The Fallacy of Absolute Free Speech

You would have to be living under a log in the forest or in some remote backwater of the world to not know anything about the current conversations concerning free speech. This issue has gained momentum with the Tech Giants releasing their hounds of “fact checking” upon people’s posts. This fact checking is seen as censorship; censorship is viewed as wrong; the antidote promulgated is free speech – the inalienable right of every human to express their opinion without repercussion.

What do we make of such conversations, particularly from a Christian perspective?

This question is relevant. I have had debates on Social Media over this topic. Other Christians I have listened to hint at the fact that the absolutist position on free speech is necessary for the Church to be able to evangelise. Along with this, the question of censorship is raised and it is always viewed negatively.

So, what should be the Christian’s view on this free speech phenomenon?

Well, it is my contention that we should have no part of it. It is an evil to be shunned. It is anti-God. It is unBiblical. It destroys, it does not build. It is one more of those wolves in sheep’s clothing that will lead to the gates of Hell and not to the arms of God.

To say such things, I will immediately be labelled as the right-wing, fascist, red-neck. After all, such a position runs counter to the impetus of the modern-day culture and to those providing the catalyst for that movement. Herein, though, should be our first hint that something is wrong. Labelling language is universally condemned, is it not? One cannot pigeon-hole another. That is a supposed absolute of modern debates. Well, yes, maybe – unless, of course, you dare expose the erroneous aspects of the philosophy and actions of those pushing the current bandwagons-of-change. At that point, there is no amnesty, rather pigeon-holing, defamation, and a no-holds-barred approach are demanded. As stated, this should be our first hint that something is wrong. When those doing the demanding cannot and will not live by their own mantras, alarm bells should ring.

The real challenge is where to begin in critiquing this error. It has become so pervasive that no one questions the legitimacy of the statements anymore. Thus, as a Christian, I find once more that the only place to start is with God and the attributes of His being.

In the beginning, God spoke. In speaking, God created the world. In creating the world, God imposed His order upon that world. For the good order of its inhabitants, God revealed His Law and his standards so that Man could and would live in fellowship with God and each other. Man rebelled against God, which brought about a state of war. On one side, God and is people. On the other side, Satan and his people.

At this point, two divergent views come to the fore. Those standing with God, proclaim what God has revealed. These proclamations touch every area of life, but they always begin with God’s absolute sovereignty and His inalienable right as Creator to be Lord of His creation. The others, following Satan, have two primary lines of thought. The first, is a subtle suggestion, as Satan did in the Garden, “Did God really say?” and thereby questions not only God’s right to speak and reveal, but the very veracity of these actions. The second line amounts to much the same thing, but this is the ramped-up-on-steroids version. Here, the reality of God is vehemently denied and, therefore, those who speak on God’s behalf are ostracised as “loons”, “myth hunters”, “remnants of a bygone era” or, as we see at present, ‘those who are so dangerous that they must be silenced’—yes, all in a climate of “free speech” and “tolerance”!

With this said, let us look at the current debate and draws some lines from what we have said above to the things being pronounced in the free speech debate today.

Firstly, and this will seem bizarre to some, we need to look at the conjoined topics of definitions and the authority by which those definitions are made and on which they stand. I have started with some definitions and a basic summary of my worldview. This is the worldview, the interpretive paradigm for looking at and making sense of reality, that God has revealed in Scripture. This is where I stand, and I can do no other. Yet, as my summary shows, there are those who oppose. There are those who question not only God’s right to speak, but His right to exist.

Thus, and this is very important, the Bible states that God alone, as King and Creator, has the right and authority to define, to name, to delineate, to demarcate, to delimit, and to determine, and so forth, as He sees fit. As an example, God determined to make Man in His image. This Man, He did make in his Image. God named him Adam. God defined Man as head of creation and different from the animals. God also made another Man, thus God delineated between male Man and female Man. On brining female Man to male Man, Adam was given the privilege of naming his wife and he named her Eve. He had the right as head to use a derived authority to do so. However, God placed a demarcation on Adam. Adam never was God. He had a derived authority that was rightly his to use, but it was never an absolute authority by which he could challenge God or determine his own norms for living.

No doubt this may seem a bit heavy to some, but the salient points are these: A. Words have meanings and definitions – despite the airy-fairy world of the nondescript being forced upon us – and that for any conversation, act of speech, to happen, clear definitions must be present; B. Acts of speech require a degree or an element of authority for them to be credible. This authority can be innate or derived, but it must be present.

If we look at the current statements regarding free speech, we will see that, for the most part, there is a lack of specific definition and there is a lack of genuine authority. For example, when someone flies the free speech flag today, are they arguing for a person’s right to speak or to say or both? This is a vital question. To speak, looks at a person’s right to engage their mouth. To say, focuses upon the content flowing from the mouth.

Let us look at a real-life example of the conundrums. To do this, I would like to look at a small portion of a video posted on Facebook by Marcus Somerville 05/03/21. Marcus is the moderator of the Paul Murray Supporters Group, which, I will clarify as Marcus does, has nothing to do with Paul Murray the television presenter.

On the above date, Marcus posted a video in response to some clamour on the site. In that video, he gave a brief outline as to the purpose of the group.[1] He noted that PMSG concerned itself as a “Conservative Movement” with “Conservative Concepts”. It was a platform for Conservatives / Libertarians / Patriots who want to get together and have free speech.” He went on to outline his concerns that some were “being attacked for sharing their views.” He then stated that, “I am a free speech absolutist. I believe in everyone’s right to speak their minds without fear or favour.” He added, “You might think they’re and idiot. You may think they’re a moron—maybe they are!—but that does not give you the right to silence them.” At this point, the discussion turned to laud the internet as the ‘best idea for destroying bad ideas’ because all the relevant information for decision making was out there on the Net.

The first thing to note is the declaration. On what basis is one a ‘free speech absolutist’. The above text gives a definition, but the aspect of authority is never addressed, it is merely assumed. It is at this point that we encounter the first deviation from the Christian worldview outlined above. God is no longer the one true source of authority, no, this now belongs to fallen, autonomous Man for he has stolen the King’s crown or so he thinks. Autonomous man, as an individual, now has the self-appointed right to make any proclamations he so wishes, on any topic he wishes, for whatever purpose he so wishes, and any such proclamations are non-contradictable.

Second, ‘everyone has the right to speak their minds – now addressing content – without fear or favour.’ This content, too, is above contradiction and judgement, even above mere assessment! Again, this attacks the Christian worldview. God defines. That is His right and His alone. God defines truth, for God is Truth. God defines ethics and seeks from Man a moral life; one judged to be so by God’s Law. Is it then acceptable that a person can speak falsely without being held to account? If this speaking without consequence is indeed correct, how then do we have defamation cases, as just one example?

Thirdly, one of my favourites – which has been raised several times – “You might think they’re an idiot / moron; maybe they are!” Please grasp this point. Here, one posits, straight faced and without a single guffaw, that not only perceived idiots and morons, but actual, bona fide idiots and morons, have the right to hold the public’s ear without any consequence. Seriously? Unless I have utterly lost the plot, the terms idiot and moron are pejoratives, speaking of those whose ideas may not necessarily be in the public’s interest, yet we will let them speak!

It is at this point that we must see the utter nonsense of this unfettered free speech bandwagon. We have, here, a relatively smart man espousing the fact that idiots have the right to be heard in the public square. However, he is not alone. Arguments of a similar vein have come forth from other social commentators and it beggars belief!

The irony here is that we have people in the public square complaining about the happenings in society and how certain forces seem to be at work for the deconstruction of our society and our way of life; yet these same people are defending the rights of idiots and morons to be heard, read ‘sow their destructive ideologies.’ If this were all, it would be beyond the pale, but … these people then engage on social media sites with the idiots and take part, not in edifying conversation, but slanging matches. You see, in this scheme there is no truth, there is not an arbiter of truth, the whole argument is about Humanism – the right of one man to espouse whatsoever he will. In this system, words, speech, conversation, edification, enlightenment, truth, justice, education and more, give way to an argument that is really about nothing more than someone’s right to exercise their pterygoid and digastric muscles. Content and definition are gone. Authority means nothing. It is, therefore, when all is said and done, the simple right of the individual to flap his or her gums for which we are arguing.

This point must be understood. When this current argument is couched in these terms, it is nothing less than a pernicious evil that will lead to destruction. How so? Well, the best answer that can be given comes in the form of a question: Is all speech truth, edifying, wise, and correct? In other words, looking at our world and all the hurt, mayhem, and disfunction that is present, we must ask, ‘What role has evil speech played in bringing about these current circumstances?”

At this point, we are back to worldviews. Having denied absolute truth in our culture we have begun spreading poison under the guise of free speech. This poison seems liberating to many because it ostensibly empowers them to raise their voice and be heard in the big, wide world. Yet, this often leads to more poison being spread, and before too long, that big, wide world outside begins to wither and die.

Think here, for analogous purposes only, of how Hitler made the nation feel important by putting people into a uniform. As a more relevant example, we may think of the French Revolution and how the term “Citizen” was used to bring about a similar feeling of importance.[2] In the same way, Social Media has made people feel important. People feel that their voice can be heard and is heard and from that fact alone they derive some sense of worth; but it is all smoke and mirrors. To exercise one’s pterygoid and digastric muscles does not give a person worth; it does not legitimise their position; it does not give them a true standing of importance; it does not give them respect; and it most certainly does not give them meaning.

As stated, the oxymoronic status that is evidenced in this free speech debate is bewildering. People are arguing for everyone’s right to say what they want, then scrambling about in a vain attempt to undo the mess caused by those very words. The absurdity can be seen in this illustration: Society allows a certain proportion of the populace to light fires on hot, wind days, precisely so that the rest of society can run around attempting to put out the spot fires before they become uncontrollable and burn down everything that those people hold dear.

This is the sad reality that must eventuate when absolutes are denied and rejected. Instead of unity, we have disunity. Instead of building, we tear down. Instead of safety, we expose to danger. Instead of understanding, we have confusion. Instead of peace, we have chaos. Instead of life, we become lovers of death. Instead of prosperity, we have want. Instead of friendship, we have hatred—and a house divided can never stand.

If you are confused by my point, ask yourself these questions: What does it mean to tell a lie? What does it mean to deceive? What does it mean to defame someone? What does it mean if something or someone is false? How does one commit perjury? What does it mean to prevaricate? What is mendacity? Maybe, we need to make the language more colloquial. What is a Porky, a Whooper, a Fib? What is implied when one ‘fudges the facts’, gives someone a ‘bum steer’ or ‘yanks someone’s chain’?

All these terms, well most, are used by our society on a regular basis and they have to do with a blatant untruth or the manipulating of truth. Let me now ask, “How many of you take joy from being deceived or being on the receiving end of a lie?” Scene. Mother ringing father while dad is at work. “Oh darling, please pick up a new toy for Johnny on your way home. I caught him telling his first lie today. Isn’t it wonderful! I know, I should have waited till you got home, but I just could not contain my excitement.” Yeah, right! So not happening. Yet, in this fool’s paradise of Modernism, we deny truth so that people can lie to us and deceive us.

Back to worldviews. This country was never truly a Christian country, but there is no doubt that this country was founded upon certain Christian principles. Those principle gave us meaning, purpose, and cohesion. Prime among those beliefs were the existence of the God of the Bible, truth, justice, and punishment. If you do not like these terms, substitute right and wrong. We knew that there was truth. We knew that there were errors, lies, and falsehoods. We knew that avoiding lies and deceit were good things. We knew that telling the truth, despite some consequences, was always the right and noble thing to do.

Fast forward. We have now jettisoned God. Absolutes do not exist. There is no definition of right or wrong, good or evil, apart from what the State tells you—but that is another article! In fact, you cannot even use the terms “good” and “evil” anymore, because that might impinge upon someone’s individual choices, robbing them of personal peace, and making that one feel poorly about their choice. In this environment, we are back to ‘gum flapping’ for gum flapping’s sake. Words and content do not matter. The consequence of those words is downplayed. All that matters now is that we, too, get our ten seconds of fame by being able to respond on Social Media with derogatory terms, diatribe, and vitriol. There are no cogent arguments, precisely because truth and knowledge have been murdered.

In contrast to this “Land of Confusion”, as Phil Collins put it, we have the Biblical statements. It may surprise some Christians, and non-Christians alike, to realise just how much the Bible has to say about speech and especially the tongue.

Let us start with the Ten Commandments. Most Christians will hold to the fact that these Commandments are still binding upon men. Others, who have only a tacit allegiance to Christianity, will also recognise some authority here. Would it surprise you then to realise that two of these Commandments deal with speech?

Commandment 3: You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not leave him unpunished who takes His name in vain.[3]

Commandment 9: You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.[4]

Both these Commandments are in fact saying much the same thing. The main difference is in the object of the command – Commandment three focuses on God; Commandment nine on man. Both are saying that empty and vain speech, derogatory speech, defamatory speech, and outright lies are evils that are condemned. Now, please understand this point. Many think that to take God’s name in vain is simply to use His name when one, say, hits their thumb with a hammer or when Jesus is invoked in a moment of rage. However, this is an overly simplistic approach to the matter at hand. Vain speech and blasphemy may include those aspects, but they reach farther and deeper. These terms really mean to speak lies about or concerning the being that is the object of your speech. Thus, to misrepresent God or man on any matter means that you have breached these laws. The bearing of “false witness” also carries with it the connotation of deliberately trying to sabotage a person’s life or property by deceit.

If you are reading this as a Christian who believes the Ten Commandments, can you really subscribe to an absolutist position on free speech? If God has said that you do not speak lies regarding His nature and being or that of your fellow man, how then would you justify a position on free speech that not only allows false witness, but encourages it?

Let us now consider some wisdom from the Book of Proverbs:

A worthless person, a wicked man, is the one who walks with a false mouth.[5]

Put away from you a deceitful mouth and put devious lips far from you.[6]

For the lips of an adulteress drip honey and smoother than oil is her speech.[7]

The lips of the righteous bring forth what is acceptable, but the mouth of the wicked, what is perverted.[8]

Lying lips are an abomination to the Lord, but those who deal faithfully are His delight.[9]

There are six things which the Lord hates, yes, seven which are an abomination to Him: Haughty eyes, a lying tongue, and hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked plans, feet that run rapidly to evil, a false witness who utters lies, and one who spreads strife among brothers.[10]

The tongue of the wise makes knowledge acceptable, but the mouth of fools spouts folly.[11]

One from Ecclesiastes:

Words from the mouth of a wise man are gracious, while the lips of a fool consume him; the beginning of his talking is folly, and the end of it is wicked madness. Yet the fool multiplies words. No man knows what will happen, and who can tell him what will come after him?[12]

One from the Prophet Isaiah:

For a fool speaks nonsense, and his heart inclines toward wickedness, to practice ungodliness and to speak error against the Lord, to keep the hungry person unsatisfied and to withhold drink from the thirsty. As for a rogue, his weapons are evil; he devises wicked schemes to destroy the afflicted with slander, even though the needy one speaks what is right.[13]

When these texts are analysed, it can be clearly seen that Scripture draws a clear line of demarcation, one which touches not only the speech, but the speaker. There are the wicked, the fool, the rogue, and the adulteress. Together they speak smooth words that are folly, madness, wickedness, deceitful, and devious.

Again, the challenge is put forth. If you believe yourself to be a Christian who reverences the Bible as truth, how do you reconcile these truths with the idea that anyone can grab a microphone and enter the public square? Even if you are not a Christian, there must be a tacit acknowledgement of the Scripture’s truth on these points, namely that there are those who speak both foolishly and foolishness. In which case, the question still stands: “Do you want foolish people filling the airwaves?” Even in the quote from PMSG there is reference to morons and idiots. Do we want such ones giving counsel to the naïve in the public square or anywhere for that matter?

Recognising that there are some within the sphere of Christianity who think more highly of the New Testament, let us look there, too, for guidance:

And I say to you, that every careless word that men shall speak, they shall render account for it in the day of judgment. For by your words you shall be justified, and by your words you shall be condemned.[14]

But now you also, put them all aside: anger, wrath, malice, slander, and abusive speech from your mouth.[15]

Let no unwholesome (rotten, worthless) word proceed from your mouth, but only such a word as is good for edification according to the need of the moment, that it may give grace to those who hear.[16]

Let not many of you become teachers, my brethren, knowing that as such we shall incur a stricter judgment. … So also the tongue is a small part of the body, and yet it boasts of great things. Behold, how great a forest is set aflame by such a small fire! And the tongue is a fire, the very world of iniquity; the tongue is set among our members as that which defiles the entire body, and sets on fire the course of our life, and is set on fire by hell. For every species of beasts and birds, of reptiles and creatures of the sea, is tamed, and has been tamed by the human race. But no one can tame the tongue; it is a restless evil and full of deadly poison.[17]

With this survey complete, we are able to see that the Bible speaks with one accord – there is such a thing as evil, worthless, and destructive speech and we are warned, nay, commanded to have nothing to do with it.

Of interest is James’ warning that not many should become teachers. Granted, this is, in the first instance, spoken to the Church, but it has wider application. The teacher as the speaker is warned not to be one who spreads untruths. To inculcate a generation with errant words and ideas is extremely dangerous – it is the spark that starts a bushfire. Combine this with Jesus’ words and we have two warnings about being held to account for careless words and for teaching with worthless words. I will leave you to make application to the idea of free speech as it is peddled today.

Before concluding, something needs to be said concerning the topic of Censorship.

With the absolutist free speech position being pushed in our society, it has become equally important to slam the idea of censorship. Censorship is an evil. Censorship is the immediate enemy of free speech. No society can be truly free, if censorship is in play; and to make the point, countries like China are highlighted.

So, let us navigate our way gently through this sensitive topic. These combined topics must be one of the biggest loads of bull fibs ever dumped on our society. They are nothing less than an extravagant lie, dressed in fancy garb, so as to fool the onlooker. As with most of these issues, the populace is caught in the emotion of the moment and never takes pause to ask questions or to break the idea down to it base concepts.

Let me ask you this: Is it an absolute evil to guard something that is precious? Should, say, a Dutch Master be hung on a lamp post in the rain so that the clamouring hordes of one age might catch a glimpse before it is irreparably damaged or should it be hung in a guarded space so that generations might gaze upon and appreciate the vista?

The more relevant question, “Have you ever drawn a line of demarcation, physically or verbally, in order to protect the vulnerable?”

The point here is very, very simple. Censorship, in its etymology, really denotes the quality of assessing the worth of something and making a decision as to whether it promotes good or not. It does not mean, as so many take it to mean, oppression. As a parent, did you allow your children to drink roundup, down a bottle of aspirin, or attempt to cure their constipation with a good-sized helping of draino? Methinks not. In such situations, you used your knowledge to make the wise choice and, in essence, became a censor to you child. Did you let your child play with fire, hot stoves, or poisonous reptiles? Same answer. Every time you interjected your will and knowledge into such situations, you were acting as a censor. You were guilty of the high crime of censorship or so the moderns would have you believe. What you actually did was protect and enrich both your life and the life of your child. You turned the young and naïve away from harm, pain, suffering, and, yes, even death. Not such a bad thing, methinks!

At this point, we are back to that clash of worldviews. Since the Sixties, Humanism has been on the rise. This is the idea that God is dead or, if He is not dead, He created a closed system and has no personal interaction with His creation. On this basis, Man and his reason become god; these standards become the measure of all things. In this view, Man is unaffected in any way by sin or any concept approximating sin. Man is mature. Therefore, he is able to make correct choices in the moral realm. He can function in an unbiased way. He does not require, in anyway, an external source to guide or guard.[18]

The end of this philosophy is the rampant and indulgent individualism that we see around us today. It culminates in the demand for ultimate freedom for the individual. Society falls from view. Each man becomes king over his little kingdom, the individual life. Concomitant are demands for individual expression; the supremacy of personal choice; ironically, the demand for society to recognise, uphold, and abide by my personal choice[19]; the death of truth as individual opinion must now hold sway; the denial of censorship as the opining individual can never be wrong; and the list could continue.

Over and against this chaotic and anarchistic worldview, we have the Biblical worldview outlined above. God’s worldview says that there are evil speeches and there are naïve people, the combination of which can, and often does, end in disaster. Therefore, I am to be my brother’s keeper. I will not speak evil in his presence nor allow him to hear evil. That is my duty before God as a godly censor. This is not oppression. It is not infantile. It is not treating my brother as a child. It is keeping him safe in a world where there are dangers and pitfalls, many of which he may not be aware. Equally, putting any hint of arrogance to bed, he does exactly the same for me!

We have mentioned worldviews throughout, precisely because they are the nub of the matter. If you listen to the Devil, you will deny God, absolutes, and the idea of man as deficient in any way. Putting this worldview to the test, particularly if you have walked this earth for more than a couple of decades, ask yourself the simple question: “Is life better now”? An honest appraisal must answer, No! Has the Social Media phenomenon of everybody shouting into a microphone brought us to utopia or the edge of the dystopian zombie apocalypse? Is our society or country unified, expectant, prosperous or are we rent, downcast, bankrupt – and I do not just mean fiscally.

We once had a way of life, given to us by God, in which we recognised the dangers and pitfalls that are extant in the world. We were willing to build little fences in order to keep people safe. We did not want people to suffer, as per our analogies above, so we built those little fences; we shepherded, guarded, guided, and we worked hard to keep people from danger – yes, even the dangerous ideas. We did this because God revealed His truth to us in Jesus Christ. We learned to be servants, one of the other, and we benefitted in kind—I cannot be happy if my brother suffers. We learned from the Bible sayings like: Do unto others as you would have done to you.

This is Biblical censorship. It is a censorship that recognises good and evil. It seeks to honour God and protect man. However, we need to recognise another totalitarian type of censorship, one that is prevalent today, but which is largely unrecognised. This censorship, which we shall label ‘suppression’ has no aim other than to silence. It is not interested in debate. It is not interested in truth. It is not interested in absolutes. No, this suppression creates silence amidst the clamouring hordes. “Hang on” you say. “How can there be silence and clamouring hordes?” Good question. First, the clamouring hordes are encouraged, e.g., ten seconds of fame on Facetube or Twittergram. Everyone becomes used to having a voice, but, subtly, certain messages are given more volume, so as to persuade the naïve and garner support. Then comes the silencing. Those not “getting with the programme” are turned down until they are turned off.

We noted at the outset the silencing by the Tech Giants. It has recently been revealed that one such company has a policy to deny the reality of your situation based on the promotion of its ideals. A simple illustration. You take a photo of your fleet of fishing boats. This company thinks fishing is environmentally questionable, so your photo is put in the rubbish bin. Maybe, you just have a fleet of ships, but this company’s ideal is air travel. Your photo is shredded. Your reality does not gel with their ideals, so you are silenced. Another example was the suspending of an account belonging to someone who did some research on voter fraud during the last US election. This person simply sent individuals to photograph the addresses of people who had voted. Many were vacant lots. For putting this information in the public domain, the account was suspended. This is tyranny and silencing. It is not true censorship.

Yet, these Tech Giants are not the only ones guilty of this. Our Governments are becoming more and more tyrannical with their use of suppression. In what is truly a cruel irony, we have people and governments extolling the virtues of free speech, yet at the same time demanding or implementing wide ranging measures for the suppression of speech.

As an unhappy Victorian, let me give some examples from my home State. The Andrew’s government introduced laws on religious vilification, supposedly assuring that I could never be vilified for believing what I do. It then introduced certain things on homosexuality, which run counter to my Christian belief. Now, we have certain conversion laws that make it illegal for me to explain my beliefs on certain topics, even if I am asked by someone for such an explanation. Suppression to silence![20]

This oxymoronic state exists precisely because God is denied. If there are no absolutes, then there can only be the arbitrary. If the arbitrary holds sway, then so does rampant individualism and fickle governmental policy – until the two collide. When this is the status quo, anarchy must be the outcome. When anarchy is present, society, however that is to be understood, will only be ordered by forceful, tyrannical suppression. In short, some man or government will play god; they will appoint themselves as the determiner of truth, right and wrong, good and evil – all the while denying these very points.

Before concluding, just a few words on Marcus’ statement that the internet is a great place for exposing lies. Again, I would have to respectfully disagree.

Once again, the presupposition of such a statement seems to be that men are willing to think critically about any given issue. This has not been my experience at all. Most people do not think deeply. As we have noted above, we do have the naïve in our society and these do not always show a propensity toward deeper learning. Moreover, the internet is full of lies and deceit. Take as an example two recent instances. One post was in regard to a speech given by Bill Gates to a class of 6th graders or some such. It may have some good points, but the common consensus is that Bill Gates never gave such a speech. Another recent example is of a quote by Cicero. This quote speaks against the enemy within and points out the dangers of the traitor. It is very apt for our day and makes a sound point. However, research suggests that it came from a fictional novel (A Pillar of Iron) based around Cicero and was written by Taylor Caldwell.

These are just everyday examples of the cut and paste methodology that so many people use today. Scan the Net. See something you like. Cut, paste, post, without ever stopping to see whether it is in fact true. Of course, if Bill Gates or Cicero said it, it must be true! Equally, no one is going to plagiarise and then falsify by adding someone else’s name, just to gain more traction, are they? I mean, the Net is above such things. It is a bastion of truth. Just like Leonard said so sarcastically to Penny, “Right, it’s not like they let anyone have a website!”

As a Christian, I can equally point to many web entries on Christian history and doctrine that do not represent the historic, orthodox position of Christianity.

No, the Net is not a bastion of truth and integrity. Just like every other tool man has created, it will be used according to one’s worldview and the ethics determined thereby. It will serve God or it will oppose God. It will speak truth or it will lie.

One last word. It is worth noting that Free Speech, like many other things, is a perversion of Christian truth. The Reformation sought to correct many errors that had come to the Church and World. Central to the Reformation was the fact that God’s Word is not only truth, but it is absolute authority. Consequently, the Reformation gave us the concept that one man armed with God’s Word could ably stand against the fifty-one percent.

In short, as we see today, the vote of fifty-one percent in our modern democracies does not always work for the benefit of a nation. Fifty-one percent are not always right. The governments elected by the fifty-one percent do commit evil and they do act foolishly. Consequently, the Reformation posited that one man armed with God’s truth could stand against the fifty-one percent. Indeed, such a man is under an obligation to stand for the truth and, therefore, has the right to speak out—not on his own authority, but on God’s, not with words and concepts of his own making, but with God’s. Authority to speak and God honouring content is the essence of speech that is truly free.


The modern infatuation with free speech and the opposition to true censorship only serves to prove two things: 1. The enemy has done an exceptional job with its smoke screen; 2. How the mighty have fallen.

Saying that you are a conservative and then saying in the same breath that you are a free speech absolutist just points up the confusion that reigns in our current day. All roads do not lead to Rome, just as all roads do not lead to freedom, peace, and prosperity. The pathway of absolute free speech is a path that will lead only to destruction. If you want proof, turn on your television, look out your front door, or look at the discussions (please read “rant-fests”) on social media.

Absolute free speech is a pernicious evil and it is time that we were awakened to that fact.

The Lord Almighty warned Man to be vigilant at all levels of society, “lest there shall be among you a root bearing poisonous fruit and wormwood.”[21] This free speech absolutist position is a poisonous root. The carnage caused by the consumption of its deadly fruit is on display for any with a discerning eye.

Lastly, we would do well to remember that, Biblically speaking, speech is rarely free. In fact, errant speech, in particular, is said to come at a great cost – it can cost reputations, it can cost lives, and, yes, it can cost you a positive eternity.


[1] Now, I wish to be clear here. Although I disagree with Marcus, I have not singled him out for attention because he is worse than others or any such thing. It just so happened that, as this article was bouncing around inside my head and the opportunity to begin writing was presented, this video came into my ken. Equally, when extrapolations are made from these statements, it does not mean that Marcus would subscribe, necessarily, to every option.

[2] In fact, when you listen to the free speech absolutists, you would think that they are reading straight from the Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen. In that document, free speech is espoused with very few limitations. Yet, the French Revolution ended in a bloody mess because it was never underpinned by God’s absolutes—but I digress.

[3] Ex 20:7.

[4] Ex 20:16.

[5] Pr 6:12. Literally, with crookedness of mouth. Emphasis added.

[6] Pr 4:24.

[7] Pr 5:3.

[8] Pr 10:32.

[9] Pr 12:22.

[10] Pr 6:16–19. One can legitimately infer that the ‘spreading of strife’ may well employ tongue and speech.

[11] Pr 15:2.

[12] Ec 10:12–14.

[13] Is 32:6–7. Note, here, how slander is used as a tool against the one who speaks truth. Have you seen any instances of this during Covid, for example?

[14] Mt 12:36–37.

[15] Col 3:8. Interestingly, the Greek term behind the word ‘slander’ is the same word from which we derive our word ‘blasphemy’.

[16] Eph 4:29.

[17] Jas 3:1–3:12. Edited.

[18] As an illustration of this point, think of our television ratings system. The Mature rating is at the extreme end. Porn, nudity, gambling, occult, drugs  etc etc are allowable under this label. In short, the Mature are the ones who fill their eyes and minds from the toilet bowl of entertainment. Biblically, the Mature would be the one who knows that this is excrement and would turn himself and his neighbour away from this poison.

[19] So, for example, in Australia that means that society would have to uphold and abide by 20 Million plus opinions and somehow work through all the resulting conflicts. You can imagine what a nightmare that would be! No imagination necessary – You are living it in stereo baby!

[20] The true evil in this legislation is that it was premised upon a lie simply to legitimise governmental suppression. Once more, we are back to the topic of speaking evil.

[21] Deuteronomy 29:18.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

In this last part, it is our intention to look at two concepts and then some texts that show us clearly that the Old Testament and the Old Testament concept of Law were neither unknown nor forsaken by the New Testament writers.

  1. Scripture:

The first concept is that of Scripture itself. As Christians we are familiar with this term. We use it all the time to refer to our complete Bible. However, this understanding can also lead us astray. For the Early Church, their Scriptures, their Bible, if you will, were the writings of the Old Testament.

Thus, when we read statements in the New Testament in regard to Scripture, we must understand that those statements, in the clear majority of cases, refer to the Old Testament. This is important, for the term Scripture occurs over thirty times in the New Testament. It is also important because this term is used by all New Testament writers bar one, Jude.

Consequently, when Paul, writing to Timothy, says that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work[1], he has in mind, primarily, the writings of the Old Testament. Similarly, when Peter states 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], his statement, likewise, must be taken as referring to the Old Testament in the first instance.

  1. It Stands Written:

A second important concept has to do with the phrase, “It stands written”, which is often used by the New Testament authors to introduce the Old Testament Scriptures. This phrase is important, first, because of its frequent usage and, second, because it occurs in the Perfect Tense. As the name implies, the perfect tense points to perfected action. In Greek, the perfect has the connotation of something that is completed in the past, yet has abiding validity in the present. As such, the use of this term in this tense to introduce Scripture makes a potent statement about the nature of the Scriptures being quoted. In other words, this tense suggests to us, very strongly, that the Old Testament Scriptures are still valid and authoritative and that they are not to be easily forsaken, overturned, or discarded.

  1. Texts:

Next, we want to demonstrate just how widely the Old Testament was relied upon by the so-called New Testament writers. Now, please understand, the point here is not simply to multiply texts or Old Testament quotes. It is, rather, to display the importance of the Old Testament text, the range of the texts relied upon, and the speaker’s or writer’s emphasis upon the validity of the Old Testament for founding, making, or completing an argument.

          3.a Jesus:

  1. Have you not read: Beginning with Jesus, our first port of call is to see how Jesus rebuked His opponents for not reading and knowing Scripture, the Old Testament. Four times in Matthew’s Gospel, Jesus replies to questions or challenges with, “Have you not read?” This phrase is very much akin to the “It stands written”, spoken of earlier, in that it establishes the Old Testament as an authoritative source.

Equally, we must see that there are three topics in view when Jesus uses this term – the Sabbath, Sexuality / Marriage, and the Resurrection. Let us look at each briefly:

          Sabbath: Jesus shows that the Law of the Sabbath is by no means contrary to mercy, compassion, or genuine service (to God). To prove this, Jesus brings in two historical events, one concerning David (1 Samuel 21:6) and the other from the practice of the priests via the phrase, “Have you not read in the Law how …?” Jesus caps of this teaching with a further rebuke, “… if you had known” – implying very clearly that His opponents did not know – and then quotes Hosea 6:6, “For I delight in loyalty rather than sacrifice, and in the knowledge of God rather than burnt offerings.”

The point here is that Jesus does not dismiss the Sabbath as no longer relevant. Jesus does not expunge the Law of the Sabbath. Rather, by appealing to the Law and the Prophets, Jesus shows to us the true nature of the Sabbath. The Sabbath is then a sacred and hallowed day in which we must cease from our labours and turn our thoughts and actions unto God, but it is also a day that is pre-eminently about mercy and compassion.[3]

The important point, in regard to our argument, is that Jesus does not simply quote the fourth Commandment and give some instruction. No, Jesus, quotes from history, the Law, and from a prophet to show the validity of the Sabbath and its true meaning. If it is only the Ten Commandments that are valid and authoritative, Jesus must have made a grave error or, the more likely scenario, we have contrived a falsehood when we insist that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law.

          Sexuality / Marriage: Jesus is asked one of those sticky questions by the Pharisees regarding divorce. In answering, Jesus goes first to Genesis 1:27 (5:2), the Cultural Mandate, to establish the fact that Man was crated male and female with genuine, purpose built sexuality and then moves to Genesis 2:24 to show that this sexuality reaches its acme in the covenant bond of marriage. In short, male and female being fruitful, multiplying, and ruling, only occurs legitimately in the permanent bond of marriage.

Again, note that Jesus’ answer is not the quotation of the sixth command, but a restatement of God’s creation order and purpose. In taking this tack, Jesus is upholding the summary of the Law in the Ten Commandments, but He is also showing that God’s Moral Law and God’s Morality can be found in narratives that predate the Law and the Ten Commandments.

This point is essential for our understanding and for pressing home the Crown Rights of Jesus Christ in our daily lives. Take, as one example, the issue of homosexuality, which looms large today. There is much nonsense peddled in Christendom today with the result that many are confused. Our local Anglican Bishop came forward and stated that he could not see that homosexual marriage would be in anyway contradictory to the teachings of Christ. Such a position can only be arrived at through gross and wilful ignorance. Jesus, in the passage before us, upholds God’s creation order. In doing so, Jesus, by good and necessary consequence, upholds the fifth, seventh, and tenth Commandments as well as validating texts like Leviticus 18:22; 20:13; Romans 1:27; 1 Corinthians 6:9; and Revelation 22:15. Jesus 1; Bishop zip!

          Resurrection: In regard to the resurrection, all that needs to be noted are these basic facts: 1. Whist the OT acknowledges eternal life and resurrection, it does not give much information; 2. We would expect that Jesus may have given us clearer information regarding the resurrection; 3. What Jesus did, however, was quote the narrative of Exodus 3:6 to show that God is the God of the living.

Once more, we see that Jesus went back to the Law in order to make an authoritative statement regarding a little known subject. Using the narrative of Exodus, Jesus simply affirmed that the patriarchs were alive. The implication then being that all Abraham’s true children will live. What Jesus gave us was not a new revelation, but an authoritative restatement of what was already known, but not grasped and understood.

Equally, we cannot miss the point that there is authoritative and valid information contained in the Law, occurring outside the Decalogue and on subjects to which the Decalogue does not speak.

2.What is the Law? Most Christians know the story of the Rich Young Ruler, as it has come to be known. Here is a young man who declares that he has kept the Law from his youth. What many people miss, particularly in Matthew’s[4] account, is the very nature of what is to be called “the Law”.

Most Christians generally refer to “the Law” as the Pentateuch, the Torah, or as the first five books. This is acceptable, in one sense. However, as we have seen, many or most Christians, when pushed, would state that it is the Ten Commandments alone that are the real “Law”, the Moral Law, which unaccompanied is binding and valid. With this view in mind, let us see what Jesus’ encounter with this young man reveals.

Jesus is asked concerning life eternal. Jesus’ reply is “keep the commandments.” It is an aside, but it is very interesting that Jesus asserts that keeping God’s law goes hand in hand with eternal life! Anyway, in response to Jesus’ statement, the young man asks, “Which ones?” Jesus then gives this reply: “You shall not commit murder; You shall not commit adultery; You shall not steal; You shall not bear false witness; Honor your father and mother; and You shall love your neighbor as yourself.

Looking at this list of Commandments, and thinking of the Ten Commandments, the Moral Law, do you notice anything odd?

Let’s go through them. Jesus lists six Commandments. They are, in the order Jesus gives them, six, seven, eight, nine, five, and … whoops, what happened? The last Commandment that Jesus gives is actually a partial quote from Leviticus 19:18 and it is this same partial quote that forms the second great commandment, recorded in Matthew 22:39.

Now, it is very possible that Jesus quotes Leviticus 19:18 as a parallel to the tenth Commandment, “Do not covet”, for, indeed, to covet your neighbour’s wife or possession is to show an extreme lack of love to your neighbour, especially if this errant desire is acted upon. However, in regard to our argument, it is imperative that we once more grasp the fact that Jesus gives Moral teaching from the Law, but not from what we so often label the Moral Law. Once grasped, we must acknowledge that equating the Ten Commandments with the Moral Law, as done by the moderns, is in fact a modern aberration. The Reformation Church, with its teaching that the Decalogue is a summary of the Moral law, had a much sounder and more Biblical belief.

          3.b Paul: The Apostle, Paul, has some interesting uses of the Old Testament Law that are instructive. They are so precisely because the moderns would never, by their standards, classify these Laws as applicable, abiding, or moral—indeed they would categorise them as those particular to Israel and of no benefit to modern man—yet Paul picks up these Laws and applies them to his day and in such a way that they must be understood as applicable, abiding, and Moral.

First, we read in 1 Timothy 5:17-18, “Let the elders who rule well be considered worthy of double honor, especially those who work hard at preaching and teaching. For the Scripture says, “You shall not muzzle the ox while he is threshing,” and “The laborer is worthy of his wages.””

Here, we come face to face with two case laws that would be, by most modern Christians, placed in the “judicial law” category, which is supposed to have passed away with Israel and therefore be of no relevance to us. Yet, Paul picks out these two Old Testament case laws, one dealing with a threshing ox (Deuteronomy 25:4) and the other dealing with a labourer’s wages (Leviticus 19:13), and applies them squarely to the issues of the sustentation and honour of the Elder. In making such an application, Paul demonstrates that these Laws were of Moral importance in their original setting and, in applying them to Elders, a continuing office of the Church, he makes these Laws applicable to every situation and for all time.

Next, we must understand, and we do mean must, that these Laws did not take on an authority because Paul, the Apostle, quoted them and somehow filled them with authority and validity. No, Paul quoted these Laws because they were already filled with authority; for they contained the very breath of God. Paul, in quoting the case laws of Leviticus and Deuteronomy was but practicing his own advice that he gave to Timothy, his son in the faith: “All Scripture is God breathed and useful!

Second, in 1 Corinthians 5:1, Paul confronts a real issue of morality with the words: “It is actually reported that there is immorality among you, and immorality of such a kind as does not exist even among the Gentiles, that someone has his father’s wife.”

In looking at this text, it seems a bit pedestrian on the face of things. However, if we focus on the last three words – his father’s wife – we will see that these words bear a striking resemblance to certain Laws contained in the Old Testament. For example, we could look at texts like Leviticus 18:8, “You shall not uncover the nakedness of your father’s wife; it is your father’s nakedness”; Deuteronomy 22: 30, “A man shall not take his father’s wife so that he shall not uncover his father’s skirt”; or Deuteronomy 27:20, “Cursed is he who lies with his father’s wife, because he has uncovered his father’s skirt.”

To make sense of this, let us look more closely at the text. Note that Paul states that there is “immorality” in the midst of the Corinthians. Immorality implies that a sin has been committed. What sin? The Greek word used (porneia) means any unlawful sexual transaction. This term does not specify the sin exactly; only that it is of a sexual nature. To make clear why this fellow is guilty of a sin, Paul then makes reference to the Law. Thus, once more, it is the Law that is the authority; it is the Law that has been transgressed; and because the Law has been transgressed, the man is guilty of a sin, which is classified as immorality.

Please also grasp the fact that Paul did not simply appeal to the fifth Commandment, “Honour father and mother”, but looked passed the summary to actual laws that embodied this principle and showed exactly how to honour one’s parents by elucidating specifics.

          Third, and briefly, we will make reference to Romans 1:32: “although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

Focussing upon the phrase “ordinances of God”, there are two points to be made. The first is that of understanding the term “ordinance”. It is not a term familiar to us in common usage. We might be more familiar with the term through our televisions, for the Americans use terms such a “city ordinance” more commonly. That usage shows to us that the term ordinance has at its root the concept of law. Thus, Paul is not speaking of a vague concept in regard to God, but rather of His law and His righteous decrees.

The second point comes in the form of a question, “To what is Paul referring?” The only possible answer that makes any sense is to say that Paul refers to the sins that he has listed in the immediate context, namely, the preceding verses.

Once more, Paul takes his stand in the Law of God. Man is to be condemned because he has turned from the knowledge of God and wilfully broken His righteous decrees even though Man knew that to do so was to court death.

          3.c Peter: Lastly, let us consider a few words from Peter. In regard to the first quotation, it is to be admitted that we will change tack slightly. The point at this juncture is that the New Testament writers understood the abiding validity and significance of God’s word. Says Peter, 1:1:23-25, “For you have been born again not of seed which is perishable but imperishable, that is, through the living and abiding word of God. For, “All flesh is like grass, And all its glory like the flower of grass. The grass withers, and the flower falls off, but the word of the Lord abides forever.” And this is the word which was preached to you.

Peter’s contrast, so it seems, is between the transient nature of man and the abiding Word of God. Man is but a “flash in the pan” compared to the eternity of God and His word. We are perishable and perishing, but God’s word is imperishable and abiding.

However, when we dig deeper we see that the brilliance of the passage is in its correlation of salvation for God’s covenant people. Peter quotes from Isaiah (40:6f), an Old Testament prophet who spoke to God’s wayward covenant people concerning God’s great day of redemption. Peter, speaking on this very same topic, only from the point of fulfilment, not type, highlights that the abiding Word which brings life is the Gospel. It is the Word proclaimed by Isaiah, preached by Peter. It is the abiding Word that not only brings life, but which then governs and orders life so much so that we must “fervently love one another”.

The second text from Peter, returns us to the point that God’s Morality can be found throughout the Old Testament and not just in the Decalogue. Likewise, this Morality, precisely because it belongs to God, is eternal and binding. Noting that there is to be a moral and righteous relationship between Christians on the basis of our redemption, Peter says (1:3:8-12), “To sum up, let all be harmonious, sympathetic, brotherly, kindhearted, and humble in spirit; not returning evil for evil, or insult for insult, but giving a blessing instead; for you were called for the very purpose that you might inherit a blessing. For, “Let him who means to love life and see good days refrain his tongue from evil and his lips from speaking guile. “And let him turn away from evil and do good; Let him seek peace and pursue it. “For the eyes of the Lord are upon the righteous, and His ears attend to their prayer, but the face of the Lord is against those who do evil.

Can you see Peter’s methodology here? First, Peter makes certain statements in regard to what Christians should be and why. Then, to prove the correctness of his position he gives an extended quote from Psalm 34:12-16. Once more, the Old Testament does not become authoritative because it is used by Peter. Much rather, Peter uses the Old Testament because it is authoritative.

Similarly, we must see that the Psalm, not being part of the Decalogue, is nonetheless considered to be both Moral, valid, and abiding.


When the Biblical evidence is assembled, it shows that Theocracy and Theonomy are not terms to be shunned, much rather, they are to be embraced. Furthermore, the very lack of understanding in regard to these concepts stems from the fact that we are using the World’s wisdom to gain understanding instead of turning unto God’s wisdom.

For example, we are being told by the word that Theocracy is bad and that it equates with tyranny (as if the World does not have a barrow to push!). We are told that a Secular government is right because it alone is neutral and will govern for all citizens. The simple fact is that both of these are lies, blatant lies!

Yes, from the Caesars to Idi Amin there have been those who have believed that they have been given a divine right to rule. In one sense they are right. God appoints all rulers and their place and time in history (Job 12:23; Daniel 2:21), but this act of Sovereignty by God is by no means equivalent to a genuine Theocracy. The true Theocracy is a rule established by God and for God. It rules by God’s law and for His glory. Despots with a “Jesus complex” or who delude themselves are rightly to be called rebels not theocrats. Even in regard to Israel, whilst we use the term Theocracy readily, we must understand its use in a loose manner. If the king, like an Ahab, did not fear Yahweh and seek to fulfil His commands, such a king was rebellious and not theocratic. He was in the truest sense a usurper and a pretender.

So, let us not use cases of abuse and cases which are not Theocracy to deter us from believing in the truth of a genuine Theocracy.

The second lie is that of Neutrality. All governments must be biased. They will of necessity be biased toward their fundamental belief system. Even a Theocracy – the very reason it is denounced – is not neutral but actively biased to God. Thus, when Bill Shorten, as one example, campaigns under a slogan of government for all Australians, he is nothing but a bold faced liar. Mr Shorten peddles the politics of Socialism. Therefore, he will discriminate against one group in favour of another, based on his belief system. For example, he has pledged to introduce same-sex marriage within so many days of taking government. This is not governing for all, as it immediately discriminates against every person who believes homosexuality to be errant.

So let us not as Christians, continue to peddle the Myth of Neutrality and concepts like religious freedom and the right of a Secular government, and so on, for it is this plurality that has led us into the current crisis. By admitting that there are many ways that are right, we have denied the exclusivity of God, His right to rule, and His right to rule by His law. In taking this stand, we Christians have opened the door to pluralism and fostered its uptake. Now the chickens are roosting and we are to pay the piper. How long will we halt between two opinions?

Lastly, let us remember the words of Paul: “First of all, then, I urge that entreaties and prayers, petitions and thanksgivings, be made on behalf of all men, for kings and all who are in authority, in order that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity.[5]

Paul calls God’s people to prayer. Paul calls God’s people to pray for those in authority. This must, of course, include those who form government, no matter what form that government takes. For us, the importance comes when we consider the purpose for which we are to pray – that we may lead a tranquil and quiet life in all godliness and dignity (NIV: holiness; we like “reverence”).

If we take these words seriously, then we cannot just pray a flippant prayer; we cannot just pray for a good government; No, we must pray for a righteous government! It is only righteousness that leads to peace and tranquillity. Godliness cannot be achieved through a Secular government; neither can holiness or reverence.

Therefore, if we are to be true to Paul’s command, we must be praying for a government that fears and honours Jesus Christ and such a government can only be had when the hearts of those men forming government are yielded to Jesus by His Spirit!

For a child will be born to us, a son will be given to us; And the government will rest on His shoulders; And His name will be called Wonderful Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace. There will be no end to the increase of His government or of peace, on the throne of David and over his kingdom, to establish it and to uphold it with justice and righteousness from then on and forevermore.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)


[1] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[2] 2 Peter 1:20-21.

[3] Even the Westminster Divines, who are big on worship and Sabbath acknowledge this point: WCF 21:8 – This Sabbath is then kept holy unto the Lord, when men, after a due preparing of their hearts, and ordering of their common affairs before-hand, do not only observe an holy rest all the day from their own works, words, and thoughts about their worldly employments and recreations, (Exod. 20:8, Exod. 16;23,25–26,29–30, Exod. 31:15–17, Isa. 58:13, Neh. 13:15–19,21–22) but also are taken up, the whole time, in the public and private exercises of His worship, and in the duties of necessity and mercy. (Isa. 63:13, Matt. 12:1–13)

[4] Matthew 19:16-22.

[5] 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

In this third part, we shall look again at these controversial “Theo-” words and continue in our endeavour to show how the modern attitude, which generally despises these terms, is in fact a digression from Biblical truth and historic Christianity.

Our first answer in relation to the extent and application of God’s law began by focusing upon our love for God. If we truly love God with all our being and God rules our hearts and minds, we can only be Theocratic and Theonomic in our outward expression of His manifest love. After all, if God rules our hearts and minds, we are already, as individuals, Theocratic and Theonomic, so it is only logical that the truth that governs the inner man ought to flow out through our words and actions.

This then hints at the first stumbling block – are we loving God so completely that He rules our hearts and minds? The reason that Theocracy and Theonomy are a challenge for many Christians in regard to the public arena has to do with the fact that they are not yet Theocratic and Theonomic in the inner man. The inner man, truly yielded to Christ the King, will live out the Theo- words in all of life. In fact, unless he be an utter hypocrite, it is impossible to do otherwise. Conversely, the inner man, not truly yielded to Christ Jesus the King, will remain committed to and under the rule of the Auto- words.[1]

Another stumbling block seems to be that, for many Christians, we have succumbed to a lie which tells us that law and love are opposed to each other. Most find it odd to have obedience tied to love, fealty tied to surrender. Thus, we have trouble with Jesus’ “If you love Me you will keep My commandments” because we try to rework our definition of obedience to fit with our skewed concept of love. Correspondingly, we have fallen for modern, erroneous notions that like driving wedges between concepts. Thus, obedience is opposed to love; law is opposed to grace; freedom is opposed to requirement, and so forth. This is what the moderns teach, but it is false. God loved us so much that He placed the requirement of the Law on Jesus so that He could show us grace and mercy. If we love Jesus, we will obey Him, just as Jesus loved the Father and obeyed Him. Our freedom from law is found in our obedience to God’s law. God’s law is grace because adherence to it keeps us safe[2] and nurtures us in the life of Christ.

So, please, let us grasp the idea that a profession of love to and for God means that we love Him exclusively, explicitly, and absolutely. To love God after this manner means surrender to His will and standards, which can only mean obedience to His revealed Law. To reject this package is to follow apostate Israel into adultery and idolatry and to contradict Scripture’s clear teaching.[3]

Moving on, a second answer comes from John. The apostle states that “sin is lawlessness.”[4] What law, then, are we “less” in order to be considered a sinner? Is it Man’s law or God’s law? The Westminster Divines asked and answered this question thusly: “What is sin? Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, the law of God. (1 John 3:4)” So, to be lawless is to sin and to sin is to be “less” the law of God.

If you are in doubt, consider the next verses from John: “And you know that He appeared in order to take away sins; and in Him there is no sin. No one who abides in Him sins; no one who sins has seen Him or knows Him.” Says John, ‘God appeared to take away sin; God does not sin; the one who loves God does not sin; the sinning one does not know God.’ Confused? No need to be. It is very simple. Sin is Lawlessness. Sin is the lack of conformity unto or the transgression of the Law of God. If we are God’s, we are Lawful and sinless; if we are not God’s we will be Lawless and sinful.

Therefore, Biblically and historically, the Church, in the case before us the Early and Reformation Churches, has recognised that it is God’s law alone that provides the standards by which all things are to be measured. The transgression of God’s law brings sin and is sin, which equally equates to the fact that God’s law must be and is the only standard of righteousness.

Consequently, no individual, no family, no part of the Church, and no State can claim to be honouring God if they are not living under God’s King and honouring God’s law.

A third answer would be in regard to the Ten Commandments. Most Christians, erroneously, state that the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God, but importantly, most admit that this Moral Law is still binding upon all men.

The question that springs to mind is, “If the Ten Commandments are the Moral Law of God and are still binding, why do we pick, choose, and discriminate between these Ten?”

What do we mean when we ask this? Well, let’s do a little survey. Below is an abbreviated list of the Ten Commandments. Please have a quick look and ask yourself, “Which of these are still valid for today?” Place a tick beside those you believe are valid.

  1. No Other God’s;
  2. No idols; (No false worship)
  3. Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain;
  4. Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy;
  5. Hour your father and mother;
  6. No murder;
  7. No adultery;
  8. No thievery;
  9. No false witness;
  10. No coveting.

If we are consistent with the belief professed that these Ten Laws are equal to God’s Moral Law and that they are, consequently, still binding upon all men, then everyone should have ten ticks. Do you have ten ticks? If not, why not?

Now, we will make it tougher. All of these Ten Laws had penalties applied to them. How many of these Laws do you believe are still valid and abiding along with the original punishments? How many ticks do you now have? Less than the first time? If so, why?

The point of the exercise is to demonstrate how we will give hearty approval to ideas and concepts, but often, when those concepts are to be applied, we become shaky and our resolve evaporates.

For most Christians, there will be an affirmation that God’s Moral law is still binding. Christians will tell you that murder, thievery, and adultery are wrong. Some would even agree that the penalties given in the Law should still apply. Yet, here, we are already seeing the gap of opinion widen. For example, most Christians would agree that capital punishment for murder is right, but few would agree that capital punishment for adultery is right. How then do we justify this difference?

Most Christians agree that God alone must be worshipped and that idolatry is wrong. Yet, how many Christians believe that mosques and Buddhist temples should be banned in Australia because God is God and false worship is incorrect? Not many, judging from conversations and experience. Why this inconsistency?

The fourth Commandment establishes the Sabbath as a day to be hallowed, but to this most Christians would say, “Sabbath! What Sabbath?” Even though this is the Fourth of the Ten, Christians question it readily and they do so with no apparent reason. Why is this one Commandment not relevant any longer?

Again, these questions and points are not irrelevant. Experience has taught us that many Christians will give a hearty, “Yes! God is King. He must be honoured and obeyed!” but when it comes to practice, they will not oppose the mosque because this is Secular Australia. We will be told that we must accept homosexuality because God has either changed His mind on the subject or that we are no longer in Israel. These answers then entitle us to the privilege of once more listening to the hackneyed “love and tolerance” speech of the moderns.

Yet, we must ask, “How do we justify this type of double standard?” If God is God and He is jealous for the integral holiness of His Character – reflected in and by His law – how do we dismiss, change, or denigrate the first or any of the Commandments? Equally, for those enslaved to the “New Testament Christian” concept, we ask, “Where in the New Testament are we taught that God has abandoned His holiness, that God no longer cares about morality, that God has whittled the Ten Commandments to Four Plausible Proposals? The answer is, “Nowhere!”

It seems that we arrive at these points of inconsistency precisely because most Christians and most of Christendom are not committed to the Biblical concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy. Consequently, when we seek to live our lives we operate on principles that make us inclusive, implicit, relative or conditional, and plural, rather than being exclusive, explicit, absolute, and singular.

Turning again to the Church of the Reformation, we will find two snippets of wisdom that are very helpful and which will assist us to see that the principles of the moderns are new. The first is from the Westminster Shorter Catechism and asks, “Where is the moral law summarily comprehended? The moral law is summarily comprehended in the ten commandments. (Deut. 10:4, Matt. 19:17)”[5]

This first help comes in the word “summarily”. The Reformation Church did not believe that the Moral law was the Ten Commandments; it believed that the Ten Commandments were a summary of the Moral law.

Thus, the Commandment on adultery, for example, becomes case laws that proscribe fornication, bestiality, and homosexuality whilst conversely promoting and upholding marriage, family, and sexual purity. The Commandment on thievery becomes a command not to shift a boundary stone or to offer a bribe in order to pervert justice.

When understood in this manner, we see that the case laws are not irrelevant abstractions for the Old Testament people, which had no continuity to the Moral law, but were, rather, an application of God’s holy character to life and were themselves Moral Laws.[6]

The second help comes from the Westminster Larger Catechism and asks, “Of what use is the moral law to all men? The moral law is of use to all men, to inform them of the holy nature and the will of God, (Lev. 11:44–45, Lev. 20:7–8, Rom. 7:12) and of their duty, binding them to walk accordingly; (Micah 6:8, James 2:10–11) to convince them of their disability to keep it, and of the sinful pollution of their nature, hearts, and lives: (Ps. 19:11–12, Rom. 3:20, Rom. 7:7) to humble them in the sense of their sin and misery, (Rom. 3:9,23) and thereby help them to a clearer sight of the need they have of Christ, (Gal. 3:21–22) and of the perfection of his obedience. (Rom. 10:4)”[7]

The Reformation Church is most helpful in clarifying this point. As noted above, we today want to drive wedges between concepts. Consequently, we will not preach Law, contrary to Biblical commands, because we want Man to experience God’s love. Because we will not preach Law, we must then try and invent ways to evangelise. When these manmade inventions fail, we simply move on to ‘Version 2.0’ rather than repent and seek God’s wisdom. However, in contradistinction to the modern concept, the Church in former ages realised the validity of the Law as a God appointed instrument of righteousness by which men will see Jesus the Christ and His perfection as their only hope.

Therefore, if we want to see God in Christ glorified, we must understand the importance, centrality, and abiding validity of God’s Moral Law, which is summarised in the Ten Commandments. If we would see a holy people and a holy nation that willingly bow before Jesus in heartfelt gratitude at the wonder of His salvation, then the one firm Biblical directive we have is, “Preach the Law!” (Galatians 3:24.)

God almighty is not divided; neither is His word; neither are the Persons of the Trinity; neither are His revelations. As God is One, so is all that He has given to Man for wisdom and instruction. The Old Testament does not teach one way to God and the New another. Jesus does not appear on the pages of the New Testament other than as the Messiah who was foreshadowed and promised in the pages of the Old. Jesus does not arrive with a different Law or set of principles, indeed Jesus could not, because He came to make known the Father; Jesus came as the exact representation of the invisible God![8]

Hence, any view that denounces Theocracy and Theonomy must be dismissed as attacks upon God’s Kingship and Rule over His creation through Jesus Christ, His Son, and, by extension, through His saved people. The Church in history has understood these points and has given us sound wisdom and we will ignore it to our peril.

God is King! He does rule and He must rule. We, the Church, are redeemed that we might “reign with Christ”[9] and our apprenticeship is now. If we love God, we will honour and obey God’s King, Jesus Christ, by living according to all that God in Christ has commanded.

Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are fundamental concepts that play an essential role in imbuing us with the essence of our identity as sons and daughters of the Most High God. We seem to forget that we were created and ordained as God’s viceregents, those given rule over God’s creation for God’s glory – fruitful, multiply, subdue, rule! We forget that our redemption is a restoration and re-empowerment to achieve this task. We forget that we are a people redeemed and called to worship (to declare the worth of God)—Worthy art Thou, our Lord and our God, to receive glory and honor and power; for Thou didst create all things, and because of Thy will they existed, and were created! (Revelation 4:11); called to display His wonder upon the earth by reflecting His Kingship; called to live in obedience as a witness to Man that God is rightly to be obeyed for He alone is the true Sovereign; called that the display of God’s righteousness in us will convict men of their sin and show the exceeding wonder and perfection of Jesus, God’s Saviour and King.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)


[1] It would seem that too many have fallen for the heretical, “Take Jesus as your Saviour, but the lordship of Christ is an optional extra” line. Yet, the truth is that Scripture only knows a Saviour that can save because He is first and foremost God the King.

[2] My father spent a few years in the police force. He recounts a conversation with one old sergeant in which this experienced man said, “If you ever find someone at the bottom of the river, they will have fiddled with the till or with someone’s wife.” Thus, according to his observations, if we ‘do not steal’ and ‘do not commit adultery’, we have less probability of swimming with the fishes in an unhealthy manner.

[3] John 14:15 — If you love Me, you will keep My commandments; John 15:10 — If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father’s commandments, and abide in His love; John 14:21 — He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me; and he who loves Me shall be loved by My Father, and I will love him, and will disclose Myself to him; John 14:23 — If anyone loves Me, he will keep My word; and My Father will love him, and We will come to him, and make Our abode with him; 1 John 5:3 — For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome; 2 John 6 — And this is love, that we walk according to His commandments. This is the commandment, just as you have heard from the beginning, that you should walk in it. Please note the consistency of the theme: to love God is to obey or keep his commandments.

[4] 1 John 3:4.

[5] Question and answer 41.

[6] I do not wish to labour his point, but would beg your indulgence for a practical demonstration of this point. The Westminster Larger Catechism, Q&A 104, reads: “What are the duties required in the first commandment? The duties required in the first commandment are, the knowing and acknowledging of God to be the only true God, and our God; (1 Chron. 28:9, Deut. 26:7, Isa. 43:10, Jer. 14:22) and to worship and glorify him accordingly, (Ps. 95:6–7, Matt. 4:10, Ps. 29:2) by thinking, (Mal. 3:16) mediating, (Ps. 63:6) remembering, (Eccl. 12:1) highly esteeming, (Ps. 71:19) honouring, (Mal. 1:6) adoring, (Isa. 45:23) choosing, (Josh. 24:15,22) loving, (Deut. 6:5) desiring, (Ps. 73:25) fearing of him; (Isa. 8:13) believing him; (Exod. 14:31) trusting (Isa. 26:4) hoping, (Ps. 130:7) delighting, (Ps. 37:4) rejoicing in him; (Ps. 32:11) being zealous for him; (Rom. 12:11, Num. 25:11) calling upon him, giving all praise and thanks, (Phil. 4:6) and yielding all obedience and submission to him with the whole man; (Jer. 7:23, James 4:7) being careful in all things to please him, (1 John 3:22) and sorrowful when in any thing he is offended; (Jer. 31:18, Ps. 119:136) and walking humbly with him. (Micah 6:8)” Here the Divines are speaking of Man’s duty to God as it is outlined in the first Commandment. We would simply like to draw your attention to the list of texts to which they refer in order to prove their statements. The Moral Law, summarily comprehended in the Decalogue, is proved to be true for the whole of Scripture.

[7] Question and answer 95.

[8] See: Colossians 1:15 and Hebrews 1:1-2.

[9] See: Revelation 3:21; Revelation 20:6; 2 Timothy 2:12.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 2)

In part one of this article, we looked at three reasons as to why the terms Theocracy and Theonomy had created a stir. We did not, by any means, plumb the depths of the controversy, but hope that we presented enough information to help people think clearly.

In this second part, it is our desire to show a little more clearly that the modern rancour exhibited toward the concepts of Theocracy and Theonomy, and those who hold such beliefs, is both new and a departure from historic Christianity, especially historic Reformed Christianity.[1]

Christianity is not only a religion, it is a worldview. Our theology, based in God’s revelation, forms the basis of what we think and why we think it. A cogent paradigm may be that of a pilot flying high in the clouds. He has no sight to guide him. His senses are unreliable and, once he is subject to “spatial disorientation”, his senses can actually betray him. In such a situation his only hope is to rely upon his instruments. In the same way, Man, this side of the fall, cannot trust his sight or his instincts and, if he relies upon these, he will find himself betrayed.[2] His only hope is to be guided by the instrumentation of God – God’s word, the Bible.

The point is that God is a moral Being. Post-fall, Man is an immoral being. Conflict! Will Man rely on his wonky sight and unreliable senses or will he turn to the instrument panel supplied?

When Man fell, through rebellion and attempts to claim God’s throne, he was estranged from God and cast from His presence. However, Man never ceased from his desire to be God and to rule by his own law. Thus, throughout history we have witnessed a constant warfare between God’s order and that of fallen Man; a warfare by which Man seeks to supplant God. Consider recent history: Lenin, Stalin, Hitler, Pol Pot, Obama, and Turnbull, just to name a few, are all examples of men who sought or are seeking to reengineer society after their own design. They do not look to God —though some may pretend—and the standard for society is that of their own making with the end goal being their own popularity and a name in the history books.

By contrast, Scripture categorically declares that God alone is the sovereign ruler and the rightful King. God the Father has, through Christ Jesus the Son, re-captured and extended His rule over all of His creation. Jesus has been appointed as God’s King in order to rule and subdue God’s enemies.[3]

So the question at the heart of these controversial “Theo-” words is: Who has the right to rule and by what standard or law does that rule take place? The second question, which is also very important, is; “If we say that God must rule by His law, are we going to live this declaration to the full?”

These are not random questions. They cut to the very heart of the matter. When Elijah stood before apostate Israel and said, “How long will you halt between two opinions, if Yahweh is God serve Him; if Baal, serve him?[4] Elijah was not just shooting the breeze or listening to his own voice. No, he was making a declaration that you cannot serve two masters; you cannot live by two contrary philosophies; you cannot hold to two different religions; you may not have two Gods. Elijah threw out a concrete challenge to the people asking them pointed questions in regard to their faithfulness to Yahweh, the One God, Who alone had a rightful claim to their obedience. In essence, to use our terminology, Elijah demanded singularity and not plurality. Although Elijah gave the apostate people the option of serving Baal alone, the significant point was that it is impossible to serve two Gods as absolute, especially when their laws and standards were radically different.[5]

Indeed, the subsequent showdown between the prophet of Yahweh and the prophets of Baal was about the question, “Who has the sole right to rule?” In this encounter, we would do well to think of some ancient battles in which, to save lives, opposing armies would put up a single soldier to fight on their behalf with a winner takes all stake. A clear Biblical example is found in David opposing Goliath. Elijah stood alone for Yahweh and he triumphed.

Important to this narrative is the people’s response. When Yahweh’s prophet emerged victorious, the people gave up their silence, their initial response to Elijah’s question (v 21), and cried out, “The Lord, He is God; the Lord, He is God![6] With these words the people ceased to be silent and stationary. Finding both their voices and their feet, they acted in accord with the prophet’s call to seize the enemy. The opposing army was vanquished.

This showdown on Mount Carmel is just one of many in the Bible that drive home the fact that this world must be ruled Theocratically and Theonomically. This showdown reflects God’s jealousy for His own right to rule and His vehement opposition to usurpers. This showdown is a true reflection of the words found in Isaiah 42:8 – “I am the Lord, that is My name; I will not give My glory to another, Nor My praise to graven images.

Of course, sadly, some will once again raise the issue of these encounters being those of the Old Testament. Once more there will be a tacit denial of the unity of Scripture and of its authority. This being the case, let us simply give three New Testament texts that show the unity of this theme throughout Scripture:

  1. And Jesus came up and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. “Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.[7]
  2. from Jesus Christ, the faithful witness, the first-born of the dead, and the ruler of the kings of the earth.[8]
  3. And the seventh angel sounded; and there arose loud voices in heaven, saying, “The kingdom of the world has become the kingdom of our Lord, and of His Christ; and He will reign forever and ever.[9]

We will say nothing more in commentary than each of these texts is Theocratic and Theonomic. Each text shows one or both of these aspects. Together all show that God in Christ is the ruling King and that the nations must obey His commands and laws.

Therefore, when it comes to answering our question posed above, many Christians will answer the first part by saying that we should obey God and His law. Equally, many Christians, those who stopped reading at the first mention of Theocracy, find the Theo-words more than troublesome. However, the real controversy is arrived at when we ask the second question in regard to the extent and application of God’s rule by God’s law.

          Theocracy: The First Part of the Question.

Let continue our argument with a concrete example. Paul Miller has written a book, Into the Arena, subtitled, Why Christians should be involved in Politics. On the back cover there is one little sentence that gives the game away. That sentence reads: Just how should God’s law relate to a secular society? Puzzled? Seems like a good sentence. Christians are being urged to go into politics in order to make a positive contribution. So what is the problem? Well, it is plurality. Notice that the fundamental presupposition is that a Secular State has both a right to exist and a right to make law. Note that the Christian is the one left to figure out how God’s law should fit into the Secular State, rather than the State being called upon to submit to and obey God. It may be overstating the case, but there is at least a hint of the fact that Christians are the transgressors seeking to force themselves into an arena in which they have no business when, in fact, the truth is the exact opposite. Thus, it will come as no surprise that in this book Paul Miller denounces both Theocracy and Theonomy. He rejects singularity for plurality.

The plurality, at this point, is seen in multiple streams of government and law. God is King. He has a law, and people should live by that law. Yet, the Secular State has a legitimate claim to a Secular rule and a right to institute its own law. So how do we resolve this tension? Many Christians have resolved this tension erroneously by positing that Christ rules the Church and that the Secular State is welcome to the political sphere, but this is not a resolution, it is capitulation and compromise. Nor is the answer to be found in Miller’s answer, which sees the Church as an Oliver asking, “Please Sir, can we play too?”

The true resolution, Biblically speaking, is found in Romans chapter thirteen. There we read a very simple statement, but one which is loaded with import: “For there is no authority except from God, and those which exist are established by God.[10] Put simply, God alone rules and every other institution that has rightly been given governance must rule as an extension of God and, therefore, by His standard—His law! Consequently, you must now take out your red pen and strike down the line in the above paragraph that states that the Secular State has a right to its own rule and law, for that statement is a lie. If a Secular State exists, it must be absolutely inconsistent with its own philosophies. It must rule according to the Word and Law of the One true God or be considered a usurper and suffer the consequences: “Therefore he who resists authority has opposed the ordinance of God; and they who have opposed will receive condemnation upon themselves.”[11]

Therefore, it is of absolute importance that we Christians cease to have a divided view of God’s Theocratic rule. We cannot say that ‘God is the absolute King!’ and then follow that statement with a litany of quid pro quos and caveats a mile lone. We cannot say that God was absolute King in the Old Testament. Does He no longer rule? We cannot say that God is absolute King, but only over the Church. What then of the Great Commission or the other texts listed above? We cannot say that God’s rule is absolute, but only in heaven. Do we not pray, “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven?” Resultantly, we cannot give any credence at all to modern political schemes that state that God is not welcome because we are a Secular State or a Secular Society. Such statements are mere rebellion dressed in the language of deception.

If, then, we accept this incontrovertible teaching from Scripture in regard to Theocracy, we are left with the main controversy concerning the nature of God’s law and the extent to which it should be applied.

          Theonomy: The Second Part of the Question.

The simplest answer, surely, is to be found in the words of Jesus when He answers the question, “Which is the great commandment?” with: “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. “The second is like it, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ “On these two commandments depend the whole Law and the Prophets.[12]

When people read this answer, their focus is usually upon love. However, very few ever stop to ask concerning the true nature of love. If we take Jesus’ words and parable in explanation of “love for neighbour” as a paradigm, we see that such a love was sacrificial, selfless, and always had the other party’s best interest at heart. Armed with this basic definition, the question to be asked is “How do we express our love to God?” Seriously, we want you to think hard and give an answer. You see, as a Christian we have heard a lot throughout the years of God’s love for us, but ne’er much on our love for God. Do we love God by giving Him all our heart, soul, and mind? Do we show due love to God by surrendering to Him the seat of our being, giving to Him our eternity for His glory, and by thinking His thoughts after Him so that we will, in every instance, prove and obey the perfect will of God?

Brethren, this is serious stuff and it cuts to the heart of the matter under consideration. How do we say that we love God in all His Being and ways, and then give allegiance and obedience to another? How do we claim Solus Christus and Sola Scriptura, then bow to laws made by Man that run contrary to God’s revealed will and which seek to unseat God’s anointed King?[13] How do we, either logically or in love, say that Jesus is God’s King and then ignore Jesus and His word, choosing instead to accept and obey the statutes of Men – whether as the individual, the family, the Church, or the State?

How is it that we, as God’s blood bought people, could or would equate love with anything other than obedience to God’s law? Did not Jesus say, “If you love me, you will keep my commandments?” Is it not then very much requisite that we see that love for God and obedience to His commandments are but two sides to one coin? Is it not right that these two expressions be understood as stating the same thing? It would seem so; especially when Jesus “love” answers are said to by that on which the Law and the Prophets hang![14]

Conversely, is not a betrayal of our professed love akin to idolatry and adultery – two things proscribed in God’s law? Did not God accuse Israel of these very crimes because they honoured God with their lips and not their hearts?

What then makes the  Christian any different? How can we mimic Israel by failing to love and obey God explicitly and exclusively and then claim that we are not guilty of idolatry and adultery just as they were? Why would God, having revealed to us the fullness and completeness of His Son, Jesus Christ, expect less of us than of those who dwelt in type and shadow?

Elijah still speaks; he still calls to the Church today – “How long will you halt between two opinions?” – and his call is to love God explicitly, exclusively, and absolutely! If we love God with all our heart, mind, body, soul, and strength, then in our attitudes and actions we must and can only be Theocratic and Theonomic. It is that simple. Any other standard is to introduce an Auto- word and it is to betray our Love and become adulteresses and idolaters.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)


[1] It is very important that the reader understand this point. Theocracy and Theonomy are based upon a Reformed world and life view that is derived from Scripture using a consistently Reformed hermeneutic. Therefore, other brothers, not sharing theses presuppositions are not likely to agree. This point is made especially for the sake of those who may have read negative critiques or heard outlandish claims – like Theonomists do not believe in personal salvation or that they want to rebuild the temple and start animal sacrifices again – for it is important that you understand from what perspective those critiques or claims were made. The other important factor to understand is that in the mid-seventeenth century, there was great unity amongst Christians in general on these points.

[2] Proverbs 16:25.

[3] 1 Corinthians 15:25.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21.

[5] As a simple example, how do you have sexual intercourse with a temple prostitute in service on one god, whilst at the same time honouring and serving the true God who has proscribed such behaviour with death?

[6] 1 Kings 18:39.

[7] Matthew 28:18-20.

[8] Revelation 1:5.

[9] Revelation 11:5.

[10] Romans 13:1b. Of course, this statement is a simple condensation of the much fuller expression given in Psalm 2!

[11] Romans 13:2.

[12] Matthew 22:37-40.

[13] Psalm 2 clearly shows that Jesus, Messiah and Son of God, is the anointed King. If you are in any doubt, look up the cross-references and you will see this Psalm applied to Jesus.

[14] Which again is a learning curve for most, is it not? Sadly the Church, for too long, has been taught that the Law is negative, restrictive, merciless, and without love; yet Jesus, the Son of God, says that the Law and the Prophets – the whole Old Testament revelation, hang on these two great commands of love.

Controversial “Theo-” Words

Over the last decades there have been two “Theo-” words that have been causing controversy, consternation, and concern. This controversy is a sad reflection upon the Church at large and its continual drift away from God’s revealed standards.

As part of this drift, it has, with much regret, become de rigueur for the Church to accept the World’s ways and principles as Standard Operating Procedures. By this is meant that, all too often, people and ideas are maligned from the standpoint of ignorance or semi-ignorance when they seek to do nothing but introduce or re-introduce a Biblical concept that has been removed from view. The reasons for this removal are many and varied, but it usually boils down to sin, rebellion, compromise, and the idea that modern man has a bit more of a clue than God – even if it is not expressed this boldly.

The “Theo-” words we are about to consider are two such points of contention; not because they are unBiblical, but because they cut across the modern, selfish, individual standards that have become so popular with the modern Christian.

The two words or terms are Theocracy and Theonomy.

If you are still reading and have not fainted, let us explain these words in their simplest forms. These words are made by joining the Greek word for God (Theos) to the Greek words for Might / Power – and by extension Rule – (Kratos) and Law (Nomos). Thus, when we speak of Theocracy and Theonomy, we are simply speaking of God’s Rule and God’s Law or we might say God’s rule by God’s Law.

When viewed from this standpoint, it is very hard to see what all the fuss is about and why these terms create such controversy, particularly amongst Christians; but more on that later.

From my youth, I have heard many statements about God being the King of the world or many affirmations that “Jesus is King!” Preachers have preached on the text, “King of kings and Lord of lords”. We have heard sermons from prophecy that state that the Messiah will be a king on David’s throne and that He will rule the nations. This prophecy is fulfilled and it is said of Jesus, “Blessed is the King who comes in the name of the Lord (Luke 19:38). I remember many preachers praying and asking God for the help to “obey God’s law”.

Even in our singing we have historically affirmed these truths. Do we not sing, “He’s got the whole world in His hands” or “The Lord is King! Lift up your voice, O earth and all you heavens, rejoice; from world to world the song shall ring: “The Lord omnipotent is King!” A glance at one hymn book sitting on my shelf reveals two consecutive hymns that start with the line, “The Lord God reigns …!” Do we not also sing of the “blessed man” whose sole delight is the “Law of God” on which he joys to “meditate day and night”? Let’s add a twist. One of Amy Grant’s big hits contained the words, “Thy word is a lamp unto my feet and a light unto my path”, which, of course, were not her own words, they were taken from Psalm 119 – a Psalm that spends 176 verses extolling God’s Law, commandments, and statutes.

So what is all the fuss about? Well, it seems that there a many points of contention to be explored. However, we will focus on three that form the core.

          Hearers not doers: First, this whole controversy highlights the fact that, amongst Christians, there seems to be a widening gap between profession and action. In other words, what we hear and sing on Sunday does not translate into practice during the week. We talk of God’s law as the rule for life; we sing of the merits and wonder of God’s law; we offer prayers that ask for Divine help in obeying God’s law.  Nonetheless, in practice, we do not seem at all interested in living by and applying God’s law to our lives, family, and culture. It is rare to find those who are truly interested in reading, studying, and preaching God’s law so that it is understood in order that it may be obeyed and consistently applied.

The truth of this can be attested with an empirical examination of Church life. Take Bible studies as the first example. How many Bible studies happen and how many actually study the Bible? The truth is that “Bible study” is now a code word for an ecclesiastical “get-together”. More often than not, a book or a book about the Bible is studied and not the Bible itself. Furthermore, as it has become unacceptable to have an authoritative and defined answer, as though truth exists, these studies are often little more than “opinion fests” or an out pouring of subjective feelings wherein the answers begin with, “I feel …!”

Another test, which highlights the current failing, can be viewed in the general Biblical illiteracy that abounds. Take a setting in Church life, any setting, and ask yourself, “When was the last time you heard someone cry out, ‘To the law and to the testimony’?”[1] In short, how many discussions and / or debates have ended up with an open Bible and the Word being the master that was invited to settle the debate?

          One Way: Second, these two Theo- words force us to singularity rather than plurality in terms of belief and practice. Sounds complicated, but it is not really. The World likes plurality. This is witnessed in thought and practice, for example, in a saying like, “All roads lead to Rome!” and a religion like Baha’i. It is witnessed in Eastern religions where the individual discovers truth for themselves – One thousand individuals equal one thousand unassailable truths.[2]

By contrast, God, as revealed in Scripture, is concerned with singularity. Thus, God alone is rightly ascribed as the determiner of truth (singularity).[3] We see that there is a wide and narrow path (plurality), but each leads to a different destination (singularity) and a person can be on but one path (singularity). Jesus alone is “the way” (singularity) and none can come to the Father but by Him. We are told that “there is salvation in no one else (singularity); for there is no other name (singularity) under heaven that has been given among men, by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).”

          Warfare: Third, these unpopular Theo- words remind us of the reality and truth of the warfare that we, as God’ people, are involved in on a daily basis. This warfare is in our blood. It is woven into our existence, and, for now, it most certainly is the essence of our calling. Yet, most Christians find this concept repugnant; they seek to find peace in and with the World; and they lament the need to be constantly on guard and to fight.

Christians generally resent this basic fact because it means that, to live the principle of warfare fully, this world must be apprehended as a battleground and not a beach resort. It means army life – bad food, barracks, one-size-fits-all boots, sharpening of swords, polishing of armour, and early morning wake up calls – just so you can march, bleed, and die!

Okay, you may be a little confused, so let’s try and pull this together.

Man was created to obey God and to live by His law. Hence, Man was created to be both Theocratic and Theonomic – no “buts!” about it. Man was made to live under God’s rule and by God’s law; so we say again, Man was made to be Theocratic and Theonomic!

When sin entered the world through Man’s rebellion against God’s righteous rule and rightful sovereignty, Yahweh declared war on Satan and his seed saying, “I will put enmity between you and the woman, and between your seed and her seed.”

Understood properly, this means that there are now two lines of Man upon the earth – those who live under God’s rule and by His law and those who endeavour to escape from it. It means that the inclination of Man’s heart is only evil all the time (Genesis 6:5). It means that even redeemed Man must work hard at overcoming the inclinations of evil and rebellion so that he may serve God as He was created, and re-created in Christ Jesus, to do.[4]

Therefore, it means that the life and calling of redeemed Man in this divided world has become harder. However, we must understand that the intrinsic nature of our life and calling in this divided world has not changed. God still requires Man to live the Theocratic and Theonomic life, but the actuality and realisation of this goal now falls to redeemed Man as he alone is equipped with Christ’s Spirit and, therefore, the Power to realise the goal.[5]

That Man’s goal and purpose has not been changed by the fall is clearly seen in the judgements that God decreed in the wake of the fall. Man’s basic call remained intact even though frustrated by sin and God’s judgement. Woman, given to Man so that they could be fruitful and multiply, now has pain in childbearing and pregnancy. Man, placed to cultivate and keep the earth, will now reap by the sweat of his brow.  He will be frustrated by thorns and thistles. Note, please, that the intrinsic nature and function of Man remains – Woman still bears; she is still fruitful; Man labours; he is still required to use and keep the earth – but now these tasks are frustrated.

In regard to our Theo- words, it means that Man is still required to be Theocratic and Theonomic. The only difference is that fallen Man has no desire to comply and redeemed Man finds it much harder to attain this end. Redeemed Man must now accomplish his mandate from God, not in an environment of peace and harmony, but in the environment of warfare. We must fight sin, the world, and Satan. In other words, we have opposition from within and without, and all of this is fuelled by “the prince of the power of the air.”

The reality of this warfare strikes home when Man seeks to supplant the Theo- words with some Auto- words that he finds much more palatable.[6] Man sinned against God by trying to ascend to God’s throne and Man is still afflicted with this desire today. Rather than Theocracy, sinful Man prefers Autocracy. Rather than Theonomy, sinful Man prefers Autonomy. Sinful Man still recognises, generally speaking, the need for rule and law, but, to spite God, sinful Man wants it to be his own rule by his own law – and the long war against God continues! This then places Redeemed Man in the midst of a war—the war proclaimed by our God, the war to which we are called, and the war in which we must engage, if we are to be a faithful servants of Jesus Christ.

This then brings us back to the concept of singularity and plurality. Jesus told us that no man can have two masters.[7] Plurality is out. We cannot be of the World and of Heaven. We cannot love God and obey the Devil. We cannot be autocratic and Theocratic; we cannot be autonomous and Theonomic. It is impossible to have a foot in both camps. James (4:4) puts it bluntly but truthfully when he says: “You adulteresses, do you not know that friendship with the world is hostility toward God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God.

In short, there are not multiple roads to heaven. There are not multiple Saviours. There are not multiple ways to please God. There are not multiple ways to run a country, a household, or a business. There are not multiple ways to raise children, construct families, or define families. There are not multiple ways to live acceptably before God. Man must live by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God.[8] Full stop!

Consequently, it seems that the controversy caused by our Theo- words stems from the fact that, in our age of radical individualism and the idol of ‘personal choice’, too many Christians have imbibed the “snake oil” being sold by the World. They have come to love their Auto- words and resent the fact that they are being forced to make both a choice and an admission; a choice for God’s singularity and an admission that they have sinned by living the World’s plurality.

Some may as yet remain unconvinced. If so, simply think of the progress of salvation history. Yahweh brought Israel out of Egypt. God redeemed Israel by promise and having brought them out, Yahweh gave them His law – not as a means of Justification, strictly speaking, but as a means of sanctification (so that God’s people could live the holy life that is pleasing to God). To this some will say, “Ah, Yes; but that is the Old Testament.[9]

To this, we reply, “Ah, yes; but the New Testament says the same thing!” Colossians 1:13 states: “For He delivered us from the domain of darkness, and transferred us to the kingdom of His beloved Son.” Note please that we are not delivered from the domain of darkness to Autocracy and Autonomy – self rule and self law – but to the kingdom of His Son! We are transferred into a Kingdom in which there is a King. This King has a Law by which He governs His Kingdom. This King is the Son of God. Thus, the Rule and Law of this Kingdom must be Theocratic and Theonomic. Equally, the citizens of this Kingdom must live the King’s rule and law or be considered as traitors. Likewise, it is the task of God’s people to extend this rule over all the earth.

Our redemption is to obedience, not inventiveness. We were redeemed that we should obey God’s word. James makes a strong a valid statement when he says, “But one who looks intently at the perfect law, the law of liberty, and abides by it, not having become a forgetful hearer but an effectual doer, this man shall be blessed in what he does.[10] In other words, God does not call us to form a committee so that we can assemble all the latest and greatest ideas and work out how best to serve Him. No! God reveals Himself, says, “Look at Me and know My law!” and then expects us to implement those standards. This is where we find blessing – in hearing and doing! There is no future in a lot of head nodding on Sunday followed by apathy and neglect on Monday.[11]

Similarly, in understanding hearing doing, we better understand that we are servants obliged to follow the instructions given to us by our Master, our King.

Therefore, Theocracy and Theonomy are not ideas and concepts to be feared or shunned. No, they are to be embraced. God’s Rule by God’s Law over all of creation is the restoration that Jesus Christ has purchased with His precious blood. To say or state otherwise is to contradict God and the complete revelation of salvation history.

When we as God’ people recover the age old truth that this world is to operate under God’s rule and by God’s law, we will once again see the return of godly, peaceful, and Christ honouring societies. When we return to a true belief in Theocracy and Theonomy we will, for the first time in centuries, return to living and implementing the Great Commission.

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)


[1] Isaiah 8:20.

[2] It is equally seen today in the misguided attempts to show that Judaism, Islam, and Christianity are really one religion or that they are so much alike that they should be able to co-exist.

[3] Isaiah 45:18-19.

[4] See, for example, Romans 6:12; Colossians 3:5; Ephesians 2:1-3; 1 Corinthians 6:11.

[5] See Romans 8:37; 1John 4:4; Revelation 2:7; John 16:33; Revelation 12:11;

[6] Let’s be clear here. Even Christians fall into this trap when they are not singularly focussed upon God.

[7] Matthew 6:24.

[8] Deuteronomy 8:3.

[9] This type of response is also part of the problem as it conceives of much of God’s revelation as passé and irrelevant. It places a divide in God’s word as though He changed His mind or some such, when no such change has occurred. It purports that God’s word is not a singularity and a unity in theme and purpose, but a plurality of stories that remain in disunity.

[10] James 1:25.

[11] Compare Jesus’ words in Mathew 7:24-27: “Therefore everyone who hears these words of Mine, and acts upon them, may be compared to a wise man, who built his house upon the rock. “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded upon the rock. “And everyone who hears these words of Mine, and does not act upon them, will be like a foolish man, who built his house upon the sand. “And the rain descended, and the floods came, and the winds blew, and burst against that house; and it fell, and great was its fall.”

Homosexuality: Rebellion, Ignorance, and Death

Although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

When the Apostle Paul wrote these words, he gave to all Christian, in all times and in all places, a really good insight into the tenacity with which ungodly men will pursue their ungodliness. Sadly, many Christians turn from Paul’s words today because they seem to be a little harsh, unloving, and intolerant. However, if we take the time to look around at our culture today, we will see that Paul was right on the mark.

As you well know, there is a push on in Australia to legitimise homosexuality. This began many moons ago with basic equality laws and it is coming to a head with the current push to allow homosexuals to marry. Now, we have written elsewhere on these topics, so we will not cover that ground again.[1] The points to be highlighted here are those in the title, which fall in line with Paul’s warning.

Rebellion: The first point to be considered, because it is the fundamental point to be grasped if Christians are going to move to victory, is that all unregenerate sinners are rebels at heart. Again, this may seem unloving, but these are not my words or, in the first instance, my point of view. This is the revelation of the facts given to us by God Himself.

Paul begins his discourse in verse eighteen by noting that the ungodly suppress the truth of God. Paul then goes on to show that the knowledge of God is available to all because God Himself made it available. This is what leads to Paul’s disturbing conclusion – They know their deeds are worthy of death because they contravene God’s law, but they do them anyway and encourage others to follow.

It is fundamentally important that we grasp this point. Sinners are rebels. They do not want to give up their sin. So addicted to their sin are they that they will encourage others to join them so that they can have an easing of the pangs of conscience and a greater justification for their actions – “Well, they are doing it too!”

An example of this rebellion occurred last night (26/08/16). Michael Kirby was interviewed on Lateline. Michael Kirby, a retired High Court Justice, is a homosexual and he is using his “clout” to push his particular barrow. During this interview, of which only short snippets were glimpsed, Mr Kirby advocated that the politicians should decide the matter of homosexual union and not have it decided via a plebiscite. He went on to say that if the Parliament decided against the proposal that was fair enough because it would be overturned later. Here, in the flesh, is the rebellion.

It seems to be a forgotten fact that the Parliament did vote, the Parliament did decide and their decision was an overwhelming, No! In September 2012 the Australian Parliament voted, 98 to 42, to reject same-sex marriage. Ever since then the narcissistic rebels have cried foul, agitated, introduced Bill after Bill, thrown their lollies on the floor time after time, and acted like spoiled children attempting to bully their way to victory.

Proof comes from the opening lines of the Sydney Morning Herald: “Advocates will shift their focus to legalising same sex marriage at the state level, after Federal MPs yesterday voted down a bill which would have allowed gay couples to marry.”[2] Not happy with the democratic vote of the Federal Government, the rebellious ones set their sights on a different group of politicians. This shift in focus no doubt resulted in the ACT introducing its own legislation, which led to a High Court challenge by the Federal Government.[3]

Thinly veiled in Mr Kirby’s statement is the fact that the homosexual minority[4] is going to continue their push until the Australian Government submits to their will. The Government can vote and defeat the Bill this time and the rebels will keep at it.

This rebellion is exactly why these people are targeting Parliament. They know that they are in the minority and that most people in this country do not support their stand. Thus, they do not want a popular vote of any kind and they most definitely do not want a popular vote that is binding. They want to use coercion and bullying tactics to manipulate the weak political situation for their own end.

In this, we also see the duplicity of the rebels. They speak of democracy and equality, but they will walk over both to attain their goal.[5] They respect not the people or the Parliament, because they respect not the One Living and True God.

Ignorance: Paul notes that those who rebel against God and His order will be extremely keen to have the positive support of others. They want a mutual society of sycophants so that they can justify their actions and feel justified by the company they keep. However, there are many who are also duped into giving hearty support because they do not look with God’s eyes and therefore do not really understand the essence of the argument or what is at stake.

We came across such a situation today. We had a lay-by at a particular little shop, a favourite of my wife’s. We have been there many times. Today, upon entering, we saw a rainbow flag hanging on the door. When we had finished our business, the comment was passed to the owner that it was disappointing to see that flag. She responded by saying that “the shop” believed in this and that was that. The interesting part was no sooner had the words fallen from her mouth than she said, “I do not want to talk about it.” Whoa up! You display the flag, which is a political statement and then you do not wish to engage on the topic. Hmmm!

Anyway, thankfully she was unable to restrain herself and started by stating that ‘people who “love each other” should be able to get married.’ The question was sent back to her, “What is love?” This was responded to by another affirmation that she desired no discourse. Then, she interjected that ‘marriages fail, often with children in the middle, so why not allow homosexuals to marry.’ Well, that caused some head scratching! If marriages fail and children get hurt, should she not be advocating that marriage and procreation be banned, rather than advocating the broadening of marriage? After all, we are aware of several cases already involving homosexual couples that have parted ways and then enter a battle over custody of the children. In short, allowing homosexuals to marry will not resolve this problem; it will only create more and unique cases for the courts to figure out.

Refraining from silence, the last effort on the shop keeper’s part was to speak of “equality”. Our reply was that equality does not exist and that to approve homosexual marriage would be to actively discriminate against heterosexual marriage. We received a bewildered, “no!” in reply.

The point to be made here is not that we enjoy harassing helpless shop keepers, but rather that there are people who are roped into supporting the rebels without having any clear understanding of the issues. They have been blinded by the “love” words and calls for “equality” without every realising what these terms are being used to veil. The conversation reported above was interesting because it was almost as though the shop keeper was reading from prompt-points written by a homosexual propagandist; yet, she clearly had no depth of understanding as to the real issues.

This is, of course, exactly what the rebels desire. They seek to capture followers by feigning exploitation, by emotional heart-string pulling, and the claiming of injustice. They do not want the truth to be known because that would be a very inconvenient truth for their cause. Thus, for the Christian, the lesson is that we need to understand the issues well so that we can poke holes in these false reasons and clearly demonstrate what is at stake. We need to put God’s word before these people, but we need to also understand the issues and concepts so that we can explain the errors.

Death: Paul’s reference to death is often explained away as only referring to the last judgement and the consigning of the wicked to Hell. However, such an understanding seems to be contrary to the whole thrust of Paul’s argument. Paul seems to be speaking of those presently engaged in activities that contravene God’s law. His point is that they are not only flouting God’s law but also the penalties (death) that are prescribed by God’s law.

Understood in this way, we must see that these rebels are dead in trespass and sin (Ephesians 2:1) and that they, therefore, bring an air of death to all that they do and touch. This stands to reason. If life, full and abundant, is in Jesus the Christ then those who deny Jesus and rebel against God must be devoid of life and be the harbingers of death.

So it is in the current case. We have seen either explicitly or implicitly how these rebels have killed or are killing the political process, democracy, truth, language, justice, morality, and law. With the demise of these elements, we will see our culture and nation begin to atrophy until the emaciated carcass finally collapses and falls to the earth dead.

Are we exaggerating? No. Not even a little bit. God judges sin. Proverbs 14:34, often quoted, states, “Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people.” Paul, in Romans 1, tells us that homosexuality is a great sin, indeed the greatest, and therefore a great disgrace. If it is a disgrace, then it will not lead to exaltation, but to deprecation. Already, we see that this nation is failing and it will continue to spiral downwards as long as we tolerate sin. Recently, I spoke to a lady who was bemoaning her mother’s negative attitude to everything. We asked her to pause and think about the standards that her mother grew up with and the type of society that was and is now. It did not take long for the “penny to drop”. Our children are not safe on the streets. Murder is an everyday occurrence and we are no longer aghast at its reality. We have no faith in Governments. Drug addiction is rife. Family violence is rife … need any more be said.

Equally, if we understand Paul’s words correctly, we must grasp that homosexuality is not only a sin, but a judgementGod handed them over or gave them up. Thus, rampant homosexuality and its willing embrace tells us that our nation is already under God’s displeasure; to further legalise homosexuality and establish it as a norm is surely to beg disaster.

The Humanists will repudiate such a notion because they do not fear God. Yet, the truth of God’s judgement is borne out by empirical examination: Name one nation that has prospered and blossomed after embracing homosexuality? The once mighty West is but a shadow of its former self. We have more strife than ever before. What of Rome? What of Sparta? What of the once mighty Greek states? All embraced homosexuality. All are like the Dodo.

Brethren, let us not be duped. The current remonstrations are not about justice, equality, or tolerance. The rebels are rebelling against God. Ignorance fuels their cause because they and this nation will not listen to God’s word. Death will be the end result, because they reject Jesus Christ, the author of life.

Now, understand well, this is not a prophecy of doom, as such. It is a prediction based on God’s word. If the nation does not repent and forsake these evils, we have no reason to hope for a bright future. However, Jesus saved us and has left us on earth to be Light and Salt as His witnesses. So it is, brethren, that we have the ability to change this nation and to bring days of prosperity and blessing. Yet, such hope is conditional. It is conditioned by our repentance, the forsaking of our sin, the courage of our hearts to stand for Christ in these dark days. It is conditioned on our willingness to shine the Light of Christ and spread the Salt of Christ.

We do not speak here of mere religiosity or religious fervency, but of the heart submerged in Christ and His word by the grace and presence of the Holy Spirit; the life that has no higher or greater purpose than to glorify God. A life that loves Jesus and obeys His commands. A life that hungers and thirsts for righteousness. A life that is clad in the armour of God. A life that, therefore, hates evil and delights in the fear of the Lord.


[1] See:;;;;

[2] accessed 27/08/16.

[3] For a critique, see:

[4] A recent statistic showed that the number is approximately 1.2%, not the widely publicised 10%

[5] See:

The Death of Democracy

2016! Australia has voted in a Federal election. It is a close contest; a real nail biter. However, the real issue to come out of this election, for me, is the death of democracy.

Whilst we hang around waiting for the final result, the truth is that we already know in part who has been elected. One such elected representative is Pauline Hanson who has been elected to the Senate and she forms the centerpiece of this article.

Several days after her election, ran an article under a heading that went something like this: Is Sunrise to blame for Pauline Hanson’s return?” The story distills down to the horrendous and horrible fact that Pauline Hanson was paid to appear on Sunrise, Channel Seven’s breakfast show, in the months leading up to the election.

Now, it bothers me nought that this lady was paid by a television programme. Big “whoop”! It happens all the time. Most pollies are probably jealous that they could not land the same gig!

The problem for me is in the word “blame”. In a democracy, people are supposed to have the right to vote for whomever they will (some clarification needed, but let’s leave it at that for now) and if the people decide upon a particular choice, then that is their choice. Their is no blame. That is how the system is meant to work!

Imagine going to your car dealer with the complaint that ‘when you put your foot on the brake pedal, the vehicle stopped!’ What reception would you receive? I am pretty sure that after the wry look, you would be politely informed that ‘the system has worked as per its design.’

I particularly find this “blame game” interesting given that the Senate voting system has recently undergone reform to stop an influx of unhelpful minorities. So, in essence, the Parliament’s redesign of the Senate voting system to exclude minor parties etc, should have meant that Independents and Minor Parties should have been excluded. HMMM! Looking at the results, this does not seem to be the case.

Hence, the only real evaluation of the situation is that the democratic system worked and that Pauline Hanson was voted into the Senate by the people. The people voted. The people chose. That is democracy after all, is it not?

So far.

Now I sit by and wait for the witch-hunt to begin. I have soft spot for Pauline Hanson. Not because I agree with her position or because I hope for some free Fish and Chips, but because she has weathered a storm in the political corridors of this nation which proved that democracy is dead.

Tony Abbot got knifed by Brutus Turnbull. I did not like the happening — and neither did the Australian public given the voting pattern in this election — but I found it hard to shed a tear. Why? For the simple reason that Tony Abbott had been the willing henchman of both Liberal and Labor in seeking and bringing about the downfall of the One Nation Party and Pauline Hanson in particular.

That time in Australian politics was absolutely disgraceful and that is a poor summary. This woman was hounded into jail on what seemed to be very dubious charges — a fact seemingly supported by her release 11 weeks later when the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction.

At the time that Tony Abbott was pursuing and, yes, I would say, persecuting, Pauline Hanson, Australian politicians were crying out for the freedom of political dissidents in other countries. Hypocrites!

Is it any wonder that since those days the Australian political scene has become a complete shambles and the domain of the unprincipled. Is it any wonder that the road to the Prime Ministers office is not through righteousness and integrity but by virtue of the quickest and sharpest knife.

Yes, it was a sad and disgusting day in Australian politics. Democracy was killed off by the power hungry.

Returning to Pauline Hanson, there is another grievance. She is often portrayed as a buffoon. Yes, okay, she may experience foot and mouth from time to time. Yet, for me, I would rather that, knowing she is telling me what she believes, than put up with the silver-haired, Armani clad seller of “snake oil.”

I remember when Pauline Hanson lost power. One Nation hoped to claim twelve seats, they won none. Ridicule abounded. Salivating media were everywhere with their vitriolic pieces. Pauline Hanson was mocked for saying that the voting system was corrupt.

Would you like to know a little secret that is not so secret. One Nation won fifteen seats on primary votes. That is right. If we elected people on a ‘first past the post’ basis, One Nation would not have been ridiculed. Pauline Hanson suffered from a seat redistribution (the cynic in me says HMMM!), nonetheless after primary voting she topped the poll with thirty-six percent, leaving her about 10% in front of her nearest rival. Then there is the twist. After topping said poll, Pauline Hanson lost on preferences, not to the runner-up, but to the third placed Liberal candidate.

The epic saga that is Pauline Hanson has taught this nation a number of valuable lessons. I wonder, “How many have we learned?”

Personally, I do not think any. The statement of “Who is to blame?” once more attacks the democratic principle. The media or parts thereof are simply not happy to have a real conservative in politics. We have had electoral reform in the Senate, but our broken preferential system in regard to the lower house still remains. Results are skewed.

As a nation we have rejected Theocracy. As a nation, at least in principle if not in fact, we are rejecting democracy. (Bill Shorten’s promise of homosexual marriage is another indicator — no vote, no consultation, we will just do it.) What then is next? Anarchy!

BY God’s grace, it is my prayer that we learn the lessons quickly or we will perish as a nation. (Proverbs 14:34)

Brexit: What can we learn?

We recently witnessed a referendum in Britain. The question: Should Britain remain in the EU? Britains voted to leave.

Now, there are all sorts of arguments with regard to trade and the economy etc that have been raised and continue to be raised. Here, I am not concerned with these; rather, I am more concerned about the two very telling issues that need to be addressed.

  1. A Country Divided:

The most noticeable aspect of the this referendum was that it was a closely run thing. The end result was 52% to 48%. This I see as a major problem.

Whilst I firmly believe that, if we are to operate as a democracy, the majority vote must hold sway — My caveat is and always has been that democratic votes are only valid if God’s word does not speak to an issue — the reality is that sometimes that sadly lacking commodity of our day, wisdom, must be allowed to speak.

As a young man, I grew up in a congregation that was deeply divided. At one point, the call of a new minister saw a number of votes taken that were passed by a mere few percent. Those who won crowed, but the living reality is that the congregation in question is today a mere shadow of its former self and it is struggling for survival.

Such close numbers means that there is going to be a divide and that divide will be exploited for all kinds of reasons. In fact, we have already begun to see this process. In 2014 the Scots held a referendum as to whether or not they should remain as part of Britain. The decision was that Scotland should stay. Now, as a result of the Brexit referendum, the Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon, is threatening to use this vote as an excuse to leave the UK.

This is little more than political expediency, exploitation, and prostitution at its worst. Of course, you will be flabbergasted to learn that the First Minister has always been a supporter of Scottish independence! So, what we have, in reality, is one situation being exploited to gain a desired outcome that was not achieved via a referendum. The obvious question then becomes, “Given this division, who else will seek to exploit it?”

Hence, maybe it would be wiser and thereby in the better interest of the nation for those in power to cease crowing and “pushing their own barrows” and set about looking after their people. The result cannot be undone, but wisdom and compassion can be applied to the implementation of the result.

2. The Death of Democracy:

Flowing on from our first major illustration, we are led to the conclusion that democracy is in its death throws the world over. Politicians talk this language, but their seething detestation at certain results belies the fact that they are angry that their agenda has been derailed.

Whilst it is true, for example, that Scotland’s remain vote was 62%, the reality is that Scotland was not voting in and for itself. Scotland was voting as part of the UK and it is that overall vote that counts.

To put this in context, here in Australia, in regard to Federal politics, Labor hardly wins a seat in Western Australia. Would this mean that a victorious Federal Labor government would expect the Western Australians to vote to leave the Commonwealth. Of course not. The vote is known to be that of all States and Territories.

Sadly, the posturing of the Scottish First Minister, shows all too clearly that modern politicians do not respect the will of the people in these so-called democratic nations and that they will use democratic results to enforce their personal agendas. Such truths are made manifest by the attitude of many in the EU who did not rejoice that a democratic result had been achieved and respected in the UK.

To this we could add the resignation of British Prime Minister, David Cameron. Whether or not he wanted to remain in the EU means absolutely nothing. The point is simple: The people were given a voice and they spoke. To resign and thereby hand over any future difficulties to another is to act as the spoiled brat who, using a combination of metaphors, throws his lollies on the floor the takes his bat and ball and heads home!

I believe the appropriate descriptor for this attitude would be “Tyranny”!

Referendum: The Only Way Forward

The issue of Same Sex Marriage (hereafter Homosexual Union or HU) refuse to go away. It has now provided a destabilising and distracting influence in our society for far too long.[1] Our country is on the brink and this in so many ways. We have had a revolving door installed in the Prime Minister’s office. We know that Brutus is alive and well in the halls of Parliament and in both major political parties. There is no longer any sense of right or wrong, morality, honour, or integrity amongst most politicians and within most political parties. Economically, we are in trouble. Socially, we are in deeper trouble: ‘ice’ epidemic; murder in our streets; internet bullying; suicide – need I continue. Yet, when you look at the news, we hear no concrete response to these issues. Why, because we are bogged down in the distractions of the day and whilst bogged we witness the continuing disintegration of our society.

Homosexual Union is an unwelcome distraction. It is so for two reasons. First and Biblically, HU and the associated life choices are condemned as being the ultimate living judgement of God. That is to say, God responds to Man’s rebellion by “handing him over”[2] to the very lifestyle, with all its pitfalls, that he has demanded. Secondly, this issue shows how this nation, in excluding God from politics, has become essentially immoral[3] – that is, we no longer abide by God’s law as the ultimate and only moral standard.

The combination of these factors means that we now witness a constant push by a vocal minority for a moral recognition to which they are not entitled. Their plea is made vociferously to politicians who, no longer governing according to morality, are looking to be popular – the new version of morality. These politicians, shifting ground faster than sand in a sand storm, are malleable, pliable, and always apt to change their mind.

Anyway, what does this have to do with the whole issue of HU? Much and everything! Throughout this saga, men like Senator Cory Bernardi have consistently said that the “Parliament should decide”. Senator Bernardi has also stated, and rightly so, that ‘Parliament has decided’. The problem is that the Parliament has taken no action to end the issue or to stop the debate. Thus, Parliament is failing the people of this country by its gross negligence.

What do I mean by this? Well, in simple terms, we wonder when Parliament will take a stand and stop this nonsense. In the last few years we have seen attempt after attempt to have HU legalised in this nation. Bills have been defeated, left in limbo, introduced under false pretences and so on. Yet, we have not had one politician suggest that we need to put a moratorium on this issue or put a sunset clause on it. This lack of action by our politicians then means that the door is left open and the Parliamentary circus continues. It also means that those demanding the recognition of homosexual union will keep badgering Parliament, according to the Biblical parable of the Persistent Widow,[4] until they cave; and cave they will – eventually!

Yes, Parliament should decide. Yes, Parliament has decided – and this several times! However, a Parliament that strives to be immoral is a Parliament that is like the storm tossed ship that has lost both sail and rudder—it cannot help but founder! It will, it must, eventually slide beneath the waves of sin and immorality. Why? Precisely because this Parliament has rejected God, the only and absolute source of all morality, it will begin, in the words of Isaiah, to call evil good and good evil.[5] This process has begun. This process is gathering pace.

Some may doubt the veracity of these statements, but please mull over these historical facts that show this hurried and hastening descent into the abyss.

Writing in the Herald Sun, former Treasurer, Peter Costello, made these comments:

Yet back in 2004, when the Coalition government amended the Marriage Act to make it clear that marriage consists of a union between a man and a woman, Labor’s shadow attorney-general, Nicola Roxon, made it clear that Labor, as a party, supported that: “The Bill is something we do not have an objection to,” she told the House of Representatives. The Bill passed without a vote being called. Only three people spoke in the debate. The House of Representatives settled the issue of gay marriage in 25 minutes.[6]

Fast forward eight years to 2012. The agitators have now made certain that the non-issue has become a bothersome issue. The agitators show that the Parliament has changed from a Parliament that saw “no objection” to God’s moral order in and for marriage to a Parliament that was discontent with God’s moral order. The culmination of these points saw a Bill proposing the legalisation of HU introduced to Parliament and a vote was held on 19 September of that year. The Bill was soundly defeated, 42 for and 98 against.

Was the issue settled? Had the slippery slope been abandoned? No. This vote simply buoyed the agitators and gave them reason to continue. This vote simply added suds to the slope so that the momentum was gained. Doubts? Please read on: “Labor frontbencher Anthony Albanese, who backed the legislation, says the vote shows there has been significant progress towards legalising gay marriage. Just a few years ago there wouldn’t have been the support of anything like 42 votes on the floor of the national Parliament for a marriage equality bill.” However, the salient point came in these words: “All the figures show that there is majority community support on this issue… and I think at some future time, Parliament will catch up with the community opinion.”[7]

Now I do not give any credence to this “majority of the community” type nonsense that is so often quoted, but never statistically verified. I am far more interested in Mr Albanese’s comment that he hopes, “Parliament will catch up in the future.”

With these words, the seeds are sown. The agitators, once outside of Parliament are now within Parliament. This is highlighted by the fact that at the time of this vote there were three other Bills, aimed at producing the same result, waiting in the wings. Parliament was in for a fight. They were not expecting this fight and morally, few if any, were equipped for the fight.

Move forward but a few years. Brutus Turnbull slays the elected ruler, Tony Abbott – a criminal, apparently, for insisting on morality that was akin to God’s morality in regard to marriage! The agitators now take control of the Liberal Party. Whilst not declaring an official position in favour of HU, the Liberals are gesturing in that direction. This is no doubt a concerted effort to beat Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, and his deputy, Tanya Plibersek, to the punch with their promise to introduce a Bill supporting HU within 100 days of being elected.

Now for the hypocrisy! Let me give you some names, eight in all. Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, Julie Bishop, Warren Entsch, Julia Gillard, Kevin Rudd, Tony Abbott, Malcolm Turnbull. Of these eight, six (75%) voted against HU and two (25%) voted for HU in the 2004 vote. Currently, three (37.5%) hold to the same position as they did in the 2004 vote, meaning that five (62.5%) have abandoned their position or have rebelled against their Party’s position.[8] Can you name the three?

The three are Bill Shorten, Tanya Plibersek, and Tony Abbott. Interesting, is it not? Tony Abbott is the only member of the supposedly conservative Party who has remained steadfast! Anyway, I digress. Of the remaining five, two have left politics, but that does not change the point to be made—our Parliament is filled with fickle, immoral politicians whose stand on moral issues for absolute moral reasons is almost non-existent. Therefore, these people will succumb to the pressures of the day. The statistical change, highlighted in the eight parliamentarians named above, show that the process is well under way.

Our politicians are no longer moral watchmen and paragons of virtue, standing upon the parapets of our nation with a keen eye, determined to protect those within its walls and modelling for its citizens an upright life. No, our modern politicians are more like corrupt judges. They are open to bribery, flattery, and all kinds of ills.[9] Sure, they do not use these terms, but it all amounts to the same thing. The term “faceless men” came into usage in recent years, but the fact is that the faceless men have been around for decades. Conversations in dark corners, whispers, promises, winks and nods, have become the order of the day. None, or very few, are actually willing to speak according to conscience and belief.

These unhelpful traits are, of course, all compounded and made far worse by the idiotic madmen and self-appointed moral policemen – you know them as the media – who, without bias (excuse me while I laugh), have insisted on highlighting and commenting upon every perceived blemish or otherwise of the politician in the spotlight. So, who cares about policy! Tony Abbott is no good! Why? He wears budgie smugglers! Oh, the shame of it. Yes, shameful that in a country of obese people we had a Prime Minister who actually likes to exercise and wear the official Aussie cosy. These people would rather that this country was run by an articulate liar than someone of clumsy speech whose intentions were pure.

The point is that all of these things coalesce to give us a Government that is concerned with transient opinion polls, which rarely mean anything, rather than governing solidly and morally for the long term welfare of the nation. The politicians no longer guide and protect the nation; they simply capitulate to whim and fancy in order to stay in power. As a real life example, I live in the electorate of Indi. My Federal Member has made HU her signature issue. In a discussion with her on this subject, she stated to me that it is the Government’s responsibility to keep pace with society. In other words, the Government has become like an over indulgent parent that never says “no” to a child or disciplines a child. Rather, the Government is now simply a facilitator of the desires of the people.

With this being the case, we the people, by God’s grace and in His power, need to take direct and positive action.

This then brings me to a discussion of the need for a referendum. A few years ago, we wrote two articles[10] on the issue of a referendum in regard to HU. At this point our fundamental belief has not changed. What has changed is the fact that I am now calling for Christians to demand a referendum on this issue. I am also calling for Christians, in particular, to cease being afraid of a referendum and to commit this whole issue into the Hands and Providence of Almighty God.

A referendum is necessary for two reasons. First, we have no way other way, as a people, to bring this issue to a head. Secondly, by flexing the muscles of people power we have a unique opportunity to show our politicians just how out of touch they are with the people they govern.

Let us address these two points.

As we have outlined, the simple reality is that our politicians have adopted immorality in their governance. These people are no longer governed in conscience or action by the moral Absolute or the concept of right and wrong. Today, righteousness has been jettisoned in favour of expedience. Consequently, we have witnessed the Parliament move from a unanimous view on Marriage, as between one man and one woman, in 2004; to voting on this issue in 2012; to promises being made to make HU a reality in 2015 – and all this in the space of a decade.

Fickle is a good description, but I do wonder whether that term is either strong enough or broad enough. Anyway, the simple reality is that the immoral politicians will eventually cave and give in to the vociferous minority and we will have HU foist upon us. I say foist deliberately. We live in a so-called democracy. The governments of the land are meant to listen to the people, to the majority of the people. Yet, on this issue, the politicians are simply stopping their ears to the majority voice. The media is blocking publication of the Biblical view. Dissenting voices are being banned from the public square. Thus, we must demand a referendum and only a referendum.

Why not a Plebiscite? The answer has to do with the non-binding nature of a plebiscite. If we have a plebiscite on this issue, it amounts to nothing more than an incredibly expensive opinion poll. Let’s ask some questions? What number is needed in a plebiscite in order to convince the government that they are wrong and that HU should not be legalised? Is this number 51% or is it 91%? What number is needed to ensure that we do not see any more Bills on this issue introduced to Parliament in the next decade? Speaking of time, how long would this plebiscite hold? Are we even guaranteed that a 91% vote against HU would stop Parliament from legalising HU? Opposition leader, Bill Shorten, did not place a caveat on his 100 day promise? So what effect would the plebiscite have on his promise?[11] We can also highlight the fact that, to the best of my knowledge, voting in plebiscites is not compulsory. This forces to ask the serious question, “What part would our nation’s apathy play in such a vote?”

Simplifying this issue, we really have three options before us. One, we take Senator Bernardi’s position and let Parliament decide. This will simply mean further wrangling until our Parliament is radically changed morally or it capitulates to the demands of the homosexual lobby. Two, we undertake a plebiscite with absolutely no guarantees that the government will pay the slightest attention to the outcome. They may. They might. However, ‘In what form?’ and ‘For how long?’ remain the two important questions. Third, we move to a referendum and vote as a people.

Alright, let’s explore the referendum a little further. There are some pitfalls in this strategy, well, one really, and that is the question put to the people. As with all votes, the question and its framing become the central issue. This is the critical issue and it is the great unknown. However, one would hope that given the topic to be decided that there would not be any game playing. Outside of this, there are no real drawbacks to this option. It needs to be remembered that the Constitution gives the Parliament the right to decide on marriage. This understanding was reinforced by the High Court in its recent ruling. Therefore, why should we not take this opportunity to have the Biblical understanding of marriage also enshrined into the Constitution – safeguarding it from the hands of the fickle parliamentarians?

The second issue is that of flexing our muscles as a people. I will guarantee that you can meet a stranger in the street and within five minutes have them expressing their dissatisfaction with Government. People are inherently dissatisfied in our day and this is no less the case with those in power. They see no real options and no real answers in any Party. We have had five Prime Ministers in the same amount of years. What has this gained us? One thing — an increasingly long list of living ex-Prime Ministers to be supported by the public pursethat is code for your tax dollars! For what? To be made a laughingstock. To see our nation fall into the abyss. To see even more despair fall upon the people.

Our politicians regularly ignore us. At election time they clamour for our vote, they make grand promises, they lull us with their hackneyed rhetoric and worn out tracks on “health and education”, yet nothing changes, positively that is! Our nation drifts and that which is adrift is in constant danger because it is subject to the power of external forces.

So, before us we have an opportunity. What happens to Mr Turnbull and Mr Shorten when a referendum says that the majority of Australians, let me say, the vast majority of Australians, support the Biblical idea of marriage. Well, in political terms, they are made to eat the pie of humility. What are the possibilities? Think here of proving the politicians so wrong. The question would then become, if you were so wrong on this issue, what else are you wrong about? Then we might think of how such an opportunity might awaken the Australian people from their apathy. If they realise that they can have a significant impact upon politicians, it may encourage them to hold their elected representatives more accountable. What about morality? A stunning victory for God and His morality may indeed force this nation to realise that “sin is a disgrace” and that we need to return to being moral people.

As I see it, to hold to the status quo of ‘letting Parliament decide’ in regard to this issue is to guarantee that HU will become a legal reality in this nation. This simple fact is that the Governments of this nation have become entangled and bound by their own rebellion and the instatement of ungodly and immoral laws – like equality, religious vilification – which now hold them to a path and agenda of social destruction as we provoke God’s wrath more and more.

In this climate, what then do we have to be afraid of as Christians? Psalm 27:1-3 states: “The Lord is my light and my salvation; Whom shall I fear? The Lord is the defense of my life; Whom shall I dread? When evildoers came upon me to devour my flesh, my adversaries and my enemies, they stumbled and fell.  Though a host encamp against me, My heart will not fear; Though war arise against me, In spite of this I shall be confident.” Shall we not trust the Lord today, with this battle, as the Kings of old did? Can we not say with Jehoshaphat, “O our God, wilt Thou not judge them? For we are powerless before this great multitude who are coming against us; nor do we know what to do, but our eyes are on Thee.”[12]

We must, as God’s people, look to the Lord our God for His aid in winning this battle. We must begin by believing that God is the Sovereign King of the universe. We must begin by truly believing that God, anointed Jesus Christ, His Son, to wear the mantle of Kingship in order that He would subdue[13] all God’s enemies. We should be confident. We should be glad. We should engage in this battle looking for the triumph of God in Christ Jesus.

Remember, it is the demons and all their allies that tremble at the name of Jesus (James 2:19). This is the reason that we have had two Prime Ministers suggest a referendum and within a few days the idea has been debunked, forgotten, or transformed into a plebiscite. These people know that they will not win this referendum. These politicians fear that by letting the people vote they will be shown to be wrong and then they must do what the people say on this matter. In short, our politicians, and others in our society, fear the people of God and they fear the real outcome of the democratic process they profess to uphold! Let us show them that they are right to fear the Army of the Lord, for it is the Lord, the Almighty, who goes before us to fight for His name and His people.[14]

Paul’s counsel to Timothy is valid: “For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline. Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.”[15]


[1] Proverbs 4:25-27 – Let your eyes look directly ahead, and let your gaze be fixed straight in front of you. Watch the path of your feet, and all your ways will be established. Do not turn to the right nor to the left; Turn your foot from evil. Psalm 119:15 – I will meditate on Thy precepts, and regard Thy ways.

[2] Romans 1:18-32; especially the thribble “God gave them over” of verses 24, 26, and 28.

[3] The term “immoral” is correctly used here. Some would expect, possibly, that we speak of amorality; however, there is simply no such creature. We either have obedience to God’s standard – morality – or a departure from that morality – this is not amorality, it is simply immorality.

[4] I find it very sad that those opposed to Jesus Christ use this model in order to wage war against God and His people – persistent, long term badgering, yet the people of God do not grasp the teaching of the parable – pray day and night and God the father will bring about justice speedily for His children!

[5] Isaiah 5:20-23.

[6] Peter Costello, Bipartisan, but only when it suits, Herald Sun, Tuesday, August 18, 2015. p. 26. Italics added.


[8] A footnote is needed in regard to Julie Bishop. She has not publicly declared her support for HU, but had dropped hints that reforms are needed. Her political views are more to the liberal side of liberal politics. One may gain some insight from comments made around a propose UN resolution on the family. These comments inferred that there are a diverse range of families and that the family should not be treated solely as a unit. Here, then, seems to be the basic ideas of non-heterosexual unions equating with heterosexual families and of individualism. To what extent these ideas reflect hers, we cannot be sure. However, the Minister’s reluctance to give her own view on this matter means that she is looking toward her political future. Her actions in regard to Tony Abbott, suggest the same. Thus, methinks she cannot be trusted. It seems to me that her priority is her own political future and that she will do whatever is necessary to preserve that career. The judgemental comment is now to follow, so if you do not want to read it, look away! I am also suspicious because, after a failed marriage, Julie Bishop has decided upon a life outside of wedlock, but not of singleness – “Asked if she can see herself marrying again, Bishop laughs. “No, not at my age” she says firmly. “I think he would have to be a very brave person to take it on. The role of a Cabinet Minister is all-consuming. I throw myself into it with my heart and soul, 110 per cent effort” ( Thus, like Julia Gillard, it is hard to see how she will have either a solid view or complete understanding of marriage when she has no interest in being married. In short, if she does not represent and commit to the genuine and Biblical understanding of marriage in her own life, then how will she ever fight for that understanding on behalf of this society? Sadly, what we see in Julie Bishop, as with Julia Gillard, is a fundamental commitment to individualism and personal satisfaction. Self, self-happiness, and self-fulfilment take pride of place; so political career and ambition take centre stage, becoming the priority that does not allow for any other contenders. Thus, in reality, there is little difference between this position and that of the homosexuals demanding HU. It is a difference in degree only, not in kind. For this reason, methinks political ambition will sway Julie Bishop to eventually “come out” as a supporter of HU. (An aside: In 2012 Julia Gillard voted against HU. In 2015, she came out in support of HU. Now, please consider these words: “In a 2013 interview with The Washington Post, she stated: “I think it would be inconceivable for me if I were an American to have turned up at the highest echelon of American politics being an atheist, single and childless” ( Let me focus on the word “single”. This is an interesting word, given that from 2006, through her time as Prime Minister and Deputy leader of the Labor Party she was in a relationship with Tim Mathieson. So here we see the real hypocrisy. I do not want God. I do not want marriage. Yet, I want aspects of God’s marriage. Is it any wonder then that Julia Gillard’s position has wavered? How can she deny others – whatever their sexual preference –the very things she has demanded for herself?)

[9] Proverbs 16:12; 20:26 & 28; 31:4-5.


[11] If you doubt this, please go to this website – – and take note of the fact that there are no rules that govern a plebiscite.

[12] 2 Chronicles 20:12.

[13] 1 Corinthians 23b-25: “Christ’s at His coming … will deliver up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power. For He must reign until He has put all His enemies under His feet.

[14] Joshua 10:42: “And Joshua captured all these kings and their lands at one time, because the Lord, the God of Israel, fought for Israel.”

[15] 2 Timothy 1: 7-8.

Of Revolving Prime Ministers and Moral Decay

Most Australians have awoken today to the news that we have a new Prime Minister. This makes five Prime Ministers in about the same number of years – even if for some it was their second time. Welcome to the world of revolving Prime Ministers and moral decay.

What then will Malcolm Turnbull, the latest offering of the revolving door, do positively for Australia? The answer is, “Nothing of substance!”

First, let us look at the political hypocrisy, deceit, and lies that have accompanied Malcolm Turnbull into the top job. We have heard much in the media that former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, could not unite the Party. This very day, Julie Bishop, Deputy Leader of the Liberal Party, has tried to justify her rebellion by citing this divide. Says she, “I did what a deputy (leader) has to do and that is to reflect the views of the party,” … “Tony asked for six months to turn it around and unfortunately that hadn’t happened. “It became obvious to me that the majority of the party had lost confidence in Tony (and) I informed him as is my duty as deputy.” “Through that time, nobody wanted Tony to succeed more than I (but) the vast majority of the party room had lost confidence in him.”[1]

Next we encounter the words of Malcolm Turnbull himself: “Heading in to work as Prime Minister designate this morning, Mr Turnbull said he was getting on with the job. “There has been a change … but we are a very, very strong government, a strong country with a lot of potential and we will realise that potential by working together.”[2]

Okay, Abbott is out because he created a divide in the party. Julie Bishop speaks of the “majority”, indeed the “vast majority”, that were dissatisfied with Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull states that the Party will now prosper by “working together”, which seems to imply significant unity. Yet, when we look at the vote it was only 54 – 44 in favour of Malcolm Turnbull. This, my friends, is neither a majority, a vast majority, nor is it unity.[3]

Please explain to me, then, where the gain is to be found? We have swapped one embattled leader for another. I could almost guarantee you that of the 10 votes that separated the two candidates, there would be a significant number who have voted for change for change’s sake in the hope that something better may eventuate – for themselves!. After all, Malcolm Turnbull has already been the Leader of the Liberal Party and he was ousted because of his dismal performance. One commentator, on last night’s edition of The Drum, noted that, when he led the Party, Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers were far worse than Tony Abbott’s.

My concern here springs from being an old guy who has heard all of this rhetoric before and seen firsthand how these close votes end in tears. As a child, sad to say, I grew up in a congregation that was divided between the “good” guys and the “bad” guys. The “bad” guys won votes by single figure margins and men crowed about “majorities”. Then their plans and desires turned to dust before their eyes. They became bitter. They slandered and maligned. They undermined. What was the outcome? That congregation, in excess of 100 at that time, barely exists today. The divide continued and brought disgrace to Christ’s Church with constant infighting and bickering.

A secular example? Just look back a few years to the Rudd – Gillard saga. Starting in 2006, Kevin Rudd toppled Kim Beazley 49 – 39.[4] In 2010, Julia Gillard challenges Kevin Rudd. When the writing is on the wall, Rudd chooses to resign rather than stand for re-election.[5] In 2012, Kevin Rudd challenges Julia Gillard because of dissatisfaction with her performance. Gillard beat Rudd with a 71 – 31 vote.[6] In March 2013, Simon Crean and others are concerned at Labor’s fortunes. They agitate for another leadership spill. Julia Gillard calls for the spill in a hope to end the infighting. Again, Kevin Rudd is touted as the challenger. In a repeat of history, however, he realises that the numbers are not with him and he refuses to put up his hand.[7] Then, a paltry 3 months later, June 2013, Kevin Rudd challenges for the leadership and dislodges Julia Gillard with a 57 – 45 vote.[8]

When you look at these numbers, you can see that from Kevin Rudd’s earliest days, the party was divided and that he never enjoyed a majority of support.[9] The clearest margin out of all of these changes belongs to Gillard’s so-called “midnight coup”. Her numbers were far better than Malcolm Turnbull’s numbers, yet she could not overcome the subterfuge and undermining processes of the dissenters. What then makes us think that Malcolm Turnbull’s fate will be any different?

To add weight to our argument, you need to be reminded of history. You will hear that Tony Abbott pipped Malcolm Turnbull at the post by one vote in the 2009 leadership spill. This is true, but it is not the complete picture. Malcolm Turnbull was the incumbent. He was challenged and the spill occurred. What is rarely spoken about is that the initial vote was between three candidates, Malcolm Turnbull, Tony Abbott, and Joe Hockey. In this poll, Abbott was the clear victor by 9 votes (35), followed by Turnbull on 26 and Hockey on 23.[10] Note this please: Malcolm Turnbull, the incumbent leader, only survived being eliminated from the race by three votes.[11] It is only once the second round of polling was completed that the famous won by one scenario comes to the fore with Abbott on 42 and Turnbull on 41. The clearest explanation of this result is that, once there man was out, two-thirds of Joe Hockey’s supporters abandoned their desire for change and opted to stay with the status quo and one-third backed their instinct for change; but I digress.

The main point here is that Malcolm Turnbull, as leader of the Liberal Party, was not able to unite that party. The figures showed then and they showed again last night that he still does not have the majority support of his Party, despite his and Julie Bishop’s rhetoric.

Therefore, questions about legitimate gain must be asked. How does the hypocritical justification for knifing a sitting Prime Minister, given by the Leader and his Deputy, assure us of better things ahead? Mr Turnbull’s speech did not outline any concrete policies; he just trotted out slogans – again in a hypocritical fashion.

This begs the questions: Are we just witnessing another egocentric display as we did with Kevin 07? Having failed to secure a real majority, will Malcolm Turnbull govern correctly or simply aim for the opinion-poll popularity contest? Will we see him affirm any position in the hope that it will make him acceptable to all and sundry?

Second, the reason that Malcolm Turnbull will not deliver any significant change has to do with ego over morality. The problem with governance in this country has to do with the fact that it is no longer moral. When was the last time you heard a politician of any persuasion speak of morality? When did you last hear any candidate speak up and say that the fundamental problem with our nation was not “health and education”, but morality?

It is at this point that these two factors coalesce. Malcolm Turnbull does not have a majority in the Party. From my perspective he is not generally accepted by the public. Thus, his primary goal is going to be ego and or popularity.

The direct application of this is that morality, particularly God’s morality, as the necessary panacea for this nation will be sidestepped yet again in favour of ego or popularity. Instead of governing according to morality, ethic, and principle, Malcolm Turnbull will govern for himself and his own personal benefit or he will govern in a manner that seeks to make his Party popular, neither of which will benefit this country one iota.

We saw the politics of ego in the former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd. His comeback had nothing to do with the people of this country. It was all about Kevin. If he had been sincere, he would have stayed on after his Party’s defeat. If he were absolutely convinced that he was the best man for the job, he would have stuck to the task. His capitulation simply showed that his aim was payback and his name in lights. Consequently, we need to ask as to whether or not we are in for more of this grandstanding via the politics of ego; a political enterprise that will only further impoverish our nation.

What then of opinion-poll popularity politics? In this sense, I do have sympathy for Tony Abbott. Many are critical of his performance, yet few seem to spread the blame. The previous Labor government was almost ineffective over its six years of reign. Policy after policy bled this nation dry. Whilst Rudd and Gillard bickered, Australia failed. Tony Abbott then wins the election and immediately faces a barrage of hostility for no other reason than he has a Romanist leaning and therefore has a few morals to guide his conscience. Instead of the elected members getting on board to bring change and move the country forward, they stalled, blocked, and grandstanded; Palmer practicing the politics of ego par excellence. To his credit, Tony Abbott stood his ground and refused to simply make policy in order to be popular. Now that Malcolm Turnbull is in charge, and there seems to be distinct lack of Biblical morals to guide his conscience, we have no reason to expect that anything but popularity will drive Liberal Party policy.

If this eventuality transpires, then we are in for a torrid time as a nation. Julia Gillard clung to power (ego) by making deals with a few Independents (popularity). That combination then set this nation on a futile and destructive course as true governance was derailed in order to indulge the whims of those with whom bargains had been struck in order for her to stay in office. One notable lowlight was the vote on homosexual union. Julia Gillard’s lust for power introduced the possibility of a reprehensible evil being made legal in this country. Whilst Parliament voted that proposal down at that time, it nonetheless fuelled the fire so that this distraction has continued to dog parliament. Ever since that vote, Tony Abbott has come under personal attack for his refusal to compromise and has had to fend off constant criticism in regard to this issue, which is really a non-issue.[12]

It is important that we understand this point. Popularity and ego has tied this particular weight around the neck of the Federal Parliament of this nation. Popularity and ego have meant that we have not been rightly governed now for nearly three terms of Parliament. When popularity and ego are combined with a minority leadership, and an immoral minority leadership at that, then chaos and debacle can be the only outcomes.

Malcolm Turnbull is pro homosexual union and a republic, just to name a couple of points. He has a very liberal attitude to moral issues and even today has spoken of looking forward and cutting the ties with the past. In short, he is concerned with being all things modern, which by definition means that he sees no place for God in government and morality in politics. (How did he make it to the leadership of the supposed conservative Party?) It would, therefore, be of no surprise if these issues come to the fore very soon in order to either distract the public while he attempts to make ground or introduces them in order to make ground.[13] Either way, we will see the politics of ego, popularity, and minority (disunity) continue to ravage this nation.

What is needed to restore this nation is the application of God’s morality. We need to see right and wrong restored. We need to see justice. We need to have a parliament that guides and protects, not one that simply affirms. We need to remember that a nation’s health can only be measured in terms of its obedience to God, not by its bank account or balance of trade figures.

We have quoted Proverbs 14:34 often of recent – Righteousness exalts a nation but sin is a disgrace to any people. We quote it again because it is the essence of our nation’s health. Whilst our elected officials continue to deny the necessity of morality and righteousness for our nation’s wellbeing, we can only plunge deeper into sin. Plunging into sin can only increase our disgrace.

Our moral decay is the only explanation as to why the Prime Minister’s office is currently equipped with a revolving door. Moral decay is why we are shamed constantly by backstabbers who seek the top job for their glory and not God’s. For the naysayers, I merely direct you to the histories of Rome and Israel.


[1] Emphasis added.

[2] Ibid. Emphasis added.

[3] Julie Bishop secured her position with 70 – 30 vote, which is a bit more in keeping with what one would term a majority.






[9] The objective lesson here seems to be that the Labour Party settled for Kevin Rudd as the best in a bad bunch, hence the numbers. It seems equally true that with regard to Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull that the Liberal Party has done exactly the same thing. This is what happens when there is no clear cut leader for people to rally behind. It means that the man out the front must always be looking over his shoulder and second guessing himself. In such an environment, it is not a wonder that people do not succeed. The sad reality is that these political “fat cats” retire on their super-doper pensions and superannuation packages while the average Australian is bankrupted by their profligacy.


[11] It is worthy of note that, looking at percentages, Malcolm Turnbull only garnered 31% as the incumbent leader. This means that on the first round of voting, 70% of his party was willing to see him go. By comparison, only 54.5% of the Party deemed that Mr Abbott was worthy of an invitation to retire.

[12] This is a non-issue in that Parliament voted that homosexual union should not be legalised in this country. It is constantly raised by agitators in order and only in order to destabilise and distract.

[13] The issue of homosexual union is an interesting one. It seems that Malcolm Turnbull has given assurances that there will be a plebiscite at the next election. This then is not a policy change. It is the same tactic that was proposed under Tony Abbott’s leadership. So, if this issue dies down it shows that there has been hostility, rancour, directed toward Mr Abbott and that this issue has been used as a shoe horn to lever him out of office – and this no doubt by some within his own Party. It will also be interesting to see whether or not the Cabinet stops leaking with this change of leadership. If both happen, it is a sure sign that Brutus is alive and well in the Liberal Party.