I am a Hater – a Godly Hater!

  1. Fairy Floss.

Playground politics, Postmodernism, and Political Correctness make a volatile and disastrous combination.

Playground politics equals bullying. Postmodernism equals a denial of Truth. Political Correctness equals a biased, pseudo-egalitarianism. In such an environment, cogent arguments, truth, fact, and even reality are dismissed. In their place come name-calling, bullying, meaningless terms and lies. This modern estate is the “fairy floss”[1] estate—you are handed a bright and colourful substance that looks real, but once you put it in your mouth it disappears! In effect, you have paid for the joy of eating nothing and remaining hungry.

In the current debate surrounding homosexual union, we are being handed many brightly coloured tidbits and asked to swallow them. Yet, once they are in our mouths they evaporate to nothing. Then, when we have the audacity to point this out, we are labelled, condemned, harangued, and treated as completely unworthy.

Two recent examples stand out:

  1. Opposition Leader, Bill Shorten, had this to say: “I don’t believe that people’s relationships and love for each other need to be submitted to a public opinion poll. … I don’t want to give the haters a chance to come out from underneath the rock and make life harder for LGBTI people.”[2]
  2. The second instance has no name and not much detail. For this I apologise. After visiting my elderly father in hospital, I was driving home and decided to listen to the radio. I came across a woman’s voice arguing for protection from “hate speech”. I can only assume that this was a debate into the removal of clause 18c from the Racial Discrimination Act. Anyway, the point of interest came when the speaker highlighted her coup de gras question that she asked of her opponents: “What hate speech do you wish to use?” She went on to announce that this question had her opponents “nonplussed” or stopped cold.

Let’s analyse these statements.

  • Please note the bullying and name-calling that come to the fore. People who have a different opinion are immediately labelled as “haters”, those who dwell under “rocks”, and those who delight to use “hate speech”.
  • In keeping with this name calling and bullying, there is an automatic assumption on the part of the speaker that their position is the correct one or the morally superior one. Thus, the opponent is labelled and pigeon-holed for no other reason than they disagree with the speaker’s point of view.

This is truly fascinating. My wife has worked for years in the health sector. Several decades ago there came a huge, government sponsored push to avoid, at all costs, “labelling language”. People were not to be pigeon-holed or labelled in a way that would cause them detriment. Now, these same governments wish to label people without cause just to win political arguments and “Brownie” points.

  • All of this leads us to ask questions regarding Morality and Truth. When the above people spoke, they did not appeal to any Absolute, they merely insisted that their opinion or view on this subject be accepted as absolute. In such a situation, who is the umpire? Does Bill Shorten win simply because he is Opposition Leader?

Time to connect the dots. The reason that we are subject to bullying and harassment is precisely because these people do not have an Absolute on which to base their arguments. They have no logic, no absolute, no moral, no consistency—so they must develop their own brand of sanctioned and sanitised “hate speech” with which to browbeat those who oppose them. Then, when this phase is effective, they will pass laws and then label those who oppose as criminals and a danger to society and then invite them to spend time behind bars.

Today we are told that everything is sweetness and light. Everything is equal. Two men together is as valid as a man and a woman. Yet, we ask, on what basis is this assertion made?[3] Indeed, even incestuous relationships are now being embraced and given their own alphabet soup so that they can be legitimised.[4] We are being handed fairy floss!

Herein is the hypocrisy. An honest citizen who has committed no crime – other than to insist on moral absolutes – becomes to these people the equivalent of a thief, paedophile, or murderer. If you think this is foolishness, then simply reverse engineer their arguments. If all are truly equal and morality does not exist, then there can be no wrong. If morality is simply what the Government of the day makes it to be, then we are all in danger for morality will change with each new law, with each passing year, and the turn of a new decade.

Think about this! You raise your child on the moral principles of the day. That child is a successful, law abiding citizen until they are in their mid-thirties when, due to a change in legislation, they now become a pariah. Society now punishes them for what society previously taught them.

  1. Absolute Morality – Loving and Hating.

The only safety net available to this or any society is to return to or embrace God’s absolute morality. God has spoken. Obedience alone will bring His blessing. Empirically, we know this to be true. Our nation is in turmoil; it is in its death throes. If we are honest, we will admit that we are further from God than we have ever been, yet our estate is worse than it has ever been.

Our only hope, therefore, is to reject Man’s egalitarianism and subjective morality and embrace God’s absolute morality. We must learn to love what God loves and Hate what God hates.

At this statement, some will be greatly perplexed. They will never have heard these types of words before. Sadly, this is a confirmation of how much the World has penetrated the Church and Her theology.

Our minister has been preaching through Corinthians and he noted that the Corinthian problem was that there was too much World in the Church. Conversely, it may be argued that there is too little Church in the World. Perceive it as you will, the point is that the Church no longer believes God and His revelation of Morality and Truth. Therefore, She shies away from taking a stand. The Church has become so enamoured with being popular and with winning souls that She has forgotten what Holiness and Righteousness are and in Whom they are to be found.

This was brought home to me clearly many years ago when I made a statement about God “hating” certain things. I was immediately rebuked and told that such concepts were erroneous. I shook my head, disbelieving what my ears were transferring to my brain. Sadly, decades later, I am hearing a growing chorus of dissenters who are simply being blasphemous because they are speaking lies concerning God.

It is time to evict the World from the Church and inject the Church into the World! This eviction must begin with us believing what God says in His word about His own Being and Character, and as a consequence, jettisoning all the Worldly fair floss that we have purchased.

This jettisoning process must begin with acceptance of the very simple fact: God hates! As a Christian, as a Man created in God’s image,  I must hate what God hates. If I do not hate what God hates then I am being treasonous. Strong words by modern standards, but they are, nonetheless, true words. Think about it. Are we not citizens in a Kingdom? Are we not bound to obey the great King? Yes, we are; on both counts! Thus, to love what the King hates is to bring evil and falsehood into the Kingdom.[5]

Now, let’s be clear. We are speaking of God and as such we are speaking of intrinsic Morality as God has created and revealed it. We are not talking Ford v Holden, Pizza with or without anchovies, or whether we should drive on the left- or right-hand side of the road. No, we are speaking of God’s Morality intrinsic to Man as a consequence of being made in God’s image and likeness.

What then does God hate? Well, the answer is that God hates anything that digresses from His express will, decree, and standard. If we think of the Ten Commandments as a summary of God’s Morality, then we see that any digression from these Laws would be a thing that God dislikes intently. Thus, idolatry, adultery, homosexuality, greed, robbery, false worship, murder, and so forth are all things that God hates. It is for this reason that I say there are too many blasphemers who today speak lies in the name of God.[6] There are too many Christians who simply do not believe what God says about Himself.

If you are in doubt in regard to the basic thesis that God hates, then please consider the following (As you do, think about the relationship of each item to the Summary of God’s Moral Law, the Ten Commandments.):

Proverbs 6:16-19 – “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.

Isaiah 61:8 – “For I, the Lord, love justice, I hate robbery in the burnt offering;”

Jeremiah 44:4-5 – “Yet I sent you all My servants the prophets, again and again, saying, “Oh, do not do this abominable thing which I hate.” ‘But they did not listen or incline their ears to turn from their wickedness, so as not to burn sacrifices to other gods.

Amos 5:21 – “I hate, I reject your festivals, nor do I delight in your solemn assemblies.

Zechariah 8:16-17 – “These are the things which you should do: speak the truth to one another; judge with truth and judgment for peace in your gates. ‘Also let none of you devise evil in your heart against another, and do not love perjury; for all these are what I hate,’ declares the Lord.

Malachi 2:16 – “For I hate divorce,” says the Lord, the God of Israel, “and him who covers his garment with wrong,” says the Lord of hosts. “So take heed to your spirit, that you do not deal treacherously.

To this list we could add those texts that speak, like several here, about that which the Lord God Almighty declares to be an abomination. As one example, please consider Deuteronomy 12:31 – “You shall not behave thus toward the Lord your God, for every abominable act which the Lord hates they have done for their gods; for they even burn their sons and daughters in the fire to their gods.

As per usual, we are keenly aware that detractors will state that these texts are from the Old Testament and then justify this statement with some new spin on an old heresy. To these, we can only suggest that it time that they got their head around the Doctrine of God’s Immutability.

Anyway, for these, we will give one text which is very important. Here are Jesus’ words; the words of God’s eternal Son; words that Jesus, the resurrected Lord spoke to His Church concerning a group of wayward heretics: “Yet this you do have, that you hate the deeds of the Nicolaitans, which I also hate.[7]

Yes, Jesus hates. That is what the text says. Jesus commends His people for hating the deeds (works) of these heretics because Jesus also hated them. The commendation comes because at that very point these people were one with their Master.

This then gives us a clue as we move forward and look at what our attitude should be to those things which God hates. Indeed, this is not a clue or a hint; it is the reality of our relationship with God, through Christ Jesus in the power of the Holy Spirit – we must be one with our God!

The Psalmists have this to say:

26:5 – “I hate the assembly of evildoers, and I will not sit with the wicked.

31:6 – “I hate those who regard vain idols; But I trust in the Lord.

97:10 – “Hate evil, you who love the Lord, Who preserves the souls of His godly ones; He delivers them from the hand of the wicked.

139:21-22 – “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.

119: 104, 113, 128, 163 – “From Thy precepts I get understanding; Therefore I hate every false way; I hate those who are double-minded, But I love Thy law; Therefore I esteem right all Thy precepts concerning everything, I hate every false way; I hate and despise falsehood, But I love Thy law.[8]

Next, a simple question: The fear of the Lord is …? How did you answer this? Did you say “knowledge” or maybe “wisdom”? Not incorrect, but did you realise that the same pen also wrote: “The fear of the Lord is to hate evil; Pride and arrogance and the evil way, and the perverted mouth, I hate”?[9]

Again, for the New Testamenty Christians we have this selection:

1 Thessalonians 5:21-22 – “But examine everything carefully; hold fast to that which is good; abstain from every form of evil.”[10] (NIV: Test everything. Hold on to the good.  Avoid every kind of evil.)

Jude 22-23 – “And have mercy on some, who are doubting; save others, snatching them out of the fire; and on some have mercy with fear, hating even the garment polluted by the flesh.

Romans 12:9 – “Let love be without hypocrisy. Abhor what is evil; cling to what is good.

Lastly, let us conclude with two statements from Jesus:

Luke 14:26 – “If anyone comes to Me, and does not hate his own father and mother and wife and children and brothers and sisters, yes, and even his own life, he cannot be My disciple.

Luke 16:13 – “No servant can serve two masters; for either he will hate the one, and love the other, or else he will hold to one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon.

What these statements teach us is that God in Trinity must have the priority in our lives. There is no human relationship, nor is there wealth, life, philosophy, ideology, policy, or organisation that can make a claim on us that is greater than that which God makes. If we are God’s servants in and through Jesus Christ, then we must serve as Jesus didMy food is to do the will of Him Who sent Me and to accomplish His work!

It means that we can only love that which God loves and that we must hate and abominate that which God loathes. We cannot claim to be God’s faithful servants and then disown those things which are the essence of His nature. We cannot befriend that which God hates nor can we accept that which God has declared unacceptable.

Therefore, I am crawling out from under my rock and the hate speech I wish to say is this: Thus says the Lord, “Homosexuality is an abomination in My eyes”. As His servant, I say, “Homosexuality, along with murder, rape, thievery, and the like, is an affront to His holiness. If we as a nation continue to pander to the rebellious homosexual minority, in particular, and if we continue to fail in providing true justice, then we will ask for God’s wrath to be delivered to us both in time and space and in eternity. Our nation will not prosper. We will continue to face dangers from without and within. Our freedom will become slavery. Our joy will be turned to sorrow. We will inflict great suffering on the generations to be born.

Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Shorten, and all those who support the homosexual movement’s radical rebellion, know that you are playing with fire by angering Almighty God. Know that all your statements are falsehood. Know that you speak lies and impugn the integrity of God Almighty. Know that you betray your office as Ministers of God. Know that He will not acquit the guilty. Know that you are bringing destruction to this people. Know that you will give an account before His judge, Jesus Christ. Know that unless you repent, there will be no account that you can give of yourself that will be acceptable. Know that ideas and actions have consequences and your continued rebellion will bring ruination to this people in time and in eternity!

I adjure you by the mercies of God, forsake your folly; Kiss the Son lest you perish in your way; Flee from the coming wrath; Repent; Hate evil; Do what is Good; Live! Exalt this nation rather than cover it in shame and disgrace! In short, fulfill the great Commandment:Love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind!””


[1] “Cotton Candy”, for our North American brethren.

[2] Taken from Saltshakers News Update, September 9, 2016.

[3] The nonsense of the current position being thrust upon society is seen in the growing alphabet soup. Once, homosexuals were labelled as “queer”. This was not acceptable to the moderns so it was changed to LGBT. Now this is not adequate. Apparently the fraternity of the sinful have embraced their former appellation, so a “Q” was added. Now this is not adequate, so the soup has been extended yet again to LGBTQIA, to included “intersex” and “asexual”. What next? All we will add is, please note that there is no “H” for heterosexual. Apparently it is okay to accept every sexual orientation except the one created and commanded by God!

[4] http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/im-in-love-with-my-brother-and-were-going-to-get-married. http://www.kidspot.com.au/parenting/real-life/in-the-news/mother-and-son-face-jail-as-they-fight-to-stay-in-sexual-relationship. This is now referred to as GSA – Genetic Sexual Attraction. The sickening aspect is that I had bookmarked one account of a Father and daughter. This story had disappeared, but I easily found two new ones on the same site – Vomit bags on standby!!!

[5] Isaiah 5:20 – “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Proverbs 17:15 – “He who justifies the wicked, and he who condemns the righteous, both of them alike are an abomination to the Lord.

[6] http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-08-30/welcoming-but-not-affirming-being-gay-and-christian/7798226. I refer you to this site for the picture, not necessarily for the article content.

[7] Revelation 2:6.

[8] Note that in these particular Psalms the contrast is always between God’s revealed standard – Law, Precept – and what the Psalmist sees in men.

[9] Proverbs 8:13.

[10] We would do well to remember that the “form” of evil begins with the evil thought. The evil thought produces evil actions. Thus, we must always be on guard against believing anything which contradicts God’s word for this is the evil root which will produce the evil fruit.

Leyonhjelm’s Lunacy: The Plot to Destroy Australia

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

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

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

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

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

  1. The Weapon of Obscurity:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. The Politics of Nonsense:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Tyranny and Subjugation:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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


[14] Emphasis added.

Nonsense in the Name of God

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]


[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.

Catchphrases of Doom

Catchphrases are about us everywhere. These tiny slogans, often only using a few words, are the droplets of a distilled philosophy. As the droplet hangs, it gorges itself on the rays of light emanating from the full philosophy and then diffuses the philosophy into the world as a bright, eye-catching display of colour. Many are bedazzled by this light display. The pretty lights, dancing before our eyes, are intoxicating and mesmerising. The trouble is that while your view is obscured by the coloured lights, someone is picking your pockets!

At heart, most slogans really do not portray the fullness of the philosophy or outline the extent of the philosophy’s application. When this is the case, the catchphrase becomes deceit. It does so of necessity due to the process of reduction. When anything is distilled its natural composition must be altered. Some elements will be eliminated. Some will be changed. Others will be intensified.

Take for example the phrase, God is Love. This is Biblical. It is right. However, if we take this as a catchphrase, intended to show the totality of God’s character, then it becomes deceit and a lie. If the lie is believed, it becomes a source of doom.

The latest catchphrase of doom to makes its way into the public arena is the homosexual lobby’s “Love is Love”. This slogan is designed to evoke an emotional response, of the Mill’s and Boon variety, in which reason is trumped by Man’s eternal desire both to love and be loved. I mean, please, pass the tissues! Here, in a world of turmoil, a world of hatred, a world of ‘wars and rumours of wars’ are these oppressed people who just want to Love each other. They simply want to be left alone to love and be loved–to foster an atmosphere of love wherever they go. I mean, ‘sob, more tissues, please’, “What could be more admirable than loving, being loved, and spreading love?”

Now, while you are mopping up the last of your tears, let it be asked of you that, before answering the question, you might disengage your emotions and engage your mind. “Love is Love”, is a wonderful slogan, but here is the real question, “What does it mean?” Yes, we can be sidetracked into an emotional exercise debating the answer to the first question, but that will simply be an enterprise in futility if we do not answer the second question first. We must have a definition before we can enter upon any discussion. We must set some parameters so that the discussion is meaningful. We must understand the concept or meaning will elude us.

Let us start, therefore, with the basic question, “What is love?” When you read the slogan “Love is Love” you are immediately struck by the fact that love is always wholesome and pure. The word love is used like a sanctifier–take anything, add love and, voilà, it is now pure and holy. However, this is simply not the case. As we know empirically from everyday usage, love does not, in and of itself, speak of a pure motive or a pure object.

Love is a subjective expression that must, as a general rule, have an object. The very fact that Man expresses love for something does not mean that either his expressed passion or the object to which he expresses his passion is legitimate, pure, or holy. Man’s expressed love may be all of these or none of these. It is God’s morality that determines the legitimacy of both, not the mere fact that Man loves. An obese person can love his food. A sexual deviant can love his prey. A man can love God. Are all these loves legitimate and equal?

Let us examine three Biblical examples:

          Isaac: “Now then … go out to the field and hunt game for me; and prepare a savory dish for me such as I love.[1]

          Amnon: “Now it was after this that Absalom the son of David had a beautiful sister whose name was Tamar, and Amnon the son of David loved her. … And he said to him, “O son of the king, why are you so depressed morning after morning? Will you not tell me?” Then Amnon said to him, “I am in love with Tamar, the sister of my brother Absalom.” …  However, he would not listen to her; since he was stronger than she, he violated her and lay with her… Then Amnon hated her with a very great hatred; for the hatred with which he hated her was greater than the love with which he had loved her. And Amnon said to her, “Get up, go away![2]

          God’s People: “And you shall love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your might”.

These examples show us the extremes of human love. The first is of an elderly man who has a hankering for his favourite meal. His desire is expressed as love; yet are we to believe that his desire for a meal was of the same intensity, purity, depth, and breadth with which he loved Rebekah[3], his wife? In the second example, we see a young Amnon, passionate in his love for Tamar to the point of melancholy; yet his was not a true love, it was a violent love, a lust, that drove him to rape his sister. The third example is God’s statement as to how His people were to love Him in fullness, completeness, and totality.

If we believe the homosexual lobby’s catchphrase of doom, we must believe that the actions listed in these texts are legitimate and equal on the basis that they are all said to be motivated by love. Therefore, if “Love is Love” then eating your favourite meal, raping your sister, and loving God with the whole of your being are moral equals.

Next, the homosexual lobby would have you believe, via the “Love is Love” catchphrase, that sexual activity is legitimised by love. These lobbyists are pushing for marriage rights and the right to engage in sexual activity without stigma and the foundation of their argument is love. In other words, the homosexual lobby want to legitimise their sexual acts. To do this they know instinctively that they must be married. However, as they fail to meet God’s criterion of heterosexuality they are under obligation to invent a new criterion, love.  Yet, once more, we must ask as to how “Love is Love” transmogrifies into “Love is legitimate sexual activity”.

To put it simply and bluntly, love never legitimises sexual activity! In Scripture, legitimate sexual activity must meet two criteria: heterosexuality and the marriage covenant.[4] If you remove either criterion, then the sexual activity is illegitimate, unsanctioned, and debauched. This is borne out by the language of Scripture and of our day:

          Fornication: Heterosexual activity when not married;

          Adultery: Sexual activity with other than your spouse when married;

Sodomy / Homosexuality: Sexual activity outside the bounds of marriage and heterosexuality.[5]

Please note well that love is never the criterion that legitimises sexual activity.[6]

Last, let us highlight more obviously what the homosexual lobby and their catchphrase of doom seek to hide, namely, that men can and do love absolute perversion.

When Jesus came into this world, rightly to be embraced by Men, John records Man’s response with these dreadful words: this is the judgment, that the light is come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the light; for their deeds were evil.[7] In this regard, nothing has changed. Still the homosexual community loves its evil deeds of darkness and seeks any and every avenue to legitimise its aberrant behaviour. There is little doubt that amongst the homosexual community there is genuine love, but it is a love for the darkness. Their love, genuine as it is, does not legitimise, excuse, or sanction their deviant sexual behaviour. One can place a blanket of love upon a bed, but that does not mean that every activity between the sheets is lawful.

“Love is Love” is a catchphrase of doom precisely because it is one more veil, another puff of smoke, the positioning of yet another mirror in an attempt to garner support for an errant cause by obscuring the truth.

Man’s duty of love is to God and His Christ. Jesus said: “If you love Me, you will keep My commandments” and “He who has My commandments and keeps them, he it is who loves Me.[8] True love, therefore, is aimed at God and expresses itself in obedience to his commands. Any love that does not meet this standard is the love generated from within a fallen and corrupt heart; a heart that loves darkness and not the Light!


[1] Genesis 27:3-4.

[2] 2 Samuel 13:1, 4, 14-15.

[3] Genesis 24:67.

[4] Genesis 1:26-28.

[5] 1 Corinthians 6:9 list these three sins separately, emphasising the fact that they each transgress God’s law in a different manner.

[6] An example from our everyday relationships. If you engaged in sexual activity with all those you loved, based on the idea that love legitimises sexual activity, would you not be considered by most, even the homosexual lobby, to be a debauched and depraved individual.

[7] John 3:19.

[8] John 14:15 & 21.

Marriage is Life: AP Version

 (This version was produced for the Australian Presbyterian. It is a shorter version, but also includes a few comments that the original version does not. It is only 1200 words. Print it out and hand it to your friends. Lord willing, it will help you have some worthwhile conversations on the topic of Marriage.)

There is little doubt that, in Australia today, we are experiencing a clash of worldviews. Over the last decades, the Secular Humanist attack upon Biblical Christianity has gathered pace and it recently presented to this nation a new challenge.

Christianity, both as a belief and a worldview, has been systematically attacked in this country for at least fifty years. In that time, attacks have been mainly focused against the application of Biblical law. Examples of this may be seen in the erosion of (traditional) marriage. The concept of both “de facto” relationships and divorce were popularised and de-stigmatised. By stealth, therefore, marriage was undermined. Its significance and importance was devalued. Marriage was relegated to the status of a cultural relic from the bygone age of “religion” and non-enlightenment.

This diminution of perspective is attributable to Humanism’s attack on the application of Biblical law. These attacks stem directly from the fact that the Secular Humanist denies the existence of the Bible’s God (Psalm 14:1). With God removed, the Secularist believes himself free to set about making this world after his own image in order to rule by his own law. Consequently, the Secular Humanist has sought to erode any law explicitly based in Scripture.[1]

The question is, ‘What is next?’ What is Humanism about to attack and redefine after its own design? The answer is apparent. We have, of recent, witnessed the introduction of several bills to Parliament for the sole purpose of altering the Marriage Act; primarily allowing for homosexual marriage.

This is an escalation in the war. No longer are the Humanists simply attacking the peripheries – the application of Biblical law – they are now insisting on attacking God directly by redefining Man. This battle is not about the (human) tradition of marriage as a legal union. This battle cuts to the heart of Man and his sexuality as male and female and impinges upon the fact that marriage is God’s precise design and mechanism for perpetuating life to and for His absolute glory.

The question that must be asked is, “Why is homosexuality and homosexual marriage Biblically wrong?” To answer this, we must turn to the Cultural Mandate (Genesis 1:26-28) of Genesis.

In this text there are some fundamentals that simply cannot be ignored:

First, is the simple but important fact that Man is made in the image of God.

Man is not, therefore, a self-determining creature from the black swamp who “got smart” and decided to make something of himself. Man is not the Mark 4 in monkey design. Man is not chaos, chance, randomness, coincidence, or accident. He is not a cosmic virus virulent upon the earth as some type of intergalactic plague – with the earth hoping for a vaccine! Man is not the meaningless transient dream of the existentialist!

On the contrary, Man is the product of the perceptive absolute will of Almighty God. No mistake. No design flaws. Made in fullness! Made in perfection! Man, made as God planned. Man, endued and imbued with every power, grace, gift, talent, ability, faculty, facility, and function that God intended him to possess. Nothing more. Nothing less.

Second, God’s Man was created in plurality! Man is made in God’s image and he is made male and female. Like a coin, Man was made with two sides. Both image bearers. Both endued with God’s gifts, talents, and purposes. When the two are brought together in the marriage covenant, the whole becomes far greater than the sum of its parts.

This position must be understood, for it is the essence of any and every rebuttal to all schemes which attack Man and Marriage.[2] In Genesis 1:28, God pronounces a blessing upon Man. Part of that blessing is that Man should be fruitful and multiply. God’s Man, made in plurality, covenanted in unity through marriage, can receive this blessing and bring it to fruition.

Humanism’s Man cannot! It does not matter how much semen you pour into a man’s rectal cavity or how many attempts are made to fashion the perfect phallic symbol, Man’s futility can never replicate or replace God’s fertility! God made Man male and female. God gave them perfect fertility and bodies designed and equipped to fulfil Man’s assignment within God’s purpose and plan.

Before proceeding, we must say something simple about that plan. Please note that the text of Genesis 1:26-28 has to do with God’s dominion. That is to say, the fundamental aspect of that text is both the Rule and Worship of God over all and throughout all the earth. The mechanism by which this is achieved is the prosperity of the womb in covenant marriage and the subsequent education of that fruit in the fear and knowledge of God. In short, it is covenant prosperity to the glory of God. Thus understood, heterosexual Marriage is the key to life.

When marriage is pictured Biblically, we see that it is far from a cultural convention or tradition. It is a widely practiced principle precisely because it is a Creation Ordinance stamped onto the heart of every man. Marriage, sexuality, progeny, God’s rule, and God’s worship are all writ as writ upon the heart of Man by the finger of God. These components are who we are as Man. They cannot be erased, imitated, or substituted. It is only when male and female are brought together in the covenant of marriage that all of the blessings specified by God will flow freely and abundantly in fulfilment of God’s design and purpose. Then, and only then, are we truly the Married Man.[3]

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

Marriage is not a human institution, convention, or cultural tradition, Statist or otherwise. Marriage is the inherent consequence of Man being created male and female in the image of God. Marriage, therefore, is not only bound to Man as male and female, but it is bound up in the essential nature of Man as male and female. It simply cannot be imitated by male/male or female/female relationships. Marriage is not a mere mechanism to legitimise sexual behaviour. Whilst this is a right component, we must see that marriage only legitimises sexual behaviour of the type which accords with God’s design and purpose, thereby manifesting absolutely His rule, worship, and glory. Therefore, homosexual marriage must be repudiated as a travesty.

Marriage is life! That is, one man and one woman in covenant union before God and to His glory. Marriage is life!


[1] Well, not quite. He has eroded the laws that require restraint of carnal appetite and pleasure. He is rather keen to keep the laws regarding murder and theft as he wants to live to enjoy his greed and hedonism!

[2] Whilst texts like Leviticus and Romans are helpful and instructive, they tend to be limited to a sexual expression. By returning to Genesis, we are looking at the very design and purpose of God for Man.

[3] No comment here is directed toward childless couples or those God has called to a single life.

Equality and Coercion: The Antipodes of Humanism

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

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

Brethren, what fruit do you see about you today?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[1] Matthew 7:20.

[2] Genesis 1:26-28.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Homosexual Paranoia

Sin is a disgrace to any people (Proverbs 14:34)! So says God. Scripture clarifies this statement further by noting that “Sin is lawlessness” (1 John 3:4). The Westminster Divines ratify this definition of sin, stating: “Sin is any want of conformity unto, or transgression of, any law of God, given as a rule to the reasonable creature” (WLC 24).

Some of those “rules” given to the “reasonable creature” are:

  • You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination. (Leviticus 18:22)
  • If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them. (Leviticus 20:13)
  • You shall not bring the hire of a harlot or the wages of a dog[1] into the house of the Lord your God for any votive offering, for both of these are an abomination to the Lord your God. (Deuteronomy 23:18)
  • For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. (Romans 1:26-27)
  • Outside are the dogs and the sorcerers and the immoral persons and the murderers and the idolaters, and everyone who loves and practices lying.[2] (Revelation 22:15)

When we, as men, in whatever capacity we serve, break these rules, we “reasonable creatures” are qualified as “sinners”. We become the proliferators of sin. Consequently, we are both a “disgrace” and a means of disgrace.

Is it any wonder then that, as homosexuality is forced upon our society by a clamouring minority, we have begun to see more and more disgraceful acts? By this we not only mean individual acts, but also corporate acts.

Two such stories have come to light in recent days. The first is a case of a mother who murdered her young son because she believed he was a homosexual. [3] The second is in regard to the joining of forces by certain Australian sports codes to take a stand against “homophobia”.[4]

In regard to the first story, many people will be quick to scoff and jeer and that for a multiplicity of reasons.  However, I think some reflection is in order. Homosexuality, despite the rhetoric, is not normal. Everything about it runs contrary to our true natures. It evokes very strong feelings indeed. People will talk politely about it in public because that situation is forced upon them by the State. Take them aside and the story changes. Proposition them in a homosexual manner and the reaction will be akin to a volnado (a volcano and tornado combined).

As such, are we surprised to find people acting violently when they are confronted by this disgraceful evil? Are we surprised at violent outcomes when people are forced to accept as normal that which they find repugnant and disgusting? Add to this the “born that way” nonsense and you really have a recipe for disaster. What I mean by this is that the “reasonable creature” knows that homosexuality is a choice and that it is wrong choice. Yet, the modern propaganda makes people believe that homosexuality is a genetic mutation that must be accepted.[5] It is no different, in essence, to that of eye colour – it is a genetic predisposition over which the individual has no control.

The result of this volatile mix is that parents begin to believe that it is within the realms of possibility and probability that two perfectly heterosexual people will give birth to a homosexual child. Thus, these parents are challenged at a visceral level.  They do not want a homosexual child any more than they wish for a palsied child. So how do they react when they think[6] that they are the recipient of a genetic mutation?

The mother in this news article reacted in anger. She murdered her child. For this action, she will be condemned by many. Another couple, not that long back, raised their son as a girl because they believed him to be a homosexual or at least transgender. Many people condemned this couple. Yet, there is a commonality. Whilst the parents acted very differently in respect to their children and their situation, they both acted in respect to the same lie, namely, that homosexuals are born that way.

This is the disgrace spoken of earlier. Here, two families are ruined. Multiple lives are destroyed. Why? They believed the prominent homosexual lie. They were brainwashed into believing that homosexuals are born. They were forced to capitulate to the modern Humanist dogma that has become de rigueur. As a consequence of this disgraceful lie and its jackbooted propagation at the instigation of the State, two children are lost. Two families are or will be in disarray.

Friends, this is the power of lies and ignorance. This is a lesson in politics. This is a lesson in regard to sinful man being “hell bent” on his rebellious and destructive path. This is the result of the denial of God’s truth: Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a disgrace to any people!

You see, the homosexuals are desperate to have their burning consciences eased. They believe that by legalising their debauchery their conscience will be set free. Thus, they badger, harass, demand, and deceive in order to see their dream fulfilled. What happens? People begin to believe their lies. Worse, people begin to act upon those lies. Enter homosexual paranoia. Parents begin to look at their children differently. Thoughts that were never present now begin to be entertained. Behaviours are scrutinised and reinterpreted in light of the lie. Innocent actions are now perceived as aberrant behaviour and indications that the lie is present in the child. Under this conviction, parents, and others, act and the result is devastating!

The second article deals with the major sporting codes uniting to fight homophobia. We will not spend much time on this article as we have written about this sort of nonsense on previous occasions. Here, we simply want to point out the hypocrisy of the situation and the utter nonsense that is “equality” in its current format.

Equality is indeed a Biblical ideal. What is not appreciated by the Moderns is that it is an ideal firmly rooted in the being of God. All men are equal on a very basic level precisely because they are created in the image of God. No life is worth less than another. A female is not worth less than a male. A black person is not worth less than a white person. God does not discriminate on this basic level.

Now come the caveats. To state these things is not to say that God considers all people and all activities of equal value and worth. God does not hold the murderer on the same level as the innocent. These are not equal in His sight. God does not hold the thief and his victim in the same esteem. God is a God of justice. God demands a verdict. God demands a separation between the guilty and the innocent. Similarly, God is the God of truth. God loves the one who speaks the truth and He despises the lying tongue (Proverbs 12:22).[7]

If we look at Psalm 15 we will see God’s discrimination:

O Lord, who may abide in Thy tent? Who may dwell on Thy holy hill? He who walks with integrity, and works righteousness, and speaks truth in his heart. He does not slander with his tongue, Nor does evil to his neighbor, Nor takes up a reproach against his friend; In whose eyes a reprobate is despised, But who honors those who fear the Lord; He swears to his own hurt, and does not change; He does not put out his money at interest, Nor does he take a bribe against the innocent. He who does these things will never be shaken.

It is at this point that the Christian must come into conflict with the Modern. The Modern, like the homosexual, demands that all men accept and abide by a lie. This time the lie is that every action deemed to be legal by Man must be accepted by all men as valid. Some would widen this definition to the point at which all actions are to be accepted as equally valid and above the designation of good and bad or right and wrong. Thus, the homosexual sides with the Modern to propagate the lie that every belief and all people are equal.

As can be seen, these two theories espoused by two camps use the same term, equality, but they mean very different things when they invoke the term. If you are a Christian and you subscribe to the Modernist theory, please, go back to the Bible, read God’s word, repent, and join the fight. We must oppose this Modernist rubbish. We must openly call it a lie. We must expose it.[8]

How? Very simple. If equality is the key and they are out to “eliminate discrimination”, we should ask:

  • Why did ‘Test matches’ in cricket once have a “rest day” on Sunday? When the decision was taken to abolish these rest days, did that discriminate against Christian players? Did this decision discriminate against the Church and the one day of worship appointed by God? After all, we have historically always worshipped on Sunday. To no longer recognise that fact is to discriminate against all, spectators, players, and officials, who hold to the idea that Sunday is a day of rest and worship. It is tantamount to forcing them to make a decision to compromise or to lower their standard.
  • When the AFL introduced football matches on a Sunday, were they considering the welfare of all? Was equality and non-discrimination at the fore front of their minds? Why did a trial match on Sunday not only become reality but a multiplicity? Equally, for several years now there has been a hot potato in the AFL as to whether or not there should be a game on Good Friday.[9] Discrimination? Fairness? Equality? Any thought given to the negative impact upon society? Any thought given to the impact upon those who worship on Sunday? Any respect shown for the Christians of this nation or the Christians in the AFL? Will orthodox Christians be invited to this game to declare the true meaning of Easter or shall we simply be subject to the pagan rituals of the Aboriginal community? Respect? Equality? Inclusiveness?

These are but two examples of the current hypocrisy. The simple reality is that to stand for item A is to automatically stand against item B. To stand for homosexuality is to stand against heterosexuality as unique. To stand for homosexual marriage is to stand against heterosexual marriage. To stand for de facto relationships is to stand against marriage. To stand for paganism is to stand against Christianity.

It is probably not a great theological stride to quote from a child’s movie, but here we go. In “The Incredibles” the bad guy, Syndrome, states, “When everyone is super, then no one is!” That is exactly what is happening here in these arguments. When all are equal under the law any can be discriminated against by that same law. By claiming that all people and actions are equal, the Moderns are claiming that nothing is unique or special. They are claiming that nothing is right or wrong. They insist that nothing is moral or immoral. They require that truth and lie become one in nothingness.

Under the guise of equality, the Moderns are out to brainwash people with a second lie, namely, that all is nothing. However, the conflict is immediate. Men know that there is something and that nothing is impossible. For example, Ryan Harris and Mitchell Johnson are going to champion the anti-homophobia cause for cricket. If all is nothing, I wonder what they are doing when they run up to the white line with a red ball in their hand. Why do they stop at that line? When they have tossed the ball, why do they get all excited and turn to this austere gent near the stumps with an enquiring, “How is that?”

Here is the hypocrisy. Both of these men know that there is something, not nothing. They both know that they cannot transgress that little, white, line without bringing a penalty. They know that there is a rule that guides their action. To deny those rules is to destroy the game and bring themselves into the realm of nonsense. Why stop here? Indeed, every code that has signed up to the “homophobia” nonsense represents a game that is based in law. There is a code! There is an umpire. There is, usually, a judiciary. There are penalties for breaching the laws of the game. Let us be honest. Let us face the simple fact. Without rule and law there is no game. Without rule and law there can be only chaos!

In a similar manner, the current call for the end of discrimination and the establishment of equality, based in Secular Humanism, is nothing short of a call for our nation to be plunged into nothingness and despair. It is tantamount to saying that we can have life without rule and law. It is to say that the Government alone is the giver of morals. It is nothing short of a declaration of war upon God and His revealed standard and, as a consequence, it is a declaration of war upon any and all who believe God and His revelation.

The hypocrisy and the hatred of God should be evident. If not, please allow me to spell it out. The Moderns hide behind the Government. They push and lobby until the Government caves to their position. They use words like “moral” and “right”, but these are simply smoke screens. If a Christian Government came to power, these moderns would not be happy with the idea that the Government has the right to make the laws that it sees as fit – particularly if these were Biblical laws. Thus, in reality, these Moderns hide the fact that they are anarchists and hypocrites. You see, in the end, these moderns will only be content when the goal of having all law and constraint neutralized unless it serves their purposes!

Look at homosexuality as a prime example. As a child growing up, I well remember the news stories about demands to decriminalise homosexuality. They claimed that they should be free to do whatever they wanted in their own bedrooms, behind closed doors. Then they demanded the right to open expression in broad daylight. Now, these same activists are using law to see that their opponents, who once enjoyed the daylight, are driven indoors with no right to speak. They want them locked securely in their bedrooms like naughty children. Eventually, they will argue that their opponents should not be free to practice their religion even in the privacy of their own home. So, are they really open, affirming, and tolerant? Not on your Nellie!

Therefore, it should be plain for all to see that the arguments about total freedom for all are nothing but barefaced lies. The homosexual lobby is about suppression. This begins with the suppression of truth as a general concept. It then turns to an expressed hatred of God as the objective standard and embodiment of Truth by demanding that His revelation to and for the “reasonable creature” be suppressed.  As the old adage says, “The first casualty of war is truth!”

It is in this climate that Homosexual Paranoia increases exponentially with devastating consequences. People cannot tell truth from lie (having denied God’s objective standards). People react to a perceived truth (murdering their son because he was born homosexual) only to find out they have acted on a lie. People are bullied into acting and living as though the lie is true (sports codes uniting against the mythical ‘homophobe’).[10] Those who uphold truth are pilloried. The freedoms willingly given to those on one side of the debate are explicitly and forcefully denied to those on the other side. The end result of this is tyranny and fear.

Have you ever wondered what it would be like to live in modern North Korea or to live in Russia of yesteryear? Wonder no more. Simply step out your front door and express your heartfelt opinions on all topics PC and you will get to experience these despotic regimes firsthand. We live today in a society that is manipulative, fearful, subdued, and apathetic. For all the talk of truth and freedom there is little of either. You are free to do what the Government tells you; free to believe what the Government tells you; free to be tyrannized by Government sanctioned bullies; free to have your “freedoms” trampled upon because you do not hold to the Government’s position.

Nobody is sure of anything anymore. People are confused. Principles are situational. Long held mores mean nothing or sometimes something, but you have to guess when and which. The law says you cannot be discriminated against on the basis of religion; yet the Christian religion is discriminated against on a daily basis – and every week by certain sports codes! People are cagey. People are untrusting. People are distant. Does this sound like certain countries previously mentioned?

Why is this? It is all due to a state of paranoia. In particular, a state created by Homosexual Paranoia!

[1] The “wages of a dog” is a reference to homosexuality in the context of temple prostitution. See Matthew Poole, Matthew Henry, Keil and Delitzsch, David Chiltern, Rousas Rushdoony, Langenscheidt, Brown, Driver and Briggs.

[2] The term “dog” is a derogatory word used throughout Scripture. Its specific meaning needs to be gauged from the immediate context. Here, I take the term “dog” again as a specific reference to the homosexual and his practice. This designation is based on several facts. First, given the general list included at this point, “dog” must mean more than simply a non-Christian or someone who is disobedient. Second, whilst the term “immoral person” had its roots in homosexuality, its meaning became much more general. Hence, the “dog” must be something more specific. Third, some commentators speak of a sevenfold classification at this point. To achieve this they included the terms “love and practice lying” in the list. I tend to think that the ‘love and practice of lying’ qualifies the five sins listed. In other words, these five sins have at their heart that which is equivalent to blasphemy, namely, the mocking of God by mocking His true standard. As such, the “dog” mocks God as the Creator and Designer of man; the “sorcerer” mocks God as the sole Revealer; the “immoral person” mocks God as law giver; the “murderer” mocks God as Sovereign life-giver; and the “idolater” mocks God as the Sole Object of man’s worship. Thus, at every step, there is the practice of lying and a love of that practice. This accords perfectly with Paul’s statement in 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.”

[5] Please see our Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/pages/Reformation-Ministries/156961371169115) and the entry on January 20.

[6] “Think”, here, is an important word. Remember, there is no test for homosexuality. So the determination rests purely on the subjective opinion of the parents. As the news article shows, this mother thought her child walked and talked funny. Nothing objective. Just a mother’s hunch. The truth is the child may have walked and talked “funny”, but there are a number of real medical possibilities on the list before the imagined “born that way” concept!

[7] Consider also Proverbs 6:16-19: “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.

[8] Ephesians 5:11-12: “And do not participate in the unfruitful deeds of darkness, but instead even expose them; for it is disgraceful even to speak of the things which are done by them in secret.

[9] Today, 30 April, 2014, saw the new AFL chief appointed. He has signalled that Good Friday games will be up for discussion. So, several weeks after joining the “homophobia bandwagon” on the basis of equality, the AFL steps up to take a swing at Christ’s Church.

[10] How many of those public faces had an option? How many were willing to put million dollar deals on the line for the sake of truth or conviction? Could anyone in any of these teams objected for conscience sake without being penalised? Was there “choice” and “freedom” or simply obligation and coercion?

The High Court and Homosexuality

In the last weeks, we have witnessed the High Court of Australia hand down a decision in regard to homosexual union. This ruling had particular reference to the attempt by the ACT government to introduce its own legislation allowing homosexual union.

What do we, as Christians, make of this ruling? What are the ramifications? Should we rejoice or should we weep? What must our attitude be moving forward?

Well, if you are up for it, let’s take a look together. I cannot guarantee that this work will be short. I can guarantee that it will be provocative. I have no idea of your current stand on the issues that will be presented. I do know that if you will read and consider the ideas presented that you may well find yourself with a need to abandon one or many of them.

1. A Wake-up Call.

The first thing to say is that this ruling by the High Court of Australia should be and must be a wake-up call to all Australians, but particularly to the Christians of this nation. For a long time, various people and organisations have been alerting us to an ever creeping and thus ever growing darkness that is pervading our land.

Many have ignored these warnings. Some have dismissed the warnings because a bit of darkness has allowed them to indulge in pet sins. Others have dismissed the warnings as the paranoid ravings of the lunatic religious fringe. Then there are those whose sleeping ears have not been alert to the warnings.

After this ruling there simply is no excuse for not believing and not acting positively upon these warnings. Here, a right parallel can be drawn in regard to the “gun debate” that has long endured in this nation. As a shooter, it was not uncommon to hear derisive comments when certain arguments were made for owning guns. The scorn was at times palpable. Then came September 11. This was followed by the Bali bombings in 2002. Then, in 2005, there were the London and second Bali bombs. People no longer pour scorn and derision on these same arguments.

The simple fact was that the critics had to concede that what was once, in their estimation, nothing more than the ‘outlandish speculations of the fringe dwellers’ had now become a distinct possibility in our ever changing world.

So it is that this ruling should be considered as a cataclysmic event that has not only justified all the previous warnings, but which awakens us from our slumber and encourages us to take a stand.

2. God is the standard of Truth.

The issue of homosexual union has become a massive debate in this country. The question that is rarely, if ever, asked is, “On what authority do we stand?” This is very problematic for the Modernists and Postmodernists who have no belief in objective truth. All they can argue is feeling, opinion, or brute desire. They have no ground for a moral or ethical argument. Nor do they have ground for a timeless argument.

For example, in the current debate we hear a lot about “traditional marriage”. What then, if we pose the following questions — What is this convention? What does traditional mean? What is a marriage? What constitutes a marriage? Who performs a marriage? What makes a marriage binding?

How shall these questions be answered without an objective reference? The simple response is that they cannot be answered or they must be answered by contrivance. If I do not believe that truth is knowable or that objective truth exists, how can I argue the merits of anything? You see, at this point, I not only have no framework for deciding right or wrong, I do not even possess a framework for knowledge, understanding, or communication.

So may laugh at this. Nonetheless, the fact remains. Without a belief in the Bible’s God as the source of all truth, one is simply guessing in the dark. One of the greatest examples of this is the doctrine of Evolution. How does order come from chaos? How does cognition come from the incognisant? The very core doctrine of Evolution demands that something which is today, will not be tomorrow. No consistent evolutionist could be a mathematician because in his world twp plus two may equal four today, but tomorrow it may equal grapefruit!

Thus, when the Bible’s God is removed as the source of truth, a person, a nation, a culture cannot help but enter a state of flux and requisite confusion.

3. God is the Standard of Truth.

To borrow a line from Red Dwarf, “I am aware that it is technically the same point, but it is such a big point, I thought it was worth mentioning it twice!”

My charge to my brethren and to my countrymen is this, “Do you believe in objective truth?” Now, let’s make it simple. When you hold your wife in your arms are you holding a real woman or are you embracing a figment of your imagination? If you choose the first, then you believe in objective truth. The simple reality is that we all operate on the fact that objective truth exists each and every day. We simply could not function if we did not.[1]

Regrettably, when it comes to morals and ethics, we like to pretend that this absolute and objective truth ceases to exist – yes, even Christians are guilty at this point. We like the stipulation of God’s law, “do not commit murder / steal”, but we are wont to become hazy on “do not commit adultery / covet.” Now, the salient point:  As we have become hazy on the stipulations regarding sexual deviation and perversion we have become more apt to compromise on the murder and theft issues as well.[2]

This illustrates the fact that we cannot deviate from God as the source of truth on one or two issues and stay faithful on the rest. When we turn from God, we turn completely from God. Man’s rebellion against God is not half-hearted or timid. It is complete. You see, when Man starts to turn from God, he does not start with “thou shalt not murder / steal”, he starts with, “I am the Lord God, have no other gods but Me!” Once this command is jettisoned, the rest become cultural hangovers and social mores that are malleable, plasticine, and ephemeral.

Therefore, we must understand that these issues are inextricably linked. The glue that binds them is Almighty God. As James says, we cannot pick and choose which laws to obey. God gave them all. If we contravene one, we, in essence, contravene them all.[3]

The lesson here is that we, especially we Christians, must be consistent. If you wish not to obey God’s law, then put your hand up and identify yourself as an anarchist. Start driving on the wrong side of the road. Cross on the red light. Do not pay for your groceries, and make your neighbour’s wife your own.

What you cannot do is feign obedience. You cannot, as it were, sit on the fence. You cannot say that you will accept the position outlined in God’s law at X, Y, and Z, but deny it at A, B, and C. This is the same challenge as that thrown down by Elijah on Mount Carmel – “How long will you hesitate between two opinions? If the Lord is God, follow Him; but if Baal, follow him.”[4]

God’s word alone is truth. All else is a subjective morass of opinion, speculation, and brute desire. Our people, our nation will be, and are, bogged down, unable to move. Having been robbed of the True foundation, they stand in this quagmire, slowly and surely sinking. Each move, each demand for yet more Godlessness only hastens the body’s submersion in the muck.

At this point, I particularly appeal to my brethren. Let us stop arguing figures, surveys, and science, and start arguing, unashamedly, for the whole of God’s revealed truth to be applied to our lives and to the statutes of our nation.

4. Peace, Prosperity, and Happiness.

Over the years, I have seen and heard many Christians become excited at the news of this ‘survey result’ or that ‘court decision’. Sadly, however, this joy is fleeting.

I understand the desire that these sincere brethren display. They believe that Jesus is King. They believe that Jesus has the right to be heard. They understand the nature of spiritual warfare. All this is very good.

However, we must realise that a single court case or survey result means very little. The content of that survey or court decision must be unpacked and explored. As an example, I have heard for years and years about the proportion of Americans who believe in “God”. On the surface, this is wonderful news. However, when we begin to think it through we quickly find problems. In what God do they believe? If so many believed in the God of the Bible, why is America on a downhill slide? If so many Americans believe in the One living and true God, why does it seem as though God has abandoned that country?

One does not need to be a great theologian to discover that the Bible teaches that God only blesses obedience. Equally, one does not have to be a great theologian to see that the Bible also illustrates clearly that people are apt to go through religious motion when the heart is far, far from God.

So let us not mistake an action or decision, which seems to go in the right direction, for heartfelt, God-honouring obedience and true reform.

5. The High Court – Our Response in Summary.

Whilst many in this nation rejoiced at the High Court’s decision to overturn the ACT’s law on homosexual union, the simple and harsh reality is that there was no cause for joy in that decision.

The High Court did not act for God. The High Court did not act in obedience to God’s word. Neither did the High Court act from heartfelt obedience nor a right sense of obligation to strike down this attempt to normalise homosexuality. The Court simply came to the decision that two laws were in conflict and that the Federal law had priority. As such, this decision was not a win for God or for Christians. It was nothing less than a technical decision that maintained the status quo.

On the other hand, there are many diabolical elements contained in this decision that few in this country understand. These elements should place fear in the heart for they are the fulfilment of all the warnings that have been issued thus far. That is why we termed this decision as a “cataclysmic event”.

It is clear that the High Court favours the normalisation of homosexuality. One even gets the impression that they wished that they could have given the whole thing a green light there and then. However, they were constrained by technicalities at law, not by morals, to overrule the ACT’s legislation. [5]

This conclusion can be illustrated, in part, by the High Court, first, deferring a decision and, second, allowing unions under the ACT law while the court deliberated. This led to the provocative situation of some 20 odd couples going through a ceremony that was annulled a few days later. This was an unmitigated stunt on the part of a body that should know the meaning of integrity.

This said, the real devil was certainly in the detail. When the High Court explained itself, we were led into the Postmodern conundrum of decision without foundation. We were introduced to meaningless drivel being served up as the basis for law. In fact, we can go further, the High Court eradicated any foundation or standard for law, meaning, and governance outside of the brute will of the elected government.

Some may be hesitant at the statements made. If so, continue with me, please, as we explore and unpack some aspects of the High Courts decision.

6. The High Court – A State of Flux.[6]

One of the reasons that the Church and our nation – indeed, nations around the world – are experiencing upheaval and discontent can be directly attributed to the concepts embodied in the modern adage of “Change for changes sake!” When this maxim was embraced and coupled with the Postmodern denial of truth and absolutes, it made for a deadly combination.

These philosophies of decay, embraced in the 19th century, meant that change was not only good, but possible, for there were no longer any moral absolutes or objections standing in the way of change.[7]

The philosophy that change for no reasons other than change was good and change was possible bred discontentment. It allowed sin to take the reins. If people did not have something new every so often, they were unhappy, unsatisfied, and often considered themselves as somehow less than others. You know this to be true. How many people do you know, especially in the younger generation, who have to have a new mobile phone as soon as the next model is released? There is nothing wrong with their current phone except that it is superseded.

When we think in these terms we can see the principle. However, when we speak simply of gadgets we can be tempted to see this purely in terms of consumerism. To show how this state of discontent has wide ranging ethical implications, let’s apply this theory to marriage. What happens when you see the next model? It comes in a new case and is of a more attractive design. It may also be a bit lighter than the current model. It has certain assets that get you excited. They may be nice to play with. At this point your imagination is running wild with the possibilities offered by the new model.

So let’s pause for a minute. Let us approach it differently. Let us start with this question, “What is wrong with the current model?” Truthfully, the answer is, “Nothing!” Then we can think back to the days when we first received this model. It had great assets. It too got us very excited. We were intrigued with it for quite a while. Then we ask, “Has it failed us in some gross way?” Again, we must answer, “No!”

So at the end of all this, the only reason that you have for tipping out your current wife and obtaining a new one is that she has aged. Newsflash. Stand in front of the mirror buddy. I bet you ain’t so hot anymore either! Anyway, I digress.

Can you see how this discontentment is easily spread? “Change for changes sake” when coupled with the abandonment of truth and morals  is a dark adage that has spawned great evils. It has pandered to the selfish desires of the masses and created untold damage. It makes people think only of what might be, not what is or what was. It causes you to live in a fantasy world free from moral restraint.[8]

In opposition to this, The Bible talks about contentment. Proverbs 5:18-19, speaking of marriage says this: “Let your fountain be blessed, and rejoice in the wife of your youth. As a loving hind and a graceful doe, Let her breasts satisfy you at all times; Be exhilarated always with her love.”

The simple reality of life is that we grow old.[9] Discontentment will easily creep in to a marriage if we are only thinking of ‘what might have been’ or ‘what might be.’ This is particularly true if you have imbibed some foolish, worldly, and ephemeral view of marriage that looks only at the needs of the individual.

One of the doctrines that can help us most at this point and one of the doctrines most hid from view in our day, is the Doctrine of the Immutability of God. This doctrine states that God, in His essential nature, plans, purposes, and powers does not change. Why can I believe the promises of God? God does not change!

In this current debate – and many beside – this doctrine gives us a solid foundation. When we return to the book of Genesis, we find a whole lot about marriage.[10] The first thing that must be noted is that marriage is founded by God and for His purposes. God made Man in His image and He made this Man male and female. We also see that this Man was given a mission – he was to take dominion over this world in God’s name. Furthermore, we see that this dominion was directly related to the sexuality of Man as male and female. God designed Man to marry and through marriage to bear children in order to take dominion.

The importance here is that marriage is immutable for it was founded upon and given purpose by the One living, true, and immutable God. This is precisely why laws protected marriage. In times past we spoke of the “sanctity” of marriage. In short, we acknowledged that marriage was more than a social construct or tradition. We acknowledge that it was holy, that is was set apart, that it was not to be trifled with. We did this because we understood that marriage in its design and purpose rested upon the immutable, the unchangeable and unchanging God of Scripture.

December 12, 2013 and the High Court of Australia rewrites history and takes a pair of scissors to the Bible. In section 16 they state:

The status of marriage, the social institution which that status reflects, and the rights and obligations which attach to that status never have been, and are not now, immutable.

In this statement, the High Court has revealed the single reason that marriage has been systematically attacked and undermined in this country. It reveals the reason that has led to the current demands that homosexuals be allowed to marry – in the Court’s opinion, there is no absolute standard for marriage![11]

From this point, the High Court goes on to give various illustrations of how marriage has been reinterpreted over time, especially since federation.[12] The problem is that they are guilty of a logical fallacy or of “straw man” syndrome. In short, they presuppose that marriage is mutable – changeable. They presuppose that marriage is a social status that may have different forms at different times in history. Thus, they bring in illustrations to show these changes and thereby legitimise their decision.

Let’s illustrate the problem with this analogy. As a Christian it is not wrong to undertake any lawful vocation. Conversely, those vocations that are illegal or immoral are excluded. Now we must ask, who decides on the legality and morality of a vocation?

It is Victorian England. Murray’s daughter comes home all excited. She announces to her father that she has gained employment. He excitedly asks, “What is the position and for whom shall you be working?” His daughter then states that she is going to be a prostitute and that she would be working at the local brothel. Victorian Murray would not rejoice at this news and would most likely toss his daughter out of his house.

Fast forward.  It is 2014, Murray’s daughter comes home. Same exuberance. Same conversation. What is modern Murray’s response? He rises from his chair, embraces his daughter, and congratulates her on choosing and old and enduring profession. What else can he do? After all, brothels are now legal.

Modern Murray must accept his daughter’s decision, if we are to believe that morality and ethics are transient and not immutable. Modern Murray has no ability to rebuke or criticise his daughter’s decision because the government has said that brothels can now operate legally.

This is the quagmire entered into when morality is removed from it foundation in the immutable, eternal God and placed upon the ephemerality of finite Man’s opinion. Everything must change. What was yesterday will not and cannot be the same tomorrow.

Therefore, what the High Court has declared is that marriage is a social construct that is completely malleable. Marriage can and must be formed or shaped by the social needs of any nation, at any time, in any place up to and including the abolition of all marriage. The institution of marriage has no link to the Bible’s God. It has no moral basis. It has no reference to Man as male and female. Marriage is not the immutable creation of God, but rather the social construct of fallen Man.

7. The High Court – The God of the Bible is Dead!

The repercussions of the High Court’s decision and reasoning are immense.

Some in this nation have been warning about the consequences of Australia becoming a Secular nation. Those people have been ridiculed and persecuted. As with the “Gun Debate” analogy above, we hope that those rumblings will now settle down. We hope that people will see the monster that has been released by the High Court.

Now, let me be clear. The anti-God philosophy displayed in the High Court’s decision is not new. It has been slowly but surely building both momentum and followers for some time. The point is that now the ramifications of that anti-God philosophy should be clear.

When people call for a secular Australia, when politicians refer to decisions good for us as a secular state, understand that they are speaking code. When they use these terms they are calling for nothing less than a concept of government that is completely uniformed and untouched by the God of the Bible. Implicit in these statements is the tenet that God is Dead – if not in reality, then as an exiled son, cast out and no longer welcome.

This is why Christians have been given less and less voice. This is why other minorities have been encouraged. This is why Christmas is attacked. This is why ridiculing Christians and Christianity is acceptable.[13] This is why free speech, particularly, true speech is gagged. This is why PC is a one-way street – leading away from God’s immutable and eternal decrees.

The reality is very simple. We are not arguing about whether there should be a God for this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have law in this nation; we are not arguing over whether we should have cultural structure and rules in this nation. No. What we are arguing over is Who is the rightful God and the determiner of law and morality in this nation! That is the battleground.

The High Court has declared the One living and true God of the Bible dead. However, this cannot be construed as the High Court denying all sovereignty. When God is pushed aside, a void is created. Man cannot live with this void. It makes him uncomfortable. Being formed in the image and likeness of God, Man likes rules and government. Man, in general, likes order. The sticking point is, again, the question of, “Whose rules are to be obeyed?

Fallen Man cannot abide the governance of God, so he must declare that God is dead. Man must clear the path for a god of his own making to be established, worshiped, and obeyed.

8. The High Court – The Elected Government replaces God.

Consequently, the High Court had to focus upon the Federal Parliament’s right to make rules regarding marriage without reference to God.

In section 9, we read:

This Court must decide whether s 51(xxi) permits the federal Parliament to make a law with respect to same sex marriage because the ACT Act would probably operate concurrently with the Marriage Act if the federal Parliament had no power to make a national law[5] providing for same sex marriage. If the federal Parliament did not have power to make a national law with respect to same sex marriage, the ACT Act would provide for a kind of union which the federal Parliament could not legislate to establish. By contrast, if the federal Parliament can make a national law providing for same sex marriage, and has provided that the only form of marriage shall be between a man and a woman, the two laws cannot operate concurrently.

What is being said here can be simplified to this – Does the Federal Parliament have an absolute right to decree what marriage is to be up to and including, but not limited to, homosexuality?

The High Court answered with a, Yes! The supposed dilemma that the Court faced was this – if the Federal Parliament could not make legislation in this area, then the ACT’s law could stand. However, if the Federal Parliament did have the authority, even though they did not exercise it, the ACT’s law could not stand.

Therefore, context aside, the High Court has ruled that the Federal Government is to replace God as the source of morality. The Federal Parliament can now make any law that is deemed to be within its right, regardless of the dictates of God.

Speaking Biblically, the above court case should never have got off the ground. A judge true to his oath and calling would have struck this legislation down as he would have realised that the proposition was contrary to God’s law. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into, by governments or lesser judges.

Yet, as we have seen, what the High Court did was to foster the God is Dead philosophy by paying homage to the rights and power of the Federal Parliament. In taking this stand, the High Court has declared the Federal Parliament to be omnipotent. The Federal Parliament can now rule with absolute surety that all is within its power.

We have witnessed this type of government many times throughout the ages. It is called tyranny! When the law makers refuse to acknowledge that they are themselves men under authority, the only possible end is tyranny.

The High Court has now handed to the Federal Parliament the very thing it has been champing at the bit for, carte blanche! It now has the power to terrorise every Christian and dissenter. It has now been given entry into your homes and to the very essence of your being.

“How so?” you ask. It is a matter of warfare and of equal and opposites. If the Federal Parliament establishes laws in favour of homosexual unions, especially if it is termed as “marriage”, it automatically attacks every authentic marriage. Just as counterfeit money disturbs the genuine currency, so a fake marriage must disturb the genuine marriage.

As the Federal Parliament only knows cooperation through force, people will be coerced into complying with the new definition of marriage. You should not be shocked at this statement. You already witness this tactic – Racial Vilification laws; Equal Opportunity laws; Anti-Discrimination laws. All these have one real aim – to force all to comply with the Federal Parliaments ideals of a harmonious and just society. The only real difference is that homosexual unions will bring the issue closer to home.

Therefore, once marriage is redefined, wholesale changes will need to be made to a range of official documentation, dictums, and conventions. For example, I already resent the term “partner” that appears on forms instead of husband / wife/ spouse. What terms will be presented for our enjoyment with the redefinition of marriage? What happens to terms like Mum and Dad? Rewrite the dictionaries! Ridiculous? Not at all. We have already seen this. Consider this dictionary definition of marriage:

  • the formal union of a man and a woman, typically as recognized by law, by which they become husband and wife: [Examples deleted]
  • (in some jurisdictions) a formal union between partners of the same sex.
  • [mass noun] the state of being married:[14]

Note that the second point has been inserted already as relevant to “some jurisdictions”. All that needs to happen is to delete the first definition and elevate the second and voilà the secular revolution in regard to marriage is complete.

What then of education. You believe marriage to be as God intended; a man and a woman for life. How do you object to this at the school council? What happens when you insist that your child answer contrary to the State’s position? What is your response to a please explain from the education board?[15]

What of the Christian marriage counsellor. What will happen when homosexuals turn up for counselling? Will you turn them away? Will you capitulate to the State and recognise them as legally married? Are you willing to risk your business and even jail by turning these people away?

These are but a few examples of the situations that will arise, given current examples, if the Federal Parliament legalises homosexual union.

Oh please, do not be the ignoramus par excellence and claim that the Government will add caveats or exemptions for certain Christian organisations. What the Government giveth the Government can and will taketh away![16] The Government, having been granted unlimited power, will not be slack in using that power to enforce its will.

When the Government supplants God as the final arbiter on morality, we are in for a sticky end. It is no accident that every culture that has embraced homosexuality has faltered and slipped from the pages of history. We often hear about the glory of Rome and her system, but few speak of the fall of Rome as a consequence of her debauchery.

Enamoured with her own power and authority, Caesar claimed to be a god. From this point, totalitarian rule and tyranny became the order of the day. Men were slaughtered for pleasure and entertainment. Sexual perversion abounded. Children were left to die. Life was both honoured and cheapened.

It is a dark day when the Government believes that it can rightly sit in God’s seat and rule by its own power.

9. The High Court – The Ramifications.

When Man usurps God, the consequences are incalculable. All that can be said is that there most definitely will be ramifications and that those ramifications will be negative. We have noted some ramifications already. We have hinted at the definite possibility of others, based on current practice. Still others come to light in the High Court’s reasoning.

Disturbingly, the High Court, in section 33, states:

Once it is accepted that “marriage” can include polygamous marriages, it becomes evident that the juristic concept of “marriage” cannot be confined to a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde and other nineteenth century cases. Rather, “marriage” is to be understood in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution as referring to a consensual union formed between natural persons in accordance with legally prescribed requirements which is not only a union the law recognises as intended to endure and be terminable only in accordance with law but also a union to which the law accords a status affecting and defining mutual rights and obligations.[17]

The reasoning at this juncture is once more questionable. That the Family Law Act recognises polygamous marriages is a fact. However, it does not do so permissively, but rather functionally. In other words, the Act recognises polygamous marriages from outside Australia for the sole purpose of enabling the Court to deal with them.[18]

Regardless of this fact, what we need to see is that debauchery begets debauchery. The High Court introduces the practice of polygamy only to enable the Biblical view of marriage to be maligned. By introducing a heterosexual distortion, it is but a small step to utter perversion.

Hence, this section does not speak about a man and a woman, but of “natural persons”. The whole point is to deny sexuality as a criterion for marriage. Also note, please, that the High Court’s definition is numberless. Having used polygamy as a jimmy bar to pry open the door, it cannot now limit the number of persons to that marriage.

What now? Well, my advice is that you go out and by one of those rain suits that covers you from top to bottom for things are going to get murky and filthy.

First, if Postmodernism were not so popular, the High Court would be a total laughingstock. When the theory of the Court is analysed it becomes clear that they have absolutely no objective criteria for marriage and no objective or absolute foundation on which they base the form and content of marriage. The best that they can establish is ‘marriage is what Federal Parliament says it is.’ As there is no objective basis for this decision, the power of the Federal Parliament is established by the power of the High Court. Thus, one entity validates the other in reciprocal acts of “back patting” and authentication.

What this means for every Australian is that the concept and definition of marriage will now be subject to complete change at the will of the Federal Parliament. As marriage is but a social construct, the Parliament will be able to issue its own decrees as to what form and content marriage should possess.

This is the precipice to which relativism and the denial of absolutes leads. You have forty people in a room and forty opinions are shared. Truth is not established on an objective foundation, nor by consensus, but by the person holding the highest office.

Just the other night, I came across a television show in which Tony Abbott’s assertion that “marriage has always been between a man and a woman” was shot down by a reference to a Roman emperor who had two husbands. Triumph for the homosexuals!

The point here is not to bat for or against Tony Abbott, but to show that appealing to culture, science, or past happenings is not a valid means for establishing truth or ethical principle. It is for this reason that I have often been critical of brethren who use these methods. We cannot establish ethical principles for tomorrow based on what is or what was.

The weakness in Tony Abbott’s arguments is also shown to be present in the High Court’s reasoning – because both are secular rationalists who deny God’s revelation as truth. The High Court has no objective standards, so they are reduced to a set of arguments concerning this case or that case or what happened when, particularly limiting the time frame to Federation. Consequently, we are introduced to statements like:

  1. Observing that, at federation, English law would recognise as a marriage only a union having the characteristics described in Hyde v Hyde, and would not provide matrimonial remedies in respect of any other kind of union, accurately describes the then state of the law. (Section 28.)
  2. The great conflict of laws writer, A V Dicey, described [43] the rule which was adopted in the cases as an “instance of the principle that the rules of (so-called) private international law apply only amongst Christian states”. The rule treated some, but not all, forms of marriage contracted according to other laws as either not worthy of recognition or not able to be recognised because their incidents were not compatible with English law. (Section 29.)
  3. These being the bases for the nineteenth century decisions, those decisions did not then, and do not now, define the limit of the marriage power (or the divorce and matrimonial causes power) in the Constitution. Decisions like Hyde v Hyde reflect no more than the then state of development of judge-made law on the subjects of marriage and divorce and matrimonial causes. Subsequent development of both judge-made law and statute law shows this to be so. (Section 30.)
  4. First, it was established in 1890 by Brinkley v Attorney-General[44] that, despite the frequent reference found in earlier decisions to “Christian marriage” and “marriage in Christendom” as distinct from “infidel” marriages[45], a monogamous marriage validly solemnised according to the law of Japan between “a natural born subject of the Queen … having his domicil in Ireland” and “a subject of the empire of Japan”, though not a Christian marriage, would be declared to be valid in English law. (Section 31).
  5. More particularly, the nineteenth century use of terms of approval, like “marriages throughout Christendom”[47] or marriages according to the law of “Christian states”[48], or terms of disapproval, like “marriages among infidel nations”[49], served only to obscure circularity of reasoning. Each was a term which sought to mask the adoption of a premise which begged the question of what “marriage” means.[19] (Section 36).

I realise that such quotes are not easy to read and can induce tedium. I would appreciate it if, despite this, you could ponder these texts to see how standing on shifting sand is both dangerous and ultimately futile. The High Court begins with what was the accepted standard for marriage and introduces excuse after excuse as to why those definitions or terms are no longer valid. Please note how section 36 takes to task the usage of the term “Christian” in making a distinction in marriage and ultimately asserts that all these law-makers were guessing in the dark – “obscure(ing) circularity of reasoning” and “begged the question of “what” marriage means”.

This is astounding, for these judges have basically stated that all (well, most) of the law on marriage is a guess by their predecessors and the lawmakers of the day as to what marriage is to be. Horrifyingly, in making this assessment, they have laid the foundation for their own interpretation of marriage to be accepted as the standard for our day – as they too guess in the dark!

You see, these men argue from no foundation in law to the relative laws of various jurisdictions today and at every turn they simply shoot themselves in the foot. The quotations show how the Court has argued for its point of view from and through a limited time period. Yet, the real kicker is their opening gambit – “The cases commonly referred to as providing a definition of “marriage” in s 51(xxi) of the Constitution must be read in the light of the issues decided in those cases. Each case dealt with a particular question about either succession to property or the jurisdiction of the English courts to grant a decree of dissolution in cases concerning a marriage contracted in, and governed by the law of, a foreign country.”

What the Court admits at this point is that none of the cases cited were actually looking at the questions of the source of, form of, and essential constitution of marriage. Rather, these were cases of property settlement or divorce. Thus, at best, these cases can only be cited in a cursory way.

Similarly, after the Court’s little tour through history and its arrival at tacit approval for polygamous and homosexual unions, we are granted this little gem – “Other legal systems now provide [50] for marriage between persons of the same sex. This may properly be described as being a recent development of the law of marriage in those jurisdictions. It is not useful or relevant for this Court to examine how or why this has happened.

Excuse me! Not useful or relevant to consider the how and why of these current decisions!! How can that be? A building falls down and there is an enquiry into the “how” and the “why” immediately. All attempts are made to make sure that these things do not happen again in future. So why is the High Court of Australia not interested in the “how” and “why” of the “recent development” of this issue?

It is very simple. If the Court opened that particular door and chose to walk through it, they would first have to admit that they are the Biblical fools of Psalm 14, who have ‘said in their hearts “There is no God.”’The Court would have to admit that there is only one foundation for marriage – God! The Court would have to admit that outside of Scripture there is no other basis for the institution of marriage. The Court would have to admit that there is only one type of marriage – Christian marriage – for marriage was ordained and commanded by God for all men. The Court would have to admit that marriage is timeless, ethical, purpose driven, and is founded upon absolutes. The Court would have to admit that marriage is not a social or cultural construct. Lastly, and importantly, the Court would have to admit that it was mistaken and that it too is bound by the authority of God Almighty. This the Court will not do.

In other words, the Court dismisses this necessary investigation precisely to guard its own premise – God is Dead (See footnote 18). If the court undertook this investigation, it would be obliged to highlight the correlation between the decline in moral standards and the acceptance of homosexual union. It would be patent that a moral shift had taken place within the culture and that the adoption of a new morality or paradigm for morality had led to the acceptance of these aberrant practices.

By now you will be tired of the words “absolute” and “objective”, but I hope that you can see more clearly the diabolical nature of modern relativism. We have before our eyes the High Court of Australia making fundamental decisions based on a foundation with less tensile strength and integrity than packaged custard!

When absolutes and objective truth are denied, relativism must take over. As we have said already, the consequences are enormous. Every man – including the High Court and every politician – will do what is right in his own eyes and chaos shall ensue.

Second, having established the Federal Parliament’s right to state what it will concerning marriage; having opened some doors to dubious behaviour; and having established these concepts on the all conquering principle of relativism, the Court is now reduced to contradictions and hypocrisy as they continue to argue their case. Truly, if it were not so disastrous and serious, I would be tempted to wax lyrical.

Think this through. The High Court have set out a point of law which states that the Federal Parliament alone has the right to determine what marriage is in this country. Having done that, it continues to argue its point by elucidating its thought process. The trouble is that the process utilised, as we have seen, is fundamentally flawed.

According to the High Court, a marriage is a “consensual union between natural persons”. If this is so, then all manner of abominations are possible. How many are too many in a marriage? Then it is not only plurality that is courted but homosexuality. Marriage could be six men, six women, three men and three women. As long as these are “natural persons” – no nestene duplicates[20] – and the relationship is consensual, there can be no limit! Moreover, as this is the Court’s reasoning and that reasoning has no terminus or restrictions in morality – the only terminator being the Parliament’s will – then whatever the Parliament allows is not only right but must be obeyed and instituted.

At this point, it would seem that bestiality is ruled out, though I have nagging doubts. After all, evolutionary theory states that Man is just one of the animals. I have also read some weird stuff on what constitutes “personhood”. Placing these two together with the High Court’s ridiculous definition could mean that ‘Dolly the sheep’ is popular again and that for the abominable reason.

Equally, we cannot let the “consensual” part of the definition go unnoticed. What of pederasty? What of incest? What of those laws that have prohibited consanguineous marriages?

Now, to be fair, the High Court states, in section 43:

Eligibility to marry is fixed by the two Acts with only one difference. Under the Marriage Act, a person aged between 16 and 18 years may marry [63] if certain consents are given or judicial authorisation is obtained. Under the ACT Act, an adult person may marry [64]. Both Acts prohibit [65] marriage between persons within the same prescribed degrees of affinity or consanguinity.

However, if marriage is mutable, without an absolute definition possible, then how do the High Court and the framers of the ACT legislation decide that these limitations should remain? If polygamy and homosexuality are legitimate by way of reasoning that there is no absolute definition for marriage, then marrying your son, daughter, sister, cousin, and /or aunt – remember, no limitation on numbers – should also be legal.

Once more, from where were the limits on consanguinity derived? They are Biblical.[21] Yep, that’s right; you will find them in the Bible and only the Bible. All other writings are simply playing “catch up” or are seeking to apply or interpret what the Bible has stated. So, here on display for all to see, is the High Court’s hypocrisy. The very Court that denies God any place in marriage, the Court that tells us that marriage cannot be absolutely defined, also turns out to be a court that insists on certain Biblical standards for the marriage covenant.

The parallel here takes us back to the beginning – we will accept ‘do not murder / steal’, but we do not want ‘do not have false gods or commit adultery’. Rebellious Man enjoys God’s command when it affords him protection, but he despises God’s command when it limits his rebellion. This principle has just been clearly demonstrated by the High Court.

When God is denied, all becomes a state of flux and guessing in the dark! If the High Court were consistent, in the slightest, they would admit that the only right application of their reasoning means that there is no limitation to marriage outside the words “consensual” and “natural persons”. Thus, restrictions on age could only be governed by the term “consensual”; that is to say a court would need to adjudicate on the question, “At what age does a person understand the concepts implied in marriage?” Outside of this, there can simply be no restriction.

Third, and this is a change of topic, but there is an unseen and unspoken ramification that is rapidly coming to the surface. It is a ramification that will affect us all. It has the possibility to be momentous in our nation’s history.

I speak here of the dissolution of the Federation of States that constitutes this nation.

One of the truly disturbing aspects that has come to the fore through this whole debate is the rancour of those arguing for homosexual union. So rabid are those people that they will stop at nothing – even, it seems, the destruction of our nation.

What is clear from the process with the High Court is that this has been a deliberate venture. Those bent on destroying marriage have launched the ACT legislation as a test case. Right now, highly paid lawyers will be looking through the High Court’s ruling seeking loopholes. The ACT sought to have their legislation stand alongside of the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act. The High Court has said that in its current form it cannot.

In Western Australia there is another piece of legislation being presented. They hope that by framing things slightly differently that the result will be a piece of legislation that will stand beside the Federal Parliament’s Marriage Act in a way acceptable to the High Court.

What this means in reality is that this nation is going to see a series of High Court challenges. Tax payer’s dollars will be wasted by this anarchistic minority who will not accept any other decision but the one that gives them legal right to debauchery. These people agitated for and were given a vote in Parliament. They lost. They were soundly defeated. Then came the excuses. They were offered a referendum; that was not acceptable because the outcome was unknown and permanent. So now they relentlessly hassle the politicians and clog up the courts. For what? The destruction of our nation.

Please, think this through. At Federation the States surrendered certain aspects of governance to the Federal Parliament. Now, at the behest of a debauched few, that Federation is under attack. If a state finds a piece of legislation that is acceptable to the High Court as an adjunct to the Marriage Act, then it will have the ultimate effect of nullifying the Federal Parliament’s authority.

This being the case, how many court cases are going to be presented before the burden causes the Federal Parliament to cave? If the Federal Parliament does not cave, at what point are they going to, if ever, say, “Enough!” When homosexual and polygamous unions are legalised by the States, “What is next on the agenda?” Put another way, the current question is a Constitutional one. Therefore, if a State can find a way of negating the Federal Parliament’s sole right as the authority under the Constitution, as with the Marriage Act, what effect will that have for the very existence of Federal Parliament?

Stating it as plainly as possible, if any Sate can legitimately take on a function of the Federal Parliament, once the loophole is found, then each State will be able to bypass the Federal Parliament at will. What then? What will happen to our nation as a federation of States?

Again, some may see this as the stuff of doomsday prophecy. I assure you it is not. I have said many times that there are few, if any, Western countries that have not had a civil war. Australia stands out as one that has not been down that road. However, how long will it be before some in our society become tired of being bullied by this anarchistic minority? How long before the relativism and lack of truth spoken of in this article breeds contempt for law, indeed nullifies law altogether? After all, if there is no objective truth, the opinion of the highest office or biggest stick rules!

So please, give some thought to the possibility of this ramification. With the High Court officially embracing and endorsing relativism there is no objective answer. There is no right or wrong. There is only what the law allows or the law forbids. If the law allows adjunct law by the States, “What will happen to our nation?”


The decision of the High Court is disturbing and that for many reasons. In this article we have simply tried to pin point the fundamental error in the Court’s thinking, or, if you will, in their premise or presupposition. We have also attempted to outline some of the ramifications of this decision. Some have to do with marriage. Others go far beyond that topic.

In the end, we must simply restate the old maxim, “Ideas have consequences”. The idea that “God is dead” will have consequences. The idea that Federal Parliament can rule without reference to God will have consequences.[22] The idea that marriage is nothing more than a social or cultural construct will have consequences. Allowing homosexual and polygamous unions will have consequences.

It may have been appropriate to add some words on the hot topics of “God and government” and “morality in law”. These topics need to be addressed for they have many people confused, including a good number of Christians.

Let me then add some help here. Church and State are separate institutions, but they are not the only institutions. These institutions exist because God created them. Therefore, they owe their full allegiance to God. The separation of Church and State is not the same as the separation of “God and government”. God made government. Romans chapter 13 informs us that government is a minister of God and that it is bound to do His will. Therefore, laws must reflect morality – God’s morality.

Allow me to close with an apt quotation from the late R.J. Rushdoony:

The other night, a prominent lawyer, appearing on television, asked for the repeal of laws against abortion, narcotics, sexual perversions, and a number of other things. “You can’t legislate morality,” he said, “and it’s about time we stopped trying to do it.” The man was lying, and he knew it, because all law is about morality. When you legislate against murder, theft, libel, and the like, you are legislating morality. When you institute traffic laws, you are again legislating morality: you are penalizing traffic behavior which may endanger the life and property of another man. In other words, you are enacting specific forms of God’s law: Thou shalt not kill, and Thou shalt not steal. Legislation about the forms of court procedure is in terms of the law banning false witness; the purpose of such laws is to further true testimony. Even the salaries of public officials have moral implication: “[T]he labourer is worthy of his hire” (Luke 10:7; 1 Tim. 5:18).

At every point, the law deals either with morality directly or with procedures for its enforcement. All law is enacted morality. Every criminal law says that a certain thing is right, and another wrong. Every law is thus a piece of legislated morality. Moreover, all morality represents a religion, as that every system of law is an establishment of religion. Thus, there can be a separation of church and state, but there cannot be a separation of religion and the state, because every system of law is a religion and a morality in action.

What the lawyer was actually saying was that he hated a Christian law system and wanted to replace it with a system of humanistic law. This is exactly the nature of our legal revolution today. The courts are changing the law by changing the religion behind the law.

What all law does legislate is morality, and you had better believe it before it is too late before you wake up to find the revolution is over, and you are the new outlaw in terms of the new morality, the new law, and the new religion. This has happened elsewhere, and it is happening here.[23]

[1] These are trite examples, but they illustrate the point. You would always return home from work with apprehension because the wife you left in the morning may not be the one you return to at night. Similarly, it will take you a long time to get home each night as you will need to drive all over town looking for your home because you cannot guarantee that it will be in the same place.

[2] Abortion and Euthanasia are but two examples. These were rarely heard of in the days when marriage and sexuality were esteemed. As to theft, where do I begin? We all know that the burglar has more rights than the victim. Need anything more be said.

[3] See James 2:10-11. I have adapted the point of James argument and applied it to the topic at hand.

[4] 1 Kings 18:21. Note well that the question or challenge is rhetorical. Elijah demonstrates concretely that Yahweh is God and that Baal is nothing.

[5] The High Court’s decision is one more in a long line (of decisions by various courts) that displays the erroneous belief that morality and law have nothing in common.

[6] All references to the court’s reasoning come from http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2013/55.html.

[7] Thus a man could leave his wife and children and “move on”, as it were. People could say that this was a poor decision. They might say it was selfish. What they could not say any longer was that it was a wrong or morally corrupt decision.

[8] This is one of the truly great dangers of pornography. It is not so much the pictures, but the combination of words and images that creates the belief that there is a greater perfection than what you currently possess.

[9] I am using marriage as an example because of its relevance to the High Court’s decision. This discontentment can come into other areas of life also. Discontentment is bound to rise amongst those who refuse to see themselves as limited, finite creatures.

[10] Please see our work, Marriage is Life!

[11] In section 37 we find these words: “The boundaries of the class of persons who have that legal status are set by law and those boundaries are not immutable.” Note that the High Court once again states that marriage is not immutable. At this point they are seeking to establish that the class of persons to be married is to be determined by the “the law” but that such law is changeable.

[12] For example, Clause 18 says, in part: “More generally, it is essential to recognise that the law relating to marriage, as it stood at federation, was the result of a long and tangled development.” (Italics added.) There are references to Federation, the Council of Trent, and to Roman law, which are dismissed. Interestingly, the words of Jesus are never quoted, “And some Pharisees came to Him, testing Him, and saying, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any cause at all?” And He answered and said, “Have you not read, that He [God] who created them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this cause a man shall leave his father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife; and the two shall become one flesh’? “Consequently they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.” They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart, Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. “And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”( Matthew 19:3-9.) Please note Jesus’ reference points: God and from the beginning! Federation, Trent, Rome! They are all superfluous and irrelevant. In the beginning God is the only reference point that matters and it is the one reference point the High Court a priori ruled out of the discussion.

[13] Have you noticed that for a Christian to condemn the homosexual and his practice is to be guilty of hate-speech and holding them to ridicule. However, it is acceptable for homosexuals to march in a Mardi Gras each year dressed mockingly as Fred Nile, nuns, priests etc, and to be openly blasphemous. Read Romans 1:32 for some insight!

[14] Found at: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/marriage. Viewed 32/12/13. Interestingly, my Little Oxford from 1986 does not mention the second definition! Understand well, even our dictionaries are rewritable at the dictates of PC.

[15] Some years ago, Homeschoolers in Victoria were required to register. As a part of that decree, certain topics were set out as mandatory. How long before this sinister element is used to force secular doctrine onto our children? It is already happening to some degree in State schools.

[16] In section 21, this quote by Higgins J is cited: “Power to make laws as to any class of rights involves a power to alter those rights, to define those rights, to limit those rights, to extend those rights, and to extend the class of those who may enjoy those rights.” What the Government giveth, the Government can taketh away! This fact is cited in the document discussing the Marriage Act. In short, any exemptions given by a Government can be altered by a Government, whether that be extension, diminution, or revocation.

[17] Bold added.

[18] It does not seem at all appropriate to argue from this perspective that Australian law gives explicit approval to polygamy. This is what one would term as “drawing a long bow”. Equally, it is another example of evil begetting evil. One does not need to legally recognise polygamy to deal ethically with the fallout of a failed polygamous marriage.

[19] This statement is interesting. It notes that these citations were attempts to “mask the adoption of a premise”. Nothing new here! Those familiar with the pages of Post Tenebras Lux will know that we have spoken previously about presuppositions and basic ‘faith’ positions. The real point of interest is in the question, “What premise is the High Court of Australia 2013 seeking to mask?

[20] Just for DW fans!

[21] See Leviticus 18:6-18. Thus the Westminster Divines can say, “Marriage ought not to be within the degrees of consanguinity or affinity forbidden by the Word. (Lev. 18, 1 Cor. 5:1, Amos 2:7) Nor can such incestuous marriage ever be made by any law of man or consent of parties, so as those persons may live together as man and wife. (Mark 6:18, Lev. 18:24–28)” Unlike the High Court’s ramblings, the Divines had no problem going straight to the source to find out what form and content were appropriate to marriage.

[22] You may wish to ponder the implications of Paul’s teaching in Romans 13:1-7.

[23] By R. J. Rushdoony. Taken from A Word in Season: Daily Messages on the Faith for All of Life, Vol. III, p. 66. Emphases added.

Kevin, Who won’t be in Heaven

Lord give wisdom!

As a Christian, respect for one’s elders is paramount.[1] Being courteous and polite to those in authority is also a Biblical requirement.[2] Yet, with Gary North, citing Elijah, sometimes it is necessary to “ridicule the ridiculous”. In that case, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal and their false god.[3]

In the present, our current Prime Minister has brought himself to the point of ridicule for being ridiculous.

In his first tilt at the top job, Kevin Rudd adopted the slogan Kevin 07. After he ridiculed the asker of the following question: “Mr Rudd, do you believe in Jesus Christ?”, I altered the slogan to, Kevin, Who won’t be in Heaven!

Sadly, nothing of a resurrected Kevin Rudd has caused me any pangs of conscience for labelling him so. Rather, to the contrary, he has continued to amass evidence that substantiates the fact that Kevin Rudd is a Humanist in whom the Spirit of God does not dwell.

The happenings of this week, with particular reference to Q & A on Monday night, have simply brought his ungodly attitude into stark relief. These happenings simply cap off or crown the growing pile of evidence. However, these happenings have also highlighted some other failings, not on the part of Kevin Rudd, but on the part of the Church in this country.

Much has already been said about Mr Rudd’s reaction on Q & A, so I do not intend to go over those points again from a moral standpoint. What I would like to do is examine the whole issue from the perspective of apologetics – the defence of the faith. We recently posted a three-part series designed to encourage people to combat the language and tactics of Secularism. The need is all the more dire because we saw Mr Rudd use these tactics on Monday night. Equally, we witnessed the lack of a cogent response on the part of Christ’s representative.

1. The Heavenless Kevin.

Kevin won’t be in heaven not because he belongs to the Labor Party, but because he continually denies Jesus Christ the Son of God. On Monday night, Mr Rudd used the word “Christ” several times. He did so in the adjectival form Christian. He spoke twice of a “Christian conscience”.

A Christian, by definition, is a disciple of Christ. The appellation is taken and worn precisely because the Christian identifies with Jesus Christ in both His person and His work. It is not, in any way, reasonable to call yourself a Christian simply because you think sandals are cool or you have empathy with the idea of helping people – especially when the rest of your life fails to measure up to the many other ethical stipulations outlined by Jesus. Yet, this is exactly what Mr Rudd has done and is doing. Kevin Rudd claims to have a “Christian conscience” when in reality he has a “–ian conscience” for there is no Christ in it.

Sadly, Mr Rudd is allowed to mock Christ because few, if any, in the Church are willing to label him as a Hell-bound heretic for fear of seeming judgemental and harsh. The Church’s love of the pluralistic peace-at-any-cost theory has meant that we are expected to endure our beloved Jesus being mocked by this man. He claims to be a Christian; therefore he must be treated as a Christian – all evidence to the contrary!

This is nonsense position for the Church in this nation to hold. Jesus said, “By their fruit you shall know them.”[4] Look at the fruit. Where is a genuine loving submission to Christ Jesus on the part of Mr Rudd? Does Kevin Rudd really support, believe in, and promote Jesus Christ in His person and work? Not at all.

On Monday night Kevin Rudd:

  1. Publically ridiculed a Christian brother (from his claimed standpoint).[5]
  2. Publically held the Scriptures to ridicule – exciting a frenzied response of cheering and clapping from the audience.[6]
  3. Publically denied the authority of Scripture.[7]
  4. Publically denied God’s revealed standard as the basis for rationality.[8]
  5. Publically committed epistemological suicide by claiming a “universal principle” from the Bible whilst denouncing the Bible as authoritative.[9]

The pertinent question is, “Why is Mr Rudd allowed to get away with this nonsense?”

2. Brother Matt:

This brings me to the really difficult part of this article; criticising a brother in Christ.

Most articles have defended Matt in regard to the way he was treated and rightly so. However, without wanting to defame this brother, I believe there are some good lessons to be learned from this encounter.

First, let me state that this is not an exercise in superiority or any such. I understand what it is like to be in a crowd as the minority. I can only imagine the difficulty of facing television cameras and a seasoned campaigner like Kevin Rudd. So, I honestly say, “Well done!” to Matt for being willing to subject himself to such a situation for the cause of Christ.

These truths notwithstanding, there are issues that need to be faced:[10]

  1. The death of the Old Testament and its authority.
  2. The idea that faith destroys reason.
  3. The idea that the Holy Spirit trumps preparation.
  4. The idea that “nice” triumphs over evil.
  5. The idea that the New Testament alone is our authority.
  6. The idea that “love and tolerance” are universal Biblical norms.

In many encounters one or more of these concepts seem to be present when Christians seek to defend their faith. When one or more of these concepts are present, it becomes almost impossible to defend the Christian faith.

How do we truly argue for marriage if we do not believe that the Old Testament is God’s authoritative word? If the Old Testament is nothing more than “examples to follow and sins to avoid”, on what basis do we argue exclusively for heterosexual marriage?

Matt rightly quoted Jesus, but seemed to miss the particular emphasis that Jesus made. When responding to the Pharisees, Jesus answer came as a quotation from two Scriptures, namely, Genesis 1:27 and 2:24. Matt highlighted the second quote, but missed the first reference – a reference that would have put Mr Rudd on the spot. You see, Jesus first words on marriage are, “He (God) made them male and female!” Squirm, Mr Rudd! Squirm!

The importance of Jesus’ statement is incalculable. Mr Rudd is a New Testament man. Out with all that dodgy Old Testament wrath, anger, and righteous law stuff. Away with it! He wants the New love and grace Testament that allows him to wiggle around ethical dilemmas on the basis of Jesus’ universal principle of love. However, right here, in Jesus’ words, the wheels on Mr Rudd’s bicycle went square and he should have been tipped off in ignominy.

After all, here is Jesus, the pinnacle of New Testament altruism; the Liberal’s poster boy – no blasphemy intended – and yet He is heard to say, “Marriage is between one man and one woman; homosexuals need not apply. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into! So, where does Mr Rudd go from here? He must either dismiss Jesus or attempt some gross reinterpretation of Jesus’ words. At either point, you have the upper hand. The door is open to ask Mr Rudd why he insists on calling himself a Christian when he so readily denies Christ. We could also ask him about reinterpretation – If everything is so interpretable, how can he be sure of the accuracy of your universal principle of love?

Again, I reiterate that it is much easier to argue these things from my study and without a television audience. So please understand that this exercise is not that of picking upon or defaming a brother. It is a lesson in encouragement. I desire my brethren to learn so that we can all do better. To know God’s word so that the answers are ready to hand in any situation. To be able to articulate Biblical arguments. If you cannot, please do not put yourself in that position. To understand, as Jesus showed, that the Old Testament is authoritative Scripture. To understand that the Holy Spirit will give wisdom and guidance, but equally that we must do the hard yards of learning as well.[11]

Mr Rudd’s fervent attacks on the Christians of this nation have exposed some weaknesses. We have not seen published denunciations of Mr Rudd at a denominational level – furthering the myth of godless government. We have witnessed confused and unBiblical reasoning particularly with regard to homosexuality – the myth of God’s absolute love for all. There has been no authoritative challenge to Mr Rudd’s heretical Liberal position – the myth that the Bible is not supernatural. We have to face the fact or should have faced the fact that we have imbibed too much of the world’s philosophy—the myth of neutrality. Foolishly, we have put down our Bibles and have tried to reason after the wisdom of this age rather than in the Power and Wisdom of the age to come.

Another lesson, applicable to the moment, would be that of heeding Paul’s words to Timothy: For God has not given us a spirit of timidity, but of power and love and discipline (self-discipline, prudence). Therefore do not be ashamed of the testimony of our Lord.[12] On account of our Secular Government’s institution of laws that attack righteousness and gag any who would point out that the emperor is “butt naked”, we have become a people who are loath to speak out. We have become fearful of falling foul of Big Brother. Hence, we need to be reminded that the Gospel life requires courage.

This courage is needed in terms of confrontation. It is the courage Matt displayed to open his mouth in a stacked forum and to endure the ridicule of an egoist. Alongside of this, however, we need the courage to kneel before God and confess that we have dropped the ball; to confess that we have not borne the name of Jesus aright and that we have seen it trampled because we were afraid to speak. It is the courage to open our Bibles and, in its holy light, amend our ways so that we conform to the image of Jesus Christ. It is bathing in this light so that our minds are transformed into suppositories (repositories) of God’s wisdom. This is Biblical courage.

On the other side, we have the cowards, like Kevin, Who won’t be in heaven, for they take out a pen and rewrite the Bible to suit their own fallen nature. They hold out to ridicule any who challenges them because they have no foundation. Therefore, they must mock. In taking this course, they come under severe judgement: But these men revile[13] the things which they do not understand; and the things which they know by instinct, like unreasoning animals, by these things they are destroyed. Woe to them! For they have gone the way of Cain, and for pay they have rushed headlong into the error of Balaam, and perished in the rebellion of Korah. These men are those who are hidden reefs in your love feasts when they feast with you without fear, caring for themselves; clouds without water, carried along by winds; autumn trees without fruit, doubly dead, uprooted; wild waves of the sea, casting up their own shame like foam; wandering stars, for whom the black darkness has been reserved forever.[14]

Our challenge and our calling are to be so armed with the Wisdom and Word of God that we cause the mouths of such men to be silent in the presence of a Thrice holy God. It is only when these men are forced to stop flapping their gums that they might be still and know that Jesus Christ is God.

[1] See: Leviticus 19:32.

[2] See: 1 Peter 3:15 (with gentleness and reverence); 1Timothy 2:2; Romans 12:17-18; Hebrews 12:14.

[3] See: 1 Kings 18:20 ff.

[4] Matthew 7:20.

[5] His attack on Matt Prater was simply undignified. He attacked the man and not the ball. Having no sound argument he had to attack the man and win the crowd. It is his only play. I believe that they call this “bullying”. I thought that there were laws against such things? Equally, there was very little of 1 Peter 1:22 seen in Mr Rudd’s conduct.

[6] When Mr Rudd equated believing that the bible condemns homosexuality with the idea that this then means that we should still sanction slavery, the audience erupted in support. Note 1: Mr Rudd did nothing to stop this in an effort to engender respect for Jesus or Bible. Note 2: Mr Rudd showed utter contempt for the text of Scripture.

[7] Mr Rudd spoke of a “good Christian conscience”. “Good” by whose standard? If you deny God’s word as your authority, then how do you objectively verify “good”? You do not. It is a subjective assessment and, as such, it is not worth a crumpet – well, it is like a crumpet in that it seems solid, but when you turn it over it is full of holes!

[8] Mr Rudd started with his conscience, moved to “born that way”, and then started on the philosophical, “if you accept that premise”. Immediately, he is building upon a false foundation. His conclusion must be erroneous because his premise is faulty. Mr Rudd started with, “God has not spoken and if he has it is now culturally irrelevant” and from there the teddy bears took him round and round the garden and ended up tickling his own ears and ego.

[9] If the Bible is passé, it is passé completely. One cannot deny whole sections and then claim one principle. Nor can one claim a single principle that overturns all other teaching, for such a principle would overturn the principle itself.

[10] These issues need to be faced regardless of whether Mr Rudd is ousted tomorrow – a happening for which I sincerely pray. Regardless of the election result, these issues remain as thorns in the side of the Church and will continue to be cause pain until extracted. It must be remembered that Mr Rudd and Mr Abbott are both apples from the same tree.

[11] The Biblical reference to relying on the Holy Spirit in the defence of the Gospel all sit in the context of persecution – being dragged before kings and princes. I think it a mistake to apply these texts to a situation where prayer and study (all Spirit governed) can be made beforehand. Luke 12:12; Matthew 10:19; Luke 21:14-15. C.f Ezra 7:10; Acts 17:11; Acts 18:28; Acts 17:2; Luke 4:17ff.

[12] 2 Timothy 1:7-8.

[13] The Greek literally says to blaspheme.

[14] Jude 10-13

The War of Meaningless Words (Pt.3)

What then has been the point of this survey and the points made? Our purpose is to equip Christians, and any who will listen, for the current fight.

Over many years now, I have watched people capitulate because of the Secularist’s penchant for warring with meaningless words and using stigmatised labels. The Secularist’s rarely present a cogent argument. They bully and shame with their invented and stigmatised language.

Regretfully, Christians have capitulated to this language because they have not stayed true to their own Biblical worldview. Christians have thought the World’s thoughts and not God’s. They have reasoned with the World’s philosophy and wisdom and not with God’s.

Consequently, when the Secularist’s “name it and blame it” the Christians cave. They do not want to be unloving. They do not want to be homophobic. They do not want to stigmatise. They most certainly do not want to be bigots.

Yet, herein is the problem. We worship a holy God Who is a bigot. God says, ‘This is right and that is wrong!’ Not only does God make these pronouncements, He institutes Laws that back them up and give them force. God’s way is heterosexual marriage. Therefore, adulterers and homosexuals are condemned. God loves truth. Therefore, the false witness is condemned.

God’s salvation is Jesus Christ and Him crucified! No alternates, no compromises, no points for human inventiveness. God loves some things.[1] God hates other things.[2] God says He will accept this and that He will reject that.

The relevance for us, as Christians, is that we were created in the image of God and then recreated in that image through Jesus Christ. Thus, we come full circle in our worldview and arrive back at the requirement that we must, as analogues of God, think His thoughts after Him.

When we refuse to do this, we are compromised and we begin to give ground. We are afraid of making some forthright statements because we do not want to appear unacceptable to the Secularist and his concepts when, in fact, we should be terrified to the core of betraying God and His revealed standard.

We have arrived at this point because of an absolute reduction in Christianity. Through various influences, modern Christianity has given up on Culture. It is only interested in saving the individual soul and getting it to heaven. Thus, politics, social constructs, cultural mores, God’s Word, and a whole raft of items have been “blessed” into obscurity by being deemed unnecessary.[3]

As a result, the need to win individual souls fuels a flurry of activity, much of which is aimed at answering the foolish question, “How do we not offend the pagan?”[4] Consequently, we are urged to drop a range of Holy Spirit inspired, Authoritative truths from Scripture.

Here, the Secularists have done their job well for we find the Church trying to adopt alternate words and sanitised language. God is reinvented. He never gets angry. He accepts all without question. Commonly, God is said to love everyone equally and without fail.

If this is so, we must jettison the doctrine of sin. If sin is out, we must also toss overboard the doctrine of Hell. As God is so accommodating, we are obliged to drop from our language all words of commission. We cannot use words like must, ought, obey, observe, should, or oblige (whoops!). The Ten Commandments must become the Ten Suggestions. Christ’s statement, “If you love me you will keep my commandments” is reinterpreted to, “I would be pleased if you loved me and tried to stay within My suggestions; but it’s okay if you do not.”

In all seriousness, I now ask, “Based on these new ideas, what message do we take to the world?” If God loves everybody equally and makes no demands upon a person at the personal level, then what is the purpose of the Church or Christianity?

This is precisely why we fail. We are not prepared, in the current argument, to state that God hates homosexuals and thereby put the smell of fire and brimstone into people’s nostrils. ‘No, no, we cannot do that, it might offend.’ will come the reply. Now for the real question – “Who would we rather offend Man or God?” Do we offend Man by trampling on his invented concepts or do we offend God by pretending that He is not the measure of all things?

By our adoption of the World’s standard we have given ground in this battle. We are unable to argue with the Secularists because we have naught to say. We do not want to state the truth because the Secularist has his shame labels prepared and is just waiting to plaster us. So we modify our stand. We try to use moderate language. We try to argue logic and statistic rather than, “Thus says the Lord!”

To illustrate this, let me give an example from a recently televised interview. At the centre of this interview on the ABC was a Christian fellow (more haranguing; I lost the links) who had been a homosexual and had been converted. Opposing him, were the other interviewees who denied the Bible with all the standard fallacies. At one point, the interviewer asked this Christian, “Aren’t you being Judgemental?”

A few comments must be made. First, there it is, the stigmatised language. The Christian is accused of being ‘judgemental’. I do not recall questions of a similar nature being presented to the others. Questions like, “The plain reading of the Bible seems to denounce homosexuals. Why then do you as a Christian not believe the Bible?”

Second, and this is more to the point, the Christian gentleman was slightly taken aback with the question. He responded by saying that ‘they come to me, I do not go out to them.’ The inference was simple. I am not out on the street peddling my wares, people come into my shop.

Please note that the question was not answered, it was deflected.

Without wanting to seem critical, this is an example that has been witnessed over and over in this and other debates. The Christian is unsure and maybe unprepared, so they look for a diffusive answer.

Why back peddle when we can advance? When asked about being judgemental, would not a good reply be, “No more than you are being by asking that question!” In other words, what is the position and agenda of the interviewer? As we have noted, they have a world view; they are not neutral; so hold them to account by their own standard.

“You have inferred that my position is judgemental. Well, yes it is. God decries homosexuality. Therefore, I take my stand on His Word and oppose this practice on His authority. Now, let me ask, ‘On what basis do you judge me?’ Your question clearly implies that my position is unacceptable to you; please explain your hypocrisy. Why is it wrong for me to dislike their belief, but it is acceptable for you to dislike my belief?”

Brethren, Countrymen, this is how we must begin to react to the war of meaningless words and the stigmatising labels that make up the arsenal of the Secularist. To agree that they are correct is to explicitly deny God’s word. It is to say, in essence, truth does not exist. It is to agree with the Secularist in saying, ‘relativism is the order of the day and meaning is what we give to any particular thing.’ When this is done, we have agreed that Man is god and we have aided the God-haters in the overthrow of the One True and living God.

Therefore, brethren, hold fast to what is good! God is good. His Word is perfect. It is a lamp to our path. It is God’s wisdom that confuses the wise of this age. It is God’s word alone that is our power.

So let us imbibe deeply of that Word (living and written) so that we may answer the fool when he speaks with a Heavenly wisdom that cannot be refuted. Let us shred the Secularist’s worldview, his meaningless words, and his wretched labels with the Divinely appointed scissors found in God’s word – the weapons appointed for the tearing down of strongholds!

Let us fight this war in God’s power, with God’s tactics, dressed in God’s armour. Let us give up on the feeble wisdom of this World and apply the mind of Christ, in Who are all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge.

May I therefore encourage you to equip yourself with understanding in these matters. Arm yourself. Prepare yourself. Then, the next time you encounter meaningless words and stigmatising labels, you will be able defeat them and turn the battle for Jesus Christ.

For I am not ashamed of the gospel, for it is the power of God for salvation to everyone who believes, to the Jew first and also to the Greek. For in it the righteousness of God is revealed!

[1] 2 Corinthians 9:7; Psalm 37:28; Psalm 87:2;

[2] Proverbs 6:16-19; Deuteronomy 12:31.

[3] This is illustrated very clearly when some Christian Commentators feel it necessary to explain to Christians why they should be involved in politics. See: http://www.billmuehlenberg.com/2013/07/10/god-politics-and-elections/.

[4] The question is foolish precisely because it is unBiblical. 2 Corinthians 2:15-16: For we are a fragrance of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing; to the one an aroma from death to death, to the other an aroma from life to life. And who is adequate for these things? 1 Peter 2:7b-8: But for those who disbelieve, “The stone which the builders rejected, This became the very corner stone,” and, “A stone of stumbling and a rock of offense”; for they stumble because they are disobedient to the word, and to this doom they were also appointed. 1 Corinthians 1:18: For the word of the cross is to those who are perishing foolishness, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God.