The Fallacy of Absolute Free Speech

Posted on June 4, 2021 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

One from Ecclesiastes:

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

One from the Prophet Isaiah:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

FOOTNOTES:

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

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

^[3] Ex 20:7.

^[4] Ex 20:16.

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

^[6] Pr 4:24.

^[7] Pr 5:3.

^[8] Pr 10:32.

^[9] Pr 12:22.

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

^[11] Pr 15:2.

^[12] Ec 10:12–14.

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

^[14] Mt 12:36–37.

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

^[16] Eph 4:29.

^[17] Jas 3:1–3:12. Edited.

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

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

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

[21] Deuteronomy 29:18.

Infused with PC, Not JC!

Posted on March 23, 2021 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

To measure anything correctly, we must have the appropriate instrument and the appropriate standard. As a simple example, a portly gentleman can put his mind at ease by standing beside an obese person, whereas, to stand beside a wiry / thin person would cause the opposite reaction.

The same requirement for an accurate standard of measurement needs to be applied to the Church today. It is easy for individual congregations and denominations to find false measuring rods. We can attach ourselves to some mega-church that has the latest and greatest version of church-growth-philosophy and convince ourselves that such size means that ‘God is truly with us.’ Conversely, we can attach ourselves to some small, struggling congregation and content ourselves that all our problems stem, not from disobedience, but from the fact that we, alone, are that small, faithful remnant always to be persecuted.

Similarly, we can look at the lack of impact that the Church is having, especially in the West, upon our societies and culture. We can blame governmental interference. We can point our fingers at the so-called militant left. We can complain that the local paper will not run our pieces. We might even complain that God has not given us enough young folk to successfully complete our planned leaflet drop. All this, however, is simply illustrative of the fact that the Church has adopted the wrong standard of measurement.

The Church has one singular standard of measurement and that is God.[1] Explained more fully, it is God’s morality revealed in His Law[2] and ultimately in His Son, Jesus Christ.[3] We can distil this just a little more by saying that God’s morality revealed in His Law and in Jesus demarcates that which is pleasing to God and that which is not – life v death, obedience v disobedience; blessable v condemnable; His presence v His absence.

Now, most orthodox Christians reading this are not going to have their heads explode. Indeed, even some at the more Liberal end of the scale, who still acknowledge Scripture, will at least give a little nod. So, what is the problem? Well, the problem, in a nutshell, is the issue of theory versus practice. That which is outlined above is truth and it is the theory on which we should work as the Church. However, in practice, it is not.

The Church’s guilt lies in Her breaking one very pertinent and serious commandment – something which should never be is! – and that commandment is found in both Deuteronomy and Revelation:

You shall not add to the word which I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you.

I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God shall add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book.^[4]

Both texts are extremely specific in their warnings, but, sadly, the true fear and reverence for God and His standards are largely missing from the Church; thus omission and substitution become very real options. When we adopt the practice of omission and substitution, rather than submission and obedience, we place ourselves in a very precarious position. We turn from the path of life to one of death. We begin to subtly deny doctrine, which, by its very nature, becomes a subtle denial of God and the attributes of His Being.

In our day, the perceived problem is that the Church is infused with PC and not JC. Jesus Christ came to do the will of the Father, despite the great personal cost to Himself. Pain, suffering, and alienation were His because He loved His Father and was committed to obedience and the actions required by obedience:

“For I have come down from heaven, not to do My own will, but the will of Him who sent Me;[5]

“My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.^[6]

“Father, if Thou art willing, remove this cup from Me; yet not My will, but Thine be done.”^[7]

This meant that Jesus was willing to affirm God’s morality as it is expressed in God’s Law and demonstrated in His own life, no matter what the consequences. Are we as equally committed to this process? No! We have moved from JC to PC. We have allowed our culture, sinful and rebellious, to lay out a charter before the Church in which this evil World demands that its sensitivities, ideals, and agendas be respected, at all costs. Disappointingly, and to the detriment of the Many, the Church has largely laid her signature to this charter.

Here, three experiences will be relayed and the ramifications of each explained:

Preaching Evangelism and only Evangelism:

When it comes to this fist topic, many may ask as to the nature of the problem. Is not evangelism Biblical? Well, yes, it is Biblical, but it is still a problem. Heresy!! “How can something that is Biblical be wrong?!” Very easily. Above we quoted texts that warned about adding to or taking away from Scripture. Well, in the same vein, underemphasising or overemphasising something can be wrong. Grace is a Biblical doctrine, but this writer often speaks of the “heresy of grace” precisely because it is overemphasised to the point where antinomianism and blatant disobedience are excused under the guise of ‘grace’.

Thus, in recent years, there has been a real trend to use almost every sermon as a goad to guilt Christians into the streets to evangelise. All sorts of things are laid out before the Christian to send them on one of these all-expenses-paid guilt trips. Yet, despite decades of emphasis upon evangelism; courses on evangelism; 12 foolproof techniques to evangelism; car-boot sale evangelism; puppet-show evangelism; not to mention the probable millions invested in and spent on evangelism, the Church is not prospering. Numbers dwindle. New converts are rarely seen. Why? Precisely because of the emphasis upon evangelism.[8]

Confused? Do not be so. You see, through various Biblical texts, the Church of older ages came to speak concerning “whole counsel of God”. This is what preachers should be preaching – the whole counsel of God and nothing less. This means that everything God has revealed should be fodder for the preacher. Not so anymore. Through being enamoured with PC and not JC, we have now subscribed to the “hole counsel of God”. The term sounds remarkably similar, but this new version leads to a completely different place.

The “hole counsel” is exactly what it says: It leaves big holes in God’s counsel! These holes are left when the PC fanatics take their scalpels to God’s counsel in the like of a surgeon cutting out cankers. Let us be clear. There are no cankers in the whole counsel of God, yet those infused with PC rather than JC perceive that there are cankers. Consequently, they excise this bit and that bit and then vainly try and make it look more appropriate with some ill-fitting and hastily applied patches, hurriedly sewn into place.

To some, this might just seem like just a piece of wild poetry that may sound pleasing, but which lacks substance. Fair enough. Let us then look at some practical examples.

1. When the Westminster Divines wrote their catechism, their first question was: What is man’s chief and highest end? They answered that it was “to glorify God and fully to enjoy Him forever.” This quote accurately reflects what Scripture teaches. God should be, indeed, must be, First! Yet, what we find in the preachers infused with PC is a subtle shift away from God being first. Their priority becomes sinful man and his desires.

We see this, for example in our worship services. Worship should be God-centred. We come to show the worth of God. Worship, by definition, is, therefore, for those who know God through Christ and wish, as a consequence, to express that worth. Not so, to the PC brigade. We want to welcome rebellious sinners (the unsaved) into our midst. We do not wish to offend them, so we will make some changes to accommodate them in the hope that we do not offend them. In this instant, our gaze is no longer firmly fixed on God and what He says is appropriate for and in worship, but we have turned to the rebel to ask for his opinion. Whether we go any further than this is irrelevant. Our eye is taken off God. We have, in essence, committed idolatry, because we have allowed something else other than the dictates of God to influence or decision making.

2. Following this turning from God to the sinner, it is inevitable that the Church will no longer stay true to the Doctrines that God has declared. When we seek to court the rebel, we will, of necessity, not wish to offend them. After all, they will not stay long in our midst if their conscience, lifestyle, and thought patterns are constantly assailed.

Thus, it all starts with a toning down. We may start with the Doctrine of Sin. The Bible says sin is “lawlessness”.[9] Oh, but we cannot tell the rebel that he is the living equivalent of the despotic bad guy in the old Western. So, we tone it down. Sin is … feelings of self-doubt; feelings of inadequacy; a failure to love oneself appropriately, and so on. Having first toned things down, it then becomes requisite to be vague and nonspecific. Having changed the definition of sin, then we must deal in turn with the doctrines of Hell and Salvation, which both the impinge upon the Person and Work of Jesus the Christ.

Jesus came to save us because of sin – a state of being that places us in opposition to God and thereby unable to ever enjoy His presence because, as a sinner, we now hate everything concerning God. The unsaved go to Hell as punishment for their rebellion. To be saved, one must be washed in the blood of Christ to once more be in a position of desiring and enjoying God’s presence. Hmmm, but we have just made sin a subjective, emotional-come-mental state that has nothing to do with transgressing God’s Law. Which means, God is not really going to send someone to eternal punishment because of self-doubt. What then of Jesus? If sin is redefined, Hell lessened or eradicated, what role does Jesus play. We do not really need a Saviour in that big sense, because … you know, umm, sin is a bad feeling, so now Jesus is nothing more than a cosmic psychologist whose always open?!?

Of equal importance, at this juncture, is the whole question of the applicability of God’s Law. Through the influence of PC, God’s Law has, in the main, been pushed off stage and hidden from sight. Why? Precisely because the ultimate aim of PC is at odds with the aim of JC. Just as in the ‘evolution v Creation’ debate, here too, there is no common ground between PC and JC; yet there are Christians and others that are trying to yoke these concepts together. However, to do so means the eradication of the point of conflict, which, in this instance, is God’s Law.

As we saw above, Jesus came to save the sinner as he is defined Biblically – a transgressor of God’s Law. This means that the sinner must pay the debt for his infraction of the Law. It means that if he cannot, someone else must or the sinner will be justly condemned. Enter Jesus! He alone has the credit, through a life of obedience, to offer Himself in the stead of the debtor. This is restitution or propitiation that is in accord with God’s Law. But wait … There is more!

Interestingly, in the PC universe there is a great emphasis upon evangelism. Yet, as we noted, it is often ineffectual. Why? Precisely because of its meddling with and downplaying of God’s Law. The Law of God defines sin. The Law of God outlines the remedy for sin. So far so good. Yet, what is missing today is the third part: God’s Law is the only thing that shows the rebellious sinner how destitute he is in the sight of God and thereby magnifies Jesus the Christ as the only One through Whom he can have peace with God. Consider these words:

Therefore, the Law has become our tutor to lead us to Christ, that we may be justified by faith.^[10]

Now we know that whatever the Law says, it speaks to those who are under the Law, that every mouth may be closed, and all the world may become accountable to God; because by the works of the Law no flesh will be justified in His sight; for through the Law comes the knowledge of sin.^[11]

Paul’s version, the version of a man enamoured with JC and not PC, is vastly different to that of the moderns. Paul did not consider God’s Law to be passé, a mere relic of the past that belonged to some angry, lightning-bolt throwing god. No, Paul understood it to be essential to his Gospel, for it was the very thing that showed the sinner his need, magnified Jesus as the sinners only hope, and as the means through which the Holy Spirit works to draw men to Christ.

The Apostle’s theory of salvation was wholly Biblical and focussed rightly on God’s Law – the sinner is so because he transgressed the Law; his restitution is outlined in the Law; being a sinner he thinks he is alright until he is confronted with God’s Law, which, like a huge mirror, shows him warts and all; thus, the sinner is shown that Jesus and his cross are the only means of salvation.

Compare this with the evangelism of PC: The Law is passe, it is now about grace; they don’t want to offend the sinner otherwise he may stop listening, so they push Law and doctrine aside; they preach Jesus as Saviour, but will not dangle the sinner over the precipice to gaze into the pit of Hell, so what is it exactly that Jesus saves from and why is He necessary?

Evangelism apart from the Law of God is an exercise in Humanistic psychology and amounts to little more than making people feel good about themselves while they stand in the mud and mire. It does not bring change; indeed, it cannot bring change precisely because it does not magnify Christ. The man who feels content or is made to feel content with himself whilst in the mud and mire, will never cry out or experience the wonder of the Psalmist: The Lord, He heard my Cry! The Lord, He lifted me out of the miry pit. The Lord, He gave me a firm place to stand. The Lord, He set me upon the Rock, which is Jesus the Christ. The Lord, He put a song of worshipful praise in my mouth.

3. For this third point, we will do an about face. If the preachers are predominantly preaching on evangelism, their preaching always heading in one direction, especially a direction akin to that outlined above, let us pause and ask, “What, then, are they not preaching?” If the whole counsel of God becomes the “hole” counsel, if pursuing the evangelistic mantra means changing doctrine, lessening consequence, and becoming vague on specifics, we must confront an equally grave consequence, namely, the man of God is never equipped for his task here on earth.

All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.^[12] This is a well-known text. It is often used as proof text for the doctrine of the Inspiration of Scripture. However, to focus on that point is really to miss the point of the point. Scripture is inspired; it is God-breathed. Therefore, it is able to fulfil the purpose for which it has been given, viz, that God’s people are equipped and perfectly fitted for the work in which they are called to engage.

The simple question, then, is, ‘How is the man of God made adequate, if he is never exposed to the whole counsel of God?’

Let your light shine before men in such a way that they may see your good works and glorify your Father who is in heaven.^[13] Another well-known text. Jesus lays this command at our feet as He concludes His discourse on the essential nature of the Christian as salt and light. Note well, please, that verse fifteen emphatically makes the point that lights are not lit to be placed under an up-turned bucket. No, they are placed high, in the open, so that the light reaches to the furthest possible extent.

Applying this text, we are once more faced with the fact that the Christian must be obviously different from the man of the World. The Christian must possess personal holiness. He must be righteous and upright. He must be Christlike. Not in some metaphorical or spiritualised manner, but in heart and reality. The very cruel irony of the evangelism bandwagon is seen right here. Earlier, the point was made to the effect that we see little fruit from evangelism today precisely because of the overemphasis on evangelism. This may have confused some. However, it is really very simple. One of the key ingredients to true Biblical evangelism has always been the quality of the lives lived by the Christian.

Peter speaks of giving a reason for the hope that is in you “to anyone who asks.” Why would anyone ask about that hope if your life is hopeless? If the victory of Christ Jesus is not evident; if light is not your nature; if you are a decaying and not preserving (salt); if you are unequipped, because you have not been corrected and trained so as to be perfectly adequate, why would anyone come and ask about the quality of your life that is so patently absent? Peter’s challenge begins with these words: Sanctify – set apart – Christ as Lord in your hearts! These words naturally lead to the discovery of another eroded doctrine, thanks to PC, and that is the Doctrine of Sanctification – our being set apart wholly unto God for His work, His purposes, and His glory.

With the erosion of sanctification and the lowering of the spiritual bar, it is often very hard to distinguish Christian from non-Christian. As the Church has become infused with PC and not JC, we see the impact more and more. Christians are no longer victorious over the World; they are conquered by the world. They are weighed down with worry, they have the same hang-ups as their neighbours, they take the same anti-depressants, they attend the same psychologists, and even the moral codes, that once marked the Church as different, no longer stand. As a boy, divorce, marital unfaithfulness, domestic violence, and apostasy were rarely heard of in the Church. Now, one does not need to look too far to uncover any of these vices.

Jesus said to Peter: “Tend My lambs” and “Shepherd My sheep.” ^[14]

Jesus, speaking through Paul, gave us this insight: And He gave some as apostles, and some as prophets, and some as evangelists, and some as pastors and teachers, for the equipping of the saints for the work of service, to the building up of the body of Christ; until we all attain to the unity of the faith, and of the knowledge of the Son of God, to a mature man, to the measure of the stature which belongs to the fulness of Christ. ^[15]

Please note the emphasis upon Christ’s people. They are to be tended, shepherded, and equipped for the work of service. Please also note the emphasis upon maturity and how that maturity culminates in Jesus the Christ. This means teaching men how to be good heads of households, good husbands, and good fathers. It means teaching women the art of submission and true beauty in their roles as wives, mothers, and fellow heirs of the Kingdom. It means teaching on what makes a good employee, citizen, and societal participant. It means teaching and training God’s people how to glorify God even in the most mundane of circumstances. It means teaching them how to apply God’s morality every day. None of these things can be attained through PC. They can only be attained in and through JC.

When the preacher becomes enamoured with the modern evangelistic bandwagon, and other non-Biblical bandwagons beside, people suffer. The rebel suffers because he never hears what he needs to hear in order to convict him of his sin and lead him to repentance in Jesus Christ. PC cannot do this. JC can and does. The Christians suffer because they are no longer conformed to JC,[16] finding in Him light and life, victory and purpose; rather they are given PC, where they are erroneously taught that being helpless, victimised, weighed down, and burdened will give them a place of commonality with the rebel and therefore an opportunity to evangelise. Sadly, the PC scenario is akin to two drug addicts lying in a filthy room, both shooting up, one enjoying it, the other speaking about the virtues of being clean, but with no credibility to his words precisely because his situation is no different.

Disunity and denouncing Brothers:

The second experience involves the ‘Israel Falou’ saga. This topic has been tackled elsewhere, thus, for this article focus will fall upon the current disunity in the Church that is associate with PC and not JC.

The Sunday following Israel Falou’s publication of a Biblical text on social media, we went to church. The sermon that day focussed upon this publication and the subsequent furore. Many things were said in a vain attempt to sound orthodox, but all this unravelled when the preacher basically stated that ‘Israel Falou had brought the name of Jesus Christ into disrepute’.[17]

If this is indeed a fact, then, logically, every time a preacher preaches a text that confronts both sin and sinner, he too would be lowering Christ’s name. Yet, (puzzled expression) isn’t the preacher meant to confront the sinner with the truth of Who Jesus Christ truly is and why He alone can reconcile unto God? Is he not meant, in all things, to present truth and reality?

Therefore, the question must be asked, ‘What was the preacher’s real beef with Falou’s comments?’

Sad to say, the answer boiled down, mostly, to another modern error, “Its not what he said, it’s how he said it!” This saying has become more popular over the last couple of decades and it too must be denounced as a pernicious evil. Inherent in this saying is the idea that truth can be dismissed if the hearer does not appreciate the tone in which something is said. Thus, the veracity of the statement and the statements message become secondary to the terms in which it is couched.

Off course, we must not be unnecessarily belligerent when delivering the message of Scripture. We are told, are we not, to speak the truth in love. Yet, it is precisely at this point that we encounter the dilemma. If we truly love, we will speak the message that needs to be heard and that message is the truth as God has revealed it. We can turn this 180 degrees. We receive the message from Jesus and because we love Him, we will speak that message as it was given, without alteration. In both these instances, love and the message go hand in hand. This is Biblical. This fulfils the two great Commandments. Loving God and neighbour, we speak what is required of us by God and that which will benefit our neighbour because it is God’s Word – the Word that saves and edifies.

Here, we must also underscore the fact that Bible’s emphasis in speaking and preaching falls upon the attitude of the speaker and not the hearer. The Bible is abundantly clear that fallen and rebellious man does not seek reconciliation with God. In fact, the rebel’s hearing of God’s Word is akin to a vampire being flung into the midday sun or Gollum being tied with an Elvish rope – “It burns us!” In such situations, the rebel hearing God’s truth will, unless there is a work of grace by the Holy Spirit, recoil from that word and protest vehemently at the sound in his ears. This is the case. This was the case. This will ever be the case.[18]

Please, you are implored, understand this point well! The sinner’s reaction to the Gospel – the Whole Counsel of God – can never be the measure of success or the reason for changing either the presentation of or the Gospel itself. Never!

Enter the gospel infused with PC. Here, as we noted above, the gaze has left the Holy Father and now rests upon the sinner. With this change of focus comes an unbiblical emphasis, viz, the sinner’s reaction must be considered. We want the sinner to listen to the message, so we encourage his feedback so that we can tweak and modify, discard and rearrange, all in the vain hope that the message may get through, not because of the power of the Holy Spirit, but because of our craft as men.

Let us use some picture language. How do we allow a vampire to walk unharmed in the streets? There are only two ways. He must walk in darkness (the cover of night) or we must blot out the sun, both of which amount to the same thing. Similarly, Gollum cannot abide the Elvish rope because the natures of each are incompatible one with the other. So, too, the Gospel will never sit aright in the sinner’s ear. The nature of each is incompatible one with the other. Hence, the sinner must, by the power of the Holy Spirit, have his inherent, sinful nature changed. Consequently, the reviling’s of the sinner should never be considered a just cause to edit or modify the Gospel – indeed there never is a just reason for such an act. We are forbidden to add to or take from God’s Word. Paul tells us that even if an angel brings us another Gospel, that one is to be accursed.[19] Why then would be undertake such an evil task to satisfy the burning ears of a sinner? Yet, undertake, they do, and in so doing the PCites rend the body of Christ and nullify the Chief means of grace – the preaching of a full and unfettered Gospel.

As the illustration of the Israel Falou saga shows, this preacher was willing to take his stand against a fellow Christian who was proclaiming God’s Word because he believed that his efforts at effective evangelism would now be hampered by such negative press. This preacher was concerned that his efforts at bridge building would now collapse because Israel Falou took a public stand on a supposedly sensitive topic. This affront to PC could not go unchallenged. Armed with his diatribe and not the Word of God, this preacher ascended his pulpit and essentially shamed a brother in Christ because he had the courage to stand up and stand upon God’s Word.

Such actions are infused with PC not JC. They smack of the pride of man and of ego, not of the humility that Christ expects of His own. These actions tear at Christ’s church; they rend the body, and they sow discord. Denounce a man if he is a heretic, by all means, but denounce a brother for stating what the Bible says! Alas, how the mighty have fallen.

Preaching the Text – Kind of, maybe?

This last example comes from the Seminary classroom, the Homiletics class to be precise. Students are paired. One student picks a text to be preached, the other has the responsibility of preaching that text. Camped out by two students, it was fascinating to listen to their discussion. Student A put forward one of his favourite texts. It was a Psalm, a good Psalm, a well know Psalm. What was of interest was Student B’s response. Recollecting the events as accurately as possible due to the passage of time, Student B first recoiled. Then there was a subtle hint that maybe Student A should pick a different text. Then came the stronger offer, “Maybe something from the New Testament.” The onlooker’s spidey-senses tingled. The mind began to question, “Why this hesitation?” The answer that came to mind immediately was PC not JC.

Student B pushed back a little more, but, thankfully, Student A stuck to his guns. After all, this was a text that he chose because it meant a lot to him personally. Now for the test, the actual preaching. Would it deal with the text and fill it with JC or would the PC infiltrate so that the audience would witness some fast and furious footwork of the type that would make Fred Astaire proud.

The text? Psalm 139. Please feel free to read it now:

O Lord, Thou hast searched me and known me. Thou dost know when I sit down and when I rise up; Thou dost understand my thought from afar. Thou dost scrutinize my path and my lying down, and art intimately acquainted with all my ways. Even before there is a word on my tongue, Behold, O Lord, Thou dost know it all. Thou hast enclosed me behind and before, and laid Thy hand upon me. Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; It is too high, I cannot attain to it. Where can I go from Thy Spirit? Or where can I flee from Thy presence? If I ascend to heaven, Thou art there; If I make my bed in Sheol, behold, Thou art there. If I take the wings of the dawn, If I dwell in the remotest part of the sea, even there Thy hand will lead me, And Thy right hand will lay hold of me. If I say, “Surely the darkness will overwhelm me, And the light around me will be night,” Even the darkness is not dark to Thee, And the night is as bright as the day. Darkness and light are alike to Thee. For Thou didst form my inward parts; Thou didst weave me in my mother’s womb. I will give thanks to Thee, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made; Wonderful are Thy works, and my soul knows it very well. My frame was not hidden from Thee, When I was made in secret, And skillfully wrought in the depths of the earth. Thine eyes have seen my unformed substance; And in Thy book they were all written, the days that were ordained for me, when as yet there was not one of them. How precious also are Thy thoughts to me, O God! How vast is the sum of them! If I should count them, they would outnumber the sand. When I awake, I am still with Thee. O that Thou wouldst slay the wicked, O God; Depart from me, therefore, men of bloodshed. For they speak against Thee wickedly, And Thine enemies take Thy name in vain. Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. Search me, O God, and know my heart; Try me and know my anxious thoughts; And see if there be any hurtful way in me, and lead me in the everlasting way.^[20]

Reading the Psalm may even be a litmus test for the reader. Did you find the Psalm encouraging or were there some … ‘Oh, what is that theological term? Oh, yes!’ … icky bits?

This is a good Psalm, indeed a great Psalm. Student A does well to treasure this Psalm for the comfort, hope, and guidance that it brings to him. Indeed, it can be said with confidence that Student A treasures this Psalm precisely because he is full of and enamoured with JC. This, however, cannot be truly said of Student B. What became evident through this activity within the homiletics class was the fact that PC had begun to take a place in Student B’s heart.

The evidence for this conclusion was partly presented in his opening statements to Student A when he wanted to change the text to a New Testament text. The second, but more conclusive evidence, was found in the sermon itself. Student B preached all the way through the text, verse by verse, until he came to these verses: Do I not hate those who hate Thee, O Lord? And do I not loathe those who rise up against Thee? I hate them with the utmost hatred; They have become my enemies. At this point, no words were offered that might have explained the text; nor was any help given to the listener in the form of an interpretive key. There was not even an acknowledgement that, as a student, the understanding of this part of the text eluded him. No, these words simply sailed through the Bermuda Triangle of PC and vanished form the text.

Is this assessment harsh? No! As with all these movements there are discernible patterns. We noted earlier how PC turns one’s eyes from our holy God and refocuses them on rebellious men. We noted how Doctrine must be altered, modified, toned down, and reinterpreted. Along with this comes a preference for the New Testament. Why? Because Jesus is there? Maybe? Predominantly, however, the desire for the New Testament, we fear, is less motivated by the presence of Jesus and more by the absence of strong language, such as that found in Psalm 139.

PC tells us that the Old Testament is full of violence, hate, and darkness, whereas the New Testament is tolerance, love, and light. When your mantra is ‘evangelism and only evangelism’, then tolerance, love, and light, trump the mislabelled violence, hate, and darkness.

Proof of this can be found in the Israel Falou saga, mentioned above. The man quoted an exclusive New Testament text and was howled down by those from without and within the Church. It was the New Testament that was quoted, but it did not measure up to the tolerance, love, and light scenario, so the messenger had to be shot—some of those involved in the denouncing from within the church still have enough orthodoxy not to denounce the text of Scripture, but they do not want anyone pointing out that their PC emperor is not wearing any clothes.

Here, in essence, is the problem with PC. Before it modified any of the Doctrines mentioned in this article, it had already made some significant modifications to the Biblical Doctrines regarding fallen man and God Himself.

The first rejection was the Bible’s description of fallen man as being dead in trespass and sin and under the condemnation of God. It was decided that such a description was hardly appealing. Extremely hard to hold a conversation of the “How to win friends and influence people” type, when your description of them makes the despotic bad guy in the Western look good.

The second rejection or modification courtesy of the PCites was to arrange an ‘image consultant’ for God. He needed some help in trying to portray a better image to the wider reading public. Thus, the anger issues, the lightning bolts, the ‘I hate …!’ comments, the ‘My people disappoint Me!’ remarks, and the thing with all the rules— ‘What’s that about?’— all had to go. Of course, there is nothing new here. Marcion took a pair of scissors to his Bible; Declared the God of the Old Testament to be a sort of tribal deity with anger management issues; and proclaimed Jesus to be sent from a different “god”, the Father. The New Testament was considered to be under the influence of the Jewish god, hence the scissors. Paul was the only true apostle of Jesus, but even his works were not spared the scissors. The only real difference, thanks to the PC brigade, is that we are no longer allowed to call people heretics—the appellation that was correctly applied to Marcion.

Now, please understand, Student B may not raise his right hand and swear to all these points. Most do not and will not. Nonetheless, the evidence suggests that there has already been a subtle shift in his thinking. Logically, if the Holy Spirit does not convict him of this shift, then his future ministry is, more than likely, to be tainted by this movement. It may begin with omitting a few lines from a text here and there, but gradually, a few lines will become whole texts, then complete topics and before long the whole counsel is nothing but the hole counsel.[21]

By contrast, Student A is far more assured because his stand is infused with JC. He understands, truly, that love to God comes before love to any other.[22] That is precisely why he finds no trouble with hating God’s enemies. The true believer in Jesus Christ will hate what God hates and love what God loves. The fact that Student A, along with the Psalmist, declare hatred for God’s enemies is nothing less than an absolute declaration of their love for God. The PCites cannot see past the word “hate” to grasp and understand that what is on display in this text is actually an unequivocal chorus of love. Do we not gather in worship and sing the words of Psalm 1: How blessed is the man who does not walk in the counsel of the wicked, Nor stand in the path of sinners, Nor sit in the seat of scoffers! But his delight is in the law of the Lord, And in His law he meditates day and night.^[23]

One cannot love God whilst batting for the other team. One cannot truly love God whilst espousing the playbook of the other team. No. Love to God is singular. The command is to love God with all your heart, mind, and strength. Thankfully, men like Student A understand that point, precisely because they are infused with JC and not PC. A man and his God; loved and loving; known intimately by his God, warts and all, and loved. Searched and found wanting, yet loved. A man. Yes, just a man, but a man who loves God absolutely. A redeemed man, acknowledging all his faults, with but one prayer on His lips – Father make me more like Jesus! This man knows His God encompasses him. This man knows that his God is everywhere. This man knows that should his foot slip, all he will know are the everlasting arms around and about. This man knows that God knit him in the womb. This man knows that before his eyes ever opened, he was loved absolutely by his God. Therefore, this man, Student A and those of his ilk, will absolutely hate what God hates and they will do so because they are filled with the Spirit of JC, a Spirit that loves and obeys the One, True, and Living God.

Lord, please, please, fill the land with men like this; men of whom the world is not worthy; for they are the true evangelists. They are the true culture changes. They are the true light bearers. They are so, because they are infused with and therefore diffuse the light and life of Jesus Christ, and like Him, their Saviour, they have no greater pleasure or purpose than to honour their God.

Conclusion:

If the Church is to return to and be faithful to Her mission, then She must repent of Her sins, forsake false standards, cling to what is good, and have nothing to do with the vain philosophies of the World. She must return to and measure Herself always by the correct standard. She must be willing to see through words to content and action. What do I mean? Simply this: It is easy to witness historic God- words and to hear the lingo of the so-called faithful, but Jesus looked at and He looks for the fruit. Does your Christian life, does your congregation’s life, bear the marks, the fruit, of being enamoured with Jesus the Christ or has it settled for orthodox type words whilst all the time holding to the doctrines of PC culture?

Jesus Christ is the Way, the Truth, the Life, THE Standard. Brethren, accept no substitutes!

Footnotes:

[1] Leviticus 19:2; Matthew 5:48.

[2] Deuteronomy 8:3 quoted by Jesus in Matthew 4:4.

[3] Hebrews 1:1-2; John 10:37-38.

^[4] New American Standard Bible. (1986). (electronic edition., Dt 4:2; Re 22:18–19). La Habra, CA: The Lockman Foundation. See also Dt 12:32; Prov 30:6. All Scripture references are from this source.

[5] John 6:38 (NASB)

^[6] Jn 4:34.

^[7] Lk 22:42.

[8] When we speak of this overemphasis on evangelism, we have two things in mind. First, there is the goading to be about saving the lost as the Christians highest and only pursuit in life – an unholy message that often does more harm than good. Secondly, this emphasis on evangelism often sees the application of the sermon boiled down to, “Come to Jesus and be saved!” Such a constant emphasis in application robs the Christian. How so? I’ve been a Christian for x number of years, I may be a new Christian, so the question, “What comes next?” is never answered.

[9] 1 John 3:4.

^[10] Ga 3:24.

^[11] Ro 3:19–20.

^[12] 2 Ti 3:16–17.

^[13] Mt 5:16.

^[14] Jn 21:15–17.

^[15] Eph 4:11–14.

[16] Romans 8:29.

[17] A lengthy phone conversation was also undertaken.

[18] Acts 17:32-33 clearly portrays the two outcomes of preaching. See also Acts 14:1-2; Acts 2:12-13; John 10:31-39.

[19] Galatians 1:8.

^[20] Ps 139:1–24.

[21] This aspect can even bee seen in how a preacher approaches the text. One such preacher was witnessed rearranging the text, that is, preaching through it is a different order, so that he could end on the verse he wanted with the emphasis he wanted.

[22] Matthew 10:37 ff.

^[23] Ps 1:1–2.

Israel, Complacency, and Disunity

Posted on March 4, 2021 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

Every now and then, the Lord so orders happenings into our lives for the purpose of giving us clarity and perspective. These events unfold in such a way that the studious onlooker should immediately gain clarity and perspective on such things as law and order, the faithfulness and obedience of the Church, the humility or tyranny of government, and the predominant ideology that pervades society, Church, and government.

At present, Covid-19 is one such happening. It has certainly brought things into a stark reality; but more of that in a different article. At this point the focus will fall upon the “prequel” to Covid-19, known colloquially as the “Israel Falou saga”!

When our Mighty and Gracious God acts to bring us to an awakening of our sins and our parting from His ways and the reckless abandonment of His law, He rarely goes directly to lightning bolts, plagues and pestilence, or the sword wielding enemy. The history of Israel shows that there were always gentle reminders as well as stern warnings before the ultimate state of calamity unfolded upon the people.

In the Israel Falou saga, we had one of these gentle proddings. It should have awoken the Church from its stupor and, if nothing else, alerted us to the great divide and lack of unity that is current in Christianity; and that is to say nothing about the Church’s lack of credibility in the World’s eyes.[1]

The time is April, 2019. Israel Falou uses social media to push back against certain pernicious evils that have been growing stronger throughout the land over the previous decades. His communiqué is a basic quotation of 1 Corinthians 6:9-10:

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.

Immediately, there was a hue and cry. The clamorous hoards broke out their repertoire of pejoratives and began to recite the prescribed mantras outlined for them by the high priests of Humanism. Now, the response from this quarter was banal to the extreme, went on ad nauseum – please pass the bucket – and was hackneyed by any estimation or appraisal. It said nothing new. It simply resorted to the bullying and harassment tactics that have become the stock and trade of this movement.[2]

Much noise was made. Many things were said. All sorts of people opined based upon their subjective experiences or feelings. Absent from the chorus was the one important question, given the statement made by Israel, namely, “Is this what God has truly said?”

At this juncture, we intend to narrow the focus in looking at the response to this Biblical passage. Of course, non-believers and god-haters are going to come out and object to these passages in the most vehement terms. That is to be expected. The proclamation of God’s law in the sinner’s ear reminds him of his accountability to God and of his rebellion against God, so naturally he is going to demand that the voices are silenced so that he can return to his untroubled rebellion.

It was even expected that the Liberal elements that claim to be part of the Church of Christ, and are not, would come forth and sprout their baptised Humanism, in which they preach love, light, and tolerance without any real reference to Scripture and the Holy God therein revealed.

What was not expected was the response from the so-called “Conservative” wing of the Church. Now, some clarification is needed here, of course. Not all Conservatives remained silent. Not all Conservatives are known to us.[3] This said, however, it was a source of amazement that so many seemed to look for an excuse and a reason to duck for cover and to remain silent on this issue. It was sad, indeed, to see some scrambling to find uncommon ground so that one could safely distance themselves from the man and his comments.

In one example, the minister of a so-called “Reformed” denomination chose to preach about this particular issue. He tentatively paid his respects to the idea that Scripture is our standard and that we should not back away from its message. So far, so good – or so it seemed! Then came all the caveats. These were simply a bowing to Humanism and they, in effect, negated anything heretofore said. We were told, in essence, that this quotation of scripture by Israel had brought the name of Jesus into disrepute. In typical psychobabble, this was couched in and around the popular phrase, ‘it’s not what he said, but how he said it!”

Now, for those who may be unaware, this term has been gathering popular momentum as the ultimate reason to deny a truth that is obvious. Imagine this scenario. An average Aussie, with the language of an average Aussie, say, a truck driver, is on his way home. Suddenly he is confronted by the sight of a home being engulfed by flames. Risking all, he kicks in the door, makes his way to a back room where he finds a man oblivious to what is happening. In first class Ocker, the truck driver outlines the situation with expletives, relays the imminent danger, again with a random scattering of expletives, and then urges upon the occupant of the house the somewhat dire need of the aforesaid to ‘get his scrawny butt moving!’ He does not respond.

Fast forward. Fire fighters have entered the house and dragged the man out at the insistence of the truck driver. He is given medical care on scene, but he is beyond hope. Asked why he did not leave when warned by the truckie, he musters the last of his strength and his final lungful of air to explain, ‘Well, his tone was rough and, above all, he did not say “please”!’

Question time! In this scenario, who would criticise the truck driver? More later.

The second example, is, we admit, an amalgam. During this time, many conversations were entered into regarding this subject. We admit to deliberately steering conversations to this topic so as to be able to gauge the responses. What was evident, sadly, was the lack of solidarity and backbone amongst these “Conservatives”. On more than one occasion, responses like these were heard: ‘He belongs to … denomination’; ‘He does not believe … doctrine’; ‘I think he might believe … idea’; and the favourite, ‘Did he really quote Scripture?’

Seriously! Imagination time again. What if it wasn’t a rugby career on the line, but a man’s life? If this same quotation were to see a man incarcerated for a decade or, worse, his life forfeit, would such foolish and trite reasons still have been trotted forward? Would we have sermons denouncing the man or would the tone and direction of those sermons have changed?

Alright, time to make some statements and to pull some threads together.

First, there is no relationship with Israel and on this sojourn that is not likely. Second, there is most definitely disagreement with some aspects of his life and belief. Yet, none of that should have caused the reactions and the excuse-making it did. The Church was in the midst of its most crucial battle in years, if not decades. Indeed, it may well be the crucial battle of a lifetime. We lost! Why? For all the reasons outlined in this article!

We were too busy tracking through some pro forma checklist on orthodoxy attempting to assess whether Israel Falou was close enough to “our clan” to see whether or not he was worthy of support. All the while missing the most basic point – He is a blood-bought brother who took an accurate stand on Scripture precisely when it was most needed in the midst of a war. That stand deserved the Church’s support, if only as a conversation starter and a rallying point; but, no, we were too busy ticking boxes of orthodoxy or protecting our brand of evangelism to side with Biblically accurate commentary. We focussed on the messenger and not the message.

The Lord gave us a prodding to show us where we stood. The Lord shone light upon the Church and showed that the adoption of unbiblical ideas had led us off the path. Israel’s courage showed us that very point. Did we listen? Did we learn? No, we did not. We got rolled because a ‘house divided cannot stand!’

As Christ’s Church we have three main unifying points: Jesus, His Spirit, and His Word, Scripture. These are what should have been front and centre in our minds and nothing else.

Brothers and Sisters, please, let us learn the lesson.

Excursus:

There are additional points to be made, which may impinge upon how you view these happenings and this article.

First, what Israel quoted was Scripture. No doubt. If his quotation is disqualified, then we must disqualify several Biblical writers who do not quote texts verbatim. That the order is changed does not impact the message when it is simply a list. That some points are combined does not alter the message.

Second, Israel’s list contained eight sins that would disqualify form the Kingdom. How much did you hear about the seven that stood apart from homosexuality? I didn’t hear anything from the International Fraternity of Liars; nothing from AA – adulterers active; nothing from Animists for Idolatry. Anyway, you get the point. Homosexuality became the point of discussion precisely because it was the relevant point under discussion within our country at that time and it was the point being vehemently espoused by the radical God-haters. Again, the highlighting of this single point to the exclusion of all other points raised should have been a red flag to any Christian onlooker.

Third, did not Jesus, our Commander and Chief, tell us that we would be hated. The World did not accept the message from His lips, so It is going to raise a ruckus when It hears the same message from ours. Was Jesus not worthy of hearing when he preached condemnation?

Fourth, Israel has shown the courage to speak out or stand on a number of issues. During the fires, he drew attention to these being Judgement from God. Prime Minister, Scott Morrison, who should have known better, followed the party line and labelled the comments as “appallingly insensitive”. Was Jesus appallingly insensitive when he spoke of hell and judgement? Was Jesus appallingly insensitive when he warned the people to fear God, Who, after killing the body, had the power to cast into hell? Was Jesus appallingly insensitive when, in Luke 13, people address to Him the issue of Pilot murdering certain Galileans and He turns the issue on its head, addressing the living and not the dead, urging His hearers to consider their standing as sinners? This is important. If Jesus were judged by the evil, PC standards of our day, He would be condemned as a monger of hate-speech, intolerant, unloving, and one who failed the test of inclusivity!

Fifth, most recently, Israel refused to get down on his knee in support of a particular protest. Again, the clamorous hoard started up their evil ‘sinphony’ and condemned the man. This condemnation even states outright lies. On the Wikipedia entry for Israel Falou, we find reference to this incident and some commentary that concludes that the protest in question was a “symbol of solidarity against police brutality and racism.” Now, I know of no such protest. I am aware of a “Black Lives Matter” movement, but is that the same thing? Why would Wikipedia’s entry not say “BLM”? Why would it rather choose to imply that, in essence, Israel Falou is pro both police brutality and racism?

The point here is a call to unity.

Is God’s Law still relevant?

Does God judge sin here and now using nature and the like?

Will our culture survive, if we continue to provoke God to anger?

Why did Jesus say so much about Hell, if there is nothing to fear?

Why did Jesus preach repentance, if Man has not transgressed God’s moral code?

These questions must be answered. As the Church, we will continue to be “rolled” in the cultural debates of our day and into the future until we return to the unity that Christ commands – a unity found in His Person, His Word, and His Spirit.

Lastly, we need to return to the truckie. Would any reasonable person reading that story ever begin a “it’s not what he said but how he said it” type conversation?

Do you think that the ambulance officers and fire fighters, upon hearing the victim’s confession, would have begun to lambaste the truckie, demanding or at least strongly suggesting that he should think of attending ‘finishing school’? Do you think that the driver’s companions would have abandon him in droves and then begun to enumerate reasons such as, ‘he buys the wrong tyres’, ‘I never have liked the colour of his truck’, ‘he drives for … company’, and ‘did he really fill in his work diary correctly?’

We hear a lot about love today. The question that needs to be asked, though, is this: Are we loving sinful Man more than our Holy Father in heaven? You see, true love tells a man what he needs to hear, not what he wants to hear. Equally, sometimes that message can only be delivered with certain words and certain tones.[4] Jesus was not appallingly insensitive. On the contrary, because He loved He spoke forth God’s warnings based on the truth and reality that all men will one day be called to give an account.

The current and errant view of love – an emotion that excuses and accepts all – and the adopting of the this “not what he said but how” gibberish is a pernicious evil. If you doubt this, simply look at the erosion of the Church’s doctrine over the years. We have been trying for years, to mellow the concepts of sin and hell in order to present them in a nice way – making the ‘how he said it’ acceptable to the rebellious sinner. What is the result? We have mellowed these doctrines so much that in many circles they no longer exist! We have sugar coated these doctrines so much today, that we simply preach jellybeans – all sugar with a pretty coloured coating, but no substance.

Before us, brethren, is the choice: Continue to turn the doctrines of Christ, one by one, into jellybeans or speak God’s truth, as hard as that may be at times, and allow the Holy Spirit to use the Word of Christ to glorify God.

It is the Gospel, full and unfettered, that is the power of God unto salvation – not nice words and jellybeans – and of this Gospel, full and unfettered, the true disciple of Christ Jesus should never be ashamed.

Footnotes:

[1] Here, we do not mean the current attempt by the Church to curry favour with the World by capitulating to its demands, rather the words of Paul in 1 Timothy 3:7: And he must have a good reputation with those outside the church.

[2] Please note this well. In the current sorry state-of-affairs, those who are labelled as the “lefties” – an errant term to be corrected – do not engage in sound arguments. They simply shout louder and louder in an attempt to drown out their opposition or, worse still, they just do not allow them to speak. Over the years the people have been warned about the coming censorship associated with the PC Movement. Many scoffed. Look now at what the Tech Giants are doing, as just one example. They have appointed themselves as the arbiters of truth and they will shut you down for simply quoting facts that disagree with their agenda.

[3] We are aware that an online petition was circulated. We are aware that ACL set up a page to fund certain defences. We are aware that not every Christian turned their back. The point of this article is to focus upon the so-called “conservative wing”; those who were once the champions of Biblical doctrine, once the “unafraid”, once the “defenders of the faith”.

[4] One is yet to figure out how the reality, substance, and sheer horror of Hell can be accurately portrayed by slapstick!

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

Scripture:

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

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

Consequently, when Paul, writing to Timothy, says that, “All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work”[1], he has in mind, primarily, the writings of the Old Testament. Similarly, when Peter states that, “no prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one’s own interpretation, for no prophecy was ever made by an act of human will, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God”[2], his statement, likewise, must be taken as referring to the Old Testament in the first instance.

It Stands Written:

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

Texts:

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

3.a Jesus:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Footnotes:

[1] 2 Timothy 3:16-17.

[2] 2 Peter 1:20-21.

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

[4] Matthew 19:16-22.

[5] 1 Timothy 2:1-2.

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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.

No Other God’s;
No idols; (No false worship)
Do not take the Lord’s Name in vain;
Remember the Sabbath to keep it holy;
Hour your father and mother;
No murder;
No adultery;
No thievery;
No false witness;
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)

Footnotes:

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

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

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

[4] 1 John 3:4.

[5] Question and answer 41.

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

[7] Question and answer 95.

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 2)

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Theocracy: The First Part of the Question.

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

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

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

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

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

Theonomy: The Second Part of the Question.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 1)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

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

[2] Proverbs 16:25.

[3] 1 Corinthians 15:25.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21.

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

[6] 1 Kings 18:39.

[7] Matthew 28:18-20.

[8] Revelation 1:5.

[9] Revelation 11:5.

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

[11] Romans 13:2.

[12] Matthew 22:37-40.

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” Words

Posted on August 30, 2016 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

The two words or terms are Theocracy and Theonomy.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” words (Pt. 4)

Footnotes:

[1] Isaiah 8:20.

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

[3] Isaiah 45:18-19.

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

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

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

[7] Matthew 6:24.

[8] Deuteronomy 8:3.

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

[10] James 1:25.

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

Leyonhjelm’s Lunacy: The Plot to Destroy Australia

Posted on September 11, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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!”

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.

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.

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!

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.

Footnotes:

[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: http://www.kidspot.com.au/the-father-and-daughter-who-are-getting-married/?utm_source=outbrain&utm_content=recent&utm_campaign=sitecampaign.

[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:

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/gay-marriage/florist-barronelle-stutzman-refuses-to-pay-fine-for-refusing-to-provide-flowers-for-a-gay-marriage-on-religious-grounds/story-fnizhakg-1227236997936 and here: http://aclu-co.org/court-cases/masterpiece-cakeshop/

[10] Again, the case in Houston stands as a warning. See:

http://www.christianitytoday.com/gleanings/2014/october/houston-feels-pressure-after-subpoena-response-sermons.html?paging=off and here:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/10/29/houston-mayor-sermon-subpoenas_n_6070650.html. 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.

[12] http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ma196185/s47.html

[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:

http://parlinfo.aph.gov.au/parlInfo/search/display/display.w3p;query=Id%3A%22legislation%2Fems%2Fs983_ems_5753824b-b9e6-468c-8a0c-ccf455305ea4%22

[14] Emphasis added.

Nonsense in the Name of God

Posted on July 15, 2015 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

In the current debate regarding homosexual union, it is patently obvious that “truth has become the first casualty in this war.” Many are adducing arguments in support of homosexual union that are simply non arguments. We have written elsewhere in regard to such facile arguments as “Love is Love”. However, the greatest nonsense being spewed forth on this issue comes from those who, claiming to speak for God, tell lies in the Name of God.

At this point, we particularly single out those people who claim to be Christians, claim to love Jesus and at the same time claim that practicing homosexuals are acceptable to God, loved by God, and are therefore not required by God to repent of their sin and rebellion. It is not our intent to interact with their claims at this point, for that is just an exercise in futility. Rather, it is our purpose to show the folly of their position by looking at the Biblical evidence. Specifically, we simply intend to draw some parallels and then leave the reader to make the obvious conclusions for themselves.

The Older Testament concludes with these words:

“For behold, the day is coming, burning like a furnace; and all the arrogant and every evildoer will be chaff; and the day that is coming will set them ablaze,” says the Lord of hosts, “so that it will leave them neither root nor branch.” “But for you who fear My name the sun of righteousness will rise with healing in its wings; and you will go forth and skip about like calves from the stall. “And you will tread down the wicked, for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet on the day which I am preparing,” says the Lord of hosts. “Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel. “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord. “And he will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children, and the hearts of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the land with a curse.”[1]

In looking at this text, three things are to be noted. First, it is important that we understand the place of judgement. Throughout the Scriptures, salvation is always associated with judgement. God’s people cannot be saved unless God’s adversaries are judged. Thus, Malachi rightly begins with a stern warning to the evil doer. He, like his fellow prophets,[2] points us to the great and awesome Day of the Lord. Second, the line of demarcation is given in the words – for you who fear [or revere] My name. Both in Hebrew and Greek, the terms for name go far beyond simply being an appellation appended to a person in order to distinguish him from another. Rather, these terms point to character and being. This is why we see names being changed in Scripture. This is exactly why the Pharisees forbade Peter and John “to speak or teach … in the name of Jesus.”[3] Consequently, those who serve God, who love God, will reflect His character and being in their lives morally and ethically. Third, the text points us to the source of knowledge wherein we find God’s revealed standard – Remember the law of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him – so that we may show our love in true, not feigned, obedience.

Now, some will immediately object that this is the Older Testament and that we in the Newer Testament are somehow under a different set of rules.[4] This is simply more nonsense; an objection raised in the hope that the guilty conscience may be eased. In truth, the points highlighted from the text of Malachi are all treated equally in the Newer Testament.[5]

In bringing these three points together, we learn the following:

a) As God judges the wicked, there are obviously behaviours which He disapproves of and condemns.

b) The truth of a) is found in the fact that those who are accepted by God are those who love and revere His holy name and therefore seek to abide by the characteristics of His eternal Being.

c) God, realising Man’s sinful estate, gave through Moses the revelation of His eternal Being so that Man would know what was and was not acceptable to God.

Therefore, if we want to please God we must obey those laws, given by God Himself, in which the holiness of His character and His right as Sovereign are manifest. It means that we, the creature, respect the parameters placed upon us by God, the Creator, and live by His rules. If we do not obey those laws or abide by His rules, we can never be said to “fear” or “revere” the name of God. If we do not “fear” or “revere” the name of God, then we must be considered as the “evildoer”.[6] This truth is superbly clear in Scripture. Yet, today, we have those who say that they “fear the name of God”, that they love Jesus, and that they are Christians; all the while they despise the laws and rules given by God.

This situation outlined is seen definitely and clearly in regard to the battle over homosexuality and homosexual union. Thus, it seemed appropriate to highlight the absolute inconsistency of those who speak nonsense in the name of God.

God’s law prescribes the death penalty for a number of sins; significant sins that attack either God or Man. Thus, God says that the following are to forfeit their lives:[7]

The Murderer (Genesis 9:6; Exodus 20:13; Exodus 21:12-14);
The Kidnapper (Exodus 21:16);
The Rapist (Deuteronomy 22:23-24);
The Adulterer (Leviticus 20:10; Exodus 20:14);
Witchcraft (Exodus 22:18; Deuteronomy 18:10-13);
Bestiality (Exodus 22:19; Leviticus 18:23);
Blasphemy (Leviticus 24:10-16);
The Homosexual (Leviticus 18: 22; Leviticus 20:13).[8]

The point of this list is to highlight the nonsense spoken in the name of God by those who say that they are practicing homosexuals, fearing God’s name, and respecting God’s law. These twist the words of Scripture in order to justify their perversion and their false rhetoric is made apparent when a list like this is adduced.

Please, allow me to explain. Here is a list of crimes against God and Man that God so loathes that He, in His divine wisdom and sovereignty, has proscribed with the death penalty. Now, in our modern day, we have those, claiming to follow God, love God, and honour God, who say that the proscription of and penalty prescribed for homosexual behaviour is no longer of any consequence. They go on to add that they can practice their homosexuality and serve God without any detriment or compromise.

Now, arguments can be adduced to counter those claims, but we want to take a much simpler road – How welcome would categories 1-7 be in your local church or any church for that matter? Think about this! How welcome would be the unrepentant Murderer, Kidnapper, or Rapist? Would there be a general feeling that God loves this person so much that their sin, practiced openly and without remorse, should go without rebuke? How many would willingly send their daughters to Sunday school or on the church camp with men like this in their midst?

Which one of you would front up to church on Sunday morning eagerly awaiting a sermon from a Satanist or blasphemer? How eagerly would you attend the Bible study if these same persons were to be in charge and lead? How comfortable would you be with the Pastor conducting home visits when he is known to be an adulterer, unrepentant and on the prowl for his next conquest?

We could go on and give an example of bestiality, which would make you vomit; but there it is! How would you respond to any church that allowed the open practice of murder, rape, blasphemy, witchcraft, kidnapping, or bestiality? How would you respond to any congregation who refused to rebuke such sin and call for people to repent of it immediately?

To those who are of a more liberal ilk, “Where would you draw the line?”

The point here is simple. All of these behaviours are proscribed by God. Almighty God avows that those who commit these crimes should be put to death. Yet, in our day we have a number of people, calling themselves Christians, who want us to believe that one, and only one, of these heinous crimes is no longer either heinous or grotesque.

Yet, it would seem that they still want the other crimes to be considered as heinous. After all, we have not heard vociferous cries to stop discriminating against murderers and pedophiles. We have not heard calls to overturn various “Proceeds of Crime” Acts, as these intrinsically discriminate against the criminal element. No, here there seems to be contentment. Why?

When all these crimes are viewed consistently from the Biblical perspective,[9] we see that it is indeed sheer nonsense to claim or believe that practicing homosexuals have any place inside the Church of Jesus Christ the Son of God. Even more ridiculous is the claim by these people that practicing homosexuals should be allowed to hold office in the Church of Jesus Christ.

One may be more sympathetic to the claims of these people if they were to be consistent and assert that the murderer, rapist, and kidnapper should all be allowed to ply their trade without discrimination or consequence. However, should they do so, the veil would completely fall, we would see behind the mask, and they would be exposed as evildoers who do not revere the name of Almighty God or obey His law.

The last word must be that of Scripture – a text that shows that those who claim to be God’s whilst openly rebelling against Him are deluded liars! The Apostle John writes: And by this we know that we have come to know Him, if we keep His commandments. The one who says, “I have come to know Him,” and does not keep His commandments, is a liar, and the truth is not in him; but whoever keeps His word, in him the love of God has truly been perfected. By this we know that we are in Him: the one who says he abides in Him ought himself to walk in the same manner as He walked.[10]

Footnotes:

[1] Malachi 4:1-6.

[2] Isaiah, Ezekiel, Joel, Amos, Obadiah, and Zephaniah. Importantly, Joel’s reference is picked up and used by Peter in Acts 2.

[3] Acts 4:18; See also Acts 5:28.

[4] This very supposition is indeed problematic. When this supposition is brought to the fore, there is a tacit implication that God has changed in His essential character. This tacit implication suggests that the God who spoke in the Older Testament has mellowed with age and no longer finds certain moral deviations from His law objectionable. This view is popular, but it lacks in one important detail – there is no credible Biblical evidence to support it!

[5] Judgement – Acts 17:30-31 – “Therefore having overlooked the times of ignorance, God is now declaring to men that all everywhere should repent, because He has fixed a day in which He will judge the world in righteousness through a Man whom He has appointed, having furnished proof to all men by raising Him from the dead.” John 5:22-23 – “For not even the Father judges anyone, but He has given all judgment to the Son, in order that all may honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He who does not honor the Son does not honor the Father who sent Him.” The Name: a unity – John 5:43 – “I have come in My Father’s name, and you do not receive Me; if another shall come in his own name, you will receive him.” John 10:30 – “I and the Father are one.” John 10:37-38 – “If I do not do the works of My Father, do not believe Me; but if I do them, though you do not believe Me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in Me, and I in the Father.” John 4:34 – “Jesus said to them, “My food is to do the will of Him who sent Me, and to accomplish His work.” Obedience, law, Love – John 14:15 – “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments.” 1 John 5:3 – For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.” Luke 18:18-22 – And a certain ruler questioned Him, saying, “Good Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?” And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call Me good? No one is good except God alone. “You know the commandments, ‘Do not commit adultery, Do not murder, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Honor your father and mother.’” And he said, “All these things I have kept from my youth.” And when Jesus heard this, He said to him, “One thing you still lack; sell all that you possess, and distribute it to the poor, and you shall have treasure in heaven; and come, follow Me.”

[6] Again, reference to the Myth of Neutrality must be made. There are only two types of Man – obedient and disobedient. As Jesus said, you are either with Him or against Him!

[7] This list is not exhaustive, but highlights the main crimes. For an exhaustive list, see Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, 235.

[8] For those who do not like the Older Testament, we see that most of these crimes are denounced in the Newer Testament: I Corinthians 6:9-10 – “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 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.”

[9] These crimes are prescribed as crimes by God. They are all proscribed by death. They are all denounced in God’s law, particularly in the Torah. Many are said to exclude a person from God’s presence, heaven, if you will. Hope is in Jesus Christ, but Jesus Christ means repentance and turning from sin, not embracing it. Thus, what is true of one must of necessity be true of the other. Therefore, it is a logical fallacy, if there be no Biblical evidence, to assert that one of these crimes is now wiped from God’s statute book while the others remain.

[10] 1 John 2:3-6.

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)

Posted on July 22, 2013 by Murray McLeod-Boyle

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Blunt? Yes. Necessary? All the more so.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

5. Some Variables:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Conclusion:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Footnotes:

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

[2] Romans 8:29.

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

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

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

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

[7] Luke 9:62.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[28] 1 Samuel 14:6.

PostTenebrasLux

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

Tag Archives: God’s Law

The Fallacy of Absolute Free Speech

Infused with PC, Not JC!

Israel, Complacency, and Disunity

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 4)

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 3)

Controversial “Theo-” Words (Pt. 2)

Controversial “Theo-” Words

Leyonhjelm’s Lunacy: The Plot to Destroy Australia

Nonsense in the Name of God

A Referendum on Homosexual Marriage (Pt. 2)