W W W W  World Wide Web Witness Inc.  Home Page   Contents Page for Volume  What is New

It is unwise to specialise to the point of obliterating perspective. We shall not limit ourselves here to ONE such case, but review THREE. First then...
 
 

We in Australia hear a nauseating amount about the 'stolen generation'. It is nauseating NOT because wrong may indeed not have been done; NOT because it is not good to seek to help those wronged; NOT because the weak need not be protected, since Darwin was always a hoax, and the Biblical canons on this subject are exceptionally strong. In fact, WE who are strong, says Paul, OUGHT to help those who are weak (Romans 15). THAT is what Christ did, even dying and giving His body in a sacrifice which became the ransom for all those who receive it (Matthew 20:28, John 1:12-14), and who, in receiving it, receive Him by faith and NOT some OTHER Christ, by some sort of theological hallucination sharing the name. Wait for it! In a little you will see the relevance of this.

There are in fact THREE stolen generation questions to look at today. Let us start with the first contender, the aboriginal one.

	1. As John Howard has pointed out, it is NOT a generation that is in view. The abstracted, removed children were, he suggested, 10% and not a generation. The Advertiser, in its endless continuity of adverse propaganda by cartoon, like a moral mentor gone sour,  represented this from Howard as if it were some sort of barbarism for one to be accurate. Whether it is 10% or not, statistics MAY or may not be available to show. That it is NOT a generation is sure, despite all propaganda, however much repeated as in the noted cartoon in its moralising, or immoralising, whatever the case.
	2. Further, as has been pointed out, MANY white children have been removed from families. Statistics were given in one edition of the Advertiser, in a letter; but whether these too are accurate, may not be ascertainable. Nevertheless, there would seem some possibility that the correct statistics at last in this,  could be found. It was alleged that the total has been, in Australian history, in multiplied thousands, for the WHITE race.
	3. Does this mean that morality lapses at a colour bar ? or that these were at least sometimes, and presumably often, and one would hope, in all cases in intention at least, done because there was a gross abuse of the children concerned, and removal was the only remedy discerned ?
	4. If this was so with many of the white children, is it certain that it was NEVER so with the children whose skin colour differed ?
	5. If it is not certain, and if it is in fact certain that in some cases - notably the ONE WHERE THE RECENT JUDGMENT was adverse, because a thumb print was found on a document of a mother GRANTING liberty to remove the child or children - the parent licensed the removal, then why are facts so despised ? Is it then not a question of finding them out... rather than speaking loudly or rudely, with a sort of grand swagger of condemnation reflecting on a whole church or generation! Are facts irrelevant because the UN or the Advertiser or some other body presents  IMPLICATIONS or insinuations or aspirations of a certain kind, without them ? or without establishing what would be relevant for the statements made or implied, indeed, not only relevant, but SUFFICIENT!
	6. If then SOME children of whiter and some of darker skins were removed, on moral grounds    i) that either sexual abuse occurred or appeared minatory, or    ii) that moral lapses were noted, involving gross lack of care and danger to health and so on,    or else    iii) in answer to request from parent because of perceived inability to bring them up as desired,    or desire for education or other reason: is it to be by propaganda ASSUMED that this is never or only most rarely,  the case! WHY ? why precisely ...
	7.  If however it be urged that only a very small number of white skinned children COULD have been 'incorrectly' removed, how is this known ? IF it is known, well, what are the statistics, and what is the basis ? If it be likewise urged that certainly a LARGE percentage of the aboriginal children so taken were removed WITHOUT due regard for the points in 6 above, then assuredly it would be fitting for reasons soon to be noted, to SHOW what is the evidence for this. Certainly in the recent lost judgment at law,  just noted, there was assertion that  such evidence was not presented, and moreover a parental permission was alleged on the basis of a thumb-print on a document.
	8. So far we have seen that there is a fraction of a fraction of removed children who may have been wrongly removed, and that this fraction of a fraction of a wrongly removed generation is in question. They may have been removed because it was FELT that they should be brought up by white persons. In that case, one wonders why they were SELECTED ? by lottery ? or was there some apparent REASON why they should be so selected ? Were they removed because here and there someone thought that NO aboriginal could POSSIBLY bring up children responsibly, or for some other reason ? If so, why stop there ?  Was it uniformly against the strong protests of the parents ? and if not, why not ? Was it SOMETIMES against them ? then in that case there IS a case, PROVIDED that the lack of care and education and so on, was  NOT a parental lapse, and that due understanding was shown for possibly apt and adequate other education and care, misjudged, that the parents were in fact supplying.
	9. So far we have noted some facts. A fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a generation were removed. This of course does not remove the significance of the matter, its importance, the need for those adversely affected, or the sensibility to be shown in such cases. It does however remind us to deal with facts. It was not like*1 the Jewish case with Hitler (cf. Acme: Alpha and Omega: Jesus Christ Ch. 3, p. 34), where the obvious intention was adverse, quite explicitly, to a whole generation, and that including parents as well. If the Jews were to speak of a stolen generation, then at least, if this was rather an exaggeration, it would be a plausible one. ENORMOUS efforts WERE made to REMOVE THEM ALL. If Europe were the place in view, then indeed the approximation would not be too bad at all. It was a titanic destructive effort, murderous, racial and hateful. A stolen generation ? very nearly in that case. It is not exaggeration or propaganda, but ghoulish fact. THAT is the Jewish position, for Europe apart. Even then, of course, there were still many in Europe who sought actively at high risk to deliver the Jews; so that it rather nearer to being the case for Germany. But WAS this the case with the aborigines in Australia ? Was an enormous effort made to exterminate them ? Were they being murdered as an aim ? It would not appear plausible even in propaganda city, to allege anything in the most remote degree in this direction. We have noted therefore that it is a question of a fraction of a generation; and that within this fraction ACTUALLY removed, there are some who were removed (1) for reasons of preventing abuse and neglect.  Some others were removed (2) with parental permission, perhaps with the hope that the children might reach to such heights as in fact, some of them HAVE reached, who are now perhaps in certain cases, activists... These are TWO cases where the term 'stolen' is not even an animated distortion. It is a lie. Thus we have a fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a wrongly removed generation to which the reference is being made.
	10. But is this a way to refer to it ? Is it not then the case that such and such a percentage of aborigines were removed from their families a) without parental consent and b) without any ground in parental neglect or abuse in any extreme category ? Why not then identify these individuals and see what should be done for them ?
	11. However even at this, the case is not quite so simple. The evidence is difficult to adduce in some cases, the recent one being an illustration. It is EASY to SAY that you were wrongly removed, when in fact you are seeing your own parents as WRONGLY having let you go, and making perhaps excuses for their doing it, and then blaming someone ELSE! It would be a task indeed to identify as is normal in law, WHO IN FACT is shown by EVIDENCE to have been illegitimately removed by duress and wrong.
	12. No doubt some cases could be demonstrated, and sympathy is certainly in order and care. Where and if such things were done recklessly and by mere prejudice without moral ground, the answer should be found and care taken as is proper for such intrusion, depending on the case.
	13. However, there are OTHER PARTIES than aboriginal children and parents in view. WHAT of those who removed the children, a) by STATE decision and b) in terms of some sort of church initiatives, allowed by the State, or actively encouraged. These surely would need EVIDENTIAL review, to see what the PURPOSES were. The author is not by speciality, an historian; but it would not seem an insuperable task to review the evidence and see whether some parties said something like this: THESE are aborigines and hence not good enough to bring up children, and therefore we shall in some wholesale way remove children on racial or cultural grounds alone, irrespective of any moral failures in sex or abuse by violence or extreme neglect.

If this was being said, it was intrusive in the extreme, and should be dealt with aptly. EVEN IF the parties MEANT well, in such a case, it was still intrusive.

	14. If however the evidence were to show NO such cases, or that these occurred only in a very limited FRACTION, then that fraction could be estimated or should at least be borne in mind, whether it be 5% or whatever. It would stop short, of course, of anything like a generation, since one was NOT in fact removed, and since SOME of it was removed for normal grounds applicable apart from race.
	15. But DID churches so act ? If this church or that church did so act, and so state and plan, then with the evidence of history duly found and presented, it would be possible to admonish such purposes and to show that this was going far too far. It would represent not necessarily a racial, but a cultural invasion.

It would be grossly improper, however, and a THING OF SHAME if all churches involved were SIMPLY ASSUMED to have had such policies, AND to have practised them. It would be the sort of thing which might activate some people to walk in a group across Sydney Harbour Bridge, and to have red noses on cars and the like. How awful! Defaming churches without evidence on the basis of newspaper propaganda, cultural quirks and the like, when in fact they meant and no doubt in some cases, DID well and without governmental pay, gave of their substance to HELP.

Surely propaganda could and SHOULD stop short of defaming some people and churches because it is modish to do so. IF some did wrong, then AFTER carefully sifted evidence, let the case, body by body, organisation by organisation, be shown and dealt with aptly. IF NOT, then it would be better not to degrade, caricature, effect travesties, distort, call evil good and good evil, but to do what is more normally done: check the facts and act judiciously and with understanding on their basis.

16. Is this too much to ask ? If so, then we are in this nation in danger of a propaganda quasi-moral machine gun slander situation, equipped with glitz as an after-thought. In fact, in the Advertiser, August 19, 2000, p. 17 we see a report of words from the aboriginal affairs Minister (political variety), who, it says 'pushed the blame for the stolen generation on to states and churches, saying they should make amends for separating children from their parents.' Not the Commonwealth but States and Churches should, he is there reported to have declared, bear most of the blame.

The 'practice of child separation was administered by the states, not the Commonwealth', he is actually reported to have stated. It was a practice ? what sort of a practice, with what definitive conditions ? It is not a practice but the STYLE and SUBSTANCE, the PRINCIPLES and PERFORMANCE of it which is to the point. Doctors make a practice of amputating legs in many cases, but this is not per se immoral or a subject for large tears. They have an objective. It is normally agreed to by the patient, indeed. If the legs were removed because they merely had a prejudice that some races or cultures did not know how to look after them, and they would be better in some sort of organ morgue, well, that could be considered on its merits. It would indeed be a grotesque thing. If however this were not their aim, to look back from some future point and condemn them as if it were, would seem decidedly odd. Moreover, EVEN IF some such cases were to be found, would the whole medical profession be retrospectively judged ?

It is known that occasionally a physical leg IS removed by medical ERROR. Even that, appalling as it certainly is, is NOT the same as intending it on cultural grounds. Generalisations can be very morally stabilising for the those who condemn, and perhaps used unconsciously by some as a stimulant; but it is at least pertinent to consider justice. It is even more so when you are actually TALKING about it! Thus the Minister who is alleged so to have spoken might perhaps be in possession of certain evidence on the basis of which he made the statements reported (if the report be correct).

On the other side, we read the other legal style report: "Largely because of lack of evidence, Justice O'Loughlin last week rejected a compensation claim by Aborigines... taken from their families" we read. The evidence ? Lacking. One is almost wondering if the thought occurs outside the law court in this instance! But perhaps there is a large bulk of it, incriminating this or that church in terms of arrant racism ? If so, let it be brought forward and such racism discovered; but let not the nation gobble the undigested food of mere assertion.
 

17. All this does NOTHING to reduce the guilt of any who DID remove aborigines without parental consent and without grounds in child care; and NOTHING to reduce the sympathy and concern for any on whom this extreme case was practised. It DOES act to PROTECT those persons and organisations which in the slather of words, are merely being misrepresented. After all, RACISM is not in one direction only. It arises when people JUST BECAUSE OF RACE AS SUCH bring in charges, remove opportunities and so on; and this includes opportunities for justice for those who are falsely accused by guilt association, without much apparent care or concern, as if skin colour were a substitute for morals, if not in one direction, then in the other. Justice is not limited to one race; or to one issue.  It is always best to avoid racism, positive or as here perhaps, negative.

That is case one. The fraction of a fraction of a fraction of a mis-removed series of persons.
It is important in two ways: to be understood clearly, and then, when facts are known, to be treated judiciously and kindly.

The second case ? It is of course the GRABBED GENERATION.
 
 

This quite different topic, but one of some basic similarities for all that, as reviewed in Acme, Alpha and Omega: Jesus Christ, Ch. 3. Indeed on pp. 36ff., we deal with the abusive Declaration of Child Rights of the UN (cf. SMR pp. 750Aff., with The Other News Appendix I), which removes children from the proper and due supervisory action of parents in certain cases, and the far worse action of the SA Government, which over repeated protest has done something akin to the maximum in actually USING parents' tax revenue to help overcome parental wishes in many cases. THAT certainly is a refinement of cruelty.

The case, documented in detail for S.A. in That Magnificent Rock - TMR - Ch. 8, and detailed also in the above reference, is assuredly horrendous. It is intrusive, abusive and discriminatory; it is authoritarian, patronising and inept; it is unrepented of, pursued with persistence, and in the many exposures by the author and others, NEVER changed, never varied, though one Shadow Minister did indicate enough concern to ask for a re-writing of the aggressive document which made far more than a cultural assault on a group, but in fact a specifically RELIGIOUS assault on a whole element of the population.

What does it matter if it was not on the basis of skin, but culture ? and worse, if the culture itself is merely a misnomer, for that is an illicit presuppositional putsch, in itself. It is a religion which is being assaulted, and one which despises the assertion that it is a cultural product. This is as shown in detail, for example,  in The Shadow of a Mighty Rock (SMR) Ch. 4, pp. 374ff., where in addition it is indicated that the whole concept of using a model which REQUIRES access to absolute truth, in order meaningfully to be asserted, but DENIES it as a presupposition, is self-contradictory.

Hence what CANNOT be true is used as a requirement basis in an attack on a religion as if it were untrue and hence to be assailed and assaulted. Do not misunderstand. The program, the SUBSTANTIALLY GENERATION GRABBING assault in question does not make the religion its motif, to attack it; but the attack is on its Biblical contentions. However, it is quite fair to add this: this governmental assault DOES ALSO assault the very nature of ALL religion in urbane, irrational and intrusive manners, and THEREFORE is assaulting quite decisively ANY ONE religion which has God for speaker and His word as written. On such a delusive, intrusive and abusive entry, this government putsch proceeds to this day (one almost feels as if reading about the Inquisition, but here the cruelty is mental).

THIS ? The student generation adversely affected ? It is not a stolen generation, for perhaps not much more than half the generation are invaded in this way. Still, that, it is a substantial thing, far beyond anything attributed so far in the aboriginal case; and there is very little protest!

Is the State then asleep ?

This is moreover, a case where the theft is financed by some of the very parents whose children are thus abused, taken from their religion and insidiously, invidiously, pretentiously, irrationally indoctrinated in terms of a formal DOCUMENT, the EVIDENCE for which is provided in That Magnificent Rock, Ch.8!

Has the nation forgotten itself, that it be bemused with certain mis-stated evils of the past, in order to forget those which, beyond all question, are being actively perpetrated UNDER ITS VERY EYES NOW, and this with COMPLETE DOCUMENTATION PROVIDED! It is like those who robbing a bank tonight, go to the effort of sending to the bank a report of why they will do it, how and at what hours! It is audacious to the point of pomposity; and how ? Is it because this substantially GRABBED GENERATION, does NOT occasion enough political fall-out to amount to a cause for political concern?

Certainly the failure to redress this glaring wrong and gross imposition on student minds has nothing to do with reason. One Shadow Minister to whom the author spoke in protest, providing much evidence for the assertion, acknowledged an incapacity to argue the case. He merely suggested action which later he did not pursue. WHEN the re-written discriminatory document was sent to him, as requested by him, no amount of effort could succeed in getting any reply, no, not even when the Premier was asked to forward the matter. Nor was his successor any better, but merely declined in tones both austere and unreasoned, to change anything. Some agreed with him: good, so be it. That was enough.

So does the substantially GRABBED generation suffer; and it suffers in this ASSAULT, EXPLICITLY made ON RELIGION; it suffers in this attack on the principles of a major religion, according to its book from the Almighty. It suffers with no vestige of argument presented, case rebutted. It proceeds like an express train where the driver is dead. It just goes on.

It is not a question here, whether there be liberal and conservative and other groups within the bodies calling themselves by the name of this religion. It is a question of whether this is what the book ascribed to the Lord is saying; and to this question, address has been made in various places, never answered by this government, with never an answer to the points even attempted (as offered in such places as SMR pp. 179ff., 485ff., and TMR Appendix).   Such things have been PRESENTED to the unresponsive and ear and tongue of government, which goes right on with the child abuse in question.

All this would be - for secular anaesthesia - perhaps quietly regretted, in the accepted mode, and continued, were it not for an additional fact. The material being pushed is drummed into the student minds in a subject misnamed SCIENCE! As shown in TMR Ch.1, and A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1-9, if there were ever anything which is NOT science, this is it. It does not start with observation, it does not explain established fact, it is not discarded when anti-verified. It is  the white-haired boy par excellence. It can do no wrong, though it does no right!

All this is shown in excruciating detail. Yet it is preached to the relatively defenceless children, and that often against the wishes of parents. My own daughter showed considerable grit, courage and resolve when being indoctrinated in what is now a University. She insisted, at the tertiary level, that she would walk out if unattested doctrine of this kind were simply assumed and presented. Eventually, she prevailed in this, that the abominable practice ceased. It is greatly to her credit that she had the courage, took the risk, and was not merely hounded by the forces which make the substantially GRABBED GENERATION the tragedy that it is, but confronted them.

Oh to be sure, some of those indoctrinated, survive. Doubtless too, in the days of propagandising Hitler youth (with one element in common with this, the pretence of survival of the fittest as a force for creation - cf. SMR pp. 127ff.), some escaped. In my own experience, few seem to, unless they belong to exceptionally strong churches or bodies or are deeply devoted:  they need to look up to the Lord, and not in hypnosis, where the WHITE CULTURE is the massif that is looked to.

Yes, black or white culture, aboriginal or secular, it is one in this, that it is after all, only the practice of SOME persons on this globe. It is not God, though it is often treated as if it were, by many, of whatever race, for philosophical, political or other reasons. We do not in the British tradition, as it developed, normally intrude to divest people of such things in terms of freedom of speech.

We do speak a very great deal about free speech and the like; but the fact is that many report that in order to have things published (and that includes Dr Steve Austin, with further reference on this site), many find that creationism is a MUST or close to it, as an ABSENTEE! Put THAT in and forget about publication!

But is the fact not set in a very different  way ? and indeed, PRECISELY as the Bible so clearly asserts. As shown in TMR Ch. 8, it is so indeed, and the three main laws of physics as attested by Dr Thomas Barnes, for long a Professor or Physics in Texas, and noted researcher, are in fact to be found with basic attestation IN the Bible, and CONTRARY to much material presented in the indoctrination programs of organic evolutionism  (cf. Stepping Out for Christ Chs.  2,  10 and Wake Up World! Your Creator is Coming ... Chs. 4,  5).

What IS FOUND is that new information is not being procured in biological systems on their own, and that what is there, is tending to decrease (cf. TMR Ch. 8, SMR pp. 252G, H). What that implies is simple: creation is finished. THIS is what the Bible states. But we shall not repeat all to be found in these various references, and in particular in SMR Ch. 2. It has been said already. Here we simply note the PARALLEL to the (in part) intrusively grabbed generation of aborigines, as it would appear, with those unfortunates of our own contemporary period, who as students are  CERTAINLY GRABBED, and this GROSSLY and in terms of CLEARLY WRITTEN TESTIMONY implicating those responsible. This is the GRABBED WHITE GENERATION (or substantial part), plus those of other skin colours who are involved in the great governmental sham. They do not realise ? it may be so; but where is the test. From every approach, they turn away ... with nothing to the topic in view, in reply.

That an atrocity be committed on the mind, 

in terms of arrant miseducation directly levelled
to the contrary of RELIGION in general (mis-defined as demonstrated) and
of the CHRISTIAN BIBLE in particular (in the most extreme way contradicted, at the same time as the evidence in terms of scientific method is contradicted), 

is sure. 

In parallel as shown in TMR   8, that very method of science is itself abused in the process.

Is it nothing to those who pass by, so concerned about what is NOT NOW OCCURRING (so far as is known), that WHAT IS NOW HAPPENING IN YOUR OWN MIDST and for which your government which YOU elect is WHOLLY responsible by its own WORDS, is far more extensive than any errors with aborigines ever were ? Everything needs attention, but let us keep everything in perspective.

As to this contemporary grab, ALL the GOVERNMENT schools in this State are AFFLICTED BY IT! The taxes of many afflicted by it, are being used to perpetrate the affliction.

But while we mourn this erratic, errant grab at, or seizure of the minds, and assault on the hearts of the young, let us not linger here for we have dealt with it already elsewhere. It is put here for comparison.

 We pass on, then in our terms of PARALLELS, to the THIRD CASE.
 
 

There are various ways of being arrested. The soldiers in John 7 as we read, were sent to arrest Jesus on the orders of Temple authorities, since He was upsetting their plans and programs. He did not wrong. NO ONE has ever shown that He did. He made NO ERRORS, and none has ever revealed one. But it is undoubtedly TRUE that He was INCONVENIENT. He got in the way, and He was removed (John 11:47-50); that is to say, He was removed at first - and one can understand very well indeed, the feelings of those who finding Him arisen from the dead (like some murdered victim who did not have the thoughtfulness to STAY VERY dead on removal, arose to indict!), had to face the fact that God is neither mocked, nor manipulated. Truth will out; and for Christ, truth will rise UP, for it CANNOT be put down. 

When God works, who is he who can resist it! Nothing in this world or the next...

But let us return to the soldiers sent to arrest Christ, prior to the final seizure:

when these guards were sent, bent on their prey, they found that no man ever spoke like this man. They listened. They were transfixed. Accordingly, they cam back without Him. THEY who went to arrest, were THEMSELVES arrested, without cords, without bonds and without manacles. HE arrested them by His power and truth.

Now we have referred before to the amazing declivity which has occurred in the teaching found in the Billy Graham presentations. It is true it was never fully scriptural (as indicated in  News, Facts and Forecasts Ch. 4). Still, that is of an entirely different order. It is also true that the unscriptural (loc. cit.) emphasis on will as determinant, and the unvalidatable use of Joel^*2 to hallow it, were in the direction of the false and heretical, not to say burning teachings of Rome. This however is something far different from that, to whatever degree these errors laid the way for the others. It is, after all, one thing to make a way, and quite another to send tanks on it.

As we have observed elsewhere, Billy Graham has become in progressive steps (cf. The Pastor's Dilemma, written with careful documentation by  British Baptist Pastor, Erroll Hulse), an acceptor of Roman Catholic religion. He has done it in the acceptance of an academic degree from a Romanist body, and in accord with reported highly positive comment on Romanism on that occasion; he has done it in his use of Romanist counsellors at Crusades, in his failure to act on the advice of missionaries to Japan when they exhorted him on combination with Liberal non-Biblical ministers on platforms, in his practice of having people go to Romanist churches from his crusades, if that is their background, as likewise in his express acceptance by Romanist circles in authority.

In this, Graham has acted as if to break down what the Reformers erected, the entire and utter condemnation of the Romanist doctrine of salvation; He has undermined what many gave blood to protect, in allowing the basis of the attacks as sound and acceptable. He has betrayed the Reformation, and much worse, the truths for which it so valiantly and for so long, in such torture and unspeakable duress, stood.

Very well. Now you read in New Life, August 17, 2000, the  "Covenant for Evangelists". Here we find the Bible is infallible, but alas what it teaches is another thing. We find all sorts of nice sounding points, but the evils are not noted. Thus it is being  fulfilled before our eyes, in what to this author seems perhaps the best example ever to be found - though this is open to contest - but certainly among the best, what Christ said. And that ? "Then if anyone says to you, 'Look, here is the Christ! or 'There !', do not believe it. For false christs and false prophets will arise and show great signs and wonders to deceive, if it were possible, the elect. See, I have told you beforehand" - Matthew 24:23-25.

What then ? ROME has specialised for some 800 years in having Christ in some, See here! or See there! situation in masses, so physical that the denial of it led to countless tortures and burnings.  It was, to be sure, scarcely Biblical to burn flesh because some people did not believe flesh was bread, or want to worship a bit of the latter. It was not at all Biblical to ignore Christ's express affirmation, in the realm of His sacrifice, and His words about those who 'eat My flesh' in John 6, that "The words that I speak to you are spirit, and they are life".

In accord with this spiritual emphasis, Christ indicated His intention of DEPARTING PHYSICALLY FROM THIS WORLD, and going back where He was (John 6:53-54,62)! Nor was  a finding of suicide at the Last Supper, to be avoided if Jesus had meant the opposite of what He said, and had actually intended that the bit of bread was to be worshipped, no idol, but in very reality, His body! It would have been strange indeed, if in the very presence of Christ, they had adored and worshipped the bits of bread He gave them; and still weirder if He had broken His own body via the bread, and yet still been intact and ready for death on a quite separate occasion! There is a limit to nonsense; and this is it. Christ became flesh, not magic.

So this fantasy against the word of God (cf. SMR pp. 1087ff., 1042ff., 1047ff.) has been practised for long. But the ACCEPTANCE of it is mounting. Thus even a Southern Baptist preacher is allowed to teach such things, thus wholly and decisively compromising that large and once decidedly Protestant body,  of MANY MILLIONS OF PEOPLE! The practice is reaching high - Blair thoughtfully attends some masses. The Anglican failure here has already been documented, the Lutheran burlesque attested - for what else can one call it when their whole historical essence was focussed on Luther's exposure of just such things, and now they fall back to the pit from which they came! (Cf. Stepping out for Christ Ch. 1, Ch.  4, News 107, Tender Times for Timely Truths Ch. 7, The Frantic Millenium and the Peace of Truth Ch. 1.)

Now in this context of false christs 'appearing' is the other aspect, false prophets so subtle in their divinations, that IF IT WERE POSSIBLE, the very elect WOULD BE DECEIVED. In other words, so serpentine is the flavour, so subtle the mode, such obviously the appeal, that the CONFUSION would be great enough to derail those securely travelling to heaven, IF IT WERE POSSIBLE. It is not sufficient, in other words, ONLY because God has so acted that His own will not receive the deception. Read the Covenant for Evangelists, and then note point, "work in unity with our brothers and sisters in Christ". That is there. Sounds good ? The IDEA is wonderful. BUT when you KNOW that Billy Graham has so betrayed the costly restoration of Biblical doctrine of the Reformation, that Rome and he are in grand co-operation, then you ALSO KNOW that this is NOT of the Lord, for it is a MISAPPLICATION.

Have good company! says dad to his kid. Sure dad, says the boy, and proceeds to go out with trendy drug persons, because you see, they are 'good underneath' and only prejudiced people do not notice this. Thus he accepts the father's teaching and abuses its purpose, knowing full well that his father does not so account druggists. Here the drug is the mass, and other idols; and the brethren are NOT to be equated with the herds of the wolves! Wolves in sheep's clothing is a verbal invention of Christ; and HE WARNS about it. It is not an invention of His, however, in the other sense, that the evil one masquerades and loves it, as an angel of light. THAT is what Paul teaches; and it fits, it coheres with Christ's teaching on wolves in sheep's clothing (Matthew 7:15, II Corinthians 11:14).

Other christs with other gospels - this is the topic of Paul, and it is treated at length in Tender Times for Timely Truths Ch. 8. Everything is clear except this, the foundational doctrine that lies underneath. It does not for that reason cease to be there!

In 1966, when all hands were needed on deck in the Presbyterian Church of New Zealand, and the author was nearly alone in defending the bodily resurrection in Assembly, and alone to his knowledge, had his negative vote FORMALLY RECORDED against the resurrection statement, ONE of the main workers was at a Billy Graham meeting in Berlin. He was not even at this crucial Assembly. The entire failure in New Zealand has been an affront to that nation and to the history of the Christian Church. It led soon afterwards - when the people had been adequately warned, to the author's departure for the U.S., but not without

• 1) the strongest of words ringing in the ears of the Presbytery which publicly announced its coming invasion of the pastoral charge, for that is what it was, interfering with Biblical doctrine and its results concerning the resurrection; and
   
• 2) a substantial supply of such warning and exhortation, formally interred in the Assembly records, provided by my pen. Our pastoral charge had made an express approach to that Assembly, and our challenge in an Overture was formally read, and formally rejected. Hence the protest and accompanying denunciation, before my departure, announced at its time in Assembly, and provided in writing.

And DID the pope apologise for the false teaching which led to the burning of Cranmer, Ridley and Latimer, of Hooper and countless others ? Of course not. You recall the terms ? It is treated in some detail in The Frantic Millenium and the Peace of Truth Ch. 6. He said this: "We ask forgiveness for the ... use of violence that some Christians used in the service of the truth." Now as SMR pp. 1042ff. shows, there is no service of the truth in forwarding the triple idolatry of Mary, Mass and Papal teaching (cf. A Question of Gifts VI, esp. p. 69). For violence to Christians for those doing  something other than serve the truth, there is NO apology.

Thus ONLY if Rome were right, would there be, could there be, ANY apology whatsoever. The category for which apology is made,  are those serving the truth and using violence on some Christians. They were not, on this basis as in reality, serving an idolatrous regime which was murderous as well, and defending itself with murder. Therefore the case does not apply. That category of 'serving the truth' is virtually absent from the case in point.

Since it was those in obedience to idolatries who were assaulting some Christians (a few thousand, million  ... some), therefore a fanciful substitute for reality is not even relevant. Was there one case where someone serving the truth committed such murder ? It is not known. Hence the actual case is omitted. In other words, UNLESS you believe Rome to be sound, you get no apology. Latimer gets no apology, for he assuredly died rather than confess that very thing. And so with countless others.

What they paid in blood to protect, lest they confess a false christ, the Billy Graham approach allows without any apparent concern, and with considerable endorsement of the Roman doctrine. The guilt is total. It is the Graham view contra the world ? Not now! It is the Graham view very much WITH the world, for all the world is going after the beast, that is, the organised formulae of acceptable religion, which the world can understand, because of worldly power, votes and perhaps a certain kinship of understanding.

But those in this report, called evangelists, those who, in the glamour of big numbers and big occasions, follow this atrocity, and this continuation of atrocity, it appears that they are misled in this very thing. They do not have the excuse of the guards sent to get Jesus. This organisation does NOT speak as no man ever spoke. Rome does NOT act as no man ever acted. By every report, the Graham approach is in full and continued co-operation, and fellowship, with this denial of the work of the saints, the word of God and the sacrifices of history. That is the CONTEXT of the brotherly remarks, the Evangelists' Covenant to which New Life referred, in its report! This approach ? it has been protested, it has been reported, it has been subject of careful research, over many decades;  it has been brought to light again and again; but it still continues. This thing was not done in a corner.

So be it. They too are being grabbed. It is not a question of the purpose. In NO ONE CASE is it easy to assume ANY error of purpose on the part of those practising these things. They may even think they do good; and in fact, was it not in very deed the Christ who STATED this, with His usual predictive precision, the constant testimony over the Ages of His Person:

"the time is coming that whoever kills you will think that he offers God service. And these things they will do to you because they have not known the Father, nor Me" - John 16:2-3.

	No, we are not dealing with psychology here, but with theology and sacrifice, that of the mass,
	vain emblem of the massacre of thousands of the saints in the Inquisition, in the very face of the scripture (John 6:61-63) and of common sense (for Christ, with one body as a true man, did not die when He broke the bread),
	and that of the martyrs; and that for which they stood:
	even the sacrifice of the Lord of glory, Jesus Christ on the Cross -       not in some chamber (Matthew 24:26) against which we are warned - alone efficacious, when no man took His life from Him, but He offered it HIMSELF (John 10:17-18), above all, over all, God in Flesh, and the resurrection of His body which followed (Romans 8:32-34), the testimony of the living God (Romans 1:4 cf. SMR Ch. 6, Biblical Blessings Appendix IV, *1).
	It is for which sacrifice and for Him who made it, we must all stand (Galatians 6:14) who will not sit with the ungodly (Psalm 1), whose doctrine invents false christs (II Corinthians 11), and whose heresies are condemned in such depth as they progress throughout the earth - in the book of Revelation (cf. SMR pp. 946ff., 956, 1042-1088H   and Biblical Blessings Ch. 2).

BUT CHRIST is the solution. The 'thefts' are numerous; carried out now by force, now by subtlety, now with confusion, now with delusion, but they come ... and go. They come to pass. What does not pass is the result. Does a man, a woman, a child stand ? Is the seductive coziness of being where the worldly power is, seduce ? or does it not! The ELECT CANNOT be seduced in this. Now Cranmer nearly was; he began to yield. But in the end, he acted marvellously, and burnt his hand off to show it. Do not err: he did not simply stand there in order to make a display of courage. He DID IT because Romanistic forces were going to burn him anyway, indeed, the fires were under way and he made use of his unusual, and not to be too fastidious, not entirely delightful funeral procedures, to do this. He made his point, did the archbishop. THEY were going to burn him, were indeed in process, so HE let the hand that faltered burn first. There is victory snatched from defeat, not to mention his use of his farewell to denounce Rome which had hoped for some fawning nonsense.

The elect are kept. Nor is this to say that some may not slip. It is to say, however, that the elect in the end are NOT deceived. It is NOT possible.

Does this however reduce the errors of any who FORCIBLY removed aboriginal children, when and IF it was WITHOUT ground in immoral conduct or abuse or neglect, or parental request, at that level,
socially ? It does not. Does it remove the guilt and error of those who falsely accuse whole categories of people without evidence ? who slander earlier generations of Australians without bothering to be precise, and try to impute guilt where there is none, or to extend it where it is limited ? Of course it does not. What is true, is true; and no propaganda of cultural convenience either will or can alter it.

Does it remove the folly of the SA Government in grabbing a large portion of a generation of young minds and sedulously mis-instructing them, and this without even having the goodness to meet argument to the contrary AT ALL, by reason, on the grounds and premises in question! Of course not.

Does it perhaps remove the errors of those who, grabbing Grahamism as if it were the Reformation, or better, the Bible, sacrifice the clear teachings of the Bible, and follow one evangelist whose prophetic status is NOT in accord with the Biblical requirement (Isaiah 8:20). If he were a prophet, the tag would have, in this, to be disastrous.  He is but a man, misled, who having first drawn huge numbers of those who were dissatisfied with their liberal denominations (one huge category of those interested from an early stage), found in this radio of the air, a substitute, and in many cases as the author knows full well, DID NOT exercise either due care for the purity of their denominations, or concern for their reformation. SOMETHING ELSE became a hub. They could let, and often did let their churches 'go'. And that is precisely what many of them did, like the threatened church in Revelation, if it did not repent.

Meanwhile, the GOSPEL was to be the great thing preached, so that the foul waters into which many churches had fallen (see references above and Biblical Blessings Ch. 11, and S MR pp. 683ff., 857ff., 864ff.) did not ... matter. But what was being preached in many of their pulpits! GOSPEL ? This, taken out of context, where the church is also involved, and taken increasingly away from the PARALLEL COMMAND, to TEACH WHATSOEVER I HAVE COMMANDED YOU, then itself came to be changed, until it fitted well enough with Rome. Thus the failure to do the COMMANDED things in keeping the church pure, in the interests of the gospel, which is NOT alone the great commission, but a part of it done while another part was often grievously neglected (Matthew 28:19ff.): this led on to the very 'gospel' itself being mistaught.

Thus those who did NOT seek remedy of error in their own churches, or did not seek it with vigour and rigour, became a sequestered group, moved to the brink of disaster with a Roman bond, both  false, and forbidden, attaching itself to the 'gospel' (as in Romans 16:17 and see Ch. 7 in That Magnificent Rock, on separation). So is it in chemistry: new bonds can radically change that to which they are chemically attached. You cannot so add to the gospel without despoiling it. It becomes a manipulee. Since God is not so, it is war on God that arises from such false attachments (as in Micah 3:5).
 

STOLEN, GRABBED, ARRESTED

STOLEN ? GRABBED ? ARRESTED ? Each of these three categories has a history and a case. The first one, the aboriginal,  is too broad; the second, the students, is nearly to measure, for a very large portion of the children go to Government schools and so is affected; the third, the evangelists and those who heed them in this, it is more direct. It is more voluntary. It is NOT, however, for all that, any less a matter of responsibility.

But all this is as dross. CHRIST  is the greatest of all. HE is not a thief who STEALS. Nevertheless He DOES use that word!

What then ? He will come LIKE a thief in the night. He will come to disturb the false doctrined splendour, the unbelieving liberties of those who wrongly affect Him, and those who decline to know Him, those who in both cases appear not to have believed what He has said.

THIS is the cleavage. Be prepared,
not in propaganda wars, but with justice;

• not with passing examinations at the expense of scientific and Biblical reality, but with truth;
• not with the flaming flamboyance of vast assemblies who err, dismissing the miraculous powers of God which rescued the church from the Roman idolatries and armies,
• but with and in the commands and calling of God Himself. It is true that this merely follows salvation (IF you love Me, you will keep My words - John 15:21-23), but so do the carriages follow the train. Detached carriages do not need to; they do not have the same constraint.

That, after all is what HE says! (Matthew 24:36-44).
 

• "But of that day and hour no one knows, not even the angels of heaven, but My Father only.
  But as the days of Noah were, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.
  
  "For as in the days before the flood, they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noah entered the ark, and did not know until the flood came and took them all away, so also will the coming of the Son of Man be.

• "Then two men will be in the field: one will be taken and the other left. Two women will be grinding at the mill: one will be taken and the other left.

• Watch therefore for you do not know what hour your Lord is coming. 
  But know this,
  that if the master of the house had known what hour the thief would come,
  he would have watched and not allowed his house to be broken into.
   
• "Therefore you also be ready;
  for the Son of Man is coming at an hour you do not expect."

 

 
 




NOTES

*2
Rome too allows the will to be most active in its own salvation, indeed, has a person in process of justification without any assured salvation. (See SMR pp. 531ff..)

As to Joel, the "valley of decision" reference is to a military battle, in which the outcome is decisive for history. It is not a question in the least degree of people deciding whether or not to be saved. That is flatly contrary to Romans 9:16, John 1, 15,  etc. as shown in News, Facts and Forecasts  Ch.4.

For interest, it may be well at this point to look at Joel, which, in terms of what it IS actually talking about, is intensely interesting and edifying.

The TOPIC is the new covenant announced in Jeremiah 31:31 and focussed in Joel 2:28ff., as quoted at Pentecost by Peter. A war is to be declared among the nations ( 3:9). It is to be a massive international
upheaval, of which due notice is here being given! Hence "proclaim this among the nations: Prepare for war!". Ploughshares are to be moulded into martial weaponry! They are invited to the valley of Jehoshaphat where the LORD announces that He Himself will  "sit to judge". It is indeed a fearsome spectacle, and not one in which sleepers would be wise to participate (cf. Matthew 25:1-10). The "sickle" is to be put in! (3:13). There is in other words, a harvest coming.

But what kind of harvest is this ? It begins in war, it is rich in judgment, it is the opposite to peace, it is a visitation for sin (3:1ff.) and will be accompanied by extraordinary and quite prodigious astronomical events (3:15). Indeed, "the heavens and earth will shake". Its purpose is punitive, for with the sickle is more to find, and it is this, "the vats overflow - For their wickedness is great!". It is in fact precisely as in Joel 2 and Acts 2. This is the climax of the Age to which it is being directed. In this, the Lord will deliver His people (3:16), just as in Matthew 24, where His angels are sent to gather the crop of His people from the midst of the extravaganza of horror which the Lord predicted.

Of conversion there is no word. Out of the midst of judgment there is deliverance, and the judgment is in train, pressing, in martial encounter. In this, " Egypt shall be a desolation, and  Edom a desolate wilderness" ? Why ? "Because of violence against the people of Judah". It would seem more than difficult to ally this episode with the gospel of peace; it would seem a monstrous act of eisegesis, of interpretation by invasion, which nothing can stop, not even the text. The "decision" in battle refers to the outcome, to the fact that with contrary forces, there is to be a result for the overall conflict. Multitudes are in it, and their total result is the decision of the day. It is not people one by one; it is not peace to the afflicted; it is war; it is war expressly in judgment, and it is having a national effect in a disastrous fashion.
 
 

*3