Not including those who spewed out vitriol, abuse, intimidation and violence, congratulations to the Yes supporters. Australia has voted. 7.81 million (61.6%) said Yes to SSM – 4.87 million (38.4%) said No, and another 3.28 million Australians were like, “meh; I don’t really care.”
If Australia’s Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnball, is serious about fairness, he’ll preserve the right to a conscientious objection to SSM; the right for people to hold the view, and teach their kids that marriage is between a man and a woman; and that those children have a right to equal access to their biological father and mother.
As I have hopefully made clear in the written contributions I’ve made to this national debate, I see the issues as a matter of social justice. The “no” vote has been about defending truth, liberty, fraternity, science, and even equality, from unbalanced ideological servitude.
The State wants the church to stay out of politics, but the Church is being encroached on by the State. The people want the church to stay out of politics, but it paints their political slogans on church walls, violently interferes with gatherings and misuses the Bible to manipulate or bash Christians into submission. The people want the church to stay out of politics, but they bring politics into the church, demanding a pledge of allegiance to systems that perpetuate hatred and inequality, behind a veil of tolerance, love and equality.
None of this is new, it’s the very same thing that was perpetuated by Nazis and Communists, as French theologian and Marxist scholar, Jacques Ellul noted:
‘But I’ve heard such talk a thousand times, from fascists as well as Stalinists: “You have no right to judge from the outside; first you must join up, sympathize totally with our aims, and then you can talk.” BUT that is just when one can no longer say anything! The experience of those who looked horrified, in hindsight, on Hitler’s or Stalin’s time confirms this: “How could we have taken part in that?” they ask.’
(Ellul, Jesus & Marx 1988:146)[i]
It’s a clear double standard when the LGBTQ and their supporters can freely criticise and push others to refuse service to those who disagree, then turn around and deny those in disagreement, the right to the same free speech and freedom of conscience. That’s not equality.
The line is blurring. Christians who support SSM have confused love of God with love of neighbour, and as such have compromised their neighbour, through a false [Marxist/materialist] claim that says we should place love for neighbour over and above God.
This is what is called horizontal theology. It is grounded in the errors and perversity of natural theology; the implicit claim that by blindly loving our neighbour we can reach God through our neighbor. This encourages me to treat my neighbor as though that neighbor was a second revelation of God. The kind of ideas that lead to the false worship of Kings, rulers, prophets and objects throughout history. In short, the creature is worshipped in place of the Creator, because the Creator has been confused with His creature.
We are to be Christlike in our treatment of our neighour; have Christ in mind when we go to serve our neighbour, but we are grossly mistaken if we think that Jesus’ words in Matthew 25:40 “as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me”, means that our neighbor replaces Christ.
This misunderstanding leads is to works-righteousness. It leads us away from the righteousness of God that is graciously placed on us by the dynamic love of God. Grace that is active, free and sufficient, in the work carried out by the obedience of Jesus Christ.
We reject grace, when we reject Christ and put our neigbour in His place. This is because we reject God’s invitation to relationship. It denies God’s revelation in Jesus Christ, “who is the way, the truth and the life”[ii] it denies the fact that life with God, begins with, God with us. Christless Christianity is an oxymoron.
Love is not love, God is love. That “they will know us by our love”[iii] is true, but that love involves the freedom to give both a reasoned “yes” and “no”. The alternative view confuses love with niceness, sloth and indifference.
What this does is turn Christianity into a numb universal ethic of niceness – a lukewarm empty shell; a stoic idol built to reflect and cater to the feelings of men and women.
The ethic of universal niceness is false and incompatible with a thinking faith that commands us to have no god before God; to “test all things, and hold fast to the good[iv]”; to discern and ultimately lean not “on our own understanding, but on God.’’ (Proverbs 3:5-7). To lean not on an abstract or vague idea of God, nor on a god created by human imagination, but on the tangible gracious grip of God, as the One who grasps us and testifies to us about Himself, in space and time, through covenant and in Jesus the Christ.
Faith seeks understanding.
Our response to this is found in prayer and gratitude. Actions; grounded in word, deed and attitude that reciprocates God’s selfless movement towards us, in covenant, manger, cross, empty tomb and beyond.
Being super nice has the veneer of Christian love, but it’s moral therapeutic deism at best, practical atheism (Christian in name only) at worst. This is the kind of thing that fed the blood and soil ideology of Nazism, and the Marxist ‘deification of the poor, over against THE POOR One’ (Ellul, 1988), through the dictatorship of the proletariat. Not that we should ignore the poor, but that we shouldn’t deify them to further the self-interests of those who take it upon themselves to designate who the oppressed and the oppressors are. For all have fallen short of the glory of God and are justified by his grace as a gift through the redemption that is in Christ Jesus (Romans 3:23).
For the “no” voters there will be a need to take time to grieve.
Then there will be a need to catch our breath, rise and once again say to the world that we refuse to surrender or kneel before anyone but God, and His revelation in Jesus Christ.
To once again say to the world that love of neighbour is not love of God, nor should we confuse the two. For to do so is to make a god of our neighbour, and make love for neighbour, the means of salvation. Love of neighbour is grounded on and in our love of God, without the latter we are not free and therefore, we cannot truly do the former. We will be doomed to serving our own selfish interests.
Jesus is the way, tolerance isn’t. Jesus is the way, love is love isn’t. Jesus is the way, means that no man or woman, good work or intention, super niceness, or feeling is or can be. The true path to freedom, the only path to salvation is the revelation of God in Jesus Christ. This cannot be reversed. It is decisive. The path is set. #bewaretheauctioneers
In light of the changes to come, Christians are to do what they are called to do, centre everything in Jesus Christ. To lay every issue before the cross, following Paul’s words in Romans 12, clinging especially to those which encourage us to ‘…rejoice in hope, be patient in trial, be constant in prayer.’
Kyrie Eleison.
References:
[i] Ellul, J. 1988 Jesus & Marx: From Gospel to Ideology Wipf and Stock Publishers
[ii] John 14:6, ESV
[iii] John 13:35 & Matthew 7:16 ESV
[iv] 1 Thess. 5:21, 1 Corinthians 14:29, 1 John 4:1 ESV
Rod Lampard 
Sorry to hear about these unfortunate election results. At least Australians were able to weigh in at the polls. In America the decision was made by a few unelected judges on the Supreme Court and imposed on the nation. I’m unfamiliar with the Australian constitution – I hope you have strong religious freedom protections in place.
I’m interested in your opinion on this question:
Regarding public policy, in my view the issue is not about homosexuality per se, but about the redefining of marriage. For the state to redefine marriage to include SS couples, or throuples, or consanguineous couples, or temporary or open sexual relationships, or whatever else; any of these things set up a religious freedom conflict for followers of Jesus.
By contrast, if the state were to set up a category (not called “marriage), defined however it wanted, invested with whatever benefits it wanted, would this settle the issue for you in terms of public policy?
May God grant you wisdom and increasing love moving forward.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Same-Sex couples have civil unions, and all the basic necessary rights which go with that. This was a demand for much more. So, I think to answer your question SS couples already had provisions for their choice of lifestyle. As for religious freedom protections? SSM is part of a greater assault on classical liberalism. SSM is one trigger that happens to be easy enough to use in a way that allows those behind it to emotionally manipulate others into submission. This wasn’t a referendum, hence the 3.28 million who chose not to vote. If it was voting would be compulsory and the results might have been different.
On the freedom issue. “No” campaigners were handicapped from the start. Some big business and some local councils threw tons of money behind the yes side. E.g: Sydney city was clothed in Yes flags among other things. The MSM refused to run no campaign material – even though it was paid. Sure some went to air, but it wasn’t without hardship.
That doesn’t take into account the large number of yes voter bigotry. Churches were vandalised, people assaulted – even an ex-PM, he was head butted in the street.
The person pretty much got a free ride from the media. Reverse that? Man, all hell would break loose.
We voted in a plebiscite. Therefore the government doesn’t have to pass it.
Interestingly the largest number of no votes came from Muslim suburbs which are held by Leftists. How their representatives will justify voting outside their constituents interests is now a matter of huge debate.
If SSM is passed it needs the right legislation package that caters for classical liberal values, most of which exist because if the solid foundations Judeo-Christianity provides a society.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks for clarifying. So in the minds of “progressives,” if gays already had civil unions with associated rights, why wasn’t that enough? What do they hope to gain in pushing for SSM?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Therein lies the big question that when asked, progressives dodge with almost every logical fallacy you can think of, We are told that it’s all about “equality”. We are told that it’s about ”fairness” – the great Aussie “fair go, mate”. But when questions are raised about what kind of impact redefining marriage will have on Australian society, the door is shut in our faces and we’re slapped with all the usual dismissal from leftists and their dehumanising labels.
As for the violence and threats? a) the majority support it by not denouncing it b) some applaud it c) others ignore it, claiming that it isn’t as bad as it looks. My sisters voted yes, I sent them the abuse I received in response to my, fairly balanced, posts during the SSM debate, and asked them if they thought the abuse was justified and they didn’t answer the question, one replied with “I’m voting yes, why shouldn’t two people who love each other…”, the other sister agreed, and said “sorry, I’m voting yes as well.”
Nothing was said about the abuse I received and my question wasn’t answered. So they either agree that I’m what the people who abuse me said I was, or they didn’t feel empowered enough to stand up and denounce it. Coming back to your question, the answer is, that questions asked during the SSM debate haven’t been answered.
The idea is that it isn’t equal to not call SS marriage. Also, asking questions or posting information to support to No side of the debate was borderline illegal. Our attorney General implemented ”emergency laws” to prosecute anyone caught vilifying homosexuals. He added religion, political affiliation etc. But the MSM and the yes campaign took it to mean they had the backing to police the no campaign. In Queensland the state government funded an LGBT group to monitor online activity of all No supporters and campaigners during the debate.
The ironic thing is, one person was fired because they voted no and posted a it’s okay to vote no poster to the FB wall. As I’ve mentioned churches were vandalised. Its okay to vote no posters were torn down etc. People were forced to attend LGBT information seminars in some workplaces. A lot of it, as far as I can see, was blatant emotional manipulation. E.g.:”if you vote no or support the no vote” you’re “anti-gay”, “you’re a nazi”… etc.
So, it’s not what the LGBT community hope to gain, it’s the groups using them such as the Socialist alliance, The Greens, Labor and the Soros funded Leftist group Get Up!. What that comes down to is power, control and revolution. Undermine the whole system, then say to people, look the system is failing you, join us to be free of it! Again, manipulation.
That’s my best answer, based on the knowledge I have at the moment.
For more info follow the links here: https://www.xyz.net.au/quote-day-terrorism-works/
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Rod. Just comparing notes. Here in the U.S. the “marriage equality” debate was stated to be about fairness, and guaranteeing SS couples the same rights as married hetero couples, including tax, health plan, and inheritance benefits.
Several years ago, before any one would publicly support gay marriage, conservatives here tended to oppose the idea of “civil unions” for gay couples because they saw it as a foot in the door that would eventually result in full blown recognition of gay marriage. But now we have the Supreme Court decision, wrongly decided in my opinion, that unavoidably sets up a religious freedom conflict. I’m now curious to see opinions on solutions that could answer the concerns of people on both sides of the issue. Civil unions seem to be the answer to me.
Unfortunately, it’s now a rarity for opposing parties to hold constructive conversations with each other. Human beings are generally not ruled by logic.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Logic and genuine compassion. I think reason and freedom have taken a major hit in the past few years. We have civil unions. Homosexuals had all the rights of Heterosexuals under civil law. The Church didn’t have to fund or carry out what it has long held as a scared right between a man and a woman – marriage. Is there a way forward that will meet both sides on this issue? There isn’t one. Concessions were already made. Now they’re seen as not being enough. Normalisation and power is the end goal. Total acceptance.
To do this they will have to outlaw marriage as defined by the union between a man and a woman. So it will not be about legalising SSM, it will be about enforcing an ideological belief that marriage is whatever you want it to be.
Marxism teaches this. It provides the blueprint for it. Communists and Nazis had youth indoctrination camps, ran reeducation camps and severely punished anyone who didn’t tow the line. A large majority being Jews and Christians.
E.g.:- György Lukács, one of founders of Western Marxism in Record of a Life, wrote: “You cannot just sample Marxism […] you must be converted to it.”
I wish I could be more optimistic, but my study of 20th Century history shows me that we indeed do have a gathering storm on the horizon and we need to speak out against it.
With SSM the State moves beyond the well established and decent relationship between Church and State. The goal here is to abolish to the Church, render it obsolete and push any form of Christianity (Jesus Christ) that doesn’t reflect the party-line either into the museum or the garbage can.
Why? Because Christianity is one of the major foundations still holding communities together in the West. A shared faith, ethics, language, tradition.
All that is a threat to those who want total control.
The power brokers just hope that they can muzzle Islam – “the religion of peace” – and get it to stay on the sidelines, and behave; a kind of payback for all the ”love” the Left has given to the them.
Of course that won’t happen until Christianity is no longer a major bulwark against it. Eliminate the foundations, destroy critical thinking, wipe away any idea of sin, any idea of redemption outside that with which the collective provides, then you can make society in your own image.
That’s why I don’t have a great deal of hope for a social contract or treaty that brings a fair deal to conservatives; and ultimately it will hurt homosexuals.
If you disagree with the revolution, you are an enemy of the revolution. Therefore removing you with violence is a holy act in the name of the gods who never like having their power or rule questioned. Just look at the recent revelations coming out of Hollywood for examples of that.
As I said in a post yesterday: They’ve paved paradise and put up a parking lot.
https://rodlampard.com/2017/11/18/theyve-paved-paradise-put-up-a-parking-lot/
If I was a legislator I would come back to the civil union and say that’s the best we can offer. It provides balance for both sides. Everything else is a compromise too far. It’s appeasement.
Anything different from this, is the Left imposing itself on Conservatives and their allies. Doing exactly what they’re accusing Christians of doing – imposing values etc.
I.m.o minority groups are being used to fund the Marxist Left’s goal of destroying the Capitalist right.
How can you find a point of agreement, with people who falsely see those who disagree with them as Nazis, inhuman?
You can’t. So what does this mean? Western civilisation splits in two, a schism between Left and Right, like the split between Rome in the West and Rome in the East. Or the Reformation. Geopolitical borders changing, new nations forming etc. Worse case scenario: Civil War.
These are just my thoughts. I pray for restoration. God’s hand to move on the hearts and save us ALL from this impending darkness. We need a strong and robust system of debate, a platform for individual freedom that understands personal responsibility is its necessary counterpart. Unlike being inside virtual reality, real life decisions have consequences. Hopefully reason informed by the Christian faith will return to the West. Jesus is Victor! No matter what happens. We were rescued through the leadership of Reagan, Thatcher and Wojtyla (Pope.J.P.2nd). They were a gift to the world, yes they made mistakes, but overall even their enemies have to give them credit for pulling the world out of the despair and fear experienced in the late 1970s, up until the fall of the Wall, the USSR and the retreat of the militarily strong and nuclear armed repressive Left.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t disagree with what you’ve said except for, possibly, your forecast for western civilization. I think it’s a bit early to say. I see some encouraging signs (at least in America) :
1) My sense is that the general population is not buying into the LGBTQ agenda, especially transgender ideology.
I will be very surprised if that changes. Especially over time. There will be unforeseen consequences, and verifiable research will continue to emerge that refutes this ideology as healthy and life enhancing.
2) We do still have a free press and freedom of speech/expression. So long as we have the freedom to publish incisive, insightful, verifiable truth (and if we do so non-hysterically,) i believe we can influence public opinion. The internet is our friend here.
3) When the left goes too far it pisses people off, and this will become a regular thing as the left thinks it has the momentum and believes now is the time to press its agenda. However…
4) …people resent being told what to think and how to live – by either the left or the right. That’s not going to change.
5) Alternatively, if “progressives” want to hold the moral high ground that they imagine they hold, they must eventually respectfully and intelligently attempt to defend an indefensible position. “Progressives” generally consider themselves to be more intelligent, better educated, and morally superior to conservatives (at least in America.) This is wonderful! Because therefore they HAVE TO engage in respectful debate, otherwise their identity will implode or be exposed as false. There are already “progressive” college professors here that have broken rank and called out their fellow leftists for behaving like “the oppressor” regarding free speech issues. There is also a great rift within feminism now around the trans issue.
6) I think there are facts that have yet to see the light of day, of which the general public is unaware. I think the average person probably swallows the idea that the LGBTQ agenda is part of a logical progression advancing equality and civil rights for everyone. This makes it difficult for them to argue against it, or to even WANT to for that matter. I think this average person will be surprised to learn that the LGBTQ agenda is not new, and is part of a defined ideological agenda called “post-genderism” and/or “transhumanism.” The bottom line is that we’re simply seeing a clash of worldviews. When the LGBTQ agenda is seen to simply be another ideology, it becomes okay to disagree with it, (which was the genius of your “No” side’s campaign.) The solution for EVERYONE is to get back to pluralism and freedom within the constraints of the Constitution. I think it is impossible to successfully argue against this as a solution. This has been my drumbeat on my blog, as you know.
For those who would like to read firsthand about post-genderism (before it was so-named,) please read a copy of radical author Shulamith Firestone’s book, “The Dialectic of Sex.” Arguing from a materialist, Marxist, evolutionary perspective, she envisions transcending biologically assigned roles in order to truly reach freedom and equality. In other words, Marx and Engels took us forward, but didn’t go far enough. Sick and sad.
I suspect you are right about this, Rod: ” Normalisation and power is the end goal. Total acceptance.”
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think you’re right. Of course, my response before this is me being pessimistic, so I hold my conclusions about the future of Western societies as tentative.
Firestone is in line with a lot of what I’ve read on radical feminism. Such as Mary Daly, who believes that you’re not really for feminism unless you become a woman; not really tolerant unless you become what you say you tolerate.
This kind of thinking, as you pointed out, is a bridge to far for a lot of people. As is the only way to implement that ideology. e.g.: through violent revolution.
I acknowledge the hopeful signs, Jordan Peterson and Bret Weinstein being among those professors speaking out.
You’re also spot on about the double standards. It’s the Achilles heel of Leftism, but I suspect that they don’t care, and brain wash their victims into not caring either.
You are what they say you are, will do, speak, think and live, as they tell you to or else.
I hope you’re right and that this is ultimately recognised for what it is. That the true agenda is exposed and some form of restorative action takes place.
LikeLiked by 1 person