AUSTRALIA'S PRICELESS HERITAGE OF FREEDOM
Chapter 10
By Richard Eason B.Ec. (Hons.) jssc
|
"those who refuse to learn the lessons of
history will be condemned to re-live them." Are today's Australians learning the lessons of
history? Are we aware of the historical reasons why we enjoy freedom while
most people in today's world are enslaved? Or will our ignorance condemn us
or our children to re-live the bitter struggles that produced our peace,
prosperity and freedom? We must stop taking our freedom for granted. It
did not happen by chance. Previous generations earned it. The tranquil order and freedom with which we are
blessed was won inch by painful inch as ordinary people sacrificed their
comfort, their careers and often their lives in the struggle against those
who held great power. The cost has been enormous. Millions who died in war were part of that cost.
Others like the Tolpuddle martyrs were cruelly punished for joining the first
labour unions. Then there were those like William Tyndale, who used his
freedom to translate the Bible into English and was punished by being
strangled and burned at the stake. Today it is not quite so fashionable to burn
people at the stake. Instead, grinning media executioners are employed to
assassinate the reputations of freedom loving people who oppose the
powerful. But the basic issue has not changed: big money,
big government and big religion versus individual freedom. So it is worth investing some time learning the
history that produced our priceless heritage of freedom. A REVIEW OF THE ELEMENTS OF OUR EXISTING HERITAGE Constitutionalism: Until recently the most
distinguishing feature in the development of our freedom was that, unlike
most countries, government power in Australia was limited by an effective
constitution - a widely accepted set of rules that actually limits the power
of kings, politicians, judges, public servants, etc... This precious set of rules took nearly two thousand
years to build. And just like the rules of a cricket match, these more
precious rules should never be changed by the players (i.e. the politicians)
while the game is in progress; and even the selectors (i.e. the voters)
should be very careful about changes. As Sir Winston Churchill once
said: "a thousand years scarce serve to form a state, an hour may
lay it in the dust.". Individuality: Our forefathers adopted this
constitutional approach to government because they believed that each
individual is a unique and very special creation, made in the image of God.
This Christian view of individuality enabled them to see clearly that the
state exists to serve the individual and not vice-versa. So they made rules
to limit the power of government. One practical effect of their belief is that, in
our courts, every individual is held to be innocent until a jury of twelve of
his equals has unanimously accepted that he has been proven guilty under
stringent rules of evidence, with two witnesses being heard separately to
establish every fact under the watchful eye of an independent and impartial
judge. This major protection of our freedom is being undermined daily by
politicians who are passing laws based on a totally different belief about
the individual. Most people do not realize that their beliefs
and the beliefs of their politicians and judges have a major impact on their
freedom or lack of it. For example, neo-Darwinian evolutionists believe
that the individual is just an insignificant fragment of the total population
of a species, all of which came about by accident. Holding such a view makes
it easy to accept domination of the individual by the State. Extreme cruelty, gross injustice and complete
disregard for the life of the individual has characterised regimes which have
accepted this evolutionary approach, such as Hitler's National Socialism and
Stalin's Soviet Socialism and their all too numerous offspring. Glossy magazines and epic TV series portray
evolution as "scientific", but it is actually a religious belief.
It cannot be subjected to the scientific method. No repeatable scientific
experiment has been conceived which, if it had failed, would disprove
evolution. Hence evolution is as much a religious belief as
creation. People who choose to believe evolution should be aware that it is
no more "logical" or "scientific" than creation, nor can
it offer any real escape from our individual responsibility to a personal
creator. What it does do, is to move our attitudes away from compassionate concern
for each individual, toward survival of the fittest and eventually, mass
brutality. The Common Law: One powerful pillar of
individual freedom in Australia is the common law; which is not the statute
law made by Parliament, but the much greater quantity and quality of law made
by judges whose decisions down through the centuries have become legal
precedents. Lord Denning, perhaps the greatest judge of our
time, has written an excellent non-technical book on the common law entitled
The Changing Law. He shows that our common law has been largely based
on the Bible as judges over many generations have sought to provide the real
justice contained in the command: "love your neighbour as
yourself". It is this common law which has given our
British legal system its well deserved reputation for true justice - one of
the keystones of a really free society. Are you surprised that so much of the law that
governs Australia is so deeply rooted in Christianity? If you are surprised
it is because, like most Australians, you have been taught to believe that
government should be "secular" - that is, not based on, and quite
separate from, any religion. The truth is that there is no such thing as a
"secular" nation and there never can be, it is an academic fantasy
because: all nations must have laws; all laws attempt to define right and wrong
(morality); and all morality is a matter of belief (i.e.
religion). So all law is enacted morality. A nation cannot
be "secular" because its laws must be based on someone's beliefs
about morality. One of the most fundamental and crucial
questions facing every nation is this: on whose morality shall we base our
laws? Until recently, our judges based their common
law on the rock of Christian morality and freedom and prosperity prevailed.
Nowadays more and more judges and politicians are changing the moral basis of
our laws without the knowledge or consent of the people of Australia. These "change agents" are basing their
laws on beliefs which caused all the bloodshed of the French revolution and
the modern socialist dictatorships. They call their beliefs "Secular
Humanism" and their Manifesto says it is a non-theistic religion. This deceptive cult is centred solely on human interests
and values. Its morality is based on what Humanists think is the temporal
well-being of man to the exclusion of all belief in God. A typical example of the Secular Humanist
approach to morality can be gauged from the fallible pontifications of the
Report of the 1977 Royal Commission on Human Relationships. The Royal
Commissioners, Justice Elizabeth Evatt, Ms Anne Deveson and Dr Phelix Arnott,
recommended that: "Education courses should reflect a view of
homosexuality as a variation of sexuality" "Selected homosexuals should explain
that the homosexual lifestyle is a valid, positive and healthy
alternative. Obviously the report was written before any
human being was aware of AIDS. But that only serves to show the foolishness
of mere human wisdom by comparison with the eternal Word of God which,
centuries ago, warned the wise against homosexuality. Some of the objectives of Secular Humanism are
to establish: a new economic system (to be run by
international bankers) That the Humanists want one world government is
clear from the Humanist Manifesto which states: "We deplore the division of human
kind on nationalistic grounds. We've reached a turning point in history where
the best option is Their fervour for one world religion has been
expressed this way: "The battle for mankind's future must
be waged and won in the public school class room by teachers who correctly
perceive their role as proseletisers of a new faith. The class room must and
will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; between the
rotting corpse of Christianity on the one hand, and the new faith of humanism
on the other. (Humanist Magazine, January/February 1983) Part of the Humanist strategy is to legislate to
control Christian churches. The Humanist Manifesto states: "Humanism maintains that all associations and
institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent
evaluation, transformation, control and direction of all such
associations and institutions with a view to enhancement of human life
is the purpose and programme of humanism. Certain
religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, their
ecclesiastical methods and communal activities must be reconstituted as
rapidly as experience allows in order to function
effectively in the modern world." These statements are a direct attack on the 80%
or more of Australians who said at the last census that they identified with
some Christian denomination. Perhaps you find it hard to believe that some
politicians, judges, university lecturers and others would deliberately work against
widely held beliefs of our community. Well, the clearest evidence is
available. Professor Manning Clark was quoted as saying of
his friend the late Justice Lionel Murphy: "it had been one of Murphy's aims to dismantle
the Judeo- Christian ethic of Australian society." (page 8, Sydney Morning Herald, 30
October 1986) Murphy's protege, Senator Gareth Evans, former
president of Humanist Society and key advocate of the infamous Bill of
Rights, was himself once quoted as saying: "children want a right to sexual freedom and
education and protection from the influence of
Christianity." (page 11, Sydney Morning Herald, 7 May 1976). It's time for Australians to wake up. We will
experience continual loss of freedom until we have the courage to insist that
our judges, politicians and teachers base all their public duties and
decisions on Biblical morality. We need Voter's Veto immediately to reverse the
legislation of modern atheistic politicians and judges who are undermining
the principles of freedom enshrined in our common law. We also need Voter's
Veto to stop their surreptitious use of UN treaties as a means of replacing
the Christian moral basis of our law with Godless Secular Humanism. The Monarchy: The hereditary Monarchy guards our
freedom not so much by the power that it exercises, but by the power it
denies to others. Big money, big government, big media and big unions, in
their attempts to manipulate the so-called "will of the people",
simply cannot influence who gets the top job. Kings are born into the
position, God chooses them, and this is a bulwark of our freedom. Republican systems select their leader and
determine all their laws on the false idea that "the will of the
people" determines what is right. Throughout history the "will of
the people" has been manipulated by powerful minorities and should no
more be absolutely sovereign than a tyrannical king or other autocrat. Those who manipulate the "will of the
people" in a republic to make or break presidents expect a payoff. They
expect the president to accumulate and use power to quell opponents and
advantage friends. Our Monarchial system has moved in exactly the
opposite direction. Over many centuries, the personal power of kings has been
appropriately regulated and distributed. Apart from infrequent personal
exercise of Reserve Powers, emphasis has been placed on those kingly virtues
such as servanthood and exemplary conduct that were modelled by Christ.
Furthermore, as long as the common law continues
to be developed from the Bible, both Monarch and people are progressively
brought under the authority and blessing of God's Word. It has taken nearly
2,000 years of sacrifice to develop this uniquely Christian approach to
government, yet the Laodicean church of the twentieth century seems oblivious
to its benefits, particularly for the spreading of the gospel. Republican systems lack legal appeal to any
authority higher than the specious and corrupt "will of the
people". From above, those with power manipulate the "will of the
people" driving a republic toward dictatorship. From below, ordinary
people drive a republic toward revolution because they sense that the
"will of the people" is manipulated and become frustrated and
rebellious. Corruption and violence are therefore inevitable
in a republic. History bears testimony to this. "The Revolution was born out of an
admirable desire to shrug off unjust British rule. But as often happens, the
baby was thrown out with the bath water. In this case, the baby was the
essential paternal pulse of colonial life. Instead of correctly
identifying "That may all sound quite liberating,
but it was an idea A destructive spirit of rebellion gave birth to
American "independence". It has plagued the US ever since. The same spirit is invoked today by those who
seek to control the "will of the people" in Australia. They urge us
to become "independent" of the Queen and Great Britain; presumably
so we can become dependent upon them. The last thing Australia needs today is to give
more power to politicians, media barons, bankers and the like, by becoming a
republic. Some ex-Prime Ministers and ex-Premiers make
frequent statements designed, in true Fabian form, to convince us that a
republican Australia is distant but inevitable. This is a blatant attempt at
brainwashing. Australians are overwhelmingly monarchists and likely to remain
so. A recent Prime Minister, indulging the pride
that goes before a fall, proclaimed "I am the head of government, she
(presumably a reference to Her Majesty the Queen) is the head of state."
Such an assertion is quite false and entirely without foundation. According
to Section 61 of Australia's Constitution Act, the Queen is both head of
state and head of government. The recent tendency of several Australian Prime
MInisters to strut around speaking of "my government" is therefore,
pompous, power hungry, propaganda. Those who framed our very successful
Constitution Act did not find it necessary to mention even the existence of a
Prime Minister or a Cabinet. Legally the Monarch is the fountainhead of all
our government authority (delegated power). So everyone who exercises such
authority in Australia draws it from the Monarch. In turn, the Monarch agrees
in the Coronation Service, that all his or her authority is drawn from God
and promises to use it in accordance with the Word of God as expressed in the
Bible. Therefore, to be legitimate, every exercise of
power in our community must be at least consistent with the Bible. This makes
the Lord Jesus Christ the only absolute sovereign in Australia. Churches must begin to show Australians that
this is the true source of our freedom. Too many Christian are caught up in
the spirit of the world system which is trying every trick to destroy this
key aspect of our unique system of government to remove our God given
freedom. Distributed power: One of the most effective
protections of our individual freedom is distribution of power. For example,
as Commander in Chief of our Defence Forces, the Queen has power to order our
soldiers to make war on the moon. Should she wish to succeed however, she
would need to pay and equip the soldiers from public funds which must first
be authorised by Parliament. Because Parliament has this decisive authority
over funds, some power hungry politicians would like us to believe that only
they have the real power and the Queen's powers are purely ceremonial. But
consider the practical consequences of giving command of the Defence Forces
to the Prime Minister. An unscrupulous Prime MInister could then use
soldiers to quell his political opponents. He would have both the numbers in
Parliament to authorise the public money needed, and the power to give orders
to the troops. So we have always insisted that no politician
give orders to defence or similar personnel such as police and we should
continue to do so. Moreover, we should reject the dangerous propaganda that
the Queen's powers, or the powers of her Governor General, are purely
ceremonial. Distribution of power provides checks and
balances that prevent any mortal person or group from holding or exercising
absolute power. Our history has taught us that we should yield to only one
absolute sovereign and that is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is not
just some comforting religious dogma, but an intensely practical statement of
principle that has proven over centuries to be the keystone of our priceless
heritage of freedom. The Parliament: Parliament in Australia consists
of the Queen and both Houses of the Parliament. This is yet another safeguard
- another form of distributed power. The original idea was that the Monarch provided
leadership on the basis of counsel and advice given by the Houses of
Parliament. This accounts with the perfect pattern given by God: "Where there is no leadership the
people fall, but in an abundance Senior members from the Houses of Parliament
became the Monarch's closest counsellors (advisers) known as Ministers.
Ordinary members of the Houses of Parliament were to re-present the multitude
of counsels that come from the community. This is why they are known as
re-presentatives. Re-presentation, not of party dogmas, but of the
multitude of counsels of electors, is a safeguard designed to make Ministers
publicly accountable if they ignore wise counsel in advising the Monarch. The
need for this safeguard is obvious when you understand that the Houses of
Parliament cannot make law. Only the signature of the Queen or her Governor
General makes law. The problem today is not that the Monarch
exercises these vast powers arbitrarily, but that her advisers try to do so,
deluded by their belief that the Queen must do whatever they advise.
Ministers with tame supporters in Parliament frequently hijack the Queen's
powers for their own narrow interests and abuse it as kings of old did,
without proper counsel and consent. Some centuries ago the Houses of Parliament
brought to account kings who wanted unfettered and arbitrary powers. Since
then some politicians have come to believe that the Houses of Parliament
themselves have unfettered power. They claim that the Monarch must accept the
advice of those Ministers who can command a majority in the Lower House, even
if their advise is: against the Monarch's Coronation promises;
or against a majority in the upper House;
or against the will of a majority of
electors. This view is completely unconstitutional in
Australia and differs little from the so-called "divine right of
kings". It is just as dangerous and dictatorial. Justice and individual
freedom are jeopardised today, not by the old "divine right of
kings", but by the new "divine right of politicians". Great parliamentarians of the past had the
courage, commitment and principle needed to shackle the ambitions of power
drunk kings. Today, the major crisis which faces Australia's Houses of
Parliament is whether there are any, let alone enough, politicians of
sufficient calibre to tame the insane ambition of Ministers and their
powerful public service advisers and media backers. Wisely, we have never been prepared to entrust
absolute or unfettered power to any mortal person or assembly in our system.
Even the names Minister (which means servant) and Prime Minister (which means
chief servant) convey something of the spirit it was always intended should
be at the heart of our Parliamentary system. THE HISTORY THAT PRODUCED AUSTRALIA'S HERITAGE
OF FREEDOM Second Century: The first stirrings of our
national approach to individual freedom came at Winchester in 156AD when King
Lucius, established Christianity as the national religion. England did not suddenly become a nation of
Christians, but it did become a Christian nation. Its leaders began to see
that the gospel applied not only to the individual, but also the nation. In
practical ways they started to yield national sovereignty to the King of
Kings. Sixth Century: King Ethelbert of Kent, after his
conversion to Christianity, was probably the first absolute ruler ever to
introduce laws designed to limit his powers of government. This was a
rudimentary form of constitution. Thus the cradle of constitutionalism was a
Christian king's compassion for those he governed. Ninth Century: King Alfred the Great declared
the law of England to be the law of God as expressed in the Bible and decreed
both King and courts of law subject to it and unable to change it. Perceiving the need for a living law which would
grow to cover new circumstances, King Alfred revived the common, or
judge-made, law. Courts had to decide new questions by reference to the Bible
and their decisions became precedents to be followed in later cases unless
overruled by the king's statute law. A council like Parliament examined new
common law precedents and advised the King to overrule any that were
considered un-Scriptural. Also during the ninth century, there emerged a
version of the Coronation service that has been used with few changes ever
since. While such a service cannot guarantee good personal character, the
promises made by each new Monarch reflect the Christian requirement for
leadership by servanthood. Only after thus acknowledging the absolute
sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ, may an heir to the throne become our
Monarch. Eleventh Century: Some aspects of our British
constitutional system were modified by the Normans (French Kings) who did not
understand its Biblical foundations. For example King William II, known as Rufus the
Red, refused to recognize constitutional limitations on his power. Every now
and then a Prime Minister qualifies as a modern day Rufus the Red. Twelfth Century: Even the Norman conquerors were
changed quite rapidly by the eternal principles on which our system is
based. Henry I, successor and brother of Rufus the Red,
agreed to limitations on his power in a document which became known as
Henry's Coronation Charter. Subsequently, Henry himself became known as
"the lion of justice". Later in the twelfth century a Plantagenet king,
Henry II, re-introduced a system of Royal courts to administer the common law
and to ensure that it was effective and indeed common to all England. He also
fostered trial by jury as an instrument of true justice and equity. Thirteenth Century: Until the thirteenth century
strong kings had generally used their power wisely and made England stronger.
But with the advent of England's most popular king, people realized that
kings were now too strong. So on the meadow at Runnymede in 1215AD, King
John, who had considered himself above the law, was brought to account by
Christians and he signed Magna Carta. Based on Henry's Coronation Charter, Magna Carta
(the Great Charter) established very little that was new. Its importance was
that it documented the ancient principle that the king is subject to the
law. Fourteenth Century: England's unique freedom
still depended on the faith of a privileged few who could read the Bible in
Latin. For this reason John Wycliffe became devoted to making the Word of God
widely available to the common man. Wycliffe translated the Bible into English and
sent out men to preach the gospel to the poor. The effect was immediate and
widespread. A revival broke out as many people experienced for themselves the
meaning of John 8:32 which says: "you shall know the truth and the
truth shall make you free." Large numbers of people joined Wycliffe in
denouncing worldly, hypocritical and repressive church officials. The
Reformation had begun. Wycliffe's impact went well beyond England
reaching as far as Bohemia, which is now part of modern Czechoslovakia.
There his writings influenced John Huss, Dean of Philosophy and Rector at the
University of Prague. Huss' faith and preaching founded what later became the
Moravian church, one of the most dynamic missionary churches the world has
ever seen. For believing that the Bible is the supreme
authority for Christians, and for denouncing the practice of the Papacy to
teach what is contrary to it, Huss was burned at the stake in 1415AD.
Nevertheless, by the 1500s most inhabitants of Bohemia were members of
Hussite churches and Bohemia had achieved a surprising degree of political
freedom. In an age of powerful kings the Bohemians set up
constitutional government with the king's power carefully defined and limited
and considerable power in the hands of a representative assembly. They
demonstrated once again that only the Christian gospel has the power to
ignite within individuals the inner freedom and compassionate sense of
justice which produce lasting political freedom. Sixteenth Century: The effects of Wycliffe and
Huss reverberated around Europe until they culminated in the sixteenth
century reformation in Europe begun by Martin Luther who wrote: "If John Huss was a heretic, then
there is not a single Christian Unfortunately for its people, Europe experienced
constant armed opposition in Europe to the Bible based faith that produces
real freedom. Even today in most European countries you are assumed guilty
until you prove yourself innocent. Europe was thus held back from the
political freedom which developed in the more remote and geographically
protected island of Britain. But Britain was protected by more than
geography. When King Phillip II of Spain heard of the
astonishing defeat of the Spanish Armade by the English fleet he
remarked: "I sent my ships to fight against
men, not against the winds and To commemorate the British victory, Queen
Elizabeth I had a medal struck which acknowledged the hand of God by
stating: "God blew and they were
scattered." So both victor and vanquished admitted that God
was protecting the island nation that was, as a nation, yielding to the Word
of God. In the twentieth century we have seen similar
deliverance granted to Great Britain by the grace of God. Three outstanding
examples are the Angels of Mons in World War I and the miracles of Dunkirk
and the Battle of Britain in World War II. Notwithstanding the armed opposition that Bible
based faith was encountering on the continent of Europe, Luther, Calvin and
other great England's Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke,
insisted that neither the King nor Parliament were supreme and if either
enacted legislation contrary to the revealed laws of God, such legislation is
wrong, and God's law should prevail. He was sacked for his wisdom by James I,
but his work still benefits us today. Seventeenth Century: James I was the first of
the Stuarts, all of whom believed in the so-called "divine right of
kings". Because the Bible states that the king is appointed by God, the
Stuarts quite wrongly assumed that this gave them absolute power. Coke earned the wrath of the king by bringing
this wrong assumption into public focus. He had put his finger on the one
question which, more than any other, affects individual freedom, namely: who
is the absolute Sovereign of the nation. If the answer is a man, or any group
of men, history shows that tyranny will eventually ensue; but if the answer
is that the nation yields absolute authority only to the Lord Jesus Christ,
then the dignity and freedom of each individual will be guaranteed. Insistence on the "divine right of
kings" eventually brought about the demise of the Stuart dynasty.
Charles I, son of James I, lost his head for it and provoked the English
civil war. Later, in the Glorious (or Bloodless) Revolution of 1688, James II
lost his Crown for his unilateral attempt to reimpose Roman Catholicism to
England - a move which caused Parliament to pass the English Bill of Rights
(1689), declare the throne vacant and offer it to William and Mary of
Orange. Ironically, while Parliament was resolving the
momentous question of the "divine right of kings", the seeds of the
"divine right of politicians" were planted within Parliament
itself. On 4 January 1649, after the execution of Charles I, Parliament
resolved that: "...the people are, under God, the
original of all just power... the Commons of England in Parliament assembled,
being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power in this
nation." Was this yet another claim by men to absolute sovereignty?
No it was not, unless two little words are omitted from their claim. All that was now needed for the emergence of
tyranny by Parliament itself was to overlook the two words "under
God". Such a tyranny could be disguised as "democratic"
if: most people came to accept that a
Parliament fairly elected has no limits on its powers, and if major political parties made agreements
(such as bipartisan policies) that restrict freedom of choice. However, such a situation did not arise in the
seventeenth century. What did happen in the seventeenth century was that the
value of constitutional law became widely accepted. Another significant contribution to our freedom
was the Habeus Corpus Act of 1679. Under this Act, no one could be held in
prison without charges being laid and swiftly brought before a court. Crucial though these legal developments were, no
analysis of our heritage of freedom from the seventeenth century would be
complete without a mention of Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who arguably
contributed more to science, and hence our present well being, than any other
man in history. Newton was an outstanding Christian. His Biblical view of the
world and understanding of God as a creator of order and truth, prepared him
to expect and discover order in the world around him, and find a cause for
each effect. Newton was described by the French mathematician Legrange as
"the greatest genius that ever existed". Eighteenth Century: In chilling contrast to our
British heritage of Bible based freedom, the French, whose leaders had
rejected God in favour of secular humanism, endured the destructive anguish
and pain of the French revolution. A sinister coalition of occultic priests
and despotic financiers incited base instincts in the ordinary people who
murdered a complete generation of France's leadership. Having been promised "liberty, equality,
fraternity", the French instead got Napoleon who slapped them into
armies and marched them throughout Europe. It is a miracle that a similar revolution did
not occur in Great Britain. The same harsh social conditions which prevailed
for the majority before the revolution in France also prevailed in
England, but whereas the French heeded the atheistic scholars of the
"enlightenment" and got bloodshed, the English heeded the Word of
God through John Wesley and not only averted disaster, but enjoyed a season
of national greatness and prosperity such as the world had never before
seen. This contrast between Great Britain and France
is a contrast between the results of Bible based faith and Secular Humanism.
It is a contrast which provides cogent evidence for the truth of the
Scripture which says: "Righteousness exalts a nation, but
sin is a reproach to any John Wesley (1703-1791) was inspired, courageous
and dedicated. Riots, death threats, bad weather, long absences from home,
criticism and opposition from Church of England clerics who refused to
believe the Bible: nothing stopped Wesley and his followers as God worked
with them to give large numbers of English people a new spirit, a new loving
nature within and a new start in life. English society was rapidly transformed as the
reality of Jesus Christ alive within individuals touched a nation.
Prostitutes vanished from the streets. A Christian parliamentarian, William
Wilberforce MP, after reading a pamphlet by Wesley against the degrading
practice of slavery, was inspired by God to resist and eventually abolish slavery
throughout most of the world. Another Wesleyan Christian, Hannah Ball, started
a school on a Sunday to educate the children of the poor in reading, writing
and arithmetic. This compassionate Christian vision was taken up by Lord
Robert Raikes of Gloucester who spent his very considerable fortune setting
up hundreds of these "Sunday schools". They became so popular that
government was eventually induced to provide mass education. For the first time in the world's history all
people, not just the privileged classes, were to receive education. As with
so many other major reforms it originated in the compassion and sense of
justice of a few Christians. Unfortunately once again, parallel developments
threatened to deprive ordinary people of the freedom offered by education.
The problems arose because government got into the field of education which
is not part of God's charter to government. From the Biblical perspective education is the
responsibility of the church and the family - the church as God's channel of
truth and the family as God's channel of provision. So government education
can be provided only by excessive taxation of families and at grave risk of
government control of truth! We are now reaping the consequences of thinking
that we know better than the Word of God. Compulsory government controlled
education has gradually been hijacked to spread into Christian homes the
Godless Secular Humanism that caused the French and other revolutions. But it
is difficult to escape to private schools because it is hard to afford fees
in addition to the taxes which must be paid for government schools whether or
not your children attend them. Nineteenth Century: This slow subversion by
"education" was facilitated by yet another claim of absolute sovereignty.
A nineteenth century lawyer, A.V. Dicey,
asserted that Parliament is absolutely sovereign. Most modern party
politicians are possessed by his doctrine. Some commentators have even gone so far as to
suggest that Parliament is so sovereign that if it passes a law that all blue
eyed babies must be killed at birth, the law though evil is just and must be
obeyed! Such is the insane but inevitable tyranny that follows when men
forsake reverent submission to the King of Kings. He alone can be trusted
with absolute sovereignty. As the industrial revolution progressed in the
nineteenth century the working conditions of ordinary people became dangerous
and dehumanising. Christian men met in secret on the moors of England to
organise reform. When they eventually emerged in public as labour unions they
carried placards bearing the Scripture: "...the labourer deserves his
wages..." (Luke 10:7) Some of the early unionists, such as the
Tolpuddle martyrs, were cruelly punished. Even the juveniles were deported to
Australia. Trade unions today have obviously drifted a long
way from their Christian roots. Yet the opportunity exists to lead unions
back. Unionists and private employers alike are being
crushed by high debt, soaring interest rates and excessive taxation. The
primary cause is our unjust financial system which is crying out for a
compassionate Biblical solution and people who can explain that solution to
the unions. Unions led by Christians who understand issues
could change the face of Australia very rapidly. Twentieth Century: In the twentieth century,
32.7 million people have been killed in war and a further 97 million have
been killed by their own government. Socialism has been responsible for most of this
mass slaughter, whether through Hitler's National Socialism, or Stalin's
Soviet Socialism, or one of their many modern descendants. This fact often irritates those who call
themselves "democratic socialists", people who sincerely believe
that the policies of socialism will induce justice. Such people fail to
understand that all policy comes out of philosophy and all brands of
socialism are based on two key atheistic philosophies which must in the long
run, despite the best intentions, bring dictatorship. These two philosophies are evolution and the
dialectic. We have already shown that faith in evolution
destroys the sanctity of the individual, regarding him or her as an
insignificant fragment of the total population, a mere genetic accident.
Moreover, the faith of evolutionists in the survival of the fittest promotes
acceptance of the kind of cruelty, mass brutality and injustice that was seen
when the rulers of China slaughtered their own students on Tienanmin Square
in 1989. The dialectic is a diabolical concept of
"truth" invented by the philosopher Hegel. He asserted that thesis
and antithesis (e.g. good and evil) are accompanied by synthesis (some blend
of both good and evil) from which "truth" is supposed to emerge.
The end result is relative morality in which the end justifies the means - a
formula for lies, brutality and injustice. Irrespective of any policy changes that might
appear to be occurring in the USSR, the underlying atheistic philosophies
remain. Indeed these Godless foundations are being strengthened by a world
wide alliance between big money, big government and big religion based on
Secular Humanism. This alliance is a dagger pointed at the heart
of our British Bible based system of government,. It is an alliance with the
common cause of submerging Christian civilisation in multi-culturalism and
"regional" approaches to one world government. This is why so many of our politicians are
betraying our Christian heritage by giving away our political sovereignty to
the UN and our economic sovereignty to international banks. A glorious alternative to this counterfeit
exists. It is an alternative which has proved throughout history to be the
only source of lasting peace and fredom, because it brings true love, peace
and freedom to each individual. Obviously, this alternative is the good news
that God will impart the benefits of His eternal Kingdom to all individuals,
families, churches and nations that yield to the Lord Jesus Christ as their
only absolute sovereign. The clear verdict of history is that individual
freedom endures only where absolute sovereignty is not yielded to a king, a
law, a Parliament, or even "the will of the people", but it is
yielded solely to the King of Kings and the Prince of Peace, the Lord Jesus
Christ Himself. |