ridicule ceased because we were made to see that we were vulnerable. The Enlightenment view of man as the noble savage and the modern view of man as polite and always seeking his neighbour’s welfare were shattered in an instant.

Lesson One: You must look not at what was or is, but at what may be! It is to look not at reality as we know it, but at potentiality.

2. Marriage: The lesson of potentiality is clearly seen when we take marriage as an example. Marriage is given and designed by God and it is to be between a man and a woman. When we look at marriage over the last century, what we see is the Slippery Slope in operation. Slowly, but surely, marriage was redefined. Its absolute nature as God framed it was eroded and this happened in many forms. The first was the removal of God as the definer of man and marriage. I wrote recently to my local Federal Member on the issue of homosexual marriage. Her response was confusing, but enlightening. She started by saying how proud she was of the many homosexual causes that she had supported. Then came the back-flip and the statement that she did not support homosexual marriage, because marriage was traditionally between a man and a woman. What tradition? Where is the cosmic law of “traditions” written down? It is traditional only in so far as it was authored by God, designed into man, and, therefore, innately drives man in that direction. This alone explains why cultures all over the globe honour marriage.

Once the absolute had gone and marriage became a “human” tradition, the brakes were released and the slide began. Past and present did not matter. The key was potential. Having begun the slide, ‘What would be the terminus?’ Thus, divorce was modified. As marriage was no longer based upon God’s word, so the grounds for divorce also shifted from those stated in His Word to those accepted in the traditions of men. We were also introduced to “de facto” relationships. Just as society wanted “fast food” and food without substance – no sugar, fat, or taste, that is, food without consequence – so we were given mass produced marriage without substance or consequence. Last came the rewriting of vows, not based in the Covenant Law of God, strong and binding, but based in the emotions of men; weak, insipid, and transient. We no longer pledge to love for life; we pledge to hang around while we experience an emotion called ‘love’ – whatever that may be? (A change from what “I can give” to what “I can get!)

Lesson Two: We must understand history. When our forefathers changed the definition of marriage, did they believe it would ever lead to homosexual marriage? We would be fools to believe that this issue of homosexual marriage is the first to ever threaten the Biblical definition. It is not. Each of the things mentioned above laid another stepping stone in the path that brought us to this point. Homosexual marriage, if approved, will simply be one more stone leading further from God and broadening the acceptance of things once thought impossible.

3. Relativism: As we know, we live in a Postmodern word. A world without truth. A world where all is relative and there are no absolutes. Did this state of affairs simply materialise from nowhere? Not at all. There were a string of events. The Enlightenment, Rationalism, and Modernity. Stated differently, “Kill God!”, “Think without Revelation!”, and “Oops, is anybody there?” All of these regressions made our society susceptible to disease, just like a weakened immune system in a body. In the context of marriage and the Slippery Slope, let us look at one example: “The Family Law Act 1975 established the principle of no-fault divorce in Australian law. This means that a court does not consider why the marriage ended. The only ground for divorce is that the marriage has broken down irretrievably. That is, that there is no reasonable likelihood that you will get back together.” Do you see the shift? God’s word outlines fault. God demands justice even in marriage. However, the Family Law Court has a no-fault policy. A law court without justice!!?? There are no innocent parties, declared so at the bar of justice, free to marry again unmarred and unsullied. No, there are just casualties – people whose social contracts failed. The adulterer is free. There are no consequences for the wandering party. It is like a morning after pill for marriage!

Conclusion: If homosexual marriage is approved, it will certainly make polygamy more likely. However, understand well, that polygamy may well be on the cards even if homosexual marriage is rejected. The point is this: By rejecting God’s standards, we have already put in place the mechanisms to utterly destroy the concept of marriage we have all known Biblically or traditionally. The door is open. Anything is now possible. The “potentiality” for this began with the rejection of God as Supreme Law Giver!

Reformers Reforming: Post Tenebras Lux

Posted on by
Reply

Most are familiar with the Reformation and the cry, post tenebras lux – after darkness, light! This cry, issued by the Reformers, illustrated the very heart of and need for reform within the Church. Darkness had enveloped the world and it was necessary for the Light to shine. What was this darkness? It had to do with the fact that the True Light, coming into the world (John 1:9), had been placed under a basket. Little flashes of light were seen from time to time, sneaking through the weave, but for the most part, the light was contained.

This state arose because the Church, appointed by Jesus Christ to proclaim His Law-Word to the ends of the earth, and therefore to shine the light to its greatest degree, abandoned the idea of service to Christ for an attitude of self-service. In short, the Church began to serve its own purposes, desires, and inclinations. The message of the Gospel was forgotten. The proclamation of Jesus as the only means of reconciliation to God, with all its attendant good for the world, was replaced by a proclamation of Rome and Her own importance.

Instead of the proclamation of Jesus Christ and the fullness of His being as the very revelation of God – a revelation that brought truth, purpose, meaning, freedom, reconciliation, and light to those who dwelt in darkness – Rome brought error, hopelessness, confusion, slavery, discord – especially between man and God – and the light was shut up. So darkness fell! As darkness fell, ignorance grew. Men were as far from God as ever. Sadly, the institution appointed to bear light, chose darkness instead.

Into this situation, by God’s merciful hand of providence, came a long line of Reformers. They had a motto: Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda secundum verbum Dei (“The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God”) The Reformers understood that true light could only be attained by a faithful proclamation of the True Light – Jesus Christ the Righteous Son of God. However, they did not simply stop at proclamation. They went to the source document, the Bible, to see exactly what God had revealed and commanded of men. They were no longer guessing in the dark. They opened God’s eternal word written and therein found God’s eternal Word living. They found the Light of the world and they began to let that Light shine; and this by faithful and obedient proclamation of the whole counsel of God.

Why are these points raised? Why the little history lesson? These questions are best answered by the old saying, “Those who ignore history are bound to repeat it.” The argument, here, is that once again the Church is failing in her duty to faithfully proclaim the truth of the Light, Jesus Christ. Once more, we see departures from and a weakening of the Light – the proclamation of the whole counsel of God as revealed in Jesus the Christ. We once more see institutions begin to be self-serving, rather than self-sacrificing. We see some sectors of the Church unsure as to where to look for answers. Such a state will only bring in ever increasing amounts of compromise. This compromise will in turn lead to darkness, confusion, and slavery.

When faced with such a situation, we necessarily must ask, ‘What is the best way forward?’ The answer, the sole answer, in this situation is to return to the cry of the Reformation – “The church reformed, always being reformed (or always Reforming) according to the Word of God!” This creed, if you will, gives us the sure foundation because it encapsulates all the necessary aspects of successful Church life. In contrast to this full creed, the moderns are tempted in one of two ways, both of which bring disaster to the Church and to its function as a faithful proclaimer of the Light.

The first error is seen when the creed is altered to, “the church reformed, reformed according to the Word of God.” The change here is subtle, but it essentially makes the Reformation, a fact of history, the be-all and end-all of Church reform. The problem with this view is that it fails to grasp the idea that the Church is a living organism. In this view, the only reform the Church needed, and which it will receive, has happened and we must cling tenaciously to every word uttered some 500 years ago, as though that is the last word. This view, however, misses the clear fact that, by its very nature, the Church must grow and mature. It must turn from a seed to a giant tree, which, in this case, fills the whole world. None of us would be satisfied if we reached puberty and stopped developing. The horticulturists amongst us would not be satisfied with a yard full of immature plants. Imagine a summer without the ripe fruits because all the trees had budded, but no bud had matured. Similarly, the Church is alive and it is growing. Consequently, it must change. It must pass through different stages of growth.

The second error is seen when the creed is altered to, “The church, always reforming!” Here, we clearly encounter the desire for change, but note that the standard of change has been omitted.  God’s word no longer holds the place as the sole director of the Church’s life. Rather, we are influenced by men, vain philosophies, and dare it be said, carnal desires. It seems that this is the particular situation that plagues the Church of today.

In such circumstances, we encounter a flurry of activity. People, left, right, and centre, are running a programme for this and a programme for that. There is always one new, sure–fire, guaranteed way to fill the Church or to have a greater impact upon society—that is, until it is discarded for the next sure-fire, guaranteed way and so on! The problem at this point is singular. We have omitted from our creed the one objective standard that would give sure guidance and which would allow the Light to shine. That objective standard is God’s word, the Bible. It is not a coincidence that, in the post-modern world, the Church’s rejection of Scripture as its sole authority has led to a post-modern infiltration into the Church in which ‘men do what is right in their own eyes’.

Examples of this modern approach abound, here are two, taken from two different mission organisations: “To that end, people are given the freedom to experiment with new ideas and implement creative methods and even if they fail, they can try again. … We encourage men and women to use whatever means will be effective in communicating the gospel. Creative ideas, innovative strategies and unique concepts are being employed….” “We do not encourage the espousing of doctrinal emphases that could and would divide us and distract us away from our objectives.”

Please note the absolute lack of reliance upon God’s word. Rather, we see that men are to “experiment” and realise “creative methods.” Why? Is it the case that if they happen upon the exact method of success they will patent it, bottle it, and ship it to every Church? It would seem not. Sadly, all this creativity is couched in words that expect failure! Interesting. Does God in His word expect failure? Is God at present sitting in the heavens bewildered and distraught that He cannot make things work according to His purposes and plans? Methinks not (Isaiah 46:8-11)! The modern Church is filled with those whose activities are not governed “according to the word of God.” Consequently, they are trying to reinvent the “theological wheel”. They experiment and become creative in a vain hope, rather than taking instruction from the only wise God (Romans 16:27).

Then we view the second quotation. Heaven forbid that doctrine should get in the way of men’s ideas. Well, no! May God forbid that men’s ideas should get in the way of true doctrine! The believers in the early Church had “all things in common. (Acts 2:43)” This included doctrine. They all believed the same thing in regard to Jesus Christ, His person, work, and purpose. Why is it today that we want to avoid doctrine and that we are certain that Biblical doctrine will divide rather than unite? Could it be that we prefer the subjective autonomy provided to us by a post-modern world where truth is unknowable and where we can rule our lives according to our own standards, rather than by God’s standard?

Here is a plea for a vibrant, healthy, maturing, Church, in which the redeemed constantly and consistently “proclaim the excellencies of Him who has called us out of darkness into His marvelous light!” (1 Peter 2:9) It is a plea to be consistent with the Reformational creed. Let us realise and glory in the fact that the Church is a living entity and that it is encumbered upon Her to meet each new challenge in every subsequent age. It must be said – lightening rods on standby – that Luther, Calvin, and co, did not have everything nailed down. However, let us also understand that the Church’s obligation in these challenges is not to rely on man’s inventiveness or creativity. It is, rather, to declare, “Thus says the Lord God!”

The path to a living, maturing, vibrant church, that truly impacts the world and glorifies God, is to be found in humble, covenantal obedience to the Biblical standards revealed in Jesus Christ and attested by the Holy Spirit. It is found in believing and applying God’s revealed objective standard, the Bible, and not in man’s subjective invention.

Marriage is Life!

Posted on by
Reply

There is little doubt that, in Australia today, we are experiencing a clash of worldviews. Over the last decades, the Secular Humanist attack upon Biblical Christianity has gathered pace. However, in 2012, Secular Humanism is presenting a challenge to this nation such as never before. The attack is of such intrinsic importance that both Christian and Secularist alike must be made fully aware of its implications.

Christianity, both as a belief and a worldview, has been systematically attacked in this country for at least fifty years. In that time, attacks have been mainly focused against the application of Biblical law. Examples of this may be seen in the erosion of (traditional) marriage. The concept of both “de facto” relationships and divorce were popularised and de-stigmatised. By stealth, therefore, marriage was undermined. Its significance and importance was devalued. Marriage was relegated to the status of a cultural relic from the bygone age of “religion” and non-enlightenment. With the devaluation of marriage, came the subsequent depreciation of the family. Families were no longer the building block of society. They were no longer afforded protection, assistance, and honour.

All of this is attributable to Humanism’s attack on the application of Biblical law. Of course, all of this stems directly from the fact that the Secular Humanist has denied the existence and importance of the Bible’s God (Psalm 14:1). With God removed, the Secularist believes himself free to set about making this world after his own laws. Consequently, the Secular Humanist has sought to erode any law that was explicitly based in Scripture. Well, not quite. He has eroded any law that means he must restrain himself as far as carnal appetite and pleasure are concerned. He is rather keen to keep the laws regarding murder and theft as he wants to live long enough to enjoy his greed and hedonism.

The question for us all is, ‘What is next?’ What is Humanism about to redefine after its own making? The answer is already before our eyes. 2012 has seen several bills introduced to parliament with the express purpose of changing the definition of the Marriage Act so as to allow for homosexual marriage. The thing that must be impressed upon all, at this point, is that this is an escalation in the war. No longer are the Humanists simply attacking the peripheries in the application of Biblical law, they are insisting on nothing less than a redefinition of man. This battle is not about the institution of marriage as a standalone item. No. This battle is about marriage as an essential part of Man, his definition, and his purpose. At heart, it is an argument regarding Man and Marriage as life.

When Christians argue against homosexuality, they typically turn to texts such as Leviticus 18:22, “You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination” or Romans 1:26-27. These are good texts. They teach us much. Yet we must press to the crux of the matter, if we are to argue the best case in our day.

The question that must be asked is, “Why is homosexuality and homosexual marriage Biblically wrong?” To answer this, we must return to the book of Genesis and to the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28). There we find the incontrovertible evidence. The Cultural Mandate reads: Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them.  And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

In this text there are some fundamentals that simply cannot be ignored. First, let us start with the simple but important fact that Man is made in the image of God. Of priority, we must grasp and understand that God made Man. God Almighty, in Trinity, determined to create and Man was part of that creation. Man is not, therefore, a creature from the black swamp that one day “got smart” and decided to crawl out of the primordial slime and make something of himself. Man is not the Mk 4 in monkey design – as though each new version of monkey could self-assess and rationalise what further improvements would be beneficial and then will those changes into being as the next model. Man is not chaos, chance, randomness, coincidence, or accident. He is not a cosmic virus virulent upon the earth as some type of intergalactic plague – with the earth hoping for vaccine! Man is not the meaningless, unknowing, unintelligible, transient dream of the existentialist! Man is the product of nothing less than the perceptive, absolute, unmistaken, determinative will of Almighty God. No mistake. No design flaws. No errors. Made in fullness! Made in perfection! Man, made as God intended him. Man, endued and imbued with every power, grace, gift, talent, ability, faculty, facility, and function that God intended him to possess. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Second, we note that there is “Deflation” and “Inflation”! A) – Deflation: Man is not God! He is like unto God, but he is not God. Hence, man is not a demiurge or demigod; We are not god’s trapped in mortal wrappings; We are not, as Jesus, partakers of the Divine nature. No. We are human. Our nature is human. Yet, our human nature is God like. B) – Inflation: We are more than animals. Man is not just the best of animalia. Man stands above the animals. He stands above the creation. He is God’s vice-regent over creation.  Thus, we understand that Man is elevated above creation, but we must also see that the elevator does not travel all the way to God’s throne. We are shown the magnificence of Man, but also his limitations.

Third, and this point must hit home, God’s Man was created in plurality! Man is made in God’s Image and he is made male and female. Like a coin, Man was made with two sides. Both image bearers. Both endued with God’s gifts, talents, and purposes. When the two are brought together in the marriage covenant, the whole becomes far greater than the sum of its parts. Thus says the Lord God (Genesis 2:24)!

This point must be understood, for it is the essence of any and every rebuttal to all schemes which attack Man and particularly the relationship of man to woman. In Genesis 1:28, God pronounces a blessing upon Man. Part of that blessing is that Man should be fruitful and multiply. God’s Man, made in plurality, covenanted in unity through marriage, can receive this blessing and bring it to fruition.  Humanism’s Man cannot. It does not matter how much semen you pour into a man’s rectal cavity or how many attempts are made to fashion the perfect phallic symbol, Man’s futility can never replicate or replace God’s fertility! The only reason these contemporary perverts claim any right to success is because of modern scientific advances and perverted moral behaviour. God did not need a test tube! God did not need a surrogate womb! God did not need to hatch a foul plan to inebriate some poor unsuspecting; just so the lesbian could steal his seed and claim to be fruitful! No, God made Man male and female. God gave them perfect fertility and bodies designed and equipped to fulfil Man’s assignment within God’s purpose and plan.

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

Marriage, as we have seen, is not a human institution, statist or otherwise. It is not a convention or human cultural tradition. Marriage is the inherent consequence of Man being created male and female in the image of God. Marriage, therefore, is not only bound to Man as male and female, but it is bound up in the essential nature of Man as male and female. You cannot remove marriage from Man anymore than you can remove the male and femaleness of Man. Any attempt in that direction ends in the destruction and death of Man. Therefore, homosexual marriage must be repudiated as a travesty.

God made Man in His image. God made Man in plurality as male and female. God blessed Man in his plurality. All this meant that Man could come together in the union of male and female and bring forth life. God’s design had included every aspect necessary mentally, physically, and spiritually. God also gave to Man marriage; the covenant bond in which plurality became unity. Here, two halves met as rain meets a parched land. The result was an explosion of life, effervescent and vibrant. Life as God intended.

Therefore, marriage is life! That is, one man and one woman in covenant union before God. Marriage is life!