Lord give wisdom!<\/p>\n
As a Christian, respect for one\u2019s elders is paramount.[1]<\/a> Being courteous and polite to those in authority is also a Biblical requirement.[2]<\/a> Yet, with Gary North, citing Elijah, sometimes it is necessary to \u201cridicule the ridiculous<\/em><\/span>\u201d. In that case, Elijah mocked the prophets of Baal and their false god.[3]<\/a><\/p>\n In the present, our current Prime Minister has brought himself to the point of ridicule for being ridiculous.<\/p>\n In his first tilt at the top job, Kevin Rudd adopted the slogan Kevin 07<\/em>. After he ridiculed the asker of the following question: \u201cMr Rudd, do you believe in Jesus Christ?\u201d, I altered the slogan to, Kevin, Who won\u2019t be in Heaven!<\/em><\/span><\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n Much has already been said about Mr Rudd\u2019s 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 \u2013 the defence of the faith<\/em>. We recently posted a three-part series<\/a> 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\u2019s representative.<\/p>\n 1. The Heavenless Kevin<\/span>.<\/p>\n Kevin won\u2019t be in heaven not because he belongs to the Labor Party, but because he continually denies Jesus Christ the Son of God<\/span>. On Monday night, Mr Rudd used the word \u201cChrist\u201d several times. He did so in the adjectival form Christian<\/em>. He spoke twice of a \u201cChristian conscience\u201d.<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 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 \u201cChristian conscience<\/span>\u201d when in reality he has a \u201c\u2013ian conscience\u201d for there is no Christ<\/em> in it<\/span>.<\/p>\n 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<\/em> <\/span>for fear of seeming judgemental and harsh. The Church\u2019s 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 \u2013 all evidence to the contrary!<\/p>\n This is nonsense position for the Church in this nation to hold. Jesus said, \u201cBy their fruit you shall know them.\u201d[4]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n On Monday night Kevin Rudd:<\/p>\n The pertinent question is, \u201cWhy is Mr Rudd allowed to get away with this nonsense?\u201d<\/p>\n 2. Brother Matt<\/span>:<\/p>\n This brings me to the really difficult part of this article; criticising a brother in Christ.<\/p>\n 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.<\/p>\n 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, \u201cWell done!<\/span>\u201d to Matt for being willing to subject himself to such a situation for the cause of Christ.<\/p>\n These truths notwithstanding, there are issues that need to be faced:[10]<\/a><\/p>\n 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<\/em><\/span>.<\/p>\n How do we truly argue for marriage if we do not believe that the Old Testament is God\u2019s authoritative word? If the Old Testament is nothing more than \u201cexamples to follow and sins to avoid\u201d, on what basis do we argue exclusively for heterosexual marriage?<\/p>\n 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 \u2013 a reference that would have put Mr Rudd on the spot. You see, Jesus first words on marriage are, \u201cHe <\/strong>(God) made them male and female!<\/strong><\/span>\u201d Squirm, Mr Rudd! Squirm!<\/p>\n The importance of Jesus\u2019 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\u2019 universal principle of love<\/em>. However, right here, in Jesus\u2019 words, the wheels on Mr Rudd\u2019s bicycle went square and he should have been tipped off in ignominy.<\/p>\n After all, here is Jesus, the pinnacle of New Testament altruism; the Liberal\u2019s poster boy \u2013 no blasphemy intended \u2013 and yet He is heard to say, \u201cMarriage is between one man and one woman; homosexuals need not apply. The Judges decision is final and no correspondence shall be entered into!<\/strong>\u201d<\/span> So, where does Mr Rudd go from here? He must either dismiss Jesus or attempt some gross reinterpretation of Jesus\u2019 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 \u2013 If everything is so interpretable, how can he be sure of the accuracy of your universal principle of love?<\/p>\n 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\u2019s 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]<\/a><\/p>\n Mr Rudd\u2019s 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 \u2013 furthering the myth of godless government<\/span>. We have witnessed confused and unBiblical reasoning particularly with regard to homosexuality \u2013 the myth of God\u2019s absolute love for all<\/span>. There has been no authoritative challenge to Mr Rudd\u2019s heretical Liberal position \u2013 the myth that the Bible is not supernatural<\/span>. We have to face the fact or should have faced the fact that we have imbibed too much of the world\u2019s philosophy\u2014the myth of neutrality<\/span>. 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.<\/p>\n Another lesson, applicable to the moment, would be that of heeding Paul\u2019s 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<\/span>.[12]<\/a> On account of our Secular Government\u2019s institution of laws that attack righteousness and gag any who would point out that the emperor is \u201cbutt naked\u201d, 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.<\/p>\n 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\u2019s wisdom. This is Biblical courage.<\/p>\n On the other side, we have the cowards, like Kevin, Who won\u2019t be in heaven<\/em>, 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]<\/span><\/a> 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<\/span>.[14]<\/a><\/p>\n 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<\/em>.<\/span><\/p>\n [1]<\/a> See: Leviticus 19:32.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [2]<\/a> See: 1 Peter 3:15 (with gentleness and reverence); 1Timothy 2:2; Romans 12:17-18; Hebrews 12:14.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [3]<\/a> See: 1 Kings 18:20 ff.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [4]<\/a> Matthew 7:20.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [5]<\/a> 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 \u201cbullying\u201d. I thought that there were laws against such things? Equally, there was very little of 1 Peter 1:22 seen in Mr Rudd\u2019s conduct.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [6]<\/a> 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [7]<\/a> Mr Rudd spoke of a \u201cgood Christian conscience\u201d. \u201cGood\u201d by whose standard? If you deny God\u2019s word as your authority, then how do you objectively verify \u201cgood\u201d? You do not. It is a subjective assessment and, as such, it is not worth a crumpet \u2013 well, it is like a crumpet in that it seems solid, but when you turn it over it is full of holes!<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [8]<\/a> Mr Rudd started with his conscience, moved to \u201cborn that way\u201d, and then started on the philosophical, \u201cif you accept that premise\u201d. Immediately, he is building upon a false foundation. His conclusion must be erroneous because his premise is faulty. Mr Rudd started with, \u201cGod has not spoken and if he has it is now culturally irrelevant\u201d and from there the teddy bears took him round and round the garden and ended up tickling his own ears and ego.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [9]<\/a> If the Bible is pass\u00e9, it is pass\u00e9 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [10]<\/a> These issues need to be faced regardless of whether Mr Rudd is ousted tomorrow \u2013 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [11]<\/a> The Biblical reference to relying on the Holy Spirit in the defence of the Gospel all sit in the context of persecution \u2013 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.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [12]<\/a> 2 Timothy 1:7-8.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [13]<\/a> The Greek literally says to blaspheme<\/em>.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n [14]<\/a> Jude 10-13<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<\/div>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Lord give wisdom! As a Christian, respect for one\u2019s 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 \u201cridicule the ridiculous\u201d. In … Continue reading \n
\n
<\/p>\n
\n