Blue Flower

Manuscript Support for the Bible's Reliability by Ron Rhodes

 

Manuscript Evidence for the New Testament

There are more than 24,000 partial and complete manuscript copies of the New Testament.

These manuscript copies are very ancient and they are available for inspection now.

There are also some 86,000 quotations from the early church fathers and several thousand Lectionaries (church-service books containing Scripture quotations used in the early centuries of Christianity).

Bottom line: the New Testament has an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting its reliability.

 

The Variants in the New Testament Manuscripts Are Minimal

In the many thousands of manuscript copies we possess of the New Testament, scholars have discovered that there are some 150,000 "variants."

This may seem like a staggering figure to the uninformed mind.

But to those who study the issue, the numbers are not so damning as it may initially appear.

Indeed, a look at the hard evidence shows that the New Testament manuscripts are amazingly accurate and trustworthy.

 

To begin, we must emphasize that out of these 150,000 variants, 99 percent hold virtually no significance whatsoever.

Many of these variants simply involve a missing letter in a word; some involve reversing the order of two words (such as "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ"); some may involve the absence of one or more insignificant words.

Really, when all the facts are put on the table, only about 50 of the variants have any real significance - and even then, no doctrine of the Christian faith or any moral commandment is effected by them.

For more than ninety-nine percent of the cases the original text can be reconstructed to a practical certainty.

Even in the few cases where some perplexity remains, this does not impinge on the meaning of Scripture to the point of clouding a tenet of the faith or a mandate of life.

 

Thus, in the Bible as we have it (and as it is conveyed to us through faithful translations) we do have for practical purposes the very Word of God, inasmuch as the manuscripts do convey to us the complete vital truth of the originals.

 

By practicing the science of textual criticism - comparing all the available manuscripts with each other - we can come to an assurance regarding what the original document must have said.

Let us suppose we have five manuscript copies of an original document that no longer exists. Each of the manuscript copies are different. Our goal is to compare the manuscript copies and ascertain what the original must have said. Here are the five copies:

Manuscript #1: Jesus Christ is the Savior of the whole worl.

Manuscript #2: Christ Jesus is the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #3: Jesus Christ s the Savior of the whole world.

Manuscript #4: Jesus Christ is th Savior of the whle world.

Manuscript #5: Jesus Christ is the Savor of the whole wrld.

Could you, by comparing the manuscript copies, ascertain what the original document said with a high degree of certainty that you are correct? Of course you could.

This illustration may be extremely simplistic, but a great majority of the 150,000 variants are solved by the above methodology.

By comparing the various manuscripts, all of which contain very minor differences like the above, it becomes fairly clear what the original must have said.

Most of the manuscript variations concern matters of spelling, word order, tenses, and the like; no single doctrine is affected by them in any way.

We must also emphasize that the sheer volume of manuscripts we possess greatly narrows the margin of doubt regarding what the original biblical document said.

If the number of [manuscripts] increases the number of scribal errors, it increases proportionately the means of correcting such errors, so that the margin of doubt left in the process of recovering the exact original wording is not so large as might be feared; it is in truth remarkably small.

 

The New Testament Versus Other Ancient Books

By comparing the manuscript support for the Bible with manuscript support for other ancient documents and books, it becomes overwhelmingly clear that no other ancient piece of literature can stand up to the Bible. Manuscript support for the Bible is unparalleled!

There are more [New Testament] manuscripts copied with greater accuracy and earlier dating than for any secular classic from antiquity.

Rene Pache adds, "The historical books of antiquity have a documentation infinitely less solid."

Dr. Benjamin Warfield concludes, "If we compare the present state of the text of the New Testament with that of no matter what other ancient work, we must...declare it marvelously exact."

 

Norman Geisler makes several key observations for our consideration:

No other book is even a close second to the Bible on either the number or early dating of the copies. The average secular work from antiquity survives on only a handful of manuscripts; the New Testament boasts thousands.

The average gap between the original composition and the earliest copy is over 1,000 years for other books.

The New Testament, however, has a fragment within one generation from its original composition, whole books within about 100 years from the time of the autograph [original manuscript], most of the New Testament in less than 200 years, and the entire New Testament within 250 years from the date of its completion.

The degree of accuracy of the copies is greater for the New Testament than for other books that can be compared. Most books do not survive with enough manuscripts that make comparison possible.

From this documentary evidence, then, it is clear that the New Testament writings are superior to comparable ancient writings. "The records for the New Testament are vastly more abundant, clearly more ancient, and considerably more accurate in their text."

 

Support for the New Testament from the Church Fathers

As noted at the beginning of this chapter, in addition to the many thousands of New Testament manuscripts, there are over 86,000 quotations of the New Testament in the early church fathers. There are also New Testament quotations in thousands of early church Lectionaries (worship books).

There are enough quotations from the early church fathers that even if we did not have a single copy of the Bible, scholars could still reconstruct all but 11 verses of the entire New Testament from material written within 150 to 200 years from the time of Christ.

 

Manuscript Evidence for the Old Testament

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove the accuracy of the transmission of the Bible.

In fact, in these scrolls discovered at Qumran in 1947, we have Old Testament manuscripts that date about a thousand years earlier (150 B.C.) than the other Old Testament manuscripts then in our possession (which dated to A.D. 900).

The significant thing is that when one compares the two sets of manuscripts, it is clear that they are essentially the same, with very few changes.

The fact that manuscripts separated by a thousand years are essentially the same indicates the incredible accuracy of the Old Testament's manuscript transmission.

 

A full copy of the Book of Isaiah was discovered at Qumran.

Even though the two copies of Isaiah discovered in Qumran Cave 1 near the Dead Sea in 1947 were a thousand years earlier than the oldest dated manuscript previously known (A.D. 980), they proved to be word for word identical with our standard Hebrew Bible in more than 95 percent of the text.

The 5 percent of variation consisted chiefly of obvious slips of the pen and variations in spelling."

 

From manuscript discoveries like the Dead Sea Scrolls, Christians have undeniable evidence that today's Old Testament Scripture, for all practical purposes, is exactly the same as it was when originally inspired by God and recorded in the Bible.

Combine this with the massive amount of manuscript evidence we have for the New Testament, and it is clear that the Christian Bible is a trustworthy and reliable book.

 

The Dead Sea Scrolls prove that the copyists of biblical manuscripts took great care in going about their work.

These copyists knew they were duplicating God's Word, so they went to incredible lengths to prevent error from creeping into their work.

The scribes carefully counted every line, word, syllable, and letter to ensure accuracy.

 

God's Preservation of the Bible

The Westminster Confession declares: "The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and, by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so in all controversies of religion, the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

The Westminster Confession makes a very important point here.

The fact is, the God who had the power and sovereign control to inspire the Scriptures in the first place is surely going to continue to exercise His power and sovereign control in the preservation of Scripture.

 

Actually, God's preservational work is illustrated in the text of the Bible.

By examining how Christ viewed the Old Testament, we see that He had full confidence that the Scriptures He used had been faithfully preserved through the centuries.

Because Christ raised no doubts about the adequacy of the Scripture as His contemporaries knew them, we can safely assume that the first-century text of the Old Testament was a wholly adequate representation of the divine word originally given.

Jesus regarded the extant copies of His day as so approximate to the originals in their message that He appealed to those copies as authoritative.

The respect that Jesus and His apostles held for the extant Old Testament text is, at base, an expression of the confidence in God's providential preservation of the copies and translations as substantially identical with the inspired originals.

Hence, the Bible itself indicates that copies can faithfully reflect the original text and therefore function authoritatively.

Same-sex marriage: religious liberty sacrificed to political ambition


The Australian December 2, 2017


ANGELA SHANAHAN <http://www.theaustralian.com.au/author/Angela+ShanahanColumnistCanberra
 

It is one of the lessons of history that the actions of small-minded men often will bring about great calamities. Sometimes the calamities are the result of the gradual encroachment of control, of the loss of liberty, the loss of the ability to think things through, the triumph of the thought police.

The furore over religious liberty is about more than the loss of a few seats or government. The political landscape is verging on chaos because of the ambition of Malcolm Turnbull and his lefty acolytes in the Liberal Party.

In their desire to prop up a failed government and a hubristic Prime Minister who wants to make his mark on history they have proved, by opposing the amendments for religious liberty in relation to the introduction of same-sex marriage, that they are small political creatures who know no history. They leave conservative voters nowhere to go.

Remember the four freedoms on which US president Franklin Roosevelt based his policy of aid to Britain in the war against the Nazis? They were freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom from want and freedom from fear. Later those freedoms made up the core of the UN’s 1948 Declaration of Human Rights.

Freedom of religion is not a pressing consideration in Australia today because of six self-styled libertarians who have decided to make common ground with the anti-religious Labor and Greens, who care not one jot if a few bishops get hauled before our extrajudicial kangaroo courts, the human rights boards or commissions.

The Prime Minister condescendingly attempted to reassure voters that he was primarily a supporter of freedom of religion. He has been exposed, as John Howard put it, “kicking the can of religious freedom down the road” into the nebulous future.

The five million people who voted against introducing same-sex marriage are not fooled by this. They voted No on principle. They knew this vote was not really about marriage, or — despite Attorney-General George Brandis’s emotional speech — about the dignity of individuals, which is not dependent on the ability to marry.

It was about changing our view of sex, sexual relationships and the natural family structure. No religion, Christian or otherwise, will ever accept that change as part of its teaching on sexual morality. Hence the vote against same-sex marriage in the electorates in western Sydney.

These seats have a high number of people who have a religious affiliation, some of the highest in Australia. But contrary to the propaganda designed to scare and split voters by shamefully raising the spectre of sharia, it is not just a Muslim vote. Only one seat, Blaxland, has a preponderance of Muslims at 29.2 per cent, but they are followed by Catholics at 19.2 per cent. “No religion” makes up just 13.4 per cent. In Fowler, the most multicultural area in NSW, the No vote was 63.7 per cent and Catholics comprise 26.7 per cent, Buddhists 19.8 per cent and Muslims 6.4 per cent.

This demographic has been ignored by everyone, especially the media, which did not bother to cover a rally for the No side at Fairfield showground that attracted 10,000. Media organisations got a big shock after the vote and tried to explain it as the expression of a minority of unassimilated immigrants. It appears the Labor Party and left-leaning Liberals are doing the same.

But these people know what freedom is and what it is not. Many have fled countries where their freedom of thought and action was severely curtailed, and found in Australia under the rule of law a new peaceful coexistence, sometimes with co-religionists of their former persecutors. In these areas Orthodox Christians live near Muslim neighbours, and rather than raising the false prospect of sharia and female genital mutilation, politicians and commentators would do well to realise that a No vote there was an expression of traditional family values and relig­ious and cultural observance. They also would do well to realise it is something shared by many other Australians outside migrant communities.

Commentators who pigeonhole the conservative vote in Australia as a 40 per cent rump of No voters in the same-sex marriage survey are wrong. As Howard understood, traditional family values are important to most Australians. One reflection of this is in the high number of children attending non-government schools, especially religious schools, and that must include many Yes voters. Nearly one-third of Australian children are in the non-government sector, more than one-quarter of those in Catholic schools.

The prospect of lawfare against schools that uphold traditional teaching on marriage and sexual morality is pertinent to the debate.

What will happen when a gay couple who have enrolled their child in a Catholic or other Christian school objects to the teaching on the sacrament of marriage, which has at its centre the reproductive sexual relationship and the statement that you are born of a mother and father? Will the school be taken to the anti-discrimination tribunal, as was Catholic Archbishop of Hobart Julian Porteous? After all, that is what the contentious booklet Don’t Mess with Marriage was about. In Western Australia, using anti-discrimination legislation, the left already is trying to limit the exemptions for religious schools.

It is doubtful that John Stuart Mill would have been impressed by our do-it-yourself libertarians. The essential element of freedom, he said, was “liberty of conscience … liberty of thought”.

Religious liberty is not just about the freedom to observe rubrics. Religion is not about rubrics. It is about a way of thought reflected in a way of life. Any government that opens the door to a suppression of that is not about liberty but about something akin to the diktats of Big Brother.

“FROM RUSSIA WITH LOVE”
– AN ESSAY ON ONE NATION’S EXPERIMENT WITH MARRIAGE THAT DEMONSTRATES WHY VOTING ‘YES’ IS A CHOICE TO DECONSTRUCT FAMILY, MARRIAGE AND THE ROAD TO STATISM…AGAIN

Eleni Arapoglou

 

Are you voting ‘yes’ at the upcoming marriage postal plebiscite in support of gay rights and equality?

Then please reconsider how your vote at its core is really not about either of these issues.

But before going any further, it needs reminding that gay and lesbian civil unions already have the same legal recognition, protections and tax treatmentthat every other family possesses, so what is this plebiscite really all about?

The question you will likely be asked on the postal vote is whether any two peopleare entitled to be married. This does not necessarily mean two men or women because the definition of a person is now redefined in accordance with the recent changes to the Sexual Discrimination Act (2013).

Part of the amendmentsread as follows:

“Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

Gender identity means the gender‑related identity, appearance or mannerisms or other gender‑related characteristics of a person (whether by way of medical intervention or not), with or without regard to the person’s designated sex at birth.

 

Subsection 4(1)

Insert:

Intersex status means the status of having physical, hormonal or genetic features that are:

                     (a) neither wholly female nor wholly male; or

                     (b) a combination of female and male; or

                     (c) neither female nor male.

 

Subsection 4(1) (definition of man)

Repeal the definition.”

 

Effectively the Marriage Act (1961) is the final significant piece of legislation that defines the biological sex of a person as either male or female. A ‘yes’ vote will by default support the legal removal of the last meaningfully defined reference to biologically determined genders.

Consequently, a change in the Marriage Act by incorporating the words ‘any two people’ and using the Sexual Discrimination Act to interpret the meaning of ‘person’, means it is not about gay marriage per se but a ‘marriage as you make it’, which includes transgender, pansexual, intersex and non-binary.

Of course, if we stop for a moment and consider the logical constraints of a genderless marriage society, arguably there are none. What stops any two consenting adult people that are mother and son, father and daughter, sister and brotherfrom their legal right to marry?(Also here).And as polygamousand polyamorousrelationships predate same-sex and transgender marriage these would reasonably have to be the next frontier for marriage-rights.

Incidentally, many are finally waking up to the calamitous law of unintended consequences – other than to marriage—this will have in rendering the achievements in women’s rights pointless and obsolete, with some academicsdaring to speak out. On the back of the IOCofficial endorsement for transgender athletes, schools will also have to deal with girls competing against biological boys identifying as transgender. Confusion also reigns over who qualifies for assistance in women’s domestic violence shelters, welfare assistance, the sharing of public and school bathrooms, indeed every facility and institutionpreviously divided along binary gender lines for the protection, safety and privacy of women will now be discarded as an antiquated idea of the past.

In effect, the Marriage Act becomes the coup d'état for the gender theory advocates and the prize is sexual anarchy—the total autonomy of the human body. We can already see the mindboggling 112 genders displayed on Tumblr but theoretically, since identity is a construct of the mind and will, then this could include an exponential number of genders, as unique as every person on the planet. And when that logic has exhausted itself there is even a combination of gender, race and species, hence the newest terms of transracialandtranspecies,(also here).

Every previous notion of ‘shocking’ is up for grabs. Just read the 2001 article, Heavy Petting,by Professor Peter Singer, co-writer of the 1996 manifesto for the Greens.

You get the idea. Yesterday’s taboo is today’s newest sexual liberation project.

After all, isn’t that what LGBTIQ activist, Masha Gesson plainly admitted to in 2012?The whole issue is not really about marriage, not even same-sex marriage, but the abolition of marriage and consequently the abolition of gender; a world described by C.S. Lewis where, "In a sort of ghastly simplicity we remove the organ and demand the function. We make men without chestsand expect from them virtue and enterprise".  

Before you dismiss all this as scare mongering or hyperbole, consider that transgender marriage is now within reach. What comes next can be readily seen in the nations that have had same-sex marriage legalised and are grappling with these same disturbing issues mentioned earlier.  

There are two points to understand about the evolution of this movement.

First, gender theory was not developed in university Science Departments under a rigid dedication to evidence based studies but within English, Philosophy and Political classes roughly dating back to the late 19th century and early 20th century– Afusionof Freudian social-psychological and Marxist political economic theories.  

It was within academic circles that the struggle began to deconstruct meaning from observable realities, language, rational thinking and traditions. Pilate’s rhetorical question at Jesus’ trial, “What is truth?” is today epitomised in an entire body of scholastic thought referred to by various names including: Critical Theory, cultural Marxism and Postmodernism. Each makes a claim to everything and nothing all at the same time because it has no end point in pursuit of truth that tells us when we’ve arrived.

Secondly, this is not new phenomenon. It’s been tried and tested to varying degrees with devastating social, human and economic consequences, from Russia, Germany and Yugoslavia to Cambodia, North Korea, China and more recentlyVenezuela. A more detailed list is foundhere.

What these examplesunderscore is that equality, discrimination and freedom under Marxist practicehave meanings and outcomes diametrically opposed to those exercised under traditional Western democratic nations.

The vast body of literature and testimonials of those who lived under these crushing regimes helps pull together the common threads between the tactics of the past to our present context.

Both the playbook and end game are now clearly recognizable.

MARRIAGE WITHIN THE RUSSIAN REVOLUTION OF 1917

Russia serves as the best illustration of how the failed Marxist experiment unfolded. The Red Revolution aptly describes the beginnings of this bloodstained uprising in 1917. “Blood? Let blood flow like water!,” was the radicals battle cry.

And nothing of the ‘old guard’ was spared.

The question of how to most effectively and wholly overthrow a society was again found in Karl Marx’s Ten Planks of the Communist Manifesto and the Theses on Feuerbach. First among the priorities was to destroy the traditional family (bourgeoisie).

This was no easy task within a vast geographical expanse like Russia; largely Christian Orthodox, family centered and agrarian.

But only then could the new governing order rise to dominance and become the pseudo ‘Creator, father and provider’ of the people (proletariat).

Exorcising God(the ‘opium of the masses’) from the national psyche began with the decreefor the separation of church and state. But unlike the established Western view of this idea that that constitutionally protected religious freedoms, the communist ideal required the sudden and violent uprooting of Christian influence and presence.

This began with a relentless, slanderous propaganda campaign through the State press, followed with the forced seizure of property and a “systematised programmeof State sponsored pogroms and genocide against the Russian Orthodox church, clergy, monastics and believers – the people of Russia.” The State, not God, would now determine ‘truth’ and reality.

As the grand dream for the new Communist nation was set in a centralised largely industrialised utopia, relocating the farm peasantry would also require another stroke of maniacal maneuvering.

Conditions under the feudalist agrarian system were indeed grueling but the slower changes towardindustrialisationwere also causing social grievances and unrest. Communism positioned itself as the much swifter, unifying force to set the nation on the path to economic equality and social power.

As women represented half the population, they also became an untapped labour source. “The success of a revolution depends on how much women take part in it,” Vladimir Lenin, declared at the Russian conference of workingwomen in 1918.

Lenin was preaching from the writings of Friedrich Engels (Marx’s ally) in The Origin of the Family, Private Property,who proposed placing “whole female sex back into public industry…” by changing the concept of monogamous marriage as “antagonistic” and “oppressive” and traditional family would collapse and society remade.In short, women without husbands and children were more easily ‘socialised’.

With God, religion and moral law tossed aside, the Russian feminist movement commanded by Alexandra Kollontai could implement the necessary changes to ‘separate kitchen from marriage’ and unshackle wives from ‘slavery’.

The entire economic unit of the family and property rights were altered. In its place, workingwomen would have all their domestic obligations cared for by the State.

A series of further decrees abolished the right to inheritance and enabled the forced acquisition of landtransferring property to the government for establishing communal institutions: maternity homes, nurseries, kindergartens, schools, communal dining rooms, laundries, mending centres, etc. Effectively, it also turned womenand particularly children into instruments of the State as public school and party indoctrination transformed them into government spies reporting on anti revolutionary "hate speech".

To keep woman from pinning over abandoned husbands and children, and devoted to the compulsory “bliss” of industrialised paradise, Kollontai also introduced "erotic friendships" to "function as part of communism by forging bonds of comradely solidarity", aptly referred to as "unions of affection and comradeship."

Kollontai later co-drafted the 1918 codein Marriage, the family and guardianship. Among other things it ended the religious sanction of marriage, allowed for civil registration, removed any reference to “illegitimate children” and permitted divorce on demand. Two years later, abortion on demand would follow.

All these factors merged toopen the floodgates for the first 20th century mass sexual revolution—the predecessor to the modern movement for sexual rights, gender fluidity and self-determination.

The social catastrophe this unleashed would haunt Russia for generations, as ‘free love’ sought no exclusivity for sexual relationships, including polygamy and polyamory.

"One must live in Russia today, amid the atmosphere of torment, disgust and disillusionment that pervades sex relations, the chaos, uncertainty and tragedy that hover over the Russian family ... Some men have twenty wives, living a week with one, a month with another. They have children with all of them and these children are thrown on the street for lack of support! (There are three hundred thousand bezprizorni or shelterless children in Russia today, who are literally turned out on the streets. They are one of the greatest social dangers of the present time, because they are developing into professional criminals. More than half of them are drug addicts and sex perverts).”

More detail can be found here.

In just over a decade the wreckage of the revolution was laid bare—abandoned children, crime, declining birth rates, ravaging wars and collapse of the massive welfare system once again left the nation, particularly women, vulnerable impoverished and thrust back into domestic slavery.

A fuller account of this tragic revolutionary experiment can be found hereand here.

However, to close off this turbulent, horrific chapter of Russian history it is important to stress that objections to the 1918 code mentioned earlier were eerily similar for objections to the ‘yes’ vote today.

They included:

(1) That it would abolish marriage;

(2) Destroy the family;

(3) Legalize polygamy and polyandry; and

(4) Would ruin the peasants (the working class).

 

While the Marxist ideologues had suffered terrible set backs, they were far from done. The Russian Communist movement would see many more brutal incarnations, particularly with the merciless rule of Stalin. Interestingly, it was this same tyrant who, out of mere practicality for restoring public order, reinstitutedmonogamous marriage, revoked rights to abortion and divorce on demand.

 

THE MODERN RESURGENCE OF THE RUSSIAN EXPERIMENT

Communism always had global aims (also here)and many of the revolutionary proselytes and sympathisersfound their way into the great learning centresof the West.

But the West’s constitutional principlesprotecting the dual pillars of freedom of speech and religion as “natural rightsendowed by our Creator”, were solid defences against 1917 styled upfront, full-scale revolutions.  

Instead, Italian Communist, Antonio Gramsci, advocated “the long march through the institutions”, (deinstitutionalizationand Cultural Marxism); a deadly game of strategic patience to infiltrate and wear down Western ideological foundations from the inside out.

And when society was sufficiently beaten down morally, socially, militarily, it would at long last mount for a fresh wave of revolutions, and the rise of total State control eventually giving way to a classless, homogeneous Communist people –  a new global society.

Control through chaos was the maxim.

The movement put a particular focus on public education – the surest method for maximum indoctrination. Yesterday’s graduates are today’s teachers, lawyers, doctors, journalists, scientists and politicians—the bureaucratic cultural elites.

The obvious starting point to organize itself into smaller units of influence and give their cause an air of legitimacy as a people’s movement was through workers unions. Through these it attacked every perceivable failure, grievance and economic ill as the fault of capitalism – the bourgeoisie economic system. This is despite the fact that post WWIImany Western nationsgradually adopted the communist/socialist principles of collectivization – universal healthcare, education, welfare, appropriation of private property through increased taxation and centralized banking.

Unions (and their corollary – faux resistance movements, social justice causes and lobby groups– could organize, infiltrate and mount opposition against every institution. This included the powerful education unions that could select which academic ideas to develop into teaching curriculums and place into every school classroom.

Marxist academics embedded the Freud/Marxist/Engels philosophy within the teaching of Critical Theory.As the name suggests, it critically challenges all the main elements of Western culture—Christianity, classical history, capitalism, authority, nuclear family, hierarchy, morality, tradition, sexual mores, patriotism, nationalism, inheritance, ethnocentrism and conservatism.

Philosophy and psychology departments increasingly pushed the need for God to the sidelines, embracing a dominant humanist material worldview.

With philosopher Nietzscheannouncing ‘God is dead’, faith and religion could be sneered at with the same contempt—dismissed as mental crutches for the deluded, enslaved masses, whilst elevating their own greater ability to accept hard cold ‘truth’ as ‘based upon science’.

The materialists would find the scientific raison d'être primarily within the work of Charles Darwin’s Origin of the Species.

Numerous ideological branches sprouted from the Darwinian tree despite serious contentionsto this theoryand attempts to restore discourse of the Christian influence to the originsof modern education including science and philosophy.

This new dogma would be clung as devotedly and sacrosanctas any article of faith or doctrine.

The door was finally flung wide open for every traditional discipline rooted in western ‘unscientific’ ideas to be toppled.

History and literature departments also adopted a dominant materialist position, placing Christianity in the crosshairs. Its former high cultural standing as a force in shaping the emancipation of slavery, preservingRoman and Greek classicsand establishing great learning centres, gradually disappearedeventually becoming mere historical footnotes.

Consequently, these disciplines became centres for secular, Marxist ‘enculturation’. Students would see ‘evidence’ of a class struggle everywhere – overflowing with oppressive ‘racists’, ‘sexists’, ‘bigots’ and ‘imperialists’.

While the genocidal evils spurred on through Social Darwinismthat gave rise to Lenin, Stalin, Zedong, Guevara, Chavez, Castro, Pol Pot and others were either ignored, minimized or idolised as symbols of countercultural resistanceand popular culture. This goes a long way toward explainingthe resurgence of socialism and communism particularly among young adults.

Of course, all ideas have real world consequences.

Social sciences/humanities academics were given a freehand to bring former fringe ideas to the forefront. Social theorist’s such a Foucault rejected the possibility of any ‘absolute’ or ‘transcendental’ conception of truth ‘outside of history’ or any conception of ‘objective’ or ‘necessary’ interests that could ground knowledge, morality or politics.

Social engineers could begin reshaping core social structures into a “society without oppression,” starting with sexual liberation where  moral relativismwould reign supreme.

The new mantras of ‘many truths’, ‘your truth isn’t my truth’, ‘My body, my rights’, ‘As long as I’m not hurting anyone’, immobilized mass movements such as the 1960s Sexual Revolution,advancing romanticised visions of a classless, conflict-free world preoccupied with ‘making love not war’ and heightened by drug experimentation inviting everyone ‘turn on, tune in and drop out’.

It would particularly captivate educated, middle-class youth and in turn mount increasing challenges to the established middle-class morality starting with the bulwark of the social structure—the nuclear family.

Since judicial and governing bodies were also changing to purely secular institutionsimbued with the ideas of situational ethics, in turn their judgments would reflect the newer constructs of personal choice, equality and freedom.

Unsurprisingly, the 1970s saw the restraints of monogamous marriage dealt a severe blow through no-fault divorce laws and, like Lenin’s Russia, abortion rights followed swiftly.

As laws facilitate new societal norms, what becomes legally permissible eventually makes its way into public schools once again beginning with sex education, first pushed locally and then globally through the UN.

The next wave of the sexual liberation would see the merging of feminism with gay and queer rights movements, using the proven strategies and language of the civil rightscauses. As Matthew Parris observes, “all oppressed minorities [today] are basically on the same side, marching together with the striking miners”.

Soon the blurred lines of an ever evolving, polymorphous society would be shifted one step further. Philosopher Judith Butler, a fellow of the Rockefeller Foundation and a proclaimed lesbian, in 1990 published the book, Gender Trouble – Feminism and the Subversion of Identity.

Gender theory gave rise to gender studies, asserting that biological sex is independent of “social gender”. In a confusing narrative, people are both ‘born that way’ and ‘fluid’. Choice is what matters most and gender heternormative stereotypes (assumptions of male and female) removed.

This was the crux for the development of the Safe Schools Program, first spuriouslyintroduced in secondary schools on an anti-bullying platform.

But its aims are inseparable from ‘same-sex’ marriage—a genderless society. 

While the program has comprehensive aims for children of every age, for now it begins at secondary school. It refers to teenagers as as ‘mature minors’ who not only select their pronoun but can also transition to chosen genders without parental consent.

Effectively this is the Marxist principle of family collectivization that makes the child subject to the values and beliefs of government and academics not parents.

Meanwhile, kindergartens are supplied with books such as The Gender Fairy purposefully focusing children’s imaginations during their most vulnerable and uncertain phases of development. Feelings, desires, impressions and inner drives are elevated, celebrated and invented in role-play scenarios to ultimately unlock their preferred gender identities.

At the policy level, this ideology becomes “Gender Mainstreaming” with deregulation of normative sexual standards enforced on every level of society.

Government control over public and private life is massively increased as schools, companies, families, churches, public services all have to be relentlessly reprogrammed and monitored for micro aggressions and discrimination against gender infractions.

Same-Sex marriage is simply the final step of the arduous campaign for Marxist deinstutionalisation. David Blankenhorn puts it this way, "The deep logic of same-sex marriage is clearly consistent with what scholars call deinstitutionalization -- the overturning or weakening of all of the customary forms of marriage, and the dramatic shrinking of marriage's public meaning and institutional authority. Does deinstitutionalization necessarily require gay marriage? Apparently not. For decades heterosexuals have been doing a fine job on that front all by themselves. But gay marriage clearly presupposes and reinforces deinstitutionalization."  

At long last the dreaded tyranny of statism establishes itself from the prearranged chaos to enforce its new orthodoxy.

Or as apologist Ravi Zacharias observes, the transitioning “from a rootless society to a ruthless society”.

I’m reminded of the final scene from the dystopian trilogy, The Hunger Games. The resistance emerges victorious and its chief architect, Plutarch, writes a letter to the protagonist, Katniss Everdeen. "The war is over. We'll enter that sweet period where everyone agrees not to repeat the recent horrors. Of course, we're fickle, stupid beings with poor memories and a gift for self-destruction. Although, who knows? Maybe this time we’ll learn…”

I hope and pray we will.

Illawarra Church Leaders - Marriage Forum Breakfast

The Real Consequences of Redefining Marriage

The team of the Wollongong Prayer Breakfast working together with Australian Heart Ministries and Kingdom Connections Illawarra would like to invite you to attend the Illawarra Church Leaders Marriage Forum Breakfast.

Main speaker: James Parker
Other Speakers:  Catholic Bishop Peter Ingham & Anglican Bishop Peter Heyward

FREE BREAKFAST – Offering Taken

Time: 7AM – 8:30AM Wednesday 27 September 2017
Venue: Living Water Lutheran Church
15 Burelli St Wollongong, NSW 2500

RSVP: 6PM 26 September 2017
Booking Essential: Event Brite URL Still to COME

James Parker is working in a volunteer capacity with the Marriage Coalition. He married an Australian lady nearly ten years ago and they have one child. He originates from the UK and began residing permanently in Australia in 2013.

James made a commitment to Christ in his early 20s. His working life saw him engage with some of the world’s most elite sportspeople and travel extensively across Africa and the Middle East taking the Gospel message of Christ.

James was voted as chair of More Than Gold, one of the world’s largest ecumenical initiatives which saw 16 Christian denominations working and praying together daily over three years to serve the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games. More recently he was engaged with media and communications serving churches across Western Australia. He presently serves as chair of Christians Together in Sport, an ecumenical initiative in Western Australia that gathers churches together to witness to the presence of Christ in sport and to celebrate the gift that sport is to our nation.

James is a founding member of an international Christian network for men. He has taught extensively on same-sex attraction and sexual addiction and has run programmes and seminars across Europe to help foster new groups and organisations to help support men and women in their journey of recovery.

James also spent ten years in London engaging with the unique spiritual journeys of literally hundreds of men and women with differing degrees of same-sex attraction.

As an abuse survivor, and having previously lived and practiced as a gay rights’ activist, James has a passion for the godly restoration of men and women. He is keen to break open to people the radical differences between a long-term committed homosexual and heterosexual relationship, both of which he has lived out. He also exposes how 21st century society has arrived at same-sex "marriage" and where society is most likely heading.
For more information contact the following: Joseph Carolan – 0403 822 534, Darryl Stewart: 0419 290 853, Warwick Marsh: 0418 225 212, Hengki Widjaja 0408 653 445, Simon Mackenzie: 0401 520 237, Jude Hennessy: 0408 236 191