How Can They Say That?

 

Image: Unsplash

I find it interesting that some prominent people are saying what specific issues the proposed Voice to Parliament would and would not address. But this makes no sense to say. In fact, if I have understood the Voice to Parliament correctly, I don't know how anyone could say this.

Because the Voice to Parliament that is being proposed in the upcoming referendum would legally enable the chosen members of the body to address parliament on any issue which they believe effects Indigenous Australians. So, how on earth could any politician anticipate how other people, from a very different worldview perspective would utilize this? In fact, it would appear the whole intention of the Voice is to hear "voices" that politicians could not anticipate.

This must mean that the people chosen to represent the Voice to the parliament are the only ones who know what they will address and why, and they can only know this when the time finally comes?

Am I wrong to conclude this?

In other words, people are being asked to change the structure of our nation in a way that cannot be predicted, and is designed in this very way.

As Kerry O'brien has written, "And as a permanent institution, it would be guaranteed to have time to mature and evolve, just like the Parliament itself has done."[1]

It is recognized that it cannot be fully predicted where the Voice could go, in the very literature which is supporting the Voice. No government Bureaucracy stays in stasis, they all grow over time and become more than ever intended. This is in the very nature of Bureaucracies. In fact, the Voice has been acknowledged as not an end in itself, but merely one part of a means to other ends, as O'Brien writes, "Importantly, though, we should always see constitutional recognition and the Voice as part of a trilogy – Voice, Treaty, Truth."[2] So, the intention is to start here and build on this.

Politicians can tell us the limits of the reach of the Voice, that it is not part of parliament, it is not in parliament, but that it does have a right to address parliament. But I do not see how they can limit what it will address and how this will effect policy, since it is designed to include voices that they have even said, do not think like that do; which is the whole point of the proposed idea.

This appears to be a much more open ended policy decision than people realize. You are not simply voting to affirm that you respect Indigenous Australians, which is how it will be sold to people. You are voting for the initial stage in a process of fundamental change to our society. In a time when the cost of living has been driven through the roof by the pouring out of funds from government interventions in the economy, should we be really focusing on this kind of issue? What effects could it have? 

List of References

---

[1] Mayo, Thomas; O'Brien, Kerry. The Voice to Parliament Handbook (p. 15). Hardie Grant Explore. Kindle Edition. 

[2] Mayo, Thomas; O'Brien, Kerry. The Voice to Parliament Handbook (p. 11). Hardie Grant Explore. Kindle Edition.

Evil Has Been Successful

Image: Unsplash

From a book that I am writing. This is from a section observing how we can see the patterns of how evil has worked in our world through history. This is very clear especially in the middle 19th century. In that century, multiple movements sprung up to replace the church, 

"What would replace it? The state. The state would be people’s saviour. We Aussies, and many other westerners in England and American tend to look at Marxism as crazy. But Marx has gotten the last laugh. People now demand the state raise their kids, heal their illnesses, pay for the all welfare, protect them from every threat, instead of threats too big for them to do on their own, pay for their retirement, look after their aged, tell them when it’s safe to go outside and more. Marx’s vision is being enacted in our time, and because it has been slow and steady most people cannot see the water is starting to boil."

There was once a time when most of society, correctly, believed that most of these things were the responsibility of the family, the church and other charitable organizations. By demanding the state do everything, we have now empowered it to believe it should do everything, and it will only continue to increase in doing everything, because most Aussies actually now want this, because it is all they really know. This is also true in other parts of the West. Evil worked out that it did not need to conquer us with force, this has actually backfired in some parts of the world, rather it could just buy society off, and this has worked far more successfully. Through this effort, evil has been far more successful. 

The Invisible Hand Of Evil

 

Image: Unsplash

I am writing a book about how the evil one works, and here is a short excerpt from one section of my book,

“We also see, particularly because the Bible gives us an interpretive lens, the patterns of God working and building, the Devil destroying, and what does and does not benefit us as human beings. History is the combined catalogue of humanity learning what happens if you put your hand in the fire, so that those of us reading it can learn without having to put our hands in the fire. It is the collective version of learning from the mistakes and wisdom of others.

It is obvious to those of us who read history that there is an evil hand at work, guiding those who attack God’s people. Think about this, in the middle of the 19th century multiple forces converged on Western society, all intersecting with each other, to undermine the Western world: Materialism or Naturalism, Darwinism, Marxist Socialism, Feminism, Psychology, the introduction of pagan mysticism into the zeitgeist, and more. And all of these philosophies and pseudo-sciences were offering to replace the Christian worldview.”

It was within the space of a decade or so, that all of these converging forces sprung into action, or began to rise in credibility for the intelligentsia, in the Western world. Darwin published the origin of the species in 1859, and both benefitted from and helped encourage the rise of materialism. Psychology began to take off in the mid 19^th century, but can be traced back earlier, depending on how you define it. Marx and Engels published the Communist Manifesto in 1848. The first women’s rights convention was held in Seneca Falls in 1848[1]. And the historian of religion Per Faxneld has documented thoroughly how Luciferian elements crossed over within the initial stages of the interactions of many of the movers and shakers in these movements, and in fact predated them and directly inspired some of them.[2]  

The invisible hand of evil can be seen at work in these and other key moments in history, especially where the people of God have come under serious and sustained attack. Of course, if you have a materialist worldview, then this is all nonsense. But you are left with the inability of explaining why there is such a consistency with which evil coalesces around the same ideas, sins and actions, again and again. If you have a Christian worldview, this is not only not surprising but to be expected.

---

[1] https://www.womenshistory.org/education-resources/biographies/susan-b-anthony

[2] Per Faxneld, 2017, Satanic Feminism: Lucifer as Liberator in Nineteenth Century Culture, Oxford University Press.

The Death Of Science In Our Day Part 2

 

Image: Unsplash

A couple of years ago I published a piece entitled: The Death of Science In Our Day? In that article I noted,

“The university was originally a specifically Christian religious institution devoted to truth, study, and the contemplation of reality, all of which found their source in the Christian view of God. It is important to understand that without the foundational Christian belief in an ordered reality, set up by a consistent God, who only deals in truth, that science as a discipline would not be possible.

It is also important to understand what science is,

…science is not merely technology. A society does not have science simply because it can build sailing ships, smelt iron, or eat off porcelain dishes. Science is a method utilized in organized efforts to formulate explanations of nature, always subject to modifications and corrections through systematic observations (emphasis author’s).[2] 

Anyone who has studied theology understands why the scientific method developed out of theological institutions, it is because the theologian’s goal is truth, and the way to find truth is to observe what the word of God, and church fathers, and other theologians have said, to form a hypothesis, and then confirm or debunk this in the context of community. Take this process and apply it to nature and you have the birth of peer reviewed science. This method was uniquely Christian and uniquely western, and hence science flourished first in the Christian West.

Once you understand the necessity, not the coincidence, but the necessity of Christianity for science to flourish, then you can understand why we are witnessing its decay in the modern age.”[1]

I also argued in this same piece that, as incredible as it sounds, we live in the shadow of the possibility of seeing the end of science in our own day. Of course, even if this does happen there will for some time still be people who call themselves scientists and who say what they do is “the science”, and institutions which claim to be the adjudicators of what “ the science” is, and even a popular belief in science still holding supreme authority. But the fact that many of these individuals and bodies are already showing signs of being in a post science framework, indicates that we could very well see science die in our life time.

For those who believe in the inevitable progress of mankind, this might seem impossible, unconscionable even. Especially to those Christians who have spent the last several decades to a century seeking to reinterpret the doctrines of the Church according to the changing winds of scientific discoveries. But to those who have observed how a certain intellectual and, this is significant, spiritual climate is necessary for something like science to flourish, it is becoming more and more of a distinct possibility. Or more aptly put, a distinct danger for our whole way of life.  

You can see from your own observations just how far the human mind can go to deny truth, and even scientific truth. There are plenty of experts alive today who will tell you with a straight face that a man can become a woman or a woman a man, or an experimental medication is not really experimental “they just cut through red tape to speed up the process”, or that a female athlete can be elite[2], or any number of obvious falsehoods. It is becoming ubiquitous in our society to see once credible people in once credible positions, affirm, or refuse to deny, increasingly ridiculous truths. Watching people freak out when asked “What is a woman?” and the realizing that many such people are in a position to make laws, is a truly concerning development and a clear sign that things are going in a seriously bad direction. But one need not just rely on their own observation to come to this conclusion.  

The state of science is so terrifying to some scientists, it is keeping them awake at night, as is noted in the Sydney Morning Herald,

“‘I lose sleep at night’: Experts fight to expose science fraud in Australia.

…Retractions and scientific misconduct, once thought to be extremely rare, have come into sharp focus over the past decade as scientists have discovered more cases.

Ivermectin gained prominence as a treatment for COVID-19 based on a large number of fraudulent studies, some researchers argue.

One estimate suggests about one in every 50 published papers has evidence of deliberate manipulation; other scientists have even gone as far as claiming “most published research findings are false”.[3]

Forget what you think about ivermectin for the moment, the fact that studies can be produced by both sides, and in such large numbers, highlights the problem. Science can apparently be produced to support “your team” in a time of need. Science has always been prone to the fallen nature of the people doing it. But it seems that the current structure of the scientific community incentivizes dishonesty. That is not my assertion, the same article notes,

“I think it’s something Australians would be horrified to know about. And there is a reticence to talk about it. No one is wanting to bring down science. But the system is such, it makes sense in many ways to be fraudulent.”[4]

“The system” encourages people “in many ways to be fraudulent.” Read that a few times so that it will sink in. Prominent Australian scientists are telling us that there are serious issues of corruption in the science. But why? It all comes down to incentives, and human sinfulness, as I noted in my previous piece,

“Recognizing that this can happen is basic common sense, humans respond to incentives, and when the wrong incentives are in place it can corrupt any institution. For example, when the incentive in science becomes publish or perish, this inverts the scientific process and method, and the science becomes about the researcher and not the research, because if the researcher does not put out enough studies they will fall behind in their field.”[5]

If the incentive is get funding or go broke, or get published or become a nobody, or some other drive to produce research for its own sake, rather than the pursuit of knowledge, this will inevitably create a system where science is heavily compromised. The Bible teaches us that sin corrupts human nature to the core. We are capable of good and bad. Incentives encourage us one way or the other. Bad incentives will encourage corruption. It is impossible for them to do otherwise.

Again, if you think it is impossible that we could see the death of science in our day. Consider how many policies were instituted in nations across the world in the last few years that were actually based on politics but were justified as being necessary “according to the science.”[6] The idea that science and politics is imperfect, but eventually the truth will win out, is being increasingly proven not just wrong, not just naive, but the wishful thinking of a populous that is incapable of accepting the truth of the world we currently live in. There is big money in science, and when truth or money is on the line, where do you think most people plant their flag?

It would be instructive for you, if you doubt the possibility of progress being lost, to read up about how far ahead the Byzantine world was, technologically, in front of Western Europe in the early medieval era. Then compare what happened to Byzantium under the Muslim conquerors and what happened to medieval Europe under the Church. You cannot get a stronger contrast, in the east relatively advanced academic knowledge stunted and died out, and in the West we have the creation of the universities, the Renaissance, and a host of other sociological and technological advancements that created the modern world we enjoy today. But such progress is not inevitable. It is actually fragile, and a religious ideology which enforces the suppression of clearly observable realities, like men being different to women, is the precise sort of nonsense that could kill science in our day. So too, could the incentives to publish bad papers for monetary or reputational reasons.  

It might not keep you up at night, and if your hope is in the Lord it should not, but it does keep up those scientists who know the extent of the problem, and that should tell us the problem is serious. Will these problems be halted before they get too bad? Only time will tell.

List of references

---

[1] https://younggospelminister.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-death-of-science-in-our-day.html

[2] Some people might balk at me putting this in such a list, but not that long ago this was accepted fact. Elite means the best, and no female athlete comes even close to the elite male athletes, they struggle to compete with the final year high school boys, let alone elite athletes. That we call women’s sport elite, is a very clear example of this kind of issue of blatantly disregarding scientific truth. If you respond, what we mean is “elite for women”, well, you have conceded the point then, haven’t you?

[3] Liam Mannix, 2023, “‘I lose sleep at night’: Experts fight to expose science fraud in Australia”, https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/i-lose-sleep-at-night-experts-fight-to-expose-science-fraud-in-australia/ar-AA1d4pCX?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=7524ae02d94f4fb6bb1e01f8466d81be&ei=9

[4] Ibid.

[5] https://younggospelminister.blogspot.com/2021/06/the-death-of-science-in-our-day.html

[6] John Roskam, 2023, “The Truth Is Out There: COVID-19 Was About Politics, Not Science” https://ipa.org.au/ipa-today/the-truth-is-out-there-covid-19-was-about-politics-not-science

Food for Thought.

 

Over the years I have encountered erroneous, though well meaning people, who think that we need to make sure our steak is well done, because this is biblical. Or as one of my friends says, "Do you want your steak Levitical?" By which he means as burnt as the side of an unfortunate victim of a seatbelt clip in an Aussie summer. 

Both the Old and the New Testaments commands that we should stay away from consuming blood, which is incredibly good health advice. 

Leviticus 17:10-11 –

"10 If any one of the house of Israel or of the strangers who sojourn among them eats any blood, I will set my face against that person who eats blood and will cut him off from among his people. 11 For the life of the flesh is in the blood, and I have given it for you on the altar to make atonement for your souls, for it is the blood that makes atonement by the life.

Acts 15:28-29 –

“28 For it has seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us to lay on you no greater burden than these requirements: 29 that you abstain from what has been sacrificed to idols, and from blood, and from what has been strangled, and from sexual immorality. If you keep yourselves from these, you will do well. Farewell.”

There is nothing wrong with someone’s conscience telling them they should only eat well done steak if they believe that they are doing this to avoid blood. But all of the blood is drained out of the animal while it is being slaughtered, and hung up. So, there is no need to cook your steak "Levitical". If your conscience is still more comfortable with doing so, then of course you are free to ruin every bit of streak you ever come across. Cook it till it has the consistency of rubber and the taste of fibre, dry fibre, if you so desire. But there is no requirement, because a red steak is not bloody, it is simply cooked well.

Self Evidently False

 

Image: Unsplash

The most basic assumption of the modern world is that all people are equal. This is self evident many claim. But is this even remotely true? No, not at all. P.J. O’Rourke notes this, while meditating on Adam Smith's Wealth of Nations:

“Smith began by asking two very large questions: How is wealth produced, and how is it distributed? Over the course of the 250-some pages in book 1 the answers—"division of labor" and "mind your own business"—are explained. But in the meantime Smith answered two even larger questions: Why is everyone equal, and why do we have property rights?

 All men are created equal. We hold this truth to be self evident, which on the face of it is so wildly untrue. Equality is the foundation of liberal democracy, rule of law, a free society, and everything that the reader, if he or she is sane, cherishes. But are we all equal because we all showed up? It does not work that way at weddings or funerals. Are we all equal because it says so in the American Declaration of Independence, the French Declaration of the Rights of Man, and the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights? Each of these documents contains plenty of half-truths and nontruths as well. The UN proclaims, "Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours." I'll have my wife inform the baby.”[i]

O’Rourke goes on to comment that Smith only considered us equal in the sense that we are all dependent on each other, and powerless without that help. We all must equally rely on each other, in other words. I cannot comment on Smith’s views, as I have not read the Wealth of Nations, but what O’Rourke notes here about equality is worth highlighting.

There is nothing more self evidently false than saying that all people are created equal. This is not true in physical size, height, intellect, ability or any other way. Just watch how some athletes excel beyond others with seeming ease, even at the top levels, or how some people cruise through school without much effort, whereas some really struggle. People are self evidently not equal. 

All it takes is a little thought, to sit down and work through the implications of what we see all around us, to observe that equality is self evidently false.

---

[i] P.J. O’Rourke, 2007, On The Wealth Of Nations, Grove Press, pp40-41.

Protectionism

 

Image: Unsplash

Many westerners still believe that free trade is what we need, and all of our economic problems come today from not having real free trade. Just as the communists say, “True communism has never been tried.” They will cry, “true and absolute free trade has never been tried.” Putting aside that an absolute version of either of these things is an impossible utopia, and therefore there is no place where you can hope to institute them fully. The great portion of them we have experienced is enough to show us that having either of these things in their full purity would do incredible damage to the economy of many nations, and seriously harm many people. One would lead to complete anarchy and the oligarchic rule of the rich (wait isn’t that where we are?), the other to utter collapse, and the rule of the corrupt wealthy (wait, they lead to the same result on different paths? Interesting!).

But the idea that free trade is better than communism for a time at least is not hard to make. But is it better than protectionism? The answer on this is not so resounding in the positive. P.J. O’Rourke makes this interesting note in one of this books,  

“In The Wealth of Nations the accused were all the world's potentates, politicians, and wealthy merchants. But these were also the veniremen, judges, and officers of the court. Surprisingly, acquittal of the mercantilists wasn't immediate. William Pitt the Younger, prime minister during Smith's last years, accepted the evidence and instituted some reforms suggested by Wealth. Alexander Hamilton, architect of American protectionism, did not. More than two and a quarter centuries after Wealth's publication—what with the neomercantilists running China, the opposition to globalization being voiced around the globe, and the occasional rock getting thrown through the window of a Starbucks because it doesn't foster "sustainable development" among coffee bean growers—the jury is still out.”[i]

O’Rourke wrote this in 2007, when the rise of China was starting to become incredibly clear, but the vibrancy of the Wealth of the West was still on show for many in the world to see. However, now things are different. The protectionism of China, and the forced protectionism of Russia via sanctions, is now showing the weaknesses of the relatively free trade societies of the West. The nations that focused on protecting their economies from outsourcing, and which focus on ensuring production is properly subsidized in their own countries, are now quickly overshadowing the Western nations, before which they were once forced to bow.   

So why is China's economy is overtaking the world?

China's economic philosophy is that your economic self-interest must serve the national interest.

The West's economic philosophy is that economic self-interest does serve the national interest.

Despite how similar these sentences sound, they are a world apart in application. The latter results in the destruction of national production and the outsourcing of many production jobs overseas, so that the wealthy benefit and everyone else is pushed onto welfare or low paying service jobs. The former leads to the exact opposite, the collection of national production and the growth of local production jobs, and the rapid industrialisation and growing prosperity of your nation.

This is why China is beating us. Ironically, this is also how America beat Britain and the European powers in the late 19th century and early 20^th century (two wars in Europe supercharged this process). That is, through Protectionism.

The jury may have been out at one point, but I do not think we can say that any more. Trade between nations is good and necessary to some degree. Abundant trade can lead to prosperity and wealth and then sets up the conditions for degradation.Free trade accelerates how much money you can make in the short term, before the fracturing of every social institution brings this all to a grinding halt. Time to rethink things.

References.

---

[i] P.J. O’Rourke, 2007, On The Wealth of Nations, Grove Press.

Pagan "Christianity"

 

Image: Unsplash

If the early medieval church had spent most of its efforts telling the Romans they needed to have "reconciliation" with the Gauls, and the Gauls needed to reject "colonialism", modern French culture never would have come about, and nor would have one of the most powerful nations in history, France. Though a large portion of France owes its heritage to the Franks, a Germanic tribe from northern Europe, it also owes much of its heritage to the Gauls, a Celtic tribe native to France. And both of these peoples learned much of how they structured their civilisation from the Romans (who got it from others, originally, as well), and especially the Roman Church.

Rather than waste their time on such unbiblical applications of biblical words, the medieval Church focused on infusing the Gauls and Franks with a combined national identity, taught them to learn everything they could from the Romans, and created one of the most successful nations in history. Rather than continually lament the past, they looked to the greater peoples who had come before them and built on the gifts that Roman Colonialism had given them. France may not have reached the heights of the dominance of Rome (though it took a few shots at it), but it built a civilisation that the Romans would have been impressed with.

A lot of the modern Church’s focus on "reconciliation" with conquered peoples is in actuality paganism, because it is really just perpetual guilt, dressed up with Christian language, and a continual throwing of the sins of the colonial powers in their face, and the perpetual victimhood of the colonized. It is fake Christianity, and it will not serve those who are being offered it. It will simply stunt their civilisations. The Church should learn the great lessons from history, not modern progressive academics that forge their ideas in an anti-Christian and anti-Philosophical academic culture, that is void of much of the wisdom of the Church of eons past which built those very same universities originally.

How did the Church in the past think through such issues? Well, I discussed that in part here.

 

Not Sorry And Should Not Be

 

Image: Unsplash

Firstly, you should never be expected to say sorry for what someone else has done. Now that this simple and plain bit of truth is out of the way, let’s go further on this issue.

Why does our culture, and not only our culture, but the prevailing progressive culture across the West put so much emphasis on telling the descendants of colonial powers that they should be sorry for living in these abundant and wonderful lands? Again and again, we are told how sorry we should be, how we should have a sorry day, how if you don’t feel sorry you are a terrible person. Why does this happen? Because this is a direct inversion of what we should be doing, and our culture is currently overlorded by an evil ideology and what does evil do, it subverts.

Not only should we not be sorry about living in modern Australia, we should be thankful, hopeful and watchful. We should be thankful that God gave us this land. We should be hopeful of the good things our nation could be going forward. And we should be watchful to make sure that we do not fall into sinful depravity, because we know that if we do, God may decide to punish us, as he has many other people throughout history. We learn these principles both from the Bible and from the history of our people, the Anglo-Saxons.

The Bible gives us a deep theology of dispossession. It teaches us that God owns all the land, everywhere, “The earth is the Lord’s and the fullness thereof, the world and those who dwell within” (Psalm 24:1). This is the first pillar of this theology. No people on earth, whether pagan or Christian, homeowner or national sovereign, should view their land as anything more than a stewardship. God shows us very clearly in his own Scriptures how he takes lands from wicked peoples and gives them to new peoples. You might be thinking immediately of the Israelites. But if you read Deuteronomy 2 to 3 you will see that God does this for other nations as well. He worked through the Edomites and Moabites to punish the former inhabitants of the lands he gave them to steward. But God also does this for his own people.

We read in Leviticus 25:23, “The land shall not be sold in perpetuity, for the land is mine. For you are strangers and sojourners with me. 24 And in all the country you possess, you shall allow a redemption of the land.” The land the Israelites inhabited was only theirs to steward, they were not the owners of it. Jesus reiterates this with several parables in the New Testament, and they were also warned that if they lived wickedly, God would take it from them (Deut. 28). The Israelites only had the land under the condition they lived as God’s people,

8 “You shall therefore keep the whole commandment that I command you today, that you may be strong, and go in and take possession of the land that you are going over to possess, 9 and that you may live long in the land that the Lord swore to your fathers to give to them and to their offspring, a land flowing with milk and honey (Deut. 11:8-9).

At many points the Bible emphasizes that those who inhabit the land of Israel were nothing more than stewards of God’s land. But this theology extends far beyond the Israelites. It applied also to the Canaanites and Amorites and other people’s whose land was given to the Hebrews. This teaching in emphasized from Moses to Jesus throughout the Bible.  

These passages allow us to build a theology of dispossession. God owns the land, he grants usage of the land to a particular people or nation, and he expects those people to live up to a certain standard. If they do not, he will take the land from them and give it to someone else. This happens again and again in the Bible, and throughout history.

History also shows us that Christian nations had this same view in the past. A good example comes from Bede’s Ecclesiastical History of England. Bede gives the history of the English people. In fact, Bede, and through him the Church, give us our first complete and written understanding of the English people. He begins his history by reference to the original people of the land, the Britons, who existed there before the Romans. His perspective, as an Anglo-Saxon, of the Britons is scathing. Look what he observes,

“When however, the ravages of the enemy at length ceased, the island began to abound with such plenty of grain as had never been known in any age before; with plenty, luxury increased, and this was immediately attended with all sorts of crimes; in particular, cruelty, hatred of truth, and love of falsehood; insomuch, that if any one among them happened to be milder than the rest, and inclined to truth, all the rest abhorred and persecuted him, as if he had been the enemy of his country. Nor were the laity only guilty of these things, but even our Lord's own flock, and his pastors also, addicting themselves to drunkenness, animosity, litigiousness, contention, envy, and other such like crimes, and casting off the light yoke of Christ. In the meantime, on a sudden, a severe plague fell upon that corrupt generation, which soon destroyed such numbers of them, that the living were scarcely sufficient to bury the dead: yet, those that survived, could not be withdrawn from the spiritual death, which their sins had incurred, either by the death of their friends, or the fear of their own. Whereupon, not long after, a more severe vengeance, for their horrid wickedness, fell upon the sinful nation. They consulted what was to be done, and where they should seek assistance to prevent or repel the cruel and frequent incursions of the northern nations; and they all agreed with their King Vortigern to call over to their aid, from the parts beyond the sea, the Saxon nation; which, as the event still more evidently showed, appears to have been done by the appointment of our Lord Himself, that evil might fall upon them for their wicked deeds.”[i]

Bede here is describing how a wealthy and prosperous people, living at ease, became corrupted and fell into depravity and decadence. And because of this God judged them. But the more frightful punishment he brought was not the plague, but their dispossession from their own lands. God judged the Britons with the invaders that they had allowed to come in, even invited, and handed the land of the Britons to the Angles and the Saxons.

“In short, the fire kindled by the hands of these pagans proved God's just revenge for the crimes of the people; not unlike that which, being once lighted by the Chaldeans, consumed the walls and city of Jerusalem. For the barbarous conquerors acting here in the same manner, or rather the just Judge ordaining that they should so act, they plundered all the neighbouring cities and country, spread the conflagration from the eastern to the western sea, without any opposition, and covered almost every part of the devoted island.”[ii]

The view of Bede was that the Britons had abandoned God, and therefore were dispossessed by the hand of God, through the Anglo-Saxons. This was the standard view of the Church throughout most of Christian history, and it is also the teaching of the Scriptures. But added to this is the idea that the new people in the land stand under the precise same warning. They too must hold to faithfulness in God, otherwise they too will be removed from sovereignty  or even possession in their land. They cannot become proud and arrogant and think they are better than those they dispossessed, because if they do, they will simply face the same fate.  

This theology places us as stewards under the humble authority of God. It encourages us to live well in the land, but also warns us not to let prosperity corrupt us. Whereas a theology of “sorry”, places us in a man centric ideology, which says that people who were previously here are of the land, and anyone else who comes in is just an invader, always, and must feel guilty about this in perpetuity. This is not a biblical theology of land ownership, it is pagan. And much of the church has taken on this way of thinking, and called it “advocating for justice.”

But justice for whom? 

No one today perpetrated the dispossession. We are the descendants of those who came. And all Australians live now in a wonderful land, and can prosper if they set their mind to it. In fact, many Australians are now the combined descendants of the Indigenous and the British settlers, we have been intertwined, and speaking of separate destinies now is no longer a simple issue. We should not be sorry about living in the current Australia, but rather we should be exceedingly thankful. We live in a land blessed with much. We should be thankful that God has allowed us to live in such a country, and thankful for the great abounding plains he has afforded to all Australians. And thankful that we can have a bright future if we so choose.  

But we should also be humble. We should not celebrate the fact that the previous stewards of this land have been dispossessed. We should be watchful, that we do not reject righteous living otherwise we too will be dispossessed. In fact, I would argue that this process has already begun. Australians are losing their land to an increasingly large supply of immigrants from very alien cultures that in many ways are opposed to our Anglo-Saxon way of life. And, at the same time, we see the rise of the concept of giving the land back to the descendants of the older inhabitants of this land, and increasing moves to go further on this issue. Nations that lose their sovereignty often regain it, after sometime, especially when those who took them, start to degenerate in culture. And Australia is seriously degenerating in culture. In fact, I would argue that all the talk about sorry is a false spirituality that has been designed to cloud over how Australians should really think about themselves in this land: as stewards who are here at the pleasure of the King of kings, which, remember, our Constitution acknowledges. 

None of this wipes away the pain and suffering that nations feel about losing their own lands and self rule. It is understandable to feel deep pain about the situation. I have Slavic and English ancestors, and both those peoples were brutally conquered by others at points in their history, especially the Slavs - look up what happened to the Slavic world under the Mongols and various German peoples. It is the way of this world for nations to rise and fall, and then, to rise again in diminished glory. But what a nation must never do, is forget who is our true God, the Lord God, and how we should live in His land. Because if we do forget that, God will discipline us. He has done it consistently throughout history, and I suspect Australians are facing this possibility today. May we repent as a nation and turn to the Lord.

List of References

---

[i] The Venerable Bede. The Ecclesiastical History of the English People (p. 20). Neeland Media LLC. Kindle Edition.

[ii] Ibid, pg 21.

Assimilation

 

Image: Unsplash

Assimilation

If you think about how much you hate corporations seeking to assimilate you to rainbow ideology and other aspects of woke corporate culture, then you can understand how in some way how much some minority groups hate the idea of being forced to assimilate, to give up their culture and to lose their identity.

Just think about.

Once you understand this, it will change your views on many issues, because you'll see how often it is immoral to force others to assimilate, and it's also unworkable not to encourage assimilation, because vastly different cultures living close together will come into conflict - diversity and division come from the same root work after all. So you have a situation where, if you want to make vastly different people live close together, you either have to do what is immoral, or at least unfair, and pressure some of them to some degree to reject their heritage and identity or you have to choose to limit diversity as much as possible so misunderstandings don't happen, and lead to greater conflict.

These lessons have been learnt by peoples throughout history, and eventually every people seeks to reassert their identity and be ruled by their own people and values. It's not Marxism which causes this desire in ethnic minorities in the West for self assertion, it's understanding their own unique identity, and wishing to be sovereign in their identity that does this. We know this because we see it through all of history, how many years were the Israelites in Egypt? 400 years. At what point did they become Egyptians? They did not.

If you want an out of the box argument note this: in Star Trek, the worst bad guys were the Borg, because they wanted assimilation at all costs. And many of the enemies of the Federation saw the Federation the same way, because the Federation essentially did the same thing.

How long will the West play with such issues. My guess, as long as the wealth keeps rolling in, and most people have it good, until the time comes when the good times end, people will ignore all the warning signs of diversity clashes. Because there's enough to go around. But looking at the state of the world, the good times might be ending sooner than we thought.

 

A Terrible Idea

 

Image: Unsplash

For some people on the left side of politics a new tax is the solution to every ill in society. Hospitals are struggling, increase the Medicare levy. Roads are not being managed well, increase taxes somewhere else, or privatise road builds and allow private corporations to tax people for using things we are supposed to have paid for with our taxes in the first place. The housing market or the economy is struggling, so who can we tax? Show me someone to tax and let’s increase tax on them and their neighbour so the government has more money to spend. This is a constant call. The desire to give more and more revenue to a larger and larger state.

And because of this propensity to seek to solve everything with taxes, it is now being suggested we fight inflation with tax.

“Boomers are still spending. We need to hike taxes, not interest rates, to fight inflation…

…A simpler solution few people are talking about is raising taxes. Taxes also zap funds from consumption, and broad-based ones share the burden more widely than interest rates do.

The revenue must not be spent in an inflationary manner. But it could be spent on public interventions to unblock remaining supply bottlenecks and provide targeted subsidies for the vulnerable. Revenue could also be saved for later public projects, particularly in a downturn. Speaking of downturns, by distributing the burden more broadly, we mitigate the risk of sending particularly exposed households and businesses under and inducing a recession.

Presently, a mixture of corporate and consumption tax hikes would be appropriate. The New York Times’ Ezra Klein has called for a “progressive consumption tax” (a graded percentage of income minus expenditure). Income tax hikes aren’t the best tool right now, as wages aren’t a big driver of inflation, and what small contribution they make is wearable for the benefits. Plus, they too hit younger workers harder than asset-owning superannuants due to concessions.”[i]

This is a terrible policy and a terrible idea, the last thing our government needs is to increase revenue through something like a consumption tax (which we already have in this country by the way). But for some people every social ill is solved via a new tax, where money can be funnelled through government departments and spent in the economy at a reduced and inefficient rate to what it originally would have. But part of the reason we are in this inflation dilemma right now is because governments around the world decided to spend lots of money to prop up their economies so that they could do shutdowns. In 2020 alone, the Morrison government spent 320 Billion dollars[ii] and poured it all on an economy where people were then in turn banned from going overseas, so inflation was supercharged in our own nation. The only thing this could achieve is inflation.

Part of the reason we have inflation is because the government takes so much money and then borrows even more and then dumps a large amount of it back on the economy. Every time the government invests in housing to make it more affordable, the cost of houses increases, usually directly by the amount the government has given out for the stimulus. Every time the government dumps large amounts of money into the economy, we end up having an inflation cycle that makes everything more expensive for everyone else, like solar, and other “cheap” energy options for example. I remember this happening with gas cylinders when everyone was encouraged to put them in their cars. Once the government stopped the rebates, the prices of the cylinders came down dramatically. The current “no cost solar” schemes you see all over the place right now will cost you in the thousands for several years. You can have "free energy", as long as you are willing to pay through the nose for it.

The government already has enough of our money. However, there are exceptions to this which could be a wise way to go. We actually need the rich, you don’t want to tax the rich into oblivion, because all that high taxes do is change the behaviour of the wealthy. If taxes get too high they will simply move or move their money somewhere else. So, a good exception to these tax suggestions I would accept, is land taxes which would make it economically unviable for the wealthy to have multiple homes. The goal of such a tax would be to incentivize the wealthy to move their money out of investment homes, if this were coupled with tax breaks and subsidies for the wealthy to reinvest in production in Australia, actual local production, this could have a very positive flow on effect for the economy, pushing more money where it needs to be in production and the resulting jobs, rather than being hoarded in assets like housing and locking the less fortunate out of housing. So, taxes could be used to fight inflation, but they would need to be targeted in wise ways to redirect wealth, not confiscate it.

Also, higher taxes on immigrants and foreigners so that it is easier for Aussies to afford to live in their own country, would be another good idea. The Old Testament law made foreigners pay more in interest to function in the economy of Israel, and this acted as a defacto tariff which preserved the jobs of Israelites far more securely. My wife even suggested an idea that is based on the Scriptures, that family and locals should get the right of refusal on any property that is being sold, to be purchased at a fair price, that cannot be outbid, legally, by strangers, until family have said they will pass on the purchase. There are other ways to deal with these issues, such as the cost of living and housing, without simply giving more money to irresponsibly spending governments.

More direct means need to be taken, rather than giving the government more money to splash back on the economy (as if we can stop them doing that now). Negative gearing should be taken away, and other means which make planting money in the housing market less attractive for the wealthy. The kind of taxes that change behaviour rather than increase the governments pool of money are sensible. As I noted, we don’t want to punish the rich or get rid of them, we want them to be incentivized to put their money into productive capacity, something our current economy disincentivizes. Even better would be laws which place limits on how many homes people can own, a decrease in immigration, debt forgiveness for those who are in the harder parts of financial stress, temporary price fixing economy wide, so that inflation can be arrested - these would need to be short term, and society wide, you can’t just fix the price of rent, if the price of lightbulbs, door handles and plumbing continues to go up, because then landlords will not be able to maintain homes (which I suspect might be the intention of some of those supporting such policies, and this is understandable really, people are sick of the rich hoarding homes).

However, despite all of this, it is good to see people suggesting different policies to solve this crisis. Keep the ideas coming. Share them with the influential, perhaps this crisis can be stopped, and housing can be brough back into people’s reach. My ultimate policy desires in this regard would be debt forgiveness with moratoriums on debt being lent out. If we can’t get this, let’s see what else we can get.  

It is a terrible idea to encourage our government to take just to spend more, but redirecting where the wealthy place their money has potential to achieve some good.

List of references

---

[i] Benjamin Clark, 2023, https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/australia/boomers-are-still-spending-we-need-to-hike-taxes-not-interest-rates-to-fight-inflation/ar-AA1cINNc?ocid=msedgdhp&pc=U531&cvid=9e484b41c83341e68cf0cbe168a26a56&ei=7

[ii] Alan Moran, 2020, https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/04/does-the-morrison-government-have-the-skills-to-lead-us-out-of-the-recession-it-has-created/

How Bad Is it Really? (Full text)

 

Image: Unsplash

You want watch the video of this sermon here.

Introduction

Today I was going to start a series on the book of Jonah, but I have decided instead to delay this by one more week, because I want to share with you one of my devotions from a couple of weeks ago. I am currently reading through the minor prophets. In fact, that is what has inspired the Jonah series as well, and boy do these little books pack a punch. They are one part of the Bible that people are usually least familiar with, but they are a vital part of the Scriptures that we should study deeply and regularly, just like any other part of the Bible.

The reasons they are so powerful are many. But one of them is how they give voice to how many ordinary people felt about the wickedness of the nations around them, and why they want to see God bring his justice and rescue them from evil. Some of the many consistent themes in these books are, “Why are you taking so long to punish the wicked, O Lord?” “Why are the evil continuing to prosper?” “Why is true corruption going unpunished.” These are calls that you can probably relate to.

But if you look really take a look at our society today how bad is it really?

Well, the answer is pretty bad. The state of morality is bad. When drag queens are doing story-time hour for kids, and one the highest rated shows on T.V. is a show like MAFS which makes a mockery of marriage, then you can only say bad. The state of western civilisation is currently bad, in every metric of health, whether economic, social or physical, the west is declining, and economically Aussies are in so much collective debt it is crushing families left, right and centre. The state of higher education is bad, degrees now cost more and are worth less than ever before. The state of the collected wisdom of the leaders of the West is bad, they lurch from one international disaster to another. The state of the average person’s understanding of what is right is bad, up is down and down is up. It reminds me of where Isaiah says, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil.” So, in many ways the state of our society, is in really bad shape.

But there is an aspect in all of this in which I find encouragement. Which you may not have expected me to say. 

What is it you may ask? Well, Micah 7 is going to help us out with that. So, let’s look at what Micah has to say in his concluding chapter of his book, and see what we can learn for our own day. How bad are things really?

Woe Is Me (v.1) - Micah begins, “1 Woe is me! For I have become as when the summer fruit has been gathered, as when the grapes have been gleaned: there is no cluster to eat, no first-ripe fig that my soul desires.” Some people debate over whether it is the prophet crying out here, or the city itself. But I think that is an odd debate, this whole lament fits with the theme of the prophet in his little book, and it is a terribly relatable message.

“Woe is me!” Why does the prophet cry out like this? Because he is in misery. He is tormented within. Like a famer who goes out to their field to reap their harvest, he goes and finds the trees barren, the vines bare. The fruit is non-existent. He does not have even a cluster of grapes to eat, or a ripe fig to satisfy his hunger.

He has been ministering, working hard, trying to lead this people Judah back to righteousness, to warn them about the danger that their sins will bring. But it is not working. In fact, we see in chapter 2 that they were telling him, “‘Do not preach’ – they preach – ‘one should not preach of such things; disgrace will not overtake us.’” (Micah 2:6).

He’s warning them about the dangers of their way of life, and they are complaining back to him that he is being too negative. “Thus they preach” implying that religious leaders, like priests and false prophets, are preaching against him. They are contradicting his message, helping people feel ok about their destructive way of life.

The context – The context of Micah’s ministry gives us a bit of insight into the kind of society he was dealing with. We read in Micah 1:1 that the context which Micah preached in was this, “The word of the Lord that came to Micah of Moresheth in the days of Jotham, Ahaz, and Hezekiah, kings of Judah, which he saw concerning Samaria and Jerusalem.” This means that Micah lived and prophesied during the final days of the kingdom of Samaria and during the ramping up of the decline of Judah. You can read this history in 2 Kings 15-20.

Jotham was the son of Uzziah, and he is said to have been a good king. The book of 2 Kings tells us, 15:34 - “And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that his father Uzziah had done.” So Jotham was a decent leader, however he failed to deal with the high places, “35 Nevertheless, the high places were not removed. The people still sacrificed and made offerings on the high places. He built the upper gate of the house of the Lord.”

So though Jotham was good, he allowed the rot of popular idolatry to go on untouched in his land. This allowed the idolatry of the high places to foster. In the groves of these high places all sorts of abominable practices were tolerated.

Ahaz, reflects this, because he was a wicked king, and a truly evil man, 2 Kings 16:1-4 –

“16 In the seventeenth year of Pekah the son of Remaliah, Ahaz the son of Jotham, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 Ahaz was twenty years old when he began to reign, and he reigned sixteen years in Jerusalem. And he did not do what was right in the eyes of the Lord his God, as his father David had done, 3 but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel. He even burned his son as an offering, according to the despicable practices of the nations whom the Lord drove out before the people of Israel. 4 And he sacrificed and made offerings on the high places and on the hills and under every green tree.”

Jotham may have done what was right, but wickedness was allowed to grow around the nation, and it overcame his son when it became his turn to rule. In fact, Ahaz gave himself over to the evil.

Ahaz burned his son in the fire as an offering. This is the height of evil. The Israelites learned this practice from the evil spirits of the Canaanites, Baal and Asherah. Demons that are still active in this world today.

But there was a ray of hope in this darkness.  

Hezekiah turned this around to some degree. Because of this he is famous for being one of the best kings of Judah. 2 Kings 18:1-6,

“18 In the third year of Hoshea son of Elah, king of Israel, Hezekiah the son of Ahaz, king of Judah, began to reign. 2 He was twenty-five years old when he began to reign, and he reigned twenty-nine years in Jerusalem. His mother's name was Abi the daughter of Zechariah. 3 And he did what was right in the eyes of the Lord, according to all that David his father had done. 4 He removed the high places and broke the pillars and cut down the Asherah. And he broke in pieces the bronze serpent that Moses had made, for until those days the people of Israel had made offerings to it (it was called Nehushtan). 5 He trusted in the Lord, the God of Israel, so that there was none like him among all the kings of Judah after him, nor among those who were before him. 6 For he held fast to the Lord. He did not depart from following him, but kept the commandments that the Lord commanded Moses.”

Hezekiah was so righteous that he is compared favourably to all the kings before him and all the kings after him.

But even this righteous man was not enough to save this flagging nation. His son, Manasseh, would be even worse than Ahaz. Manasseh was a man of deep wickedness and evil, and though he was forgiven for his sins, the abominations committed in his day sealed the destruction of Israel.

Samaria - Remember Micah is also addressing the northern nation of Israel/Samaria in his message and in this day and age when he lived, all the kings of Israel were evil. In fact, Israel was so evil that during Ahaz’s day God had had enough and Israel was defeated by Assyria and dragged off into exile. Those tribes are still unaccounted for today, and likely were spread amongst the populations that became part of the European and Middle Eastern peoples.

The declining state of the nation of Israel would have had a moral effect on the nation of Judah as well. In fact 2 Kings 16:3 tells us this, “but he walked in the way of the kings of Israel.” Israel was the larger, more powerful and more influential country. A nation’s more powerful allies often have a dominant effect on a countries culture. So, the declining state of the nation of Israel would have had a very bad effect on Judah. It is just the way of things.  

So, Micah lived through the declining stages of his beloved nation. A nation he preached to, ministered to, and even saw some faint rays of hope in its leadership. Some commentators even think that he must have lived to see the beginning of Manasseh’s reign. But even if that is not the case, what he says here applies to Israel and also to much of Judah. In Hezekiah’s day Judah was mostly overcome by Assyria.

So, what was the situation like from the inside?

A Broken Nation (vv.2-6) – The situation in Israel and Judah in Micah’s day is pretty desperate. This is a seriously broken nation, and Micah gives us an on the ground take on what it was like. And his summary here makes it incredibly clear that at every level society was falling apart,

“2 The godly has perished from the earth, and there is no one upright among mankind; they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts the other with a net. 3 Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well; the prince and the judge ask for a bribe, and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul; thus they weave it together. 4 The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge. The day of your watchmen, of your punishment, has come; now their confusion is at hand. 5 Put no trust in a neighbour; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms; 6 for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.”

This is a description of a people in serious moral decline. In fact, Micah gives us a picture of real tragedy among his people.  

“The godly have perished from the earth and there is no one upright among mankind;” “Where have all the good men gone?” Is pretty much what he cries. Imagine the shock to everyone in Israel and Judah when they saw the northern kingdom of Samaria wiped from the face of the earth. Not everyone in those nations was wicked, but the righteous and the wicked perished alike in Israel’s destruction.

Because the society is fracturing, corruption is increasing. The righteous were being pushed out of influence in the temple, in the synagogues, in the marketplace, in the palace, and everywhere. Evil was taking hold, and the moderate reforms of Hezekiah were not even enough to turn it all around.

“they all lie in wait for blood, and each hunts the other with a net. 3 Their hands are on what is evil, to do it well;” People are so wicked, and so overcome by evil that they are seeking to tear each other down. People lie in wait for an opportunity to destroy their opponent or enemy or their neighbour. They hatch plans to do evil, and they are diligent about it.

The evil ways the Israelites and Judeans treated each other was legendary. Here is a couple of examples from Micah 2:2, 9, “They covet fields and seize them, and houses, and take them away; they oppress a man and his house, a man and his inheritance…The women of my people you drive out from their delightful houses; from their young children you take away my splendor forever.” They are hoarding up all the land and driving the people to homelessness.

Rather than seeking to be neighbours they seek to take control over their neighbour’s property. This sounds like a very modern issue doesn’t it? In fact, many people are doing this today in Australia.

This scheming, plotting and attacking is the plot device of so many of the modern shows on T.V.. The old day time soaps were all about this. Different families and business opponents seeking to take each other down. But the soap opera method seems to have taken over many shows on T.V. now. They are filled with morally ambiguous people, no real good guys, everyone is a professional at doing evil.

This culture is effecting our society as well. Bonds are breaking among humanity.

“ the prince and the judge ask for a bribe, and the great man utters the evil desire of his soul; thus they weave it together. 4 The best of them is like a brier, the most upright of them a thorn hedge. The day of your watchmen, of your punishment, has come; now their confusion is at hand.”

These nations had become so corrupt that all their best leaders were bought and paid for by the powerful moneyed interests.

The prince, that means the rulers, from the king to the nobles to local tribal chiefs, ask for a bribe to do their job. So does the judge. “they weave it together” means they conspire behind closed doors to do this evil and to profit from it. They make intricate plots, like a web to catch people in evil. Publicly they say they are for justice, behind closed doors they meet in secret rooms to hatch evil plans, they weave a web like spiders.

We also know this because he compares them to briers and thorn hedges. They catch people up in their nets as he said in verse 2.

These people are not just imperfect leaders seeking to do their best. They are generally evil leaders who are intentionally seeking to do evil. How do you tell the difference between an evil leader and a flawed leader?

Simply by judging the fruit of their governance. You don’t need to know all of the details of their life, just what fruit they bare.

Are people getting poorer? Are the poorer being left further and further behind. Do they support evil policies like child sacrifice, a.k.a abortion, Asherah worship, a.k.a. feminism or transgenderism. Do they turn the nation towards evil or good?

It was not just the leaders of Israel and Judah that were bad though.  

“5 Put no trust in a neighbor; have no confidence in a friend; guard the doors of your mouth from her who lies in your arms; 6 for the son treats the father with contempt, the daughter rises up against her mother, the daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; a man's enemies are the men of his own house.”

Relationships all across the nation are fracturing and falling apart.

Neighbour against neighbour. Friend against friend. Everyone’s words are being used against them. The son treats the father poorly. The daughter treats the mother poorly. There is no safe harbour for many people across the nation.

There is no loyalty in the nation, at least it is rare.

We see this increasing in our own day in this nation.  

I sometimes watch some men’s rights activists on YouTube because I think it is important to understand what is happening in the world of secular relationships. I don’t listen all the time, because I find they can sometimes be very winey, and negative. But one thing I do see, is how quickly women out there will turn on their husbands, or how quickly husbands will turn on their wives. Or girlfriends on boyfriends, or boyfriends on girlfriends.

- The state of dating and relationships today is fraught with dangers and betrayals.  

- It really makes me thankful for the wife and family I have.

- It really makes me thankful for the friends and church I have.

- It really makes me thankful for the kind of people around me.

There is a real dog-eat-dog battle going on out there for people, and our nation is not much different to Judah or Israel in the day of Micah.

Micah is describing a nation in a really bad place, a really bad place. It is actually a little bit depressing to think about a nation in such an evil place. And just that little bit more because we can read how he talks about his nation and see so many parallels with our own.

Right on down to the increasing corruption, injustice and homelessness. Young people between ages 24-34 are being driven into homelessness at increasing rates. Your life might be ok right now, but it is getting expensive isn’t it. Just for the basics. How do you think the battlers are doing?

Being a Christian is becoming less and less popular and harder in some contexts.

There is good in our nation still, lots of good, but also lots of real evil. 

Much of the evil that Micah was seeing in his day, we are seeing in our day, and it is growing, not decreasing. But I said at the beginning that this was supposed to be an encouraging sermon, because I see something encouraging in this, so what on earth can that be? There’s two things.

Micah Never Gave Up Hope (vv.7-17) –

“7 But as for me, I will look to the Lord; I will wait for the God of my salvation; my God will hear me. 8 Rejoice not over me, O my enemy; when I fall, I shall rise; when I sit in darkness, the Lord will be a light to me. 9 I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication. 10 Then my enemy will see, and shame will cover her who said to me, “Where is the Lord your God?” My eyes will look upon her; now she will be trampled down like the mire of the streets. 11 A day for the building of your walls! In that day the boundary shall be far extended. 12 In that day they will come to you, from Assyria and the cities of Egypt, and from Egypt to the River, from sea to sea and from mountain to mountain. 13 But the earth will be desolate because of its inhabitants, for the fruit of their deeds. 14 Shepherd your people with your staff, the flock of your inheritance, who dwell alone in a forest in the midst of a garden land; let them graze in Bashan and Gilead as in the days of old. 15 As in the days when you came out of the land of Egypt, I will show them marvelous things. 16 The nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might; they shall lay their hands on their mouths; their ears shall be deaf; 17 they shall lick the dust like a serpent, like the crawling things of the earth; they shall come trembling out of their strongholds; they shall turn in dread to the Lord our God, and they shall be in fear of you.”

No matter how bad it got, and man it did get really bad in Micah’s day, he never gave up his hope in the faithfulness of God.

He knew that he himself was not perfect, and he knew that in some ways God was disciplining him for his sin, “9 I will bear the indignation of the Lord because I have sinned against him, until he pleads my cause and executes judgment for me. He will bring me out to the light; I shall look upon his vindication.” He knew he hadn’t got everything right, but because his heart was set on God, he knew God would vindicate him.

He knew also that God would deal with his enemies, “10 Then my enemy will see, and shame will cover her who said to me, “Where is the Lord your God?” My eyes will look upon her; now she will be trampled down like the mire of the streets.” Some woman, we do not know who, had mocked him, and he knew that when God vindicated his word, she would realize she was wrong. God was on the prophet’s side.

He also knew that God would lift up his people again. He had seen the future and had seen that Zion would be lifted up above the nations.

“15 As in the days when you came out of the land of Egypt, I will show them marvelous things. 16 The nations shall see and be ashamed of all their might; they shall lay their hands on their mouths; their ears shall be deaf; 17 they shall lick the dust like a serpent, like the crawling things of the earth; they shall come trembling out of their strongholds; they shall turn in dread to the Lord our God, and they shall be in fear of you.”

We see this fulfilled in the visions of Zion in Hebrews and Revelation where all who believe in Jesus are a part of the victorious people of God. Micah saw that day.

Micah remained stalwart in a day and age when everything for his people was breaking apart, from their kingdom to their households. He saw the bonds of family, friendship and more breaking apart, and he stayed firm in his principles and beliefs, trusting in God, knowing he was not perfect.

I take encouragement from this, because that is really all we can do too. It is all God requires of us. The rest is on his shoulders not ours. We just need to stand firm, no matter what breaks down around us.

Fear God, and obey his commandments. It is that simple for us.

We Are Reading This Today (vv.18-20) – But what also inspires me from this passage is that we are reading it today. Look what he says in verse 18-20,

“18 Who is a God like you, pardoning iniquity and passing over transgression for the remnant of his inheritance? He does not retain his anger forever, because he delights in steadfast love. 19 He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities underfoot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea. 20 You will show faithfulness to Jacob and steadfast love to Abraham, as you have sworn to our fathers from the days of old.”

Think about how bad things were in Micah’s day. Think about how bad most of the kings were. Most of the prophets were. Most of the priests were. Think about how bad the people were. How every bond felt like it was being shattered, family bonds, national bonds, religious bonds, all of it.

And yet here we are today, reading this account of Micah’s. Because he handed it down to the next generation. And they also handed it down, and so it has continued since it was recorded by him. In an unbroken chain.

It is not as if we just found this in a cave one day and it was recovered. Micah’s testimony was never lost, because it was preserved in the faithful community until this day.

So, no matter how bad it got, it did not get bad enough to expunge the righteous line from this world. And it will continue beyond us as well. And if we remain faithful, we will be a part of that continuance.

And Micah knew this would happen. He trusted God to forgive the sin of his people, and he did. He trusted God to have compassion of his people, and he did. He trusted God to fulfil his promises to the descendants of Abraham and he did, as he has always done, and continues to do till this day,

Micah trusted that God would produce a way for their sins to be forgiven, “19 He will again have compassion on us; he will tread our iniquities underfoot. You will cast all our sins into the depths of the sea.” The Bible does not preach judgement because God wants to condemn people. The Bible preaches judgement so people can be warned, repent and be saved by God. God does not desire that anyone should perish, but that all should repent and be saved.

But the Old Covenant does not have any means of salvation from our sins. The bloods of bulls and goats is not enough. It is only a shadow.  

But God made a way. He did not find a way, he had it pre-planned. He planned that a righteous child would be born by a godly mother, and that child would be both God and man, live a perfect life and then die to take the punishment we deserved.

This boy was Jesus, his mother was Mary and through him God saved the world.

This is not a mother’s day sermon, by any means, as I have already noted. But there is probably few other days as good as this one in the year to remember that God chose a righteous and godly woman to be the cradle through which to bring his saviour into this world. So that this prophecy of Micah could be fulfilled.

Our Lord was born of a virgin, lived a perfect life, and then died a cruel and painful death, so that you and I could be saved.

Micah saw this day coming. He looked forward to it, we look back at it, and together with him, through Jesus, we are part of the righteous family of God. How can this not encourage your faith?

Application – My application to you today is very simple.

-        Don’t get discouraged. Some get to be St Patrick and see a whole nation saved from paganism and are remembered as a hero for that. Some get to be Jeremiah, who see their whole nation destroyed by paganism. Some get to be Paul who used the roads of Rome to bring Rome to Christ. Some get to be St Augustine who saw the collapse around him. The lot is not yours to choose, it is yours to choose to be faithful with your lot.

-        Don’t give up. No matter how tough things get around you, don’t give up on your faith, your family, and your fellowship. Praise God that you are surrounded by other who will stand firm in the Lord and make the best of this. But don’t give up.

     Conclusion – Micah passed his message on because he was faithful and continued in hope. Let’s pray that we too would be faithful, that we would pass this message on, and that we too would continue in hope.