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.

Leyonhjelm’s Lunacy: The Plot to Destroy Australia

Once more, we find the battle lines being drawn over the issue of homosexual union and whether it should be made legal in this country. From a Christian perspective, we fundamentally oppose any such move and would much rather that Parliament took steps to make the Marriage Act 1961 a great deal stronger by referencing the Bible’s God as the sole Definer of marriage.

However, the truly disturbing aspect of this new debate is to be found in the proposed legislation itself, the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014. By this, we do not mean the proposal to destroy marriage by throwing open the gates to all and sundry, as repulsive as that is, but the absolutely nonsensical rationale on which the proposed legislation is based.

We have to admit to being a bit slow here. With this recent escalation in the debate, we finally got around to reading the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 and were immediately and absolutely appalled at the logic, or lack thereof, that is presented as the basis on which this radical and culturally destructive proposal is based. Truly, one would think that any first year philosophy student, regardless of their belief system, would see the glaring holes. Yet, here we are, standing on the precipice, waiting for our Parliament to debate this nonsense.

This has truly bothered us to the core, precisely because it causes us to wonder if there are any thinkers in Parliament or just a bunch of dummies with rings through their noses, being led captive to the latest political fad. Does any Parliamentarian any longer have a sense of moral absolutes, those concepts which do not and indeed cannot change, or have we reached the absolute absurdity of Democracy[1] in which 50.1% governs the day, even if its only for that day? Are there any in Parliament who have the ability and integrity to look at this proposal, even if they support the idea proposed, and say, ‘No. The justifications used to substantiate this proposal are so poor that their acceptance would serve to undermine and destroy our society.’

We hope that there are those who will see and we pray our Father in Heaven, in the  name of Jesus Christ, that He will make people see that this proposed legislation does have the potential to destroy this nation. Strong words, yes, but true nonetheless, for this is exactly what the adoption of this proposed legislation would accomplish. Thus, by God’s mercy we write, praying that this work may help men to see. “Lord, make them see!”

  1. The Weapon of Obscurity:

The first point to be made, and that in passing, is to again ask why these destroyers of the Social Fabric cannot be honest with the Australian people. Note that the proposed legislation is the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014. Are people not already free to marry in this country? The current Marriage Act is dated 1961. Such a date would seem to suggest that people have been free to marry for at least the last fifty years! Last year, our parents celebrated their sixtieth wedding anniversary. Hmmm? Did they do so illegally? Well, no. It was our task to procure a copy of their marriage certificate so that the appropriate dignitaries might send them congratulatory letters.

So, are people not free to marry in this country? No. No. No, a thousand times, No! People are absolutely free to marry in this country, as long as they meet some basic criteria. These criteria start with the Biblical view that marriage is between one man and one woman and is a covenant for life.[2] These are the primary criteria, to which others regarding age and consanguinity are added.[3]

Next we consider the wording of the motion put forward by the arch enemy of heterosexual marriage, Senator Hanson-Young, which read, “That the Senate agrees that all members of Parliament and senators should be granted a conscience vote on the issue of equal marriage in Australia.” The words to note here are “equal marriage.” Again, what is equal marriage, we might ask?

The point is, simply, that these people purposely muddy the waters of the debate with their deliberate attempts to obfuscate the true issue. Why will they simply not use the terms “homosexual” or “gay”? Why is the proposed change not titled, the Homosexual Marriage Bill? Why did Senator Hanson-Young’s motion not read: “That the Senate agrees that all members of Parliament and senators should be granted a conscience vote on the issue of homosexual and or gay marriage in Australia.” Why, because the opposition would be greater!

Just today we read an article claiming that seventy-two percent of Australians are in favour of marriage equality. This may be a very accurate figure, but the nagging question remains: Did people understand what was meant by marriage equality? Were people asked further questions as to their definition of and essentials for marriage? Were they told that the questionnaire was aimed at being a support for a change in the Marriage Act 1961?

Much can be claimed when you adopt obscurantism as your main tactic so as to deceive people into supporting that which they would otherwise find unpalatable.

As the old adage says, “Truth is the first casualty in a war!” and it seems to ring true for this current battle.

  1. The Politics of Nonsense:

Senator Leyonhjelm, in putting forward his foul proposal, has given the following rationale as to why his proposal should be accepted:

The purpose of the Freedom to Marry Bill 2014 is threefold.

First, the Amendment reduces the extent to which government interferes in private life. It does this by allowing all Australians regardless of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to marry.

Second, it imposes no claims or burdens of conscience on those persons who object to marriages other than between a man and a woman for both religious and non-religious reasons.

Third, it ensures that while conscience is to the greatest extent protected, the state – which stands for all Australians and whose laws ought to be facially neutral – cannot make claims of conscience in this matter.

A cursory glance at this list probably does not raise many concerns for the average person who has imbibed much of the Modernist’s thought. ‘Love and peace for all’ is the common currency for buying political favours of any kind, so it is only natural that we find these elements present. However, if you are willing, take a moment to think through the implications of each statement. Are you willing? If so, then let us take that journey together.

  1. a. Freedom –– First, the Amendment reduces the extent to which government interferes in private life. It does this by allowing all Australians regardless of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to marry.

Senator Leyonhjelm is a Libertarian, so it should come as no surprise that restriction on Governmental interference is high on his agenda and makes its way into his rationale. Equally, we must say that we appreciate Senator Leyonhjelm’s consistency on issues, even if we do not agree with the points directly. For example, the Senator believes in loosening gun laws and legalising both marijuana and euthanasia. Thus, there is an attempted consistency in the application of his thought.

Yet, this is exactly the problem; it is his thought that governs these debates. It is his subjective principle of freedom – an anti-God principle[4] – that dictates the merits of Governmental intrusion. For us, the question, obvious to all we would think, is, “Why not have the Government retreat from marriage altogether?” If the overarching principle is to lessen Governmental interference in the private lives of citizens, why does this proposed legislation not move to abolish the Marriage Act completely? In fact, why not construct a piece of legislation that does away with the Government, full stop!

Of course, we are also compelled to ask the serious questions in regard to the obscure phrase, “allowing all Australians regardless of sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity to marry.” We ask this because we have legitimate concerns as to what “sexual orientation” and “gender identity” really mean and, equally, what groundwork they lay for the further degradation of our national morality.

If lessening Governmental interference is the primary goal of this act and its primary application is to homosexual union, then what secondary applications can be made to polygamy, polyandry, incestuous relationships,[5] and other variations on the theme, using this same principle?

These questions must be considered because Senator Leyonhjelm has introduced a criterion and then not applied it to all aspects of the Marriage Act 1961. It seems to us that he has been rather particular in his application of his guiding principle. Thus, we must ask why he retains the qualifications that marriage is for two people and for life and the “prohibited relationships” contained in Section 23:2? Surely, these are just further examples of the Government interfering with the private live of the citizens. If not, why not?

Therefore, the first reason for rejecting this proposed legislation is that its guiding principle is fundamentally flawed. This principle does not deliver to us an absolute moral, a concrete foundation, if you will, which guides, restrains, and defends. Rather, we are introduced to yet another subjective standard that can be erased or moved the next time a new fad takes someone’s fancy.

2.b. Conscience –– Second, it imposes no claims or burdens of conscience on those persons who object to marriages other than between a man and a woman for both religious and non-religious reasons.

This second rationale brought forward by Senator Leyonhjelm is a simple lie, a misdirect, an untruth, a pork pie, a furphy, even a red herring. Law, by necessity, binds the conscience as well as the behaviour. A “law abiding citizen” is not one who only conforms outwardly, he is one who obeys the law of the land for conscience sake. He knows that to obey is good and right and he trains himself to do so in order that, when unsupervised, even though none but God sees him, he will still do right.[6]

The Apostle Paul, discussing the nature of rule and authority, in Romans 13, states: Wherefore it is necessary to be in subjection [to authorities], not only because of wrath, but also for conscience’ sake.

Paul here addresses both outward conformity—the fear of wrath—and the true desire to do right—for conscience sake. The Apostle’s whole argument is that all authority, Governmental, parental, etc, derives from God. This teaching is important and we must understand it. Paul is saying that if you are in authority, you cannot bind the conscience of anyone to any standard that is contrary to the Law of God. Equally, if you are a subordinate, you cannot rebel against any such law that complies with the Law of God. Thus, Paul, applying God’s Law, once more guards against both tyranny and anarchy.

However, the main point is that in such a system, compliance because of fear alone is an inadequate response. The man who complies with law only because he fears wrath will undoubtedly end up feeling that wrath. This will be the case because he will fail to rightly govern himself, will trip, and will be caught out. On the other hand, the man whose conscience is bound to the Law of God will conduct himself, at least in principle, properly on all occasions because he has an inner guide to which he will remain true—the Law of God as applied by legitimate Government. Thus, Paul wants us to see that it is the love of the Law of God, dwelling within, and guiding our consciences, that is to be prized.

In commenting on Romans 13:5, John Murray states:

The meaning here must be that we are to subject ourselves [to right authority] out of a sense of obligation to God. … God alone is Lord of the conscience and therefore to do anything out of conscience or for conscience’ sake is to do it from a sense of obligation to God.[7]

Therefore, on apostolic authority, we must again assert that the Senator is grossly mistaken. Conscience does matter. Consciences can never be, if you will excuse the terminology, free range. Consequently, this proposal does present a burden and a claim upon our consciences for two reasons: a) the proposed legislation is contrary to God’s command; b) the proposed legislation deals with an essential element of Man’s identity as created in God’s image so as to serve God’s purpose. Thus, we, as Christians, are being asked to choose between God and country. We are being asked, nay, commanded, to disobey God in order that we might comply with Man’s demands for obedience.

The Senator also references the non-religious objectors, and they too are in for a shock.[8] You see, it’s all nice to talk about one’s conscience being free or ‘not burdened’, but what happens when any who object take their conscience to the public square or to the agora? What happens when my conscience clashes with the Government’s law? Answer—Legislated penalties happen and your conscience is trampled upon by all sorts of sordid individuals wearing hob-nailed boots! We see this clearly in cases in the United States where Christian businessmen and women have refused services to homosexuals, particularly in the context of homosexual unions, and the State has fallen upon them with glee.[9] No respect for conscience at all is on display; only the brutality of tyrants who demand that you capitulate to their religious ideals.

For example, what happens when a minister, conscience bound to God, stands in his pulpit and denounces homosexuality and homosexual union?[10] Some might say, “Oh he can do that!” Yes, but for how long?[11] Okay, what happens when he is invited on to a popular ABC talkback show and is asked to state his beliefs?

What happens when, in the next round of proposed changes and revisions to the Marriage Act 1961, ministers of religion lose their right to marry according to conscience? The current proposal seeks to remove the term “minister of religion” from Section 47[12] with the intent that all authorised persons simply be classed as “marriage celebrants”. However, to allow this amendment is to remove from the Act a particular group that are set aside and recognised as operating under a different auspices. It is to remove some specific freedoms aimed, presumably, at allowing better counselling and a stronger foundation for marriage. Thus, the removal of this category is one step closer to all celebrants being classed as ‘State employees’ and, therefore, one step closer to all being compulsorily bound to not discriminate; that is, one step closer to everyone who conducts a marriage ceremony being forced to marry all and sundry, even against their conscience.

Senator Leyonhjelm, in his proposal, often refers to freedom of conscience, yet there is nothing within this legislation that truly guarantees this freedom. In point of fact, we see the exact opposite and it is scary. Remember, any right granted by legislation can as easily be removed by legislation. As noted above, item seven of the Senator’s proposed legislation removes any conscience from a “State employee” demanding that they must not discriminate.[13] This is a truly horrendous measure, for it essentially demands that the individual, upon entering the employ of the State, surrenders their conscience and any right of conscience, to the State. At this point, the Senator’s Libertarianism seems to have taken a distinct sidestep into Fascism or Nazism.

Therefore, the second reason to reject this proposed legislation is because the second tenet is an absolute lie. This legislation, rather than highlight or respect freedom of conscience, would guarantee the loss of any right to conscience by demanding that your conscience be surrender to the service of the State.

2.c. Secularism is Neutral –– Third, it ensures that while conscience is to the greatest extent protected, the state – which stands for all Australians and whose laws ought to be facially neutral – cannot make claims of conscience in this matter.

This third section, by far the worst, is almost unintelligible. We have already seen that despite the rhetoric there are no concrete guarantees that the conscience will be protected. Where are the new paragraphs, set in stone, never to be removed or altered, saying that anyone who believes that marriage is only between a man and woman is exempt from any prosecution under these laws; any related law; or any unforseen circumstance as a consequence of these laws?

If conscience is free and unburdened, why are some compelled to perform marriages according to this proposed law? If conscience is free, why are there references to the word “discriminate”?

Here, it would seem that we need to read the fine print. In the context, the freedom of conscience espoused can only be extended to those who have the ability to solemnise a marriage. They are the only ones mentioned in the Act and, therefore, the only ones granted latitude. The same is to be said in regard to the words, in this matter, as found at the conclusion of rational three. The matter is the proposed changes to the Marriage Act 1961, and therefore cannot refer to anything outside of that Act. Hence, we are back to the conundrum highlighted in point two above. The celebrant or minister may have some right of latitude in deciding whether to perform a marriage or not, but as soon as he steps outside of that context, he is open to all sorts of bother.

Humour us for a moment. Imagine a “tent making ministry”. The minister, lacking enough support for fulltime ministry, runs a cake shop three days a week. A homosexual approaches this man to marry him. He says, no. All is rosy. The next day the homosexual walks into the cake shop and asks the same minister to make a cake for his wedding. Again, the answer is, no. The result this time, law suits, hate mail, and so on.

Understand well, please, this proposal does not supply to all people who object a free pass. No, it only gives a free pass to those who are rightly able to solemnise a marriage and then only in regard to that one point, this matter. At every other point your conscience is to be trampled upon.

Concern must also be raised in regard to obligations that are placed upon those who exercise their right to conscience. For example, in regard to a military chaplain, the following is proposed:

Item 10 recognises that that the state must not discriminate, even in a military context. Therefore, any defence force chaplain who refuses to solemnise a marriage on the basis of conscience is obliged – where it is possible – to provide to the couple seeking solemnisation an alternative chaplain who is willing to solemnise the marriage.[14]

Of most concern, is the little word “obliged”. Whilst this is a little word, it sure can punch above its weight. So, what is meant? Well, we are not sure and no real definition is given. The following paragraph does try to outline instances in which this part may not be possible; nonetheless, we are ill at ease with this requirement.

Could this be interpreted to mean that a chaplain bear certain expenses as part of his obligation? If the postponement meant other complications, could he be deemed to be liable under another piece of legislation? If the request comes in a remote location and no other chaplains will be available for six months, what pressure will be brought to bear so that this chaplain feels obliged to perform the ceremony? Logically, we can also see that the conclusion of this matter will be that most, if not all, chaplains recruited for the armed forces will be namby-pamby liberals without convictions.

Last of all, we wish to pay a visit to our old friend, the Myth of Neutrality. Did you see him there in rationale three, proudly waving as he went past? If you missed him, he can be found atop the phrase, the state … ought to be facially neutral. Man, what a gem!

No, the State ought to be absolutely biased toward God and His Law. Neutrality is a myth. The laws of this nation will either serve God for His glory or they will serve to promote the glory of Man. It is that simple.

Therefore, it is at this point that we witness the veil fall. The words “facially neutral” are priceless, for they give the game away. These words are a tacit confession that the best the Government can do is feign neutrality. They can dress things up, apply the foundation, the blush, the eye liner, and so on, but they cannot truly attain to neutrality, they can only attempt to disguise the mutton as lamb! In the end, we are left with a feigned neutrality. In concrete terms, this means that the government pursues its agenda, based in its religious convictions, all the while pretending to govern for the well-being and according to the convictions of all citizens.

Remember, the “state” to which the Senator refers is often referred to as a Secular State. Former Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, used this expression in his justification for the adoption of homosexual union. His point was that Australia was a “secular state” and therefore should not be governed by any particular religion. The fallacy on display in this statement is that Secularism is itself a religion. The reason that the Secularist does not want Christianity in the public square has to do with the fact that they are competing to dominate the same piece or real estate. When this is understood clearly, the gibberish contained in the Senator’s rationale becomes evident.

If you still need to be convinced about the obvious error here and the claim that our Government is facially neutral, please allow us to point you to one concrete proof—Parliament itself. If neutrality exists, why are the Houses of Parliament divided between Liberals, Labour, Greens, Democrats, and Independents? Each of these groups represents an ideology, a worldview, a religion. Each believes his religion to be true and wants to see his god placed in the position of reverence. For Senator Leyonhjelm, that god is liberty (Libertinism); for the Sociaslists it is community (Communism or Statism); for the Greens it is Nature (Animism); for the Democrats it is Radical Individualism and Rights (Autonomy); and for the so-called Conservatives, they seemed to have picked up that old Chinese religion – Confusion-ism, for they do not know what they are!

Therefore, we contend that this last rationale is to be rejected for the following reasons: First, it espouses a perverted concept of government in which God and His morality are absent from Parliament – the Myth of Neutrality; Second, there are no protections in this legislation for any who would disagree with the new and perverted view of marriage – the State is making claims to conscience!

  1. Tyranny and Subjugation:

Before closing, we would very much like to draw your attention to the psyche of the Socialist style governments that we have in this land, the absolute tyranny that is inbuilt into legislation, and the mechanisms by which this tyranny will be wrought.

First, it is fundamental that we appreciate that, despite the colour of the flag flying in Canberra, all the major Parties are Socialist in their philosophy and dogma. This is clearly seen in the out of control welfare system; the laws that enable governmental intrusion, beyond their legitimate sphere of sovereignty, into the lives of the people; and the continued teaching of the rhetoric that ‘the State knows best!’

All of these things fly in the face of God’s design for Man and Society. God gave Man law and conscience. God expects Man to be self-governing and self-disciplining in terms of His law. Outward pressure is only brought to bear when the individual fails to self-govern. By contrast, the modern view is that Man is free. He does not have to be self-governed or even moral. He is free to be what he wants. However, this creates a conundrum. It does not take long to realise that this free man is going to come into conflict with that free man. The solution then is to turn to God’s order, in a perverted manner, and to begin to impose external sanctions on both parties. However, as this is a travesty, the aim of the external imposition is not to make moral, self-controlled, and, therefore, self-governed Men, but simply to erect a fence that forces Men to stay within the confines of and feign obedience to the rules of the playground.

The tragedy of this is that, in the end, and we have witnessed this myriad times the world over, the subordinate rule maker – the government – becomes a victim of its own Liberalism and must continue to change the rules so as to allow more latitude in the playground.

This leads to the second point concerning tyranny. As the rules become more Liberal, there will automatically be more conflict as more and more key societal norms are infringed upon. This is absolutely logical. If you work outward in ever increasing circles, you must impact more people. Thus, more and more, Men’s consciences and basic rights are trampled upon. Men lose the right to freedom of speech; to freedom in general. Men become enslaved to employers. Men are discriminated against and are subjected to “Big Brother’s” illegitimate and illogical policies wherever they go. The minority dominates the majority through these perverted and incongruous laws and the minority’s voice seems loud and united, being amplified by the fact that the dissenting voices are silenced.

At this juncture the hypocrisy becomes evident. For example, if we spoke to those in favour of homosexual union, there is little doubt that they would condemn the “slave trade” and the repression of minorities in either Fascist Russia or Nazi Germany, yet they are very happy to see people enslaved today and to see the majority dominated and persecuted in order for them to achieve their goal.

This said, we need to consider the third aspect of the methodology involved and in so doing pull these three threads together.

The simple fact is that the push for homosexual union is only the culmination of moral and societal erosion that began years ago. Whilst I hold out hope that we will not see homosexual union legitimised in the State’s law, we who oppose homosexual union need to do some serious thinking and we need to extend our thinking.

You see, if we are to truly win this battle, we need to start arguing that all the rights gained by homosexuals over the years need to be revoked. We need to begin to argue that all those government bodies created to ensure that there is no discrimination, that there is supposed equality, etc etc, are abolished. Why, because they all derive from the same corrupt understanding of Man and Society that is explicitly anti-God in its outlook.

Many Christians are going to find this hard to swallow because they long ago abandoned God’s truth for the homogeneous outlook of peace and tolerance as peddled by the Secular Humanists. However, the truth of our statement is manifest if you will simply stop and look at the evidence.

Over these last decades, the God haters have set about bolstering their position by changing laws that are not always in the public view or which seem to have an air of legitimacy, say, tolerance. As a consequence, we have seen the laws on discrimination and equality spread throughout society. This has come about as the State, by coercion or coaxing, has overreached its legitimate sphere of sovereignty and has extended its tentacles into schools, hospitals, employee’s lives, subordinate authorities and the like.

Now, we must understand the impact of these laws in regard to the current debate. If we look to examples overseas, we see that people are being persecuted for refusing to provide goods and services to homosexual unions. Those people being persecuted protest, particularly in America, that they have the right to freedom of religion under the constitution. The answer, in one form or another, that inevitably comes back is, “This is not about religion but about your failure to comply with anti-discrimination laws under …”, with some State regulatory body being cited.

Do you understand this? In other words, the battle is raging in these secondary areas. Whether or not homosexual union will be realised in this country is beside the point. Already, Christians have lost the right to hire people who comply with their belief system – read, denied the right to practice morality. These rights, in some States, are being even further eroded. Homosexuals have been given almost every right at law and it is hypocrisy simply to deny them the right to marriage, if they are legitimately entitled to everything else. Equally, if it is not legitimate for homosexuals to marry, then it is not right that they gain all else. Thus, we must not only repudiate the concept of homosexual union, but repudiate everything that is associated with it. We must repent of all sin; from the very first day we turned aside from God’s path and chose to walk in disobedience, not just those sins of the last few steps.

Examples of the battle are these: Locally, the Council, under State Government direction, made – read, compulsory attendance required – all its employees attend a Human Rights seminar so that they could be taught about their obligation toward perverts and deviants. Staying in Australia, we know of a government employee who had the suggestion made that when they write in public forums that they should use an alias – that is a Christian employee stating things that government policy may not agree with. Overseas, there have been several cases of people who have expressed private opinions on social media or in a book and have subsequently been hauled over the coals, suspended, or dismissed.

The question then must be, “What do we gain merely by rejecting homosexual union, if all these secondary methods of tyranny remain?” We cannot continue to live in this halfway house where we reject homosexual union, but embrace homosexual equality in every other sphere of life. We cannot be free to reject homosexual union, but then be condemned because we refuse to employ a homosexual.

This is the tyranny and this is the methodology. If you do not agree with the Government’s agenda, enshrined in so many other statutes outside of marriage, you lose your employment, you lose your freedom, you lose your business, you lose your home, and ultimately, you will lose your society.

Leyonhjelm’s lunacy is simply one more in a long line of lunacies that have brought this society to the brink of collapse. Our appeal is to the Christians because we alone have the ability to turn our nation back to God and to a positive future. However, to do this we must be willing to repent, ask God’s forgiveness, indentify where we left God’s pathway and return to that very place so that we can step back upon the path of truth. Fighting individual issues will not suffice, we must destroy the poisonous root that feeds the tree. We must exchange the lunacy of Man for the Sanity and Wisdom of God.


[1] I would hope that the Christians of this nation, in particular, are beginning to see that Democracy is not Biblical and should not be trumpeted as the saviour of Man, like so many are accustomed to do. True Democracy, in the extreme, means mob rule. The only question is, “What do you define as a mob?” Democracy, without any sense of an absolute, without any concept that there is a limit to the concept, becomes Ochlocracy!

[2] See Genesis 1:26-28 – Then God said, “Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; and let them rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky and over the cattle and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them. 28 And God blessed them; and God said to them, “Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth, and subdue it; and rule over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the sky, and over every living thing that moves on the earth.

[3] These are also derived from the principles of Scripture. See Leviticus 18 for example. Interesting, is it not, that this chapter, which defines the limits of heterosexual relationships, also proscribes homosexuality. If Senator Leyonhjelm believes that the limits of consanguinity should remain, on what basis does he seek to remove the limits to heterosexuality?

[4] It must be understood that, Biblically speaking, Man has his greatest freedom when he is governed by law, specifically God’s Law. We recognise this principle every day when we go about our business, yet, we do not recognise this principle. Confused? Do not be. What makes it relatively safe for you to drive on the roads, your freedom to do what you will or your ability to obey the road rules? It is the second. Your freedom would result in chaos and death. We know this because most road accidents are attributable to breaches of the law. Thus, the principle that you are at your freest when you are obedient is a principle that we know well. The trouble is that as soon as we move into the political arena, this principle gets mutilated or maligned and that is precisely because we have abandoned our belief in God, the One whose laws stop both anarchy and tyranny.

[5] Before the censorious crows cry foul, they may wish to take note of the fact that there is already a push for this type of recognition; yes, they have even helped us out by giving it a name! See:

[6] We have in mind here those laws that do not conflict with the Law of God and are thereby to be obeyed by all men. When man-made laws conflict with God’s Law, our conscience must be bound to God alone (Acts 4:19).

[7] John Murray, The Epistle to the Romans (NICNT, Grand Rapids; Eeerdmans Publishing; 1 vol, 1968) 2:155

[8] Whilst Man is a rebel and a hater of God and His Law, the simple reality is that Man, as a consequence of being made in the image of God, can still have a right conscience on matters.

[9] See here: and here:

[10] Again, the case in Houston stands as a warning. See: and here: It is not without note that this storm erupted when Houston’s gay mayoress tried to enforce her religious agenda.

[11] It is worth remembering that the Brumby Labor Government in Victoria was hatching plans to intrude into churches and worship services.


[13] “Item 7 refers to the governing section, 39(4), which disapplies section 47 to authorised celebrants who are employees of the State, and who therefore cannot discriminate.” See here:;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs983_ems_5753824b-b9e6-468c-8a0c-ccf455305ea4%22

[14] Emphasis added.

Equality and Coercion: The Antipodes of Humanism

You will know them by their fruits”, so says Jesus.[1] This is a wonderful piece of advice and one which every Christian should learn to put into practice. In essence, Jesus is telling us that if you want to understand what makes a man tick, look at the fruit of his ideas. If someone comes to you selling “sweetness and light”, but behind him there is a trail of stench and darkness, then you would rightly question the intrinsic nature of the salesman’s product. In such a scenario, the terms ‘witchdoctor’ and ‘snake oil’ would readily spring to mind.

As Christians in the year 2015, we have many witchdoctors peddling much snake oil, but it all comes packaged as “sweetness and light” or, more specifically, Religious Freedom and Equality. Yes, the packaging sells the product well. It is bright and shiny. It makes some wonderful claims that just warm the cockles of your heart. It’s calorie free. It can be consumed at any time. It will add volume to your hair and … you get the picture. Yes, it seems laudable and the racketeers, oh, sorry, marketers, do a fine job in pushing their product. However, have you stopped to look at the fruit of their wares? When you look at our culture, are people healthy, thin, and sporting voluminous bouffants or are they ailing, squidgy around the middle, and balding?

Brethren, what fruit do you see about you today?

This challenge is necessary precisely because the common place mantra in the Church today is “Do not judge; do not judge!” Consequently, when we as Christians are confronted with fruit that is rancid or which looks highly questionable, we tend to be duped or coerced into believing the packaging and its claims. Thus, we quote the mantra, breathe deeply, and take a bite, rather than dispose of the rotten fruit — pledging never to buy from that retailer ever again!

Two such pieces of ugly fruit, being mass marketed as we speak, are Religious Freedom and Equality. Yet, both are rotten to the core. They are so because they are anti-God and as such contravene explicit commands that God has given. As such, one would think that the average Christian would give these products wide birth. However, it still seems that Christians are willing to believe the promises of the racketeers, rather than the Word of God.

Reformation Ministries, Salt Shakers, and other Christian organisations, expend much energy on warning people, Christians in particular, about the dangers of Humanism and electing governments whose explicit agendas run contrary to God’s Word. Today, we place upon your table the fruit of Humanism’s hollow promises, garnished with a real life example of Humanism’s hypocrisy.

We are all aware of the terms Religious Freedom and Equality. Both are pushed by the Humanists. Both are said to mean that any and every man will be free to believe what he will and act in accordance with his own conscience. This sounds good to many, but it is in fact the first false step. Man was created in God’s image and for His glory.[2]  As such, Man’s beliefs and conscience are inextricably tied to the Law and revelation of God as opened to us in the Bible.[3] In short, Man is not autonomous, he is Theonomic. Man is not “I” centred (anthropocentric), but “God” centred (Theocentric).

Applying this Biblical truth means that Man is neither free to follow any religion he likes or invents nor able to demand equality for every practice. By this we mean that Man must worship God, through Jesus Christ, as God has specified in Scripture and that Man’s acceptable behaviour is that, and only that, which God in His Word countenances.[4] This means that bowing to a golden image is as wrong today as it was in Daniel’s time. It means that the wicked are not equal with the righteous or the murderer with the innocent.

Thus, Religious Freedom and Equality are usurpations of God’s rule and authority and they are a manifestation of Man’s desire to ascend to the throne of God.

That this is so can be seen in the case of Barronelle Stutzman, which comes to us from the USA.[5] This 70 year old, a Christian florist, has fallen foul of the State authorities for refusing to supply flowers for a homosexual union – what is termed as ‘gay marriage’. In looking at this case, we see that the Humanist veil has completely fallen off, displaying their bigotry, bias, and hostility to Christ and His own.

The cut down version of the story is that a long time customer of Mrs. Stutzman took advantage of perverse marriage laws[6] and decided to unite with his homosexual partner. Mrs. Stutzman was in turn asked to provide flowers for the event. After careful consideration, she politely declined the invitation. From this seemingly amicable declining of an invitation, the story, carried by the great evil of social media, began to circulate. At this point, Washington State’s Attorney General, Bob Ferguson, having viewed the social media, stepped in and sued Mrs. Stutzman. That’s right. The Attorney General, without a complaint from the man involved launched a suit against Mrs. Stutzman. Bob Ferguson’s rationale is this: “My primary goal has always been to bring about an end to the defendant’s unlawful conduct and to make clear that I[7] will not tolerate discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.”[8]

Here, we enter upon the conundrum. We subtitled this article, The Antipodes of Humanism, and we did so for this reason – Humanism cannot reconcile its two great mantras!

When Christians defend the faith, they can be criticised for being biased – which we are happily; biased toward God and His Word – and people can use that bias to disbelieve the message.[9] However, the above story, giving voice to the Humanist agenda, shows that the fruit of Humanist philosophy is rancid, unpalatable, and poisonous. It does so precisely because it proves that the two great Humanist mantras of Religious Freedom and Equality are completely incompatible. It proves that Humanism cannot guarantee everybody’s freedom. At some point, a person’s ideology (religion) is going to clash with another’s ideology as the fruits of that ideology (actions) are put on display.

Let’s make it simple. Your religion will dictate your practice. Your religion specifies your morals; your morals are worked out through your fingertips, so to speak. Now the fallacy of Humanism, and its outright hypocrisy, is that it tries to pretend that all actions and, therefore, all religions are equal. However, this simply cannot be true and the above story proves it to be so. A Christian operating on her religious convictions refuses a service to another person based on the fact that the other person’s religion and practice conflicts with her own. At this point, Humanism should be delighted. Both parties have expressed their conviction and have practiced their religion accordingly. Yet what we see is that Humanism is decidedly unhappy. Mr. Ferguson, wielding the power of the State, is incensed and feels that action is warranted.

Naturally, he must favour the Christian. After all, she holds to tenets that have been cherished and believed for thousands of years. She believes as the founders of America believed – in a Law giving God who proscribed homosexuality as an abomination. Hers is the established religion of centuries. The judges of America sit beneath the Ten Commandments. Surely, hers is the right! No. Not so.

You see, the new god dictates who is right and who is wrong. The worshippers of this new god know that Equality is a fallacy precisely because not all religions agree on every tenet and disagreement must mean a difference in practice.[10] Yet, they continue with their mantra hoping to blind as many people as possible.

The key lesson here is that Humanism is itself a religion and one that is, at present, far more destructive than the threat posed by Islam. Please do not be fooled by Humanism’s rhetoric of either Freedom or Equality; neither be fooled by Humanism’s claim to be neutral. All are lies. When a stalemate occurs, as in the above story, the servants of the new god become the umpires and they will always side with that which promotes their religion and their god.

This said, there are other disturbing elements to this story. For example, Mrs. Stutzman is not only being sued as a business, but also as a person. She has now also had lawsuits brought against her by the ACLU and the person involved. Then there are the homosexual activists who are now sending more requests to Mrs. Stutzman for flowers at their union ceremonies, knowing she will refuse and thereby increase fines and so on.

These elements are wrong and true justice is mocked. For example, how many times can a person be sued for one action? If the Attorney General proceeds first, in the name of the State, on what basis are these other suits presented. In essence, any person in America aggrieved at this lady’s action could sue her![11] Then we have to ask as to the rights of a business owner to refuse service to a person. How is refusing service to a homosexual any different to refusing service to a person with an inappropriate dress code or who is drunk?[12] Both these later examples are acceptable, with one being required by law. Hence, we can only conclude that discrimination is acceptable, it is simply a matter of whom you choose to discriminate against and on what basis.

This then leads us to a clarion statement: Christian, the persecuted Church no longer exists in Communist, Islamic, and Third World countries. It exists right here, in the so-called Christian West! America calls itself a Christian nation, yet She actively persecutes true Christians. Do not be fooled, the same is happening here in Australia. It may be less noticeable, but it is here. It is not different in nature, only in degree.

Hence, we, as God’s people, must take action whilst we are still able. Dear friends, this is why we ask you to join us in our stand against these false standards. This call is issued because, sadly, the Christian populace has largely embraced these false ideas of Freedom and Equality, either naively thinking that they were good or they have been coerced by law and threats of litigation.

In essence, Freedom of Religion and Equality are the Secular Humanist’s values enshrined in law and the means by which they will discriminate against all those who hold to a different religion. In the end, the question is not, “Will there be discrimination in our society?” but “Who is to be discriminated against and by what standard?”

We ask, therefore, that you might join in rejecting all forms of the Humanist agenda and thereby become an integral part of the Church Militant instead of the Church compliant.

[1] Matthew 7:20.

[2] Genesis 1:26-28.

[3] Question and answer 3 of the Westminster Shorter Catechism highlight this: “What do the scriptures principally teach? The Scriptures principally teach what man is to believe concerning God, and what duty God requires of man. (2 Tim. 1:13, 2 Tim. 3:16)”

[4] The perfect example of this pattern is to be seen in the Ten Commandments. The first four deal with God and His worship, the following six with how man should relate to man. God therefore loves the one who worships correctly and hates the one who presents false worship. God deplores the thief and the adulterer, but has regard for the one who honours his parents. In God’s eyes, not all religions are valid or all actions acceptable. God, as the perfect Sovereign, determines these things. Not Man!

[5] We are citing this case because the USA is further advanced in capitulating to the homosexual agenda and it is hoped that the ramifications seen there might awaken us to action before we begin to see and experience the same here.

[6] This is of course an imposition of the Humanist god. The One living and true God says that marriage is a covenant between one man and one woman and that for life. God does not recognise homosexual unions as legitimate. They are viewed as rebellion.

[7] It is an interesting use of the personal pronoun at this point.

[8] If all discrimination is wrong, then open the jails. In fact, one must destroy all law. Any law, any compulsion, is intrinsically an act of discrimination or, at the very least, holds the potential to be discriminatory. Similarly, if Mr. Ferguson wants to remove “discrimination the basis of sexual orientation” and genuinely wants to be fair to all, why then does he only stand up for that which is Biblically and historically aberrant behaviour?

[9] Of course, the Humanists admit no such bias. They would have you believe that they were born in a vacuum and remain untouched by the world of ideas around them.

[10] A man whose religion sates that he is bound to obey a God who has revealed His will is going to have a very different set of practices to the man that sets himself up as god and believes that he rightly determines his own actions.

[11] It must be said that in Biblical justice the person wronged must be the complainant, unless that person is incapable of doing so. The Bible knows nothing of the State benefitting from cases of justice; the beneficiary must be the person wronged.

[12] We could even turn the question around and ask, “At what point will a customer be compelled to shop in a particular store against their will?” If the owner of a business is compelled to deal with everyone, when will he be able to compel everyone?

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt 1.)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

2. Morality v Equality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

This issue is not equality. The issue is Morality!

3. Democracy v Theocracy:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

4. Homosexuality v Heterosexuality:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Life v Death:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

God’s Law-Word states:

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

Continue reading: Part 2


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

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

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

[8] Available at:

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

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

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

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

[13] Jeremiah 3:25

[14] Please see the “High Priestess” Oprah sowing her perverted view:

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

[16] See” Refuting Abortion from the Bible. Available at:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[26] Please see: Marriage Is Life!

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

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

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

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

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