Secular Government and Marriage “Equality”

Unlike the rest of the “Western” world, Australia is currently maintaining its position against same sex marriage. Last night a decision was made by the Abbott Government to keep to its definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman.

However, that decision seems to be contrary to perceived popular opinion and the Government has suggested taking the issue to a national referendum after the next election.

One interesting aspect of the debate within Australia is that those in favour of legitimising homosexual marriage have changed their terminology to make their view more “friendly”. They speak of “Marriage Equality” and thereby subtly change the issue all together, potentially widening the goalposts, allowing others to one day broaden the definition of marriage even further.

My own position on this issue is that I would vote against same sex marriage if it does go to a referendum.
But if it DOES get passed and the legal definition of marriage is changed in Australia, I’m not going to panic. I’m not going to get upset. I’m not going to proclaim that she sky is falling, or that our government is part of a “beast system”.

I’ll accept that a secular Government in charge of a secular nation have followed a secular path that is contrary to God’s ways. Something secular nations and secular leaders have been doing throughout history.

The answer is NOT found in trying to change the ways of secular governments. The answer is in helping people migrate FROM those secular nations TO the Kingdom of God.


Double standards are clearly being displayed as society’s acceptance of homosexuality becomes more widespread. Anyone speaking out against its acceptability is immediately labelled homophobic and their views are portrayed as aberrant. Those whose views are shaped by God’s standards, revealed in scripture, are increasingly becoming society’s outcasts.

A Canberra couple that vowed to get divorced if same sex marriage was legalised, are facing intense public backlash and have had their controversial views condemned by family and friends.

In a piece written for Canberra City News last week, Nick Jensen wrote that he and his wife Sarah would not wish to be associated with any new definition of marriage.

“My wife and I, as a matter of conscience, refuse to recognise the government’s regulation of marriage if its definition includes the solemnisation of same sex couples,” Mr Jensen wrote.

The Jensens, who are devout, practising Christians, have faced public ridicule since the controversial piece made headlines across the country.

Full article here:

This week I’ve noticed a window display in my town centre, in which the local High School professes support for the “LGBT community” – although they’ve added several more letters (that I don’t remember) to include other variations of the same theme, the last being Q for “queer”. The window is decorated with rainbows – a symbol used by God as a reminder of His covenant with all of mankind, now appropriated by mankind to symbolise rebellion against Him.

While the Australian government has lagged behind most of the world in its acceptance of same sex marriage, I’m sure it’s only a matter of time before it joins the pied piper procession and God’s people will be increasingly marginalised.

As we move further down that road we should take the opportunity to think more about our citizenship, and whether our interests and allegiance lie within worldly nations, or TRULY within God’s Kingdom. To which kingdom do we belong?

Regarding the political issue of same sex marriage, I recognise that marriage isn’t the real issue. Trying to prevent it is like the old saying about closing the stable door after the horse has bolted. The issue was sealed when homosexuality became acceptable to the wider society. In a secular society where homosexuality is seen as acceptable, there is no valid reason for that secular society to deny marriage to homosexuals. It is merely more evidence of the path society has chosen to follow instead of following God.

While many Christians see homosexuality as something that will bring God’s judgement upon a nation, the biblical reality is different. Paul reveals that increasing acceptance of homosexuality is itself God’s judgement. As mankind increasingly abandons God, He will give them over to the things they choose above Him.

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, 1because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

For this reason God gave them up to vile passions. For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature. Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a debased mind, to do those things which are not fitting; being filled with all unrighteousness, sexual immorality,[c] wickedness, covetousness, maliciousness; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, evil-mindedness; they are whisperers, backbiters, haters of God, violent, proud, boasters, inventors of evil things, disobedient to parents, undiscerning, untrustworthy, unloving, unforgiving,[d] unmerciful; who, knowing the righteous judgment of God, that those who practice such things are deserving of death, not only do the same but also approve of those who practice them. (Romans 1)

Who Do You Choose When There Is No Choice?

Only two days until the Federal Election and I’m still not sure what to do at the ballot box. Only two things are certain: 1) Voting is compulsory 2) I don’t feel I can vote for, or give preference to, either major party.

For some time I’ve been thinking of attending the polling booth but leaving my ballot paper blank. That way I’ll be fulfilling my legal obligation and also exercising my responsibility to vote for the candidate of my choice.

    Why I can’t vote for the Liberal-National Coalition?


I find them untrustworthy. Their refusal to reveal key budgetary data for scrutiny until a day or two before Election Day (to me) shows there is something they want to hide for as long as possible. They also rely too much on parroted slogans instead of intelligent debate. How often do we need to hear the “Stop the Boats” mantra? This is something I addressed in a post a couple of days ago where AGAIN we are faced with the likelihood of important information being withheld to hide facts.

Their tactic of misrepresenting economic reality through meaningless, unprovable slogans: first we had the “interest rates will always be lower under the coalition” replaced with “the economy will always be stronger under the coalition”. Such statements present a desirable outcome that can never be delivered in a provable way, as can be seen in the recent switch from the first slogan to the second after interest rates reached record lows under the current Labor government.

Interest rates and “the economy” are subject to International events as well as Government policy. And recently despite some of the worst EVER international conditions that decimated most world economies, the Australian economy was kept in very healthy territory. By accident? Or by shrewd economic measures courtesy of a Labor Government?

I also don’t take well to being bombarded with one-eyed political propaganda like we’ve had in the Murdoch press anti-labour campaign. The Murdoch headlines over recent weeks have been appallingly biased – remember this is the same Murdoch whose papers were at the centre of one of the worst ever media scandals in Britain recently (remember phone tapping anyone?).

And finally I don’t see Tony Abbott as Prime Minister material. (If Malcolm Turnbull had been the potential PM I think there would have been no doubt about where to allocate my vote).

    Why I can’t vote for Labor?

The thing that REALLY swung the balance relates to Kevin Rudd’s appearance on the ABC TV programme Q & A a few nights ago.
While I give him credit for appearing on the show and facing some very difficult questions (unlike Tony Abbott who declined), it was his response to one question that overshadowed everything else. The question came from a church pastor who asked about Rudd’s about-face on same sex marriage. (see here for my earlier comments on Rudd’s change of mind: )

Now it’s not Rudd’s decision to support same sex marriage that I find objectionable. For some time I’ve recognised that a secular government under which homosexuality is legal has no logical reason to deny same sex marriage. The issue I have with Rudd is his attempt to score political points by demonising a Christian pastor by misrepresenting, misquoting and effectively denigrating scripture. Not surprisingly he also showed considerable ignorance of the New Testament message, basically saying that it’s all about being nice and tolerant towards all of mankind.

Mr Rudd needs to know that scripture does not portray homosexuality as a natural way of life. In fact scripture has some very strong things to say about same gender sexual relations. It says things that homosexuals would find very offensive:

“God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural sexual relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed shameful acts with other men” (Romans 1:26)

He also needs to know that (despite his claim) the bible doesn’t portray slavery as being a natural condition – a claim he made clearly to undermine the validity and authority of scripture (Apparently it was Aristotle who made that claim, not anyone in scripture).

And he also needs to know that gospel isn’t about being nice to each other, it’s about turning away from our tendency for rebellion against God and His standards, through putting our faith in Jesus Christ. Choosing His way above our own desires and submitting ourselves to the changes He wants to make in our lives, turning from sin – not finding ways to convince ourselves that it’s acceptable.

If Rudd had justified his changed stance on same sex marriage on secular, logical, legal grounds then I would have found his response adequate and acceptable in the context of secular government, but he foolishly chose to present a religious stance and in the process showed the shallowness of his “Christian” faith foundations and did so in a way that belittled the REAL gospel of Jesus Christ. And that’s something I can’t accept from a “Christian” who hopes to lead his country.

Irony in the Homosexual Marriage Debate


Atheist Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, opposes “Gay” marriage while the man she overthrew from the position of PM, alleged Christian Kevin Rudd, now speaks in favour of it.

Meanwhile government minister and lesbian, Penny Wong criticises Christians as being “out of touch” and of ”pedalling prejudice” and of engaging in ”bigotry that has no place in a modern Australia”.

I suppose it all depends on who we want to be “in touch” with – personally I’d rather be in touch with a never changing God and out of touch with malleable community opinion.

As for my view on the issue of Gay marriage – I think its acceptance is inevitable. Scripture shows that a society that rejects God will become increasingly accepting of homosexuality (see Romans 1). Since, in Australia, homosexuality is recognised as a legally valid expression of human sexuality, there is no logical, legal, human reason to refuse marriage to homosexual partners in a secular and Godless society.

But I look to a higher authority for instruction on what is acceptable or not and God makes HIS position clear in scripture. I choose not to base my life on Godless viewpoints. I also choose not to see homosexuality as deserving a greater degree of condemnation than the other things listed here:

Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived. Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites,   nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God. And such were some of you. But you were washed, but you were sanctified, but you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus and by the Spirit of our God. (1 Corintians 6:9-11 NKJV)

As for the claims of “bigotry” – I think that accusation could equally be directed in the other direction, with Wong being no less “out of touch” with the realities of Chrisitan faith.

REAL Christians don’t mould their beliefs according to ever changing community standards, choosing to trust in Jesus for justification – not unstable political opinion.


Like Me, Chely Wright (revisiting an old review)

I wrote the following almost three years ago. Considering the topic of homosexuality has been raised on a couple of forums/blogs I read, and I’ve tried to address the issue myself, I thought this review might be relevant again.

It was written for a blog that was not specifically “Christian” in content but was intended to address “the arts” from a Christian perspective.

Like Me, Chely Wright

ChelyCelebrity autobiographies are often a sanitised exercise in self-promotion. If that is what I was expecting from Chely Wright’s Like Me, it’s not surprising its first pages left me in shock.
I had been a Chely Wright fan for around ten years, since I discovered her album Single White Female. At the time my wife liked Faith Hill and pop influenced Country music and I was on the lookout for similar artists who might interest her. I found SWF at an HMV store in Sydney, listened to it, and bought it for myself. After that I tracked down all of her earlier albums, even the almost impossible to find first album Woman in the Moon.

It had been a few years since Chely’s last album but I remained in touch with her career through regular email newsletters. I pre-ordered both her new album and her book as soon as they were announced earlier this year and wondered what insights the book would give into her life and her career. I definitely was not prepared for what I read in the first sentence and later on the first page:

“Dear God, please don’t let me be gay.”


“I’m a proud Kansan, a loving daughter, sister, friend, a child of God and a lesbian.”

Those statements contain most of the elements of the book that have had me wrestling emotionally, intellectually and spiritually since I started reading her story.

The revelation that she is gay was completely unexpected. I was not exaggerating when I said earlier that I was left in shock. I can’t imagine how hard it must have been throughout her life, working in an industry she loved, knowing that she could lose everything she had worked for if the news of her homosexuality got out. And she went to great lengths to keep it secret, at times straining friendships and business relationships. The fear of being exposed could not be ignored. She particularly notes how the conservative nature of the members of her industry, and their idea of God’s view of homosexuality contributed to her fear.

On the other hand Chely developed an understanding of God that allowed her to accept who she is, even when she was not ready to share that fact with those around her. Adapting God to suit our own particular situation is perhaps a common survival move, allowing us to come to terms with who we are and what we are and at the same time maintain a sense of acceptance from the Divinity we choose to follow. Such a practice can be a strong comfort as we try to come to terms with those parts of our lives that may cause others offence.

The weakness with that strategy is that we ourselves can create and trust a Divinity based on our own subjective needs instead of trusting a real God with a firm and objective foundation. Needs-based faith is a growing reality within a society where each person determines what is truth for themselves, not requiring a standard outside of their own experience but desiring to give their “truth” a secure foundation. The irony of this is that the initial idea of God has usually come from an outside source – whether it is from a church, from the bible, or from a cultural viewpoint; but that initial idea is merely used as a starting point for something that suits us personally: a God that can be shaped and moulded to suit our own requirements. The source of that initial awareness of God can be abandoned for something more suitable to our human need, taking us away from a God who has his own demands and expectations.

But can such a God give any genuine security beyond providing a temporary sense of self-justification? What lasting value is a God who can be changed according to our own whim? More than once Chely states that God made her the way she is. Is God so contrary? Or is it more likely to be our human nature that is fickle, wanting to cling to both God and those things He (according to the Bible) is said to abhor.

Chely refers to several occasions where discussions in her presence were focused on God’s condemnation of homosexuality. Homosexuality seems to be a favoured target when the sins of society are being addressed by professed, bible believing Christians, and while the bible does condemn it, surprisingly it gets far fewer mentions than more common, accepted and even popular behaviours. Maybe there is more than a little hypocrisy at play when a person’s sexuality is condemned by someone who has a serious problem with greed. There are far more condemnatory references to covetousness and the love of money than there are to homosexuality. It is all too easy for the “straight” but greedy Christian to point at a gay individual and “thank God that I am not like that person”. (seeLuke 18:11).

I accept that Chely has every right to reveal whatever she chooses of her own life, opening herself up to scrutiny, but I felt she overstepped the mark in making revelations about others. While expressing contrition over the way she treated fellow country singer Brad Paisley with whom she had a relationship for a time; exposing the fact that the relationship included a sexual element perhaps showed a continued lack of respect for Paisley’s feelings and privacy. Kiss and tell confessions where participants are named may give some gratification to the reader and writer, but they demonstrate little concern for the other party involved. Wasn’t it bad enough to involve Paisley in such a relationship when it was known that his strong feelings could never be reciprocated, without later publicly spilling those intimate details?

While a lot of the book deals with the struggle she faced over her sexuality, to me some of the more interesting parts of the book were those that describe her trips to entertain troops in places like Iraq. She experienced situations that brought the reality and tragedy of war to life. From meeting and finding common ground with a soldier merely days before he is killed, to being transported on an HR (human remains) flight with the coffin of another casualty at her feet, her trips were far from the glamour usually associated with show business.

I had seen some of the events she describes in a DVD of “home movies” that came with one of her CDs. The book helped to give a clearer perspective of some of the footage of a performance for thousands of troops in Baghdad where she and Kid Rock shared vocal duties.

This book is a very personal opening of the heart from a person who through fear hid the truth for most of her life. Most of us could never understand what it is like to live such a life where secrecy and half truths seem mandatory. How can a person have dreams and the ability to achieve them when such a central aspect of their life is condemned or made the subject of jokes by the majority of those around them?

I was saddened by the struggle she experienced. I think I’ve been made a little more aware of the difficulties faced by people like Chely who not only have to cope with the way society perceives them, but also with the desire for normality. To be accepted for who they are. Not wanting to stand out and be perceived as different in a negative way.
This story is one of an individual person struggling to be accepted, and to accept herself, as she is. But to me the real sadness relates to the way ideas about God are manipulated to support a human agenda. How He is used to justify both bigotry and human desire. In all of this HIS desires and HIS demands get pushed aside and He is made a tool to suit OUR needs.

Whatever happened to the Almighty God, creator of heaven and earth who was once feared and respected as well as loved?
We didn’t like that kind of God so we replaced Him with another who is cuddlier and more likely to bend His ways to suit us.
This was a hard “review” to write.
I wanted to be respectful to Chely Wright and the courage she showed in “coming out”.
But at the same time I cannot compromise when it comes to recognising who God is and what He requires of His creation.
The matter of homosexuality is not as simple as most people try to portray. It is both easy for some to condemn and easy for others to accept.
But like any human behaviour or characteristic it is God’s perspective that we need to prioritise and not one that is merely convenient for ourselves

Selective Condemnation

The following is my contribution to discussion here (where I am banned from contributing):

Homosexuals NEED to be accepted by the church as long as there is no compromise on the fact that homosexual relationships and acts are sin leading to death – JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER SIN.

Those who find themselves attracted to people of their own gender who recognise they cannot give into that attraction are no different to the heterosexual who finds someone else’s spouse attractive but recognises the sinfulness of allowing lustful thoughts.

It’s where they allow that attraction to take them that is the issue.
Instead of condemnation and rejection, ALL people struggling with temptation need help and support to deal with their situation. Deliverance from lusts in their various forms is not always instantaneous – there can be a daily struggle, whether they are sexual lusts (related to either sex) or the lust of greed or covetousness.

It’s time for Christians to stop condemning people with struggles that have never personally affected them and time to start examining themselves to see where THEIR OWN struggle with sin lies.
As a balance to some of the views at that link I recommend this testimony:

Sin, Homosexuality and salvation

I now see that discussion on the JTBTV site has turned towards the matter of sin and salvation and to what extent sin (certain types of sin in particular) will deny salvation to those who practice them.

That discussion rises out of the “homosexuality” argument that Andrew Strom raised in his last two posts. Strom depicts homosexuality almost as a “special” sin – worse than others, that attracts greater condemnation from God. He rightly points out that God views it as an abomination. He rightly points out that homosexuals will be excluded from the Kingdom of God. Both of those facts are found in categorical statements in scripture.

But in scripture that judgement isn’t exclusively applied to homosexuality. There are many other things that are described as an abomination in God’s sight. There are many other types of behaviour that are stated to exclude someone from God’s Kingdom.

So why the obsession with homosexuality? Maybe people find it easy to condemn sin that they have never entered into themselves. It’s much harder to be as dogmatic about sins that strike much closer to home. Lusting in thought is described as no different from adultery, and adulterers are also excluded from God’s kingdom. Covetousness (greed) is another thing that will deny entry into the Kingdom.

So why don’t lustful thoughts get the same attention given to condemning homosexuals? Why isn’t God reported as sending hurricanes to judge or warn lustful thinkers? Why not give the same attention to the greedy?

I want to be very clear. Continuing in ANY sin will exclude anyone from the Kingdom of God. It separates man from God just the same as it always has. If we continue in ANY sin we will be separated from God and be justly condemned. ANY sin! Even a single bite of a piece of fruit if God has forbidden it…
Thank God that He has provided a way for us to be free from sin and its effects, through His Son Jesus.

But that way doesn’t give us the license to keep sinning without penalty. Neither does it make any kind of sin less or more acceptable than others. So why give the impression that it does?

Isaac “warning” conclusion

Three of my recent articles were written in response to a post Andrew Strom made on his blog about hurricane Isaac. He has now closed that topic with the following statement:

“It is not a “prophecy” as such. It is simply a WARNING pointing to the amazing parallels and their MEANING.
Does God send judgements upon the earth today? The book of Revelation makes it clear that HE DOES. In fact, He does so more in the Last Days than EVER BEFORE. But I see this as a “sign” and a warning – more than anything else.”

Here are my thoughts on these claims:

1) “Amazing parallels and their MEANING”?
Amazing that a hurricane arrives in hurricane season? A low-grade hurricane that was soon downgraded to a tropical storm when it reached land? A hurricane that apparently had no effect on the event about which God was supposedly sending his warning? The only “amazing parallels” were those assumed when it was thought the storm might cause more trouble than it actually did.

2) “Does God send judgements upon the earth today?”
If He so chooses – but surely they would not be as ineffective as “hurricane Isaac”.

3) “Revelation makes it clear that HE DOES”
To me the book of Revelation makes it clear that HE WILL, as far as I can see the events described in Revelation regarding God’s judgement are still future. Also scripture gives another view of God’s judgement that is usually overlooked. I’ve mentioned it before. It is a type of judgement relevant to the issue here, in which claims have been made that God was “warning” New Orleans because of its promotion of homosexuality. I have previously pointed out that increased tolerance and promotion of homosexuality IS God’s judgement on society (one example of it). This is spelled out clearly in Romans 1 where several times it refers to God’s wrath being demonstrated by Him giving people over to their sin.

Relevant excerpts from Romans 1:

“The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness”

“Therefore God gave them over in the sinful desires of their hearts to sexual impurity for the degrading of their bodies with one another”

“Because of this, God gave them over to shameful lusts. Even their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural ones. In the same way the men also abandoned natural relations with women and were inflamed with lust for one another. Men committed indecent acts with other men, and received in themselves the due penalty for their perversion.”

“Furthermore, since they did not think it worthwhile to retain the knowledge of God, he gave them over to a depraved mind to do what ought not to be done.”

MY advice to all of us regarding matters like this Isaac “warning”:
1) Stop presenting speculation as if it is a valid revelation of God and His actions.
2) Be honest enough to admit when you have misrepresented a situation when subsequent circumstances show that is the case.
3) Apologise to those who have potentially been misled.
4) Confess your error to God and repent.

Another “Christchurch Prophecy”? Déjà vu all over again, with few lessons learned.

 [A word of explanation about the title of this post. Last year predictions were made of massive destruction through yet another earthquake in Christchurch New Zealand. The prediction had a date attached. The day came and went without the threatened destruction – some recognised their error and repented through publicly apology. Others refused to admit their error. Clearly many do not learn]

A new hurricane is in the news, apparently heading towards New Orleans. Some point out that it will hit exactly 7 years to the day after Katrina almost destroyed the city. Significance is given to the number seven because of its biblical relevance. It is also predicted to hit the city at the time of a major homosexual festival, so this adds to the claims of God’s impending judgement.

While the number 7 may be significant – I find it more significant that no one seemed to make these judgement predictions until AFTER Hurricane Isaac came onto the scene. Therefore it seems more like a “prophetic” joining of existing dots than a genuine revelation given by God.

Two significantly different incidents mentioned in scripture possibly shed light on situations like this.

Luke 13: 1 “There were present at that season some who told Him about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mingled with their sacrifices. 2 And Jesus answered and said to them, “Do you suppose that these Galileans were worse sinners than all other Galileans, because they suffered such things? 3 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish. 4 Or those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? 5 I tell you, no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish.”


 Luke 9  “And as they went, they entered a village of the Samaritans, to prepare for Him. 53 But they did not receive Him, because His face was set for the journey to Jerusalem. 54 And when His disciples James and John saw this, they said, “Lord, do You want us to command fire to come down from heaven and consume them, just as Elijah did?” 55 But He turned and rebuked them, and said, “You do not know what manner of spirit you are of. 56 For the Son of Man did not come to destroy men’s lives but to save them.”

Do you see the difference? Which attitude most closely resembles those who continually declare God’s specific and imminent judgement against other sinners?

It is clear that attitudes to homosexuality play a big part in these regular warnings of judgement. It must seem to these people that God has a greater desire to pour out wrath on the homosexual community than upon those guilty of other sins. But what does scripture say specifically about judgement and homosexuality?  Does it warn that homosexual practice will result in more judgement by natural disaster than any other sin? Or is the link to judgement something totally different?

I see the latter.

Romans 1 tells us that increased homosexual practice and acceptance of homosexual practice within a society IS the judgement of God upon that society. It is the result of God giving people over to the things they have chosen above Him and His ways. It results in the “storing up of wrath … for the day of God’s wrath, when his righteous judgement will be revealed” When God “will give to each person according to what he has done. To those who by persistence in doing good seek glory, honour and immortality, he will give eternal life. But for those who are self-seeking and who reject the truth and follow evil, there will be wrath and anger.”

Salvation is no less available for those individuals involved in homosexual acts than it is for those involved in any other sin. But there is strong significance when things of this type take on a broader presence – when they move on from being an individual matter to being embraced by the wider community.

Rather than being a sign of rebellion that will attract imminent demonstration of judgement from God, the increase in these things ARE a sign OF God’s judgement, that He is giving those whole societies over to their most depraved desires.

What greater reason could we have not to identify with those societies through over-patriotic devotion?

What greater reason to make sure we are part of GOD’s Kingdom and to devote ourselves to HIM?