It’s becoming increasingly obvious that our governments can justify almost any intrusion into our lives once the public accepts that it’s necessary to prevent harm. Once that premise is granted, the debate becomes much easier for those seeking greater power. All they need to do is identify a supposed “harm,” promise to address it with new policy, and then characterise all opposition as indifference towards those harmed.

It’s now become the standard approach when seeking to put forward unpopular legislation. Highlight the problem. Emphasise the hurt. Present your particular policy not only as the best response, but the only response any decent person could support. Then portray criticism as dangerous opposition from those who wish to prolong the problem for selfish reasons.

In a better world, a government that merely proposes a solution would still be expected to put forward an argument. It has to explain why its policy will work, why other approaches will not, and why the powers it seeks are entirely justified.

Today, however, the politician knows that if they can convince the public that supporting the policy is a test of compassion, those questions can be immediately dismissed without being answered. In fact, even raising such questions is problematic.

Opponents are selfish. They’re heartless. They don’t care about the vulnerable. And who in their right mind is going to defend being selfish, heartless, and cruel?

Of course, that is not what the opponent is defending. He may recognise the problem perfectly well while rejecting the proposed response. He may think the policy will do more damage than good, or that it gives the state authority it should never possess. But these distinctions become difficult to explain once the public has accepted that there are only two positions available: support the government’s policy or support the harm.

It’s low-bar politics, but the unfortunate thing is, it works.

It works because people can be persuaded to accept the moral pronouncements without properly examining the arguments. Tell them a particular position is unkind, unloving, or unfair, and they’ll lean towards whatever those in authority have told them is the opposite of those things. Not a whole lot of manipulation is required when the labels themselves are enough to settle any and all questions.

But framing a policy as the compassionate response tells us nothing about whether it is just or good. Neither does pointing to a genuine problem establish that the government’s preferred solution is necessary.

Even the word “harm” requires a moral judgment. A truthful accusation may damage a person’s reputation. A just punishment may cause considerable distress. A parent may upset a child by refusing to give him something he wants. In each case, the unpleasant consequence alone cannot tell us whether a wrong has been committed. We have to consider what the person deserves, what is actually good for him, and what duties others owe him.

This is why an appeal to harm cannot and should not replace a sound, moral argument. It already assumes one.

The fact is, the state does not acquire the right to define good and evil simply because it has the power to enforce its own definitions. Might does not make right. In Romans 13, the ruler is described as God’s servant for good, charged with punishing wrongdoing. His office is therefore accountable to a standard above his own preferences.

Nor does the existence of a wrong automatically make it the government’s responsibility to correct. This is something Australians find particularly hard to swallow. “More government” is not the answer to every problem in life. Families and churches have duties of their own. Unless we properly distinguish those responsibilities, the promise to prevent harm can become a claim to govern everything. It’s why we have governments intruding into every sphere, dictating what our children must eat, watch, and believe.

There’s also a rather obvious problem with allowing the government to decide how much freedom we must surrender for our own protection. The power being expanded is its own. So, we should hardly treat its own assessment as beyond question, particularly when the proposed protection comes at the expense of those rights it’s supposed to uphold.

A government may have a sound case for a particular measure. If so, let it make that case. Let it explain why the policy is necessary, why its powers are legitimate, and why the consequences are justified.

What it can’t reasonably demand is that we accept its every policy as an act of compassion and then treat every objection or criticism as evidence of cruelty or apathy. Concern for people who suffer does not oblige us to accept whatever “solutions” politicians propose in their name.

In a fallen world, wherever there is power to be gained, someone can find a pretext for taking it.

O Lord, the great and awesome God, who keeps covenant and steadfast love with those who love Him and keep His commandments,

We have sinned and done wrong and acted wickedly and rebelled, turning aside from Your commandments and Your righteous judgments.

We have not listened to Your servants, who proclaimed Your Word to our fathers, our kings, our rulers, and our people throughout the British Isles and the lands to which our forefathers went.

To You, O Lord, belongs righteousness, but to us open shame, as at this day: to the English, the Scots, the Welsh, and the peoples of Britain and Ireland; to those scattered throughout Australia, New Zealand, Canada, America, and the other nations that sprang from these shores, because of the unfaithfulness we have committed against You.

To us belongs open shame, O Lord, to our rulers, our fathers, and our people, because we have sinned against You.

To the Lord our God belong mercy and forgiveness, for we have rebelled against Him.

We have not obeyed the voice of the Lord our God, to walk in His laws, which He has set before us in His Holy Scriptures.

Our nations have turned aside from Your law and refused to obey Your voice. We have cast off Your commandments, despised Your Word, corrupted justice, dishonoured marriage, destroyed the innocent, and called evil good and good evil.

We have inherited a great Christian witness, yet squandered it. Our fathers built churches, translated the Scriptures, sent missionaries across the earth, and established institutions shaped by Your truth. Yet we, their descendants, have despised that inheritance, abandoned their faith, and taught our children to forget Your name.

And now calamity has come upon us, yet we have not humbled ourselves before You. We seek prosperity without righteousness, peace without repentance, freedom without obedience, and blessing without the God from whom all blessings flow.

Therefore You are righteous, O Lord, in all that You have permitted to come upon us, for You have acted faithfully, but we have not obeyed Your voice.

And now, O Lord our God, who rules over the nations and directs the course of history, who raised up kingdoms and brought them low, who bestowed upon our forefathers privileges and responsibilities beyond measure, we confess that we have sinned and acted wickedly.

O Lord, according to all Your righteous acts, let Your anger and Your wrath turn away from our lands. Look upon the British Isles and the nations that sprang from them. Look upon our broken homes, our empty churches, our corrupted institutions, and our children who no longer know You. We have become a reproach among the nations, and the name of Christ, once honoured among us, is now openly mocked.

Now therefore, O our God, listen to the prayer of Your servants and to our pleas for mercy. For Your own sake, O Lord, cause Your face to shine again upon Your churches, now neglected and desolate.

O my God, incline Your ear and hear. Open Your eyes and behold the condition of our peoples and the lands in which Your name was once proclaimed. For we do not present our pleas before You because of our righteousness, nor because of the greatness of our ancestors, nor because of the achievements of our civilisation, but because of Your great mercy.

O Lord, hear! O Lord, forgive! O Lord, pay attention and act! Do not delay, for Your own sake, O my God. Bring our peoples to repentance, restore the fear of God to our homes, raise up faithful rulers, turn the hearts of fathers to their children and children to their fathers, and cause the Gospel of Jesus Christ to flourish once more throughout our lands.

For Your name’s sake, O Lord, remember mercy in the midst of judgment.

Amen.

Remember when rumours first began circulating about the possibility of another war in the Middle East?

Israel was lobbying and pressuring Donald Trump to intervene against Iran, warning that its neighbour posed an imminent threat not only to Israel, but to Western civilisation itself.

We were told that if Trump failed to act immediately, the consequences would be catastrophic. The world as we knew it would change, and Western civilisation would find itself living under the constant threat of nuclear attack.

But not everyone was buying it.

Trump had been elected, in large part, on the promise of no new wars. Americans were tired of fighting endless conflicts in the Middle East, and now he faced the almost impossible task of convincing the very people who had elected him on that promise that another war was, in fact, both good and necessary.

Read more

Written by Pastor Zach Dotson

The Story of Virginia is the story of the United States of America.

In 1607, Virginia was founded when a group of settlers landed and established Jamestown; it was the first of the original 13 Colonies that formed the fledgling United States after the Revolution. Virginia has been the birthplace of 8 Presidents, more than any other U.S. state, earning it the nickname “The Mother of Presidents”. Land carved out of Virginia eventually became the States of Kentucky, Ohio, and, later, more painfully, West Virginia.

Virginia was where the British were defeated at Yorktown, and Cornwallis surrendered to Washington, the last major battle of the American Revolution. The “Old Dominion” saw more battles in the War Between the States than any other state. Virginia was home to George Washington, James Maddison, Patrick Henry, George Mason, Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, and the infamous Marine Corps General Chesty Puller, to name a few prominent Virginians. I suppose, as the author of the article, I should declare myself to be a son of Virginia, whose ancestors landed at Jamestown in 1607.

Just yesterday in Virginia, it was election day. All the virtue of the past, all her former glory, was eclipsed by the debased political cycle and, in Virginia’s case, the utterly debased Constitutional Amendments in referendum form on the ballot. There were three specific initiatives:

1. The Constitutional Right to Abortion.

2. The legalising of Same-Sex Marriage (though technically already legal by Supreme Court fiat, they wanted to make it official by removing the amendment prohibiting it from the state constitution).

3. Allowing convicted felons the vote.

These three measures are progressive goals and achievements—the cause d’jour of Virginia’s new class of political leaders. And in passing them we see the chickens of Virginia’s past coming home to roost—even 240 years later. Virginia is a sad tale of a state forsaking her Godly heritage in exchange for the pottage of the Enlightenment.

It all began in 1607 at Virginia’s founding. The Virginia Colony’s first chaplain, Rev. Robert Hunt, and the initial settlers landed at Cape Henry, Virginia. They covenanted before God to dedicate Virginia to the Glory of God, stating:

“We do hereby dedicate this Land, and ourselves, to reach the People within these shores with the Gospel of Jesus Christ, and to raise up Godly generations after us, and with these generations take the Kingdom of God to all the earth. May this Covenant of Dedication remain to all generations, as long as this earth remains, and may this Land, along with England, be Evangelist to the World. May all who see this Cross remember what we have done here, and may those who come here to inhabit join us in this Covenant and in this most noble work that the Holy Scriptures may be fulfilled.”

They also erected a cross at the site, and the first Protestant Sermon was preached in what would become the United States.

From this Covenant, Virginia was founded with a distinctly Christian identity. Virginia was a Christian colony. Her roots were tied to the Christian heritage of mother England. Virginia was a Christian Commonwealth, and this identity would persist until late in the next century.

Now, let us go from 1607 to the year 1777.

In 1777, one year after the Declaration of Independence, Jefferson drafted what would become the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom. Thomas Jefferson was no friend of established Christianity, or Christianity at all, and he embraced Enlightenment ideas. Later in his life, then—President Thomas Jefferson wrote to the Danbury Baptist Association that he considered it vital that “a wall of separation between church and State” be erected.

Further, Jefferson in the same letter stated that the government should permit religious freedom to “restore to man all his natural rights”—he doesn’t see that true “natural rights” oblige man to worship God as his creator and Lord. He has stripped the concept of Natural Rights, or what Christian theologians call “Natural Law” or God’s law. Here Jefferson proudly showed his true Enlightenment colours, but back to Jefferson’s attempt at legislating in the Enlightenment.

In 1786, Jefferson’s draft of the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom finally came before the legislature. Though it was Thomas Jefferson’s brainchild, it was largely forgotten until Patrick Henry wanted the State to support clergy from denominations other than the Anglican Church — Virginia’s established church was the Anglican Church.

This led James Madison to introduce Jefferson’s legislation to counter Henry, and Madison skillfully managed to pass it. Other states at this point had some level of religious freedom, but their laws essentially allowed different Christian denominations to function in society and government.

In contrast, Virginia went all the way—it allowed for the open practice of any faith, and further, no restrictions on elected officials’ religious beliefs, so that infidels and atheists could hold public office. The Virginia Legislature, with one law, separated Church and State and broke the bond between Christ and Commonwealth, made all the way back in 1607. This statute later inspired the US Constitution’s First Amendment and became a primary source of the ubiquitous Western idea of Separation of Church and State.

Jefferson considered the Virginia Statute for Religious Freedom one of his crowning achievements, along with the Declaration of Independence. He was proud of what he accomplished, furthering Enlightenment autonomy against Christendom and the godly heritage of his forefathers in Virginia.

Fast forward to today, the “Right to Abortion” was just enshrined in Virginia’s Constitution. The right to worship false gods, the public acceptance of idolatry, and allowing men of profane and unbelieving religious persuasions or no persuasion at all to hold public office have been allowed for 240 years.

Perhaps loath to admit it, but Thomas Jefferson, the Enlightenment deist, wed Virginia to liberal Enlightenment and divorced her from her Christian founding. The disestablishment of Christianity and the Separation of Church and state have led to the ungodly, degenerate, and debauched state the Commonwealth of Virginia is in now.

Psalm 33:12 states, “Blessed is the nation whose God is the Lord”. The Commonwealth of Virginia could have claimed this at her founding, but Enlightenment ideas took over. Virginia ran off with her lover, the Enlightenment, and when you run off with the Enlightenment, you end with constitutionally enshrined child sacrifice.

Let Virginia be a warning to the whole West: the Disestablishment of the Christian Religion and allowing Religious Freedom is sowing to the wind, and now Virginia will reap the whirlwind (Hosea 8:7).

If only Virginia could declare with Godly zeal “Sic Semper Tyrannis” to the Enlightenment and all the supposed progress it wrought!

A fundraiser has raised more than $250,000 for a Victorian father left hospitalised with serious head injuries after he was allegedly attacked with a baseball bat outside his Torquay home.

The 60-year-old One Nation volunteer reportedly confronted people damaging campaign signs on his property before the alleged assault on Sunday evening.

According to reports, the father suffered multiple facial fractures and bleeding on the brain. His identity is being withheld over concerns for his family’s safety.

The appeal says he faces a lengthy recovery, leaving his family without their only source of income. He operates his own business, and his work vehicle was also badly damaged during the attack.

Donations will go directly to the family to help cover lost income, medical costs and everyday expenses while he recovers, according to the organisers.

Senator Pauline Hanson has also shared the GoFundMe appeal, encouraging supporters to assist the injured man and his family.

News24 reported that the alleged attack occurred after a 14-year-old boy began damaging One Nation signs at the property. The volunteer was allegedly assaulted by the teenager and his father after coming outside.

The outlet reported that the victim’s wife and children witnessed the incident and called police.

In a statement provided to News24, Victoria Police said officers were told two males allegedly assaulted a man with a baseball bat at the property about 7.45pm.

Police arrested a 14-year-old boy from the Casey area and a 37-year-old Hampton Park man. The victim was taken to hospital with injuries police described as non-life-threatening.

According to News24, the adult was charged with intentionally causing injury and other assault-related offences. He was remanded to appear again at Geelong Magistrates’ Court on November 10. The teenager received a caution.

One Nation said it was seeking further information about the incident and expressed concern for the volunteer and his family.

“Political violence of any kind is unacceptable,” a party spokesperson said.

The fundraising organisers have encouraged anyone able to help to contribute, with supporters also urged to share the appeal.

There’s a broader issue here. What do we expect to happen when people are continually encouraged to see their political neighbours as dangerous extremists and Nazis?

The public is coaxed into believing their political opponents threaten their freedom, their families and perhaps even their lives. Stopping them begins to look like a moral obligation. And once you’ve accepted that premise, it becomes much easier to excuse how they’re treated. Who’s going to defend a Nazi?

The alleged attackers’ motives in Torquay have not been established. But we don’t need to know their motives to question rhetoric that makes abuse easier to justify.

Too often, those in positions of power and influence have demonised their political opponents as Nazis while accusing them of hatred. They branded them dangerous extremists while accusing them of intolerance. They accused them of inciting violence while turning a blind eye to those who assaulted and abused them.

Of course, it was projection. They accused their opponents of the very behaviour they excused on their own side, then used those accusations to justify more of it against them. Their accusations weren’t just hypocritical. They helped disguise their own hatred as righteousness.

Politicians and journalists who tell everyone else to “bring the temperature down” should consider what they’re doing when they describe their opponents as extremists and “right-wing terror threats”.

You can oppose One Nation without treating its supporters as enemies. You can argue against a man’s politics without making his family afraid to display a sign outside their home.

A father is now in hospital, and his family faces the loss of their only income while he recovers. They need support. And those in positions of power need to take seriously the responsibility that comes with telling the public whom to fear and hate.

Because it’s increasingly obvious to many that the Left have demonised their political opponents to the point where, to some, violence against the Right seems not only justified but necessary.

If you would like to donate, you can do so here.

The family of murdered British teenager Henry Nowak say police repeatedly misled them about the circumstances of their son’s death, raising fears that authorities were more concerned with protecting their own reputation than telling the truth.

Nowak, 18, was stabbed five times by Vickrum Digwa in Southampton on 3 December 2025. Despite repeatedly telling responding officers that he had been stabbed and could not breathe, the teenager was handcuffed and arrested as he lay dying.

His attacker, meanwhile, had falsely claimed that Nowak racially abused and assaulted him.

In a new interview with ITV News, Nowak’s family accused police of providing misleading and changing accounts of what happened that night.

His father, Mark Nowak, said officers initially claimed they had immediately administered first aid. The family subsequently learned that Henry had instead been detained, handcuffed and arrested.

“The story was evolving every time we had an interaction,” he said.

“We felt we were being hoodwinked. We felt we were being not told the truth.”

His stepmother, Katie Nowak, said she feared police had deliberately concealed information.

“I fear that we may have been manipulated in our darkest hours,” she said.

“And I fear that some decisions were made to try and protect the police and their reputation rather than help us as a family.”

The family also revealed that officers questioned them about Henry’s political views, as well as their own, shortly after his murder.

According to ITV, police initially portrayed Henry as the aggressor, apparently accepting his killer’s false allegations of a racially motivated attack.

The family were not shown the police body-camera footage until the first day of Digwa’s murder trial, despite receiving a letter from the Independent Office for Police Conduct (IOPC) in April stating that no concerns had been identified regarding the officers’ actions.

The footage showed Henry repeatedly pleading for assistance, telling officers he had been stabbed.

“I don’t think you have, mate,” one officer responded.

His final recorded words were: “Please, brother. I can’t breathe.”

Officers did not discover the fatal wound to his chest until eight minutes after arriving. The court nevertheless heard that Henry would not have survived his injuries even if first aid had been administered sooner.

Hampshire and Isle of Wight Chief Constable Alexis Boon has publicly apologised, acknowledging that officers failed the teenager in his final moments.

“I am incredibly sorry that in his final moments, when he needed us most, we failed him,” Boon said.

Two officers are now under investigation for potential gross misconduct, while the British government has announced an independent review of the case, including the conduct of the police watchdog.

The Crown Prosecution Service said the body-camera footage could not be shared with the family until the case was trial-ready because of concerns about prejudicing court proceedings.

Digwa was sentenced to life imprisonment with a minimum term of 21 years for Henry’s murder.

An Australian mother is facing up to five years in prison after being charged by the Australian Federal Police (AFP) for allegedly sharing videos and images containing Nazi symbols on social media.

The 45-year-old woman, identified as Holly by supporters, was charged following an AFP search of her home in Point Frederick, on the NSW Central Coast, on 22 October.

According to an AFP statement, officers from its National Security Investigations (NSI) team searched the property and seized her mobile phone for forensic examination.

She was charged with six counts of publicly displaying a prohibited Nazi symbol under section 80.2H of the Commonwealth Criminal Code.

The charges reportedly relate to videos and images reposted on X between 12 August and 21 September, including historical footage of Nazi rallies and military parades.

The Noticer, citing police documents, reported that one video contained footage of Nazi flags, while another included a swastika alongside the words “we are everywhere”.

Other alleged posts included an image bearing the words “love your race” alongside a swastika and a Black Sun symbol, and an infographic that police say promoted ideas associated with National Socialism, including labour camps, book burning and the removal of foreigners.

The AFP said its investigation began in August after authorities received a report about an account allegedly publishing Nazi symbols and antisemitic material.

Under Commonwealth law, publicly displaying prohibited Nazi symbols can attract a maximum penalty of five years’ imprisonment. The legislation applies to online content as well as physical displays.

The offence also carries a mandatory minimum sentence of 12 months’ imprisonment upon conviction, subject to statutory exceptions and sentencing provisions.

The law provides defences for certain legitimate uses of prohibited symbols, including educational, academic, artistic and religious purposes, as well as public-interest news reporting. Such uses are not automatically exempt, however, and must satisfy the relevant legal requirements.

The case raises questions about the reach of Australia’s prohibited-symbol laws, particularly where the alleged offending involves reposting material created by other people.

The woman has been issued a court attendance notice and is scheduled to appear before Gosford Local Court on 3 December.

A fundraising campaign organised by supporters says Holly is raising a 14-year-old daughter while navigating a separation. The campaign is seeking assistance with her legal defence.

Her prosecution follows the establishment of the AFP’s National Security Investigations teams in October 2025, which were created to investigate conduct authorities consider harmful to Australia’s social cohesion, including antisemitic activity.

Just two days earlier, a 73-year-old man from Sydney’s north was also charged with allegedly publishing Nazi symbols and antisemitic comments online.

Neither case has been determined by a court, and the allegations remain unproven.

US President Donald Trump has issued a presidential statement marking Reformation Day, while reaffirming his administration’s commitment to restoring America’s Christian foundations and defending the place of faith in public life.

Reformation Day is observed annually on October 31 to commemorate the beginning of the Protestant Reformation in 1517, when German theologian Martin Luther challenged practices and teachings of the Roman Catholic Church.

In his October 31 statement, Trump recognised the Protestant Reformation’s emphasis on salvation through faith in Jesus Christ and the influence of Scripture on America’s founding principles.

The President also pledged to defend religious freedom and the role of Christianity in American society, declaring that his administration was working to restore the moral and religious foundations of the nation.

The statement follows several recent public affirmations of America’s Christian heritage by the Trump administration.

Earlier in the week, the United States Department of State celebrated America’s Christian heritage in a social media video marking International Religious Freedom Day on October 27.

“America, more than any other nation in world history, was shaped by the Christian tradition of spreading the gospel unto all nations,” the department said.

Trump’s Reformation Day statement reads in full:

Presidential Message on Reformation Day

The White House, October 31, 2026

From the earliest days of our Republic, prayer and faith in Almighty God have stood as the foundation of our strength, the source of our unity, and the fount of our greatness. This Reformation Day, I send my best wishes to the countless Christians across our country commemorating the Protestant Reformation and its enduring message of salvation by God’s grace through faith in Jesus Christ.

Five hundred years ago, William Tyndale—inspired by the work of Martin Luther—advanced the Protestant Reformation’s devotion to Holy Scripture through the publication of the first New Testament printed in English, shaping the language of the Bibles that would fortify the faith and resolve of America’s founding generation. The Sacred Scriptures helped form the religious convictions that formed our young Nation’s founding ideals of God-given rights and individual liberty, a spiritual inheritance we honor as we continue to reflect on 250 glorious years of American Independence. The Bible remains a cornerstone of our Nation’s character and upholds our steadfast devotion to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

Guided by an unwavering faith in Jesus Christ, my Administration is working to restore the moral and religious foundations that have sustained our Republic for generations. As President, I will always support citizens of faith and defend their place in the public square, honoring the enduring role of our churches in strengthening families, serving communities, and preserving the core values that have anchored us across the centuries.

As Christians across our country unite in faith and fellowship this Reformation Day, I send my heartfelt prayers for a meaningful celebration and encourage each of you to draw renewed strength from God’s Word as we carry forward the blessings of faith and freedom throughout our beloved Nation.

Earlier this month, C.S. Lewis’ family issued a statement in support of Netflix’s new Narnia adaptation.

The Greshams corrected speculation that the family was concerned about the project destroying the brand.

Republished by Narniaweb, a statement from the family indicated that the Lewis estate was carefully watching the director, Greta Gerwig’s artistic process.

This seems to be the case since Douglas Gresham and Melvin Adams from the Lewis estate are mentioned as Executive Producers in a 16 October Netflix media release.

The Lewis Family’s official statement said,

“From our ongoing conversations with Greta Gerwig, we have personally witnessed her sincere passion for the Narnia series. Her lifelong love of C.S. Lewis is apparent to everyone involved with this film. We saw this enthusiasm during our visit to the set in London. We are thrilled to be working with such a talented and accomplished director and production team, and are keen to continue working with them on future projects. Our vision is for this movie to be enormously successful and for this calibre of talent to be applied to all of the Chronicles of Narnia.”

Official support for the Gerwig era hasn’t eased an anxious audience, who rallied after being told Meryl Streep was to be the voice of as Aslan.

Of the two Change.org petitions expressing those concerns, Chaz Migliacci’s petition should be Netflix’s biggest concern.

With over 11,500 signatures since creating the page just over a month ago, Migliacci is clearly not alone.

This is, he wrote, “not merely a matter of preference but of preserving the deep-seated values that C.S. Lewis wove into his narratives. By refusing to attend, view, or otherwise support the new adaptations, we send a clear message to Netflix.”

Migliacci’s petition is both a boycott declaration and a demand that Netflix find a new director for the remaining six Chronicles of Narnia film adaptations.

As the petition goes on to state, “We demand a director who understands the importance of staying true to Lewis’s vision, thus preserving the series as the beacon of hope and guidance it has always been. This is a call for action to protect the legacy of Narnia and ensure that it remains a source of inspiration for future generations.”

The core of concern here is Hollywoke’s pattern of ripping Christian theology out of inherently Christian content.

One major example of the ideology remaking Christian art in its own image was the 2006 Alfonso Cuarón adaptation of PD James’s brilliant dystopian work Children of Men.

Separating the story from its core Christian content destroyed James’ narrative. It broke the film because it betrayed James’ central idea.

This revisionism from the radical left, who’ve captured the arts as well as academia, is why Caldron Pool expressed its own concerns about what looks like transing of Aslan:

“There is a difference between adapting a classic and appropriating it. An adaptation asks: How can we faithfully bring this story to a new medium?

“An appropriation asks: How can we take this beloved story and make it serve our own artistic and cultural vision?

“The former respects the author’s work. The latter defaces it. And Gerwig’s Narnia looks like defacement.”

Hopefully we’re all wrong, and Hollywood wins out over the Marxian Woke radicalism it’s now become known for.

The Greshams assuring fans of their commitment to integrity is comforting.

While their commitment is good news, Caldron Pool’s 19 September warning still stands: “Lewis did not merely sprinkle minor Christian themes throughout Narnia. He built the story around them. As he himself explained, the children were brought to Narnia so that, by knowing Aslan, they might know Christ better.

“Strip Christ from Narnia, and you’re not simply tweaking the story; you are gutting it of the very purpose for which Lewis wrote it.”

The most effective form of censorship doesn’t necessarily involve the government banning what you say. It involves making everyone else afraid to let you say it.

That’s the danger in the Albanese Government’s Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026, which passed the House of Representatives on Wednesday and now goes to the Senate.

The bill would force online platforms to take reasonable steps to protect users from a list of harmful material and conduct. Fall short and the penalty can reach $109.2 million.

Canberra says it’s about protecting Australians, kids especially, and at the core of it that’s fair enough. Keeping children away from pornography, exploitation and abuse is a proper job for government. But a real problem doesn’t make every proposed fix a good one.

This bill has a catch. It also reaches material that promotes hostility towards women or gender equality. Who decides what counts as hostility? If you reject contemporary gender ideology, is that hostility to gender equality? What about a pastor posting Christian teaching on the different roles of men and women? Would a platform’s compliance team see that as a risk?

Those questions aren’t far-fetched. Genuinely harmful material and opinions the powerful find distasteful have never been easy to tell apart, and this bill hands the sorting to someone else.

Now look at it from the platform’s side. Miss an obligation, and you face a nine-figure penalty. Pull down something perfectly lawful and nothing comparable happens under this duty. So which way does a cautious business lean? Delete the post. Lock the account. Nobody has broken the law; it’s just cheaper.

That’s censorship with no ban in sight. Ministers get to say they’ve never outlawed an opinion. Platforms get to say they’re only following the law. Meanwhile ordinary Australians find that their place in public debate depends on the judgment of moderators and regulators they never chose.

For Christians, this goes beyond free speech in the abstract. Christ’s authority doesn’t stop at the church door. It covers public morality, government and the family, and believers are called to speak truthfully even when the culture finds it uncomfortable. A law that makes that riskier every year isn’t just regulating technology. It’s leaning on religious and moral dissent.

Government has a real duty to punish wrongdoing. It doesn’t get to decide which lawful convictions are allowed an airing.

Silence shouldn’t be the safe option whenever people disagree. Under the Digital Duty of Care, it could be.

The United States Department of State has celebrated America’s Christian heritage in a social media post marking International Religious Freedom Day.

“America, more than any other nation in world history, was shaped by the Christian tradition of spreading the gospel unto all nations,” the department wrote.

The post was accompanied by a video of Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who said:

Our faith calls us outwards into the limitless darkness of the unknown. It tells us to go forth and preach the gospel to the world as a witness unto all nations unto the ends of the earth.

From that command came America. Our nation, more than any other in history, was shaped by this Christian idea. This is who we are.

And from the beginning, we have carried the belief that our country represents something new in the world. But the soul of our nation has always been rooted in an ancient faith.

For all its faults, the United States stands as a remarkable testament to Gospel truth. Its early leaders understood that the nation’s well-being and future depended upon the preservation of its religious and moral foundations.

On September 17, 1796, in his Farewell Address, George Washington described the Christian religion and morality as the “indispensable supports” of national prosperity.

For Washington, the Constitution alone was insufficient. Its stability depended upon two essential pillars: Religion and Morality.

He said:

Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.

In vain would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of the duties of men and citizens.

The mere Politician, equally with the pious man, ought to respect and cherish them.

A volume could not trace all their connections with private and public felicity…

Washington went on to warn against the assumption that morality could be maintained without religion.

Let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both forbid us to expect that national morality can prevail in exclusion of religious principle.

Topple the nation’s religious foundations, and its morality falters. Topple both, and the very basis for liberty, human rights and prosperity begins to collapse.

There’s little wonder why Washington’s fellow Founding Father, John Adams, similarly warned in 1798:

Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.

Both men understood that a free society required a morally restrained people. Without that restraint, no constitution, however carefully written, could prevent its eventual decay.

The Christian religion and its moral framework were absolutely vital.

No doubt Washington would see little coincidence in the fact that America’s present disorder was preceded by decades of anti-Christian propaganda, which steadily infiltrated its institutions and public square under the guise of “secularism,” “diversity,” and “pluralism.”

For generations, Christianity has been pushed out of public life while the nation has continued to expect the benefits of the civilisation it produced.

We have been told that religion is a private matter, that morality can be maintained independently of God, and that a nation can abandon its Christian foundations without consequence.

Washington warned against precisely this delusion.

And while modern secularists insist that government must remain religiously neutral, Washington understood that the acknowledgement of God was not merely a private obligation.

In his Thanksgiving Proclamation of October 3, 1789, he declared:

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the providence of Almighty God, to obey his will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor.

Notice that Washington described this as the duty of all nations, not merely the United States.

This was no peculiar American obligation. Nations do not exist independently of God, nor are their rulers exempt from his moral authority.

Scripture makes this explicit. The kings and rulers of the earth are commanded to serve the Lord (Psalm 2:10–12), and Christ himself declared that all authority in heaven and on earth belongs to him (Matthew 28:18).

The state may refuse to acknowledge that authority, but it cannot escape it.

Surely, much of the moral and political chaos we are witnessing today is the inevitable consequence of neglecting this essential duty.

And it’s for that reason that the State Department’s proclamation is rightly being welcomed by Christians who have grown accustomed to seeing their nation’s religious heritage either neglected, ridiculed, or undermined.

It is an encouraging acknowledgement of something America’s founders understood, but successive generations have increasingly forgotten.

Christianity is not merely one cultural influence among many. It supplied the moral framework upon which American civilisation was built.

As disillusioned young Europeans turn to the pagan gods of their ancestors, they are embracing the very religion their forefathers abandoned, and often remaking its gods in the image of the Christ they reject.

There’s a growing temptation among young European men to look beyond their Christian heritage and return to the pagan religions that preceded it.

In an age of mass immigration, militant multiculturalism, and growing hostility towards Europe’s historic identity, the appeal is understandable. Many young Europeans are rediscovering an appreciation for their ancestry, their people, and the civilisation their forefathers built.

But some are looking in precisely the wrong direction.

Rather than recovering the faith that shaped European civilisation, they’re retreating into the mythology their ancestors rejected. In their attempt to reclaim their European identity, they’re abandoning one of the very things that made Europe what it became.

They’re exchanging Christ for Odin.

And the irony is that, to make these pagan gods worthy of admiration, they often have to remake them in the image of the very Christ they reject.

Pagan gods with Christian virtues

Spend any time observing the modern fascination with Norse mythology, particularly in nationalist and neo-pagan circles, and you’ll encounter a romanticised picture of the ancient gods.

Odin is presented as the wise, benevolent All-Father, a courageous protector willing to sacrifice himself for others. Thor is portrayed as the honourable defender of mankind, a selfless warrior who risks everything to protect the weak.

But anyone who’s read the Poetic Edda or Prose Edda knows these aren’t consistently the characters described in the surviving mythology.

The Norse gods certainly possess some admirable qualities, including courage, loyalty, and endurance. But they’re also frequently deceitful, selfish, treacherous, vindictive, and cruel. They’re driven by power, reputation, vengeance, and personal advantage.

These aren’t merely Christian criticisms of pagan mythology. They’re observations made by scholars who’ve studied the original texts.

In his book Gods and Humans in Medieval Scandinavia, historian Jonas Wellendorf writes:

“The Norse gods as we know them are not consistently perceived as good or just.”

He describes them as:

“…occasionally opportunistic, selfish, irrational, unjust”

And concludes:

“…judged by Abrahamic standards, the Norse gods are not at all godly.”

Likewise, scholars Ben Raffield, Neil Price, and Mark Collard, in their study Religious Belief and Cooperation, describe the Norse gods as morally inconsistent, sometimes concerned with morality while behaving immorally themselves.

Kevin J. Wanner, writing in History of Religions, observes:

“if Loki is the most disparaged of the gods, Ódinn runs a close second.”

Indeed, even Odin’s famous self-sacrifice upon the world tree, described in Hávamál 138–141, wasn’t performed to save mankind. He suffered to acquire knowledge of the runes and their supernatural power.

Compare that with Jesus Christ, who voluntarily suffered not to obtain something for himself, but to give salvation to others.

Odin sacrifices himself to gain. Christ sacrifices himself to give.

One seeks power. The other lays down his life for his people.

Even Odin’s title All-Father doesn’t make him a benevolent heavenly father. The mythology repeatedly depicts him as manipulative, deceptive, and willing to sacrifice others to accomplish his purposes.

Christ, by contrast, declares:

“Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends” (John 15:13).

The distinction couldn’t be clearer.

Hollywood’s Christianised paganism

Perhaps nowhere is this contradiction more obvious than in Hollywood.

Marvel’s Thor is portrayed as a noble hero who learns humility, compassion, and self-sacrifice. Odin becomes a wise father who teaches his son the virtues of restraint, responsibility, and sacrificial leadership.

But these characters are often closer to the Christian heroic ideal than to the gods described in the Eddas.

To make Thor admirable, Hollywood gives him virtues Christians recognise in Christ. To make Odin a better father, it softens the characteristics that distinguish him in the mythology.

In other words, they make the pagan gods more Christian and less pagan.

The irony is extraordinary.

Some men reject Christianity because they believe it has weakened European masculinity, only to celebrate fictionalised pagan gods whose most admirable qualities resemble those of Jesus Christ.

They want Thor’s strength, but Christ’s character.

They want Odin’s authority, but the heavenly Father’s benevolence.

They’re borrowing Christianity’s moral capital while rejecting its source.

The religion their ancestors rejected

There’s another irony that’s often overlooked.

Much of what we know about Norse mythology survives because Christians preserved it after Scandinavia’s conversion.

The Poetic Edda contains older traditions, but its principal surviving manuscript was produced in Christian Iceland during the thirteenth century.

The Prose Edda was compiled around 1220 by Snorri Sturluson, himself a Christian, to explain the mythology and poetic traditions of earlier generations.

These weren’t pagan scriptures preserved by a continuous pagan priesthood. They were medieval literary works recording traditions from a religious world their Christian compilers no longer believed in.

That doesn’t mean Christians invented Norse mythology. Its traditions are considerably older. But the texts modern neo-pagans rely upon owe much of their preservation to Christians.

Think about that.

Modern neo-pagans reject Christianity to recover the religion of their ancestors, yet much of what they know about that religion survives because their Christian ancestors recorded it.

They’re trying to revive a religion through texts preserved by men who didn’t believe its gods were divine.

And why did their ancestors abandon Odin?

Because they came to believe that Jesus Christ was greater than the gods they’d previously worshipped.

They exchanged gods who could deceive and betray for the God who cannot lie (Titus 1:2).

They exchanged gods who feared their own destruction for the eternal God who rules over creation.

They exchanged morally inconsistent deities for the God who demonstrated his love by dying for sinners (Romans 5:8).

The conversion of Europe wasn’t instantaneous, nor was it free from political pressure. But over the centuries, European peoples increasingly embraced Christianity and abandoned their former gods.

And today’s neo-pagans are now reversing that decision in the name of honouring their ancestors.

Christianity isn’t foreign to Europe

One of the more common arguments among European neo-pagans is that Christianity is a Jewish or Middle Eastern religion and therefore has no place among Europeans.

However, Christianity never claimed to belong exclusively to one ethnic group. Its claim is that the God who created all nations has revealed himself in Jesus Christ, and that every nation owes him allegiance.

Christ didn’t command his disciples to convert only the Jews. He commanded them to make disciples of all nations (Matthew 28:19).

Nor were Europe’s ancient pagan religions entirely isolated from the wider world. Germanic mythology belongs to a broader Indo-European religious heritage, with parallels to traditions beyond northern Europe. In fact, much of Norse mythology reflects the pantheon worshipped in Mesopotamia, Greece, ancient Iran, and possibly India.

But there’s a deeper irony here.

In rejecting Jesus on account of his Judahite identity, these neo-pagans find themselves agreeing with those who rejected his claim to be the Messiah, while rejecting the testimony of their own Christian ancestors who embraced him.

They claim to honour their forefathers while dismissing the very faith those forefathers passed down for generations.

For more than a thousand years, Christianity has been inseparable from Europe’s identity.

A European who abandons Christ for Odin isn’t returning to the religion of his fathers. He’s abandoning the religion of his fathers for an error his fathers long rejected.

The civilisation Christianity built

Christianity didn’t merely replace Europe’s religious ceremonies. It transformed the continent’s moral awareness, institutions, education, laws, and understanding of human responsibility.

Monasteries became centres of literacy, scholarship, agriculture, and manuscript preservation. Churches established schools, supported hospitals, developed universities, and commissioned some of Europe’s greatest architectural achievements.

Christianity also supplied a shared moral framework across peoples who’d previously belonged to competing tribes, kingdoms, and religious traditions.

It taught that kings, no less than their subjects, stood beneath God’s authority. Civil power wasn’t ultimate. Rulers were accountable to a moral law they hadn’t invented and couldn’t legitimately redefine.

And it transformed the meaning of greatness.

In the ancient heroic world, greatness was often measured by conquest, reputation, strength, and the ability to impose one’s will upon others.

Christ declared that greatness was demonstrated through service.

“Whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant” (Matthew 20:27).

Christianity didn’t abolish courage, honour, loyalty, or the natural bonds of family and nation. It placed them under a higher moral authority.

It gave Europeans something greater than the worship of their own strength.

It gave them a standard by which strength itself could be judged.

None of this means pre-Christian Europeans lacked civilisation or virtue, or that every Christian ruler acted righteously. But Christianity profoundly shaped the civilisation that emerged from the medieval world.

Europe didn’t flourish because its people ceased to be European. It developed, in substantial part, because European peoples built upon their inherited cultures within a Christian understanding of reality.

They didn’t have to abandon their ancestry, languages, homelands, or national traditions.

They had to recognise that these things weren’t ultimate.

Christ was.

The wrong answer to a real problem

There’s nothing wrong with young European men rediscovering their ancestors, preserving their heritage, studying their mythology, or defending the historical continuity of their nations.

But preserving one’s heritage and reviving its ancient gods are two very different things.

The growing disillusionment with secular liberalism and multiculturalism raises legitimate questions about national identity, cultural continuity, and the responsibilities owed to future generations.

But paganism isn’t the answer.

Indeed, much of Europe’s present crisis stems from its rejection of the Christian moral framework that helped sustain its civilisation.

Abandoning Christianity even further won’t reverse that decline.

There’s something profoundly contradictory about young European men denouncing Christianity as a foreign influence while venerating pagan gods whose most admirable modern portrayals have been Christianised.

They reject Christ, then praise Odin for resembling him.

They mock Christian humility, then admire Thor when he demonstrates it.

They denounce Christian self-sacrifice as weakness, then celebrate it as pagan heroism.

They reject the religion of their Christian ancestors in the name of honouring their ancestors.

And they recover their supposedly forgotten gods through literature preserved by Christians.

The qualities they’re searching for in Odin and Thor are already present, in their highest form, in Jesus Christ.

Europe doesn’t need to resurrect the gods its forefathers abandoned. It needs to remember why they abandoned them in the first place.

Feminist and progressive advocacy groups are demanding the Albanese Government remove legal protections that allow Christian schools to uphold biblical standards of morality, arguing that religious convictions should not take precedence over anti-discrimination laws.

In an open letter released on Tuesday, women’s organisations, legal experts and LGBTQ activists urged Prime Minister Anthony Albanese to abolish exemptions that permit religious schools to make employment decisions based on their beliefs.

The campaign, backed by organisations including the National Foundation for Australian Women and Fair Agenda, follows independent MP Allegra Spender’s introduction of legislation seeking to restrict religious schools’ ability to make decisions based on sexuality, gender identity, marital status and pregnancy.

The groups argue that women should not risk losing their jobs for becoming pregnant outside marriage, entering relationships or divorcing their spouses.

Equality Australia Legal Director Heather Corkhill declared that religious freedom should not be a licence to discriminate, insisting that publicly funded institutions must uphold the standards expected by Australian society.

But whose moral standards should govern Christian institutions?

The activists appear to regard their own progressive convictions as sufficiently authoritative to dictate how Christian schools must operate, while denying those same schools the freedom to uphold their religious convictions.

It is a familiar trick: demanding tolerance for lifestyles that conflict with biblical morality while seeking to restrict institutions that refuse to endorse them.

Christian schools are not merely secular schools with chapel services sprinkled on top. They exist because Christian parents believe education must be grounded in the authority of God’s Word, including its teachings on marriage, sexuality, family and personal conduct.

Scripture places the responsibility for raising and instructing children principally upon parents, commanding them to teach God’s law diligently to their children (Deut. 6:6–7).

The state has no God-given authority to assume that responsibility or dictate that Christian institutions must set aside biblical teaching to accommodate contemporary political preferences.

Senior Christian leaders have warned the Prime Minister that Spender’s bill would significantly weaken existing protections, restricting schools’ ability to employ staff who share their faith and maintain their distinctive religious character.

Supporters of the legislation insist it is about protecting individuals from discrimination. But that overlooks the rights of Christian parents, teachers and communities to establish institutions governed by their own religious convictions.

There is nothing inherently intolerant about expecting those who voluntarily seek employment at a Christian institution to respect the beliefs it was established to uphold.

The underlying dispute is not simply about employment law. It is about moral authority.

The feminist organisations behind this campaign want the state to impose their preferred moral standards upon Christian institutions. Yet Christian education, by its very nature, recognises a higher authority than the changing political and moral fashions of the day.

Increasingly in Australia, Christianity is treated as acceptable only so long as Christian convictions are not permitted to shape the institutions established to practise it.

These groups aren’t demanding freedom from religion. They are demanding the authority to impose their own religious convictions upon institutions, organisations, and individuals who disagree with them. Their “secular” morality is no less a system of belief simply because they refuse to call it a religion. What they cannot tolerate is the existence of an institution that recognises a moral authority higher than their own.

It’s like demanding membership in a political party whose principles you reject, then insisting the entire party abandon its founding convictions to accommodate your membership.

At that point, you’re not asking for inclusion. You are demanding the institution’s surrender. And that is precisely what these organisations seek from Christian schools: not the freedom to live according to their own convictions, but the power to prevent Christians from living according to theirs.

The following speech was delivered by Evelyn Rae on October 17, 2026, at BACPAC 2026, hosted by the British Australian Community.

I don’t think I have to convince anyone in this room that we have a problem. Not just Australia, but the Anglo-world. And not just the Anglo-world, but the European people as a whole and the civilisation we have collectively inherited.

It’s a problem that has impacted virtually every Western nation. It’s both a disease and a wickedness. It’s a disease because it’s highly infectious. The problem has spread through our nations, our institutions, our churches, and our schools. It has taken over the minds of many of our own people.

It’s wickedness because, in many respects, the disease is self-inflicted—to our own hurt, to our own harm, and worse: to the destruction of our own children. What am I referring to? It’s the suicidal notion that there is something uniquely evil about being “White.” We are told that our ancestors are guilty of crimes so heinous, so abhorrent that a lifetime of grovelling, and the total forfeiting of our own homelands cannot come close to atoning for the sins that we inherited from them.

It’s the suicidal ideation that says there is something immoral about meetings like this, because a collective of “Whites” is a dangerous problem in need of fixing. We heard it last year, and there’s no doubt, we’ll hear it again this year. Through never-ending racial quotas and DEI programs, we are relentlessly told that the workplace, the community, the nation, indeed, the world is a better place when White people are diluted, when their power is limited, when their voice is drowned out—and increasingly, when they’re not visibly present at all. Some are already stating it openly: Fewer Whites is the goal today. No Whites is the goal tomorrow.

Of course, the irony here is that this is the only sense in which we are permitted to think of ourselves as a collective. Our ancestors are ours, and we are the inheritors of their actions, but only when their actions are sinful. Their achievements belong to the world, and everyone from everywhere has a right to the civilisation they built—but their supposed crimes, they alone belong to us. So, we are told, the only thing we inherit from our ancestors is the guilt, the shame, and the debt.

And so, as a result, we are told to step aside, to stay silent, and to not question the narrative—even if it’s obviously rigged against us. And it is rigged against us. On a national level, we’re told our identity doesn’t matter because we have to prioritise the voices of ethnic minorities. On a global level, we’re told our identity doesn’t matter because we have to prioritise the voices of so-called “global majorities.” 

Wherever we are, we are told that we don’t matter, we need to be silent, we need to be diluted, we need to be watered down and marginalised—and the remarkable thing is that those who openly discriminate in this sense are wholeheartedly convinced they’re morally virtuous in doing so—why? Because they have been convinced that all of the world’s problems can be traced back to White men, and especially White men in positions of power and influence.

In their minds, this is now the great evil that needs to be conquered. And so, every White man striving for power is “literally Hitler”, and any collective of White men who support that are demonised as “literal Nazis. If you want a disturbing glimpse at how widespread this dangerous mindset is, simply take a look at how people reacted to the public murder of Charlie Kirk.

But recognising the symptoms of this problem is not enough. You might know you’re sick, you might even know why you’re sick, but unless you understand the cause, unless you understand the remedy, the diagnosis itself is not enough to save you.

We’re here today to discuss our pathway to victory. But that discussion will be meaningless unless we first identify what we are trying to preserve—and why it’s worth preserving. 

Now, many will agree that there is something very wrong with the current state of our nation. An increasing number of Australians believe the country is on the wrong track, and they will even admit that this is largely due to the government’s immigration policies. They’ll acknowledge multiculturalism has divided our communities into nations within nations, that diversity has undermined national unity, and that the Australia we all know and love is at risk of being lost for good.

But when it comes to offering a solution to that very visible problem, all we are given are meaningless platitudes and a lot of talk about some vague and arbitrary concept of “Aussie values.” Today we have just about everyone on the right of Labor talking tough about immigration reforms, but whenever they’re asked what they mean and what it will look like, it always comes back to a “values” test.

Now, aside from the fact that no one is really able to define what these “Aussie values” are, or where these “values” originate, what we are effectively being told through their imagined “solution” is that the Anglo-Celtic people of Australia are inconsequential. We are being told that the descendants of Australia’s founding stock are unnecessary—that it doesn’t matter who inherits the house, provided they like Rugby, barbecues, and waving the Aussie flag. That is to say, we’re being told that Anglo-Celtic Australians are interchangeable.

In other words, what they are saying is that if every Anglo-Celtic Australian were to be replaced by foreigners, the nation itself would remain the same, provided the new imports subscribed to “Aussie values.”

Of course, this is an absurd assertion, and its implications are untenable. Follow it to its logical conclusion, and you arrive at a definition of “Australian” in which foreigners living in foreign nations can be considered more Australian than the descendants of Australia’s first settlers. Why? Because being Australian is no longer a matter of ancestry, heritage, or belonging, but of subscribing to whatever vague collection of “Aussie values” happens to be fashionable at the time.

Consequently, under this novel definition, being Australian is no longer an ethnic designation but an ideological one. It tells us something about what a person believes, or how they live, but not necessarily where they were born, to whom they were born, or where they belong. It strips the term “Australian” of its historic Anglo-Celtic identity and reduces it to little more than a geographic or civic label—one that, at best, signifies a shallow commitment to some vague, ill-defined notion of “Aussie values,” whatever those might be.

Now, this is more than just semantics. We’re talking about the intellectual erasure of Anglo-Celtic Australians. The historic people are being gradually removed from the definition. Their identity has become a collection of transferable attributes. And their heritage has become the property of the world. Even those on the so-called “Right” have bought this redefinition. They’re too embarrassed to define us the way we have always been defined—the way every other people group on earth is permitted to define themselves.

As such, it has rightly been labelled as “inheritance theft.”

But our ancestors did not build this nation through blood, sweat, and tears — they did not fight two World Wars — just for their descendants to forfeit their homelands for fear of being called bad names by bad people. 

But neither did they endure everything they did for us to fall off the other side of the horse—a danger I fear many on our side are increasingly at risk of doing.

We might all agree that the propositional nationhood is absurd. We might all reject the notion that values alone make an Australian. But we would also be just as wrong to imagine that values did not make Australia. We know that the people are not interchangeable, but neither is the ideology the people hold to—or the value system that shaped the way our ancestors thought, acted, and behaved.

We might all agree that if the Australian people were replaced by foreigners, Australia would no longer be Australian. But what would happen if the religion, the ideology, were replaced? What would happen if Hinduism, Judaism, Islam, or Atheistic Secularism were to replace the faith that our ancestors embraced, the faith our ancestors were shaped by for centuries? 

You see, the people are an essential ingredient—but so are their values. So are their convictions. So is their religion. Because the nation we build, or maintain, is going to be determined by the culture, the law systems, and the morals of the people. Even if Australia consisted only of Anglo-Celtic people, Australia would not remain Australia if every one of them rejected their Christian heritage for another religion, for another law system, for another set of values.

What good is protecting the nation from foreign influences, if we are indifferent to the influences of foreign gods?

And so, I would argue that at the heart of this discussion, there are two opposing mistakes.

On one side are those who argue that Australia is simply a collection of propositions. Accept the approved values, and you become whatever we are.

On the other side are those who argue that ethnic identity is all that matters, and that ideology or religion are inconsequential to the heritage we’ve been entrusted. 

But this is not an either/or situation. The greatness of the Western world, the greatness of the British people, is not people disconnected from their faith, or values disconnected from a people. The greatness of the Western world and British people is an exceptional people embracing an exceptional faith. It is that combination that has proved to be so potent—which is why the Straight, White, Christian, Male has been marked as enemy number one.

The civilisation we inherited was neither the product of ancestry alone nor a collection of values that appeared from nowhere.

It emerged through particular peoples being formed, over centuries, by a particular faith.

In the Anglo-Celtic world, we are speaking of roughly fifteen hundred years of Christianity working through generations: reshaping how people understood God, justice, family, authority, conscience, and responsibility.

Christianity did not create these peoples out of nothing.

They were already there. They possessed languages, traditions, craftsmanship, poetry, loyalties, and institutions.

They knew how to build, govern, fight, and create beauty before their conversion.

But the Gospel called them to account.

It restrained what needed restraining. It strengthened what was good. It redirected what was misdirected.

Courage acquired duties towards the weak. Loyalty stood beneath a higher obligation. Wealth brought responsibilities towards those who could not repay it.

Law and power were placed beneath the judgement of God.

The hands that built pagan temples learned to build cathedrals. Communities established places of learning, healing, and charity. The poor, the widow, and the orphan became objects of enduring moral responsibility.

Christianity worked upon the whole civilisation.

And nowhere was its significance clearer than in the limits it placed upon government.

The confession that Jesus Christ is Lord means the magistrate is not supreme.

King Alfred was great precisely because he understood that he was a king under higher authority—not a law unto himself.

Magna Carta rested upon the same principle: even the king was subject to law. His authority was not absolute, and his subjects possessed rights that he could not simply disregard.

The king possesses authority, but that authority is delegated and bounded. He cannot make falsehood true by decree. He cannot make evil good by legislation. He cannot claim ownership of the conscience because he possesses the power to punish dissent.

There is a law above the legislature.

There is a King above the government.

Britain transmitted to Australia its language, common law, parliamentary institutions, literature, customs, and habits of public life. Those things came through a people formed by centuries of Christianity.

“Australian values” did not fall from the sky.

They came through families, churches, schools, and generations of moral formation.

We now want the fruits while neglecting the roots. Strong families without fidelity. Freedom without restraint. Honest institutions without people taught that truth binds the conscience.

We want government held accountable while dismissing the authority before which rulers themselves stand accountable.

That cannot sustain our inheritance.

We have cast off the greatest restraint on the power of the state over its citizens, and today we are suffering the consequences.

We were told that Australia would be better, and Australians freer, if we embraced not only a diversity of foreign peoples, but a diversity of foreign gods.

But the result has been the opposite. A people divided over fundamental questions of right and wrong becomes increasingly dependent on the state to settle those differences. Where there are competing gods, there are competing moral standards. And where there are competing moral standards, the state inevitably assumes the role of final arbiter.

With the introduction of multiculturalism and religious pluralism into the West, the highest court of appeal effectively shifted from heaven to the state.

In casting off God’s authority, we did not free ourselves from authority. We merely exchanged a government under God for a government increasingly inclined to act as god.

What does this have to do with the subject at hand? Everything.

We are talking about our heritage—our people, our homeland, and the civilisation our ancestors built. A living inheritance passed down from one generation to the next.

Previous generations understood this inheritance as a gift, entrusted to their care, to be preserved and passed on to their children.

But what happens when the state increasingly assumes the place of a God?

It begins to regard that inheritance as its own—as something it has the right to give away, to whomever it pleases.

What was once understood as a sacred inheritance to be preserved becomes a political possession to be distributed for political gain and economic goals. 

And this is the problem we face. Right across the Western world—right across Christendom—governments are assuming the place of Christ, and as a result, gaining more and more power over the people to squander their inheritance and undermine the greatest force for good the world has known. 

They’re able to do this because we’ve not only forgotten who we are, we’ve forgotten why we are.

It’s not enough to just complain about the problem. Now, more than ever, we need to remember who we are, and why we are.

It is no mere coincidence that a century of relentless efforts to strip the Anglo-Celtic people of their Christian heritage was immediately followed by the erosion of their physical and cultural inheritance. Because it’s not either/or/, it’s both/and.

The people matter. Their faith matters. Those two things side by side are what made us so great and what makes the wickedness tremble at the knees. As King Alfred the Great wisely said: “In prosperity a man often destroys the good he has done; amidst difficulties he often repairs what he long since did in the way of wickedness.”

This is our opportunity to repair the inheritance for our children and to restore our people.

WATCH:

Earlier this year, Australia’s eSafety net nanny took on the “manosphere” by waging war on emojis.

Chances are you missed it. So, here’s a quick rundown.

eSafety defined the sphere as more than “just a fringe online subculture.”

In the post, dated 12 March, the commission said, “Its harmful messages are filtering into online humour, memes, self-improvement content and recommender feeds. The content might seem harmless at first. Then the tone shifts.”

It’s complex, they added, stating that the online environment is being used to exploit what the commission called the natural insecurities that come with adolescence.

These, they said, “can pull young men towards more hostile and harmful ideas that portray girls and women as inferior.”

As for what constitutes the so-called “manosphere”, eSafety said, “it’s a space that frequently advocates narrow and rigid ideas about what it means to be a ‘real man’.”

This includes any signalling towards physical appearance, wealth, and dominance, especially over women.

“Another common (but false) narrative,” they said, “is that feminism and gender equality have come at the expense of men’s rights.”

eSafety’s five-alarm fire about ‘toxic masculinity’ went as far as to argue that content about men which uses this tone wasn’t about helping men; it was about farming the algorithm by fuelling outrage.

They said, “While young men might start out searching for relatable topics – like fitness or self-improvement – they can be propelled by these combined forces, step by step, into blame, resentment and hate, often aimed at women and the LGBTIQ+ community.”

For the eSafety net, nannies, parents and carers need to watch out for content about self-improvement, financial or dating advice, fitness tips, confidence talk, ‘discipline,’ rigid gender roles and harmful messages about women and girls.

Alongside fitness, humour is also a suspect door towards masculine radicalisation.

The Commission asserted that memes can “carry coded messages, shift meaning over time, or be used to smuggle hateful ideas through dark humour.”

To this, eSafety added, “some groups use shorthand to signal membership. Even emojis can be used in coded ways. The key point is context: a symbol can be harmless in one chat and a red flag in another.”

As for what emojis are the weapons of choice for “manosphere” manipulators, eSafety shared five examples.

Exhibit A:

Other “manosphere” landmines to look out for, eSafety’s guide says, are terms like ‘incel’ (involuntarily celibate), ‘red pill’, ‘Chad/Stacey’ (stereotypes about attractive, successful men and women) and ‘normie’.

This online environment and its language have raised concerns; the eSafety information piece said that “a small number of individuals can move from online hate into offline harm, especially when online communities reward extreme talk.”

It’s not all bad. The eSafety concluded their —‘emojis are telling you bad things’ — takedown of “toxic” masculinity with a helpful guide for parents.

Sure, it’s wordy, but you do get some useful take-home points for the tax dollars they spent on it.

For example, the guide advises building rock-solid relationships with our kids, stating, “You don’t need to know every acronym or meme. What matters is connection, conversations and ongoing support.

“Stay close even when they push back. Strong relationships offer protection. Young people who feel anchored offline are less likely to rely on online validation.”

Their four tips? Talk in low-pressure moments, show interest in what kids are doing online, keep calm, and pause before reacting.

These could have easily been lifted straight from James 1:19: “Be quick to listen, slow to speak and slow to become angry.”

More so when the eSafety guide talks up critical thinking and states, “When parents panic, young people often shut down. Be curious, not critical. Focus on respect and values, rather than giving them a list of people they can’t engage with online.”

That’s good advice.

I can’t say that much for the rest of it.

The word harmful is deployed 11 times. “Manosphere” appears 17 times, violence appears 6 times, and masculinity appears 5 times.

As I’ve argued before, those who preach about “toxic” masculinity often have a toxic view of masculinity.

It says a lot about the eSafety Commission when they’ll obsess over emojis, fitness and what it regards as “toxic” masculinity, yet not even mention pornography or abortion.

There’s a danger in taking your inheritance for granted. What one generation neglects, another can be persuaded to despise.

For those of Anglo-Celtic descent, heritage can become so familiar that it rarely attracts conscious thought. Family names, customs, churches and national traditions form the background of ordinary life. Like a fish unaware of the water until it is lifted out, we can take belonging for granted until it is threatened. For many years, it seemed too obvious to need defending.

But that indifference left a dangerous void. A people who cease explaining their own history leave it open for others to explain it for them.

Today, we are told that Anglo-Celtic peoples have no distinct identity of their own—that anyone from anywhere can simply become English, Scottish, Irish, American, Australian, Canadian, and so on. Yet when historical guilt is assigned, ancestry suddenly matters again. An inheritance supposedly too indistinct to preserve becomes distinct enough to condemn.

But it’s this social pressure that is today producing precisely the opposite of its intended effect. Tell people repeatedly that they have no heritage worth preserving, no particular people they belong to, no history to identify with, and you give them every reason to investigate it. Demand that they apologise for their ancestors, and they may begin asking what those ancestors believed, why they believed it, how they lived, and what kind of world they intended to leave for their descendants.

Today, a new generation of Anglo-Celtic descendants is rediscovering its ancestors, with renewed affection for the lands they called home and the institutions, civilisation and culture they built.

Mark my words, over the next decade, you can expect two things to grow together: an awareness of belonging among Anglo-Celtic peoples, and efforts to shame them out of it. Accusations of extremism, Nazism and racism will be used to discredit even ordinary expressions of ancestral attachment, as though loving your own people were itself an offence.

But that social pressure will deepen the attachment it seeks to dissolve. The more people are condemned simply for being Anglo-Celtic, the more they will question why their heritage alone is treated as something to despise. Frustration will grow at the suggestion that they have no people to cherish, no place to call home, and no purpose beyond making way for everyone else.

Contrary to the popular narrative today, we don’t need to be embarrassed by, or indifferent to, a love of kindred. The Apostle Paul expressed profound concern for his “kinsmen according to the flesh” (Rom. 9:3), and that, without any fear of being branded a “racist.” His Christian faith didn’t extinguish natural, God-given familial bonds.

Our responsibility is to honour our fathers and recover gratitude for the inheritance they passed down, including the Christian faith that shaped so much of that inheritance.

Once we recover that, we will produce leaders who unashamedly love their people, honour their ancestors, and understand that they owe their descendants something worth receiving.

Inherited shame won’t sustain a people long. We’re seeing the devastating effects of it today. Grateful stewardship, on the other hand, inspires a people to honour what they have inherited, preserve what is good, and pass on something greater to the generations yet to come.

Written by Paul Facey.

Introduction

Growing up in Western Sydney in the early 2000s, my neighbourhood was genuinely Australian. Almost all my street friends were of multi-generational Australian stock, and later on one Australian-born Indian. The same was true of my soccer club and church. Even outside of church, almost everybody in my life shared the same Christian faith, that which formed Australia’s culture from the beginning.

Fast forward almost two decades, and living only a few minutes’ drive from where I grew up, it is the opposite. I know almost none of my neighbours. Almost all of them are recent arrivals from various parts of India. We have nothing in common: not ancestry, culture, religion, and barely even the English language. The same is true for the wider town. Where I once had a strong community, formed of common blood and faith, I now have only strangers. This commonality remains solely with people far outside of my town, even as far as regional NSW, where I like to visit just to feel like I am in Australia again, like I am truly home and with my own people.

But according to Archbishop Kanishka Raffel—my Archbishop, as I am an Anglican—and Rabbi Benjamin Elton, this destruction of kinship and community built over two centuries is not the problem. In fact, it is those who complain about it that are the problem. The Archbishop & Rabbi recently co-authored a piece called ‘A plea to keep faith in our cultural diversity’; a title that is fascinating in itself, which I will address later. In it, they attack Pauline Hanson’s recent call to restore a “monoculture” in Australia, providing a three-fold response: that Australia was never a “monoculture,” that the problem is not multiculturalism as such, only certain applications thereof, and that Judeo-Christian teaching requires us to “love the stranger.”

Being a young Australian man at the receiving end of replacement migration, the article read to me like a prolonged insult, especially as it came from my own episcopal head. Why this is so will be made clear as I dispatch of the arguments.

Claim 1: Australia Was Never a “Monoculture”

A monoculture “never even existed in Australia.” Before colonisation, over 200 languages and even more dialects were already present on the continent. Even when the first European settlers arrived, they did not bring a monoculture, but a mix of “English and Irish, Anglican, Catholic, Nonconformist and Jewish and, yes, Muslims too.” Two problems ring like a noisy gong from this claim.

First, a reductionist strawman is imputed to Hanson, that “monoculture” means utter ethnic and cultural sameness, to the extent that there are no local or group-level variations. Upon my learning of the term, I had no such illusion, only that Hanson was calling back to the common experience of Australia as a shared cultural infrastructure. Do the Archbishop & Rabbi seriously think Hanson is unaware of local flavouring across Australia? Not even how drinking XXXX is treated in Queensland versus New South Wales? I cannot but read this as an extreme lack of charity, especially when the article itself explicitly acknowledges a “distinctive and overarching Australian culture.”

The second problem is more serious. The impression is given that Australia’s first settlers were a true melting pot, an ethno-cultural tertium quid. Of course, a basic perusal of demographic data from the colonial age shows this to be utterly false. As just one example, the 1846 census of the ‘Middle District’ (NSW) records 27,361 people born in the colony itself, 33,756 from England, 22,445 from Ireland, 6,409 from Scotland, and 364 from Wales. Those born in other British possessions totalled 1,153, and from countries outside the Empire a total of 901.

This data shows the Anglo-Celtic constitution of Australia even well into the colonial era, towards the tail end of convict shipments. English and Irish dominated the demographics, individually outnumbering every other non-Australian-born demographic combined. And when we look at religion, the demographic dominance of Anglos first and Irish second remains: 79,810 adherents to the Church of England, 47,187 for Roman Catholicism, 16,053 for the Church of Scotland, 6,338 Wesleyan Methodists, and 3,681 “Other Protestants.” Jews constituted an overwhelming 969 persons, and “Mahaomedans and Pagans” an incomprehensible 135. “Other Persuasions” totalled 361.

As my sarcasm should make clear, the idea that Australia was a mere mix from which an abstracted culture was born is a lie. It was not English mixed with Jews, but an overwhelmingly English society with a handful of Jews. It was not Irish mixed with Muslims, but a sea of Irish with a spoonful of Muslims.

One may here point out that I admit an English-Irish (Anglo-Celtic) mix, and this is indeed true, yet it cuts against the multiculturalist framing. The Anglo demographic and religion (Anglicanism) were both the substantially larger portion and the dominant religio-cultural standard (hence the Church of England having functional de facto established status in the early colonial era). Yet even with the critical Irish mix that would help constitute the Australian people at large, this only further shows Australia to be a British project: British people, British customs, British religion. To be blunt about it, neither Jews nor Muslims have anything close to an equal-parts claim to Australia’s founding and formation, and this article’s attempt to assert such should be treated as a contemptible act of cultural displacement.

So much for claim one; Australia did indeed have a “monoculture,” rightly defined, and it wasn’t an illusory melting pot, but had a distinctive Old World identity.

Claim 2: Multiculturalism is not the Problem

There are “problems with some forms of multiculturalism,” even “challenges associated with the positive integration of some parts of the Muslim community, and indeed of other communities.” Yet, we must not give up on multiculturalism, but “take inspiration” from Australia’s varying localities, “with its churches, synagogues, mosques and temples.” Ultimately, “[w]e should invest our efforts in nurturing a form of collaborative multiculturalism that serves Australia and all its people, creating an Australia that is stronger precisely because it is diverse.”

In short, the “Diversity is our strength” mantra.

I found it difficult to respond to this point, not because of any rigorous logic or voluminous evidence, but its vacuity. Problems are conceded, and the answer is just “c’mon, give it another chance,” with more flowery language. So what is there even to say? Yet, I am sure many would be moved by these words anyway, and so they must be addressed.

The article tacitly exposes the fatal flaw of multiculturalism as such, not merely “some forms” thereof. Fundamental divisions within society are baked into its very definition and nature. Multiple cultures means at least two sets of customs, two norms of social etiquette, two ethical codes, and often two languages and religions. By necessary consequence, these are points of division between people, which can be dormant for a period, but will frequently flare up, as is happening in Australia today. If, per multiculturalism, everything from daily mannerisms to belief in what constitutes the foundation of reality is an open question, then what does an “overarching Australian culture” even mean? Empty platitudes like “have a fair go”? Getting the magical citizenship paper? Stepping on the magical Australian dirt? How do you weave together a society from that? And we need not even get started on the fundamental civilisational problem of Islam.

On the contrary, we know even within living memory that a culturally and religiously united people is a good in and of itself, critical for a healthy and self-perpetuating society. As such, consciously dismantling this via the policy of multiculturalism is in and of itself evil. I would ask anyone old enough to think back and see if they can say, with a straight face, that Australia today is more peaceful, prosperous, and united than when it was overwhelmingly Anglo-Celtic and Christian.

It is especially unacceptable that the Archbishop, the episcopal head of the Sydney Anglican Diocese, a herald of the exclusive rule and worship of the Triune God, yet promotes the taking of “inspiration” from “synagogues, mosques and temples”; houses of false worship, where God is blasphemed and demons are worshipped, per the consistent Christian position since the Apostolic age. This too shows a critical evil of multiculturalism; for it to live, Christian leaders must give up Christ’s own command to baptise the nations. We are just a Sunday social club with a budget.

Claim 3: The Scriptures Say “Love the Stranger”

Hebrew Scripture “insists repeatedly on the imperative to love the stranger.” Christians also have the parable of the Good Samaritan, who cared for an innocent man of foreign stock. It is this ethic that we must adopt, not “retreating into detachment and alienation.”

The article here promotes a common abuse of the Holy Scriptures in service of a deracination program. Merely wanting a home specifically for one’s own people — a norm for all of history — is condemned as not “loving the stranger.” Specifically, it is a problem for British Australians to desire such; non-British, non-European peoples can agitate for self-determination until the cows come home.

The simple response is twofold. First, this same Hebrew Bible ubiquitously frames itself as the ruleset of a particular people. Israel is a specific ethnic unit, distinct from others, and its security and prosperity is the goal of the Torah. Thus, the loyalty of Israelites to each other over foreigners is a given, and often explicitly stated, such as the requirement of releasing debts every seven years to one’s “neighbour and his brother,” while yet foreigners may still be required to honour their debts (Deut. 15:1–3). It is in this context that “you shall love your neighbor as yourself” is coined (Lev. 19:18), explicitly in reference to fellow kinsmen. It is only commanded further down that one is to love the “stranger” as he loves himself (vv.33–34).

The Torah thus clearly held a both-and dynamic; there is a basic love of natural justice we must hold for all men, and there is an order of particular loves, with one’s kinsmen taking priority over foreigners. The New Testament examples show likewise; the Good Samaritan shows natural justice to the half-dead Judean. Is he therefore endorsing the ethnic replacement of Samaritans in Samaria? Obviously not. And further, we have explicit acknowledgement of the good of ordered loves in the Apostle Paul’s own statement that one who does not provide for “his own, and especially for those of his household, he has denied the faith, and is worse than an unbeliever” (1st Tim. 5:8). A man’s kin, and especially his close family, is to be the closest object of his affections.

And so the article’s bait-and-switch is here defanged. Love of the stranger does not entail multiculturalism, that Australians do not have a right to their own country, that we must tolerate endless thousands of foreigners pouring in over the border. This is nothing more than a lie of the modern liberal order, and it must be treated as such in the churches.

Conclusion: The Elephant in the Room

The article has been soundly refuted in each of its major claims, and ordinarily that would be enough. But I feel obligated to address what I see as its motivating context, yet which in today’s society can cause an uproar. Having already been at the receiving end of (failed) cancel-campaigns, I fear moths in my room more than I do public outrage.

Archbishop Raffel was born in London and eventually settled in Australia with his family as a child; most of his life has been spent here. Yet, his background is Sri Lankan. Rabbi Elton is an English-born, well, Rabbi, a cleric of Judaism. A major aspect of both authors’ identities is foreign to Australia; ethnically in one, religiously in the other. There is a palpable atmosphere of vested interest in promoting the multicultural experiment. Without it, these men (chiefly the Archbishop) would not be considered full Australians, if at all. They would be welcomed, respected, given opportunities for prosperity, but in the end, they would always be guests.

Many foreigners have been satisfied with this condition, as their self-esteem does not live or die on being Australian. But others have found this unacceptable, an assault on their dignity. I sense this exact attitude in the authors of this article. They do not want to be guests, but full Australians without qualification, even if it means dispossessing those whose ancestors built this country of their identity, rendering common what was once precious. I do not mince my words here; this is a disgraceful act, an insult to Australians.

Public prejudice against Anglo-Celtic Australians (that is, ethnic Australians) should no longer be tolerated from our clergy, and conversations should be forced onto the table. And I more than most have the bona fides to make this claim, as I am only half-Australian myself, the other half being Lebanese. My dignity as a man and a son of God is not predicated on my being a pure Australian, and so I happily grant my partial status. Despite this, as a servant cannot serve two masters, so a man cannot have the same loyalty to multiple peoples. And as one of my parents came to Australia and chose to marry a local, the promise of Ruth was thus made: your people shall be my people (Ruth 1:16). I carry on that promise, never agitating for Lebanese to be considered as Aussie as the man or woman whose forebears colonised regional New South Wales.

To conclude, I want to return to the article title, “A plea to keep faith in our cultural diversity.” That word choice, “faith,” is telling. Multiculturalism, visibly, is a disaster, rending Australia into a thousand ribbons. But we mustn’t believe our lying eyes.

Multiculturalism is an article of faith, immune from judgement according to the empirical evidence of its effects. It is also like a sacrament; a visible sign of an invisible grace. It becomes that glorious thing hoped for, the evidence of things unseen (Heb. 11:1). The less its promised harmony can be observed, the greater the imperative to keep the faith.

Paul Facey is a Sydney-based Anglican with a Bachelor of Theology from Alphacrucis College. He has since pursued independent studies across a range of academic disciplines. He runs the YouTube channel The Other Paul, where he explores theology, Church history, and politics, regularly engaging in debates with Christians from various denominations. You can follow him on X at @TheOtherPaul2

What happens when a police officer is ordered to do something that may be lawful, but which they believe is morally wrong?

It’s a question worth asking, particularly now, when governments are acquiring extraordinary new powers to monitor their citizens, and police are increasingly being asked to enforce laws that touch on freedom of speech, religion and conscience.

Police officers occupy an unusual position in society. They are entrusted with powers ordinary citizens do not possess, including the authority to detain, search and arrest people and, in certain circumstances, use force.

Those powers are necessary for maintaining law and order, but they also carry responsibilities that extend beyond legislation, departmental policy and instructions from senior officers.

For generations, Western ideas about justice and the proper exercise of authority have been shaped, in part, by Christian teachings about conscience, the dignity of the individual and the responsibility of those entrusted with power.

Within that tradition, authority carries a moral obligation. The person exercising it remains accountable for their actions, even when acting on behalf of a government or institution.

The Christian understanding of justice also places considerable importance on mercy, restraint and the treatment of others. It recognises the authority of government while maintaining that obedience to earthly institutions does not absolve individuals of responsibility for their conduct.

Those principles have relevance to modern policing, regardless of an officer’s personal religious beliefs.

Police officers are expected to uphold the law impartially, not impose their own religious or political convictions, but the moral questions surrounding the exercise of state power remain, particularly when an officer is required to make decisions that may profoundly affect another person’s life.

As surveillance technology and artificial intelligence expand the capabilities of law enforcement agencies, those questions are becoming increasingly difficult to ignore.

Former British Parachute Regiment soldier Matt Styler was charged with assaulting an emergency worker following disorder in Southampton on June 2, 2026.

The wider protest became violent, and eleven police officers were injured, with numerous participants being charged. Styler pleaded not guilty to the allegation against him.

Footage from Southampton shows riot police moving against protesters with shields as the confrontation became physical. Images circulated from the incident show Styler, a 50-year-old former soldier, being struck and pushed with police shields.

What is it worth for a former British soldier, who risked his life for his country, only to be beaten by others in authority for doing little more than being present at a protest? In court, the prosecution offered no evidence against the defendant (Styler).

A police officer might spend decades enforcing the law, but eventually that career ends, and at that point, the officer is once again a civilian, dependent upon the same legal protections as everybody else.

If a military veteran can find himself on the receiving end of state force, today’s police officers have no guarantee that they, their children or their grandchildren could never find themselves in a similar position.

The argument is, as it stands, what motivates a group of police officers, or an officer as an individual ‘just following orders,’ making an average of £32,256 to £52,014 for a constable, to beat a retirement-age protester with shields?

Do they not see the irony of it, given it was a former soldier they were beating? That could be them one day.

There’s no argument here that police should abandon their responsibilities or refuse lawful directions because they disagree with them.

Officers are required to enforce laws impartially, including laws they may personally dislike.

But what it does mean is recognising the humanity of the person standing on the other side of the police line, particularly when an officer has discretion over how the law is enforced.

Police deserve to be properly compensated for work that can be difficult, stressful and dangerous. But all careers eventually end, and while the consequences of decisions made during a career can endure for the people affected, that includes the cops themselves.

Politicians and senior officials may make laws and formulate government policy, but it is the police officer on the street who has to put those decisions into practice.

Ministers are not the ones placing people in handcuffs or turning up at the front door to make an arrest.

The individual officer therefore carries a responsibility that cannot be transferred entirely to the institution issuing the direction.

Britain provides an example of why decisions made at street level can matter long before a case reaches a courtroom.

Data obtained by The Times showed police forces in England and Wales made 12,183 arrests in 2023 under section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and section 1 of the Malicious Communications Act 1988 — equivalent to about 33 arrests each day.

Ministry of Justice figures cited in the same report recorded 1,119 sentencings under those provisions in 2023. There are numerous reasons an arrest may not result in a sentence, including evidentiary difficulties, out-of-court resolutions and circumstances involving other offences.

But an arrest happens before a court determines guilt. A person can be detained, searched, questioned and held in custody while allegations are investigated.

The consequences for the individual can be substantial, even when no conviction follows.

What are these officers thinking when they turn up at the door with the directive to arrest someone over a social media post? Imagine the scenario: it’s 4 am and three officers arrive to arrest an ordinary citizen accused of writing some naughty words on Facebook.

Do the officers wonder if that will be them one day, or if they’ll next be knocking down the door of a relative, or a friend, all for expressing distrust in the state force apparatus? Or confusion as to the current cultural thought crime?

What if the police decided not to follow through with orders they know deep down are immoral, unethical and unprincipled?

What if they decided not to enforce the Orwellian will of the state and lay down arms, to become citizens again?

Would the state hold the same unchecked power? Clearly not.

The Christian moral tradition places particular emphasis on justice, fairness and the protection of people from the arbitrary exercise of power.

Such considerations become especially important where legislation is broad, or officers retain discretion over whether an arrest is necessary.

Another case in Britain raises similar questions about the relationship between individual conscience, religious freedom and the exercise of police authority.

Christian charity volunteer Isabel Vaughan-Spruce appeared before Birmingham Magistrates’ Court on October 7, 2026, where she pleaded not guilty to five charges relating to occasions on which she allegedly stood silently praying within 150 metres of an abortion facility.

Her encounters with police stretch back several years. In February 2023, Vaughan-Spruce was acquitted after prosecutors offered no evidence following her arrest under a local public spaces protection order. She was arrested again weeks later, before receiving a £13,000 settlement from West Midlands Police in August 2024 over the two arrests.

The latest prosecution concerns national legislation introduced in October 2024 to protect people accessing abortion services from interference, intimidation and harassment.

During the October hearing, Judge Tan Ikram questioned the original charge, with Vaughan-Spruce’s legal representatives reporting that he observed that merely standing in a public place was not, by itself, a criminal offence. Prosecutors were subsequently permitted to bring five amended charges.

Vaughan-Spruce’s lawyers argue that her silent prayers did not constitute an attempt to influence or harass anybody and that the prosecution infringes her rights to freedom of thought and religion.

“Standing silently and holding certain beliefs in a public space should never be a crime,” Vaughan-Spruce said.

The Crown Prosecution Service’s own guidance acknowledges that silent prayer does not necessarily constitute an offence, requiring prosecutors to consider the person’s conduct, the surrounding circumstances and evidence of intent or recklessness.

For police officers, this distinction is significant. The responsibility to enforce legislation intended to protect vulnerable people must coexist with an obligation to respect fundamental freedoms. Once again, if the police officers refuse to obey the directive to arrest someone for ‘silent prayer,’ the ludicrous nature of the imaginative force apparatus simply falls away.

From a Christian ethical perspective, the case brings the question of conscience into sharp focus. An officer may have the legal authority to investigate suspected wrongdoing, but must still exercise that authority with fairness, restraint and respect for the individual.

It is precisely in these circumstances, where the boundaries between lawful conduct and criminal behaviour are contested, that professional judgement and moral responsibility become especially important.

Closer to home, NSW farmer John Carter became embroiled in a long-running dispute after cattle he had been grazing on the Jingellic Travelling Stock Reserve were seized by Local Land Services in January 2025. The dispute subsequently resulted in arrests and multiple charges.

Some of the original allegations against Carter, including fraud and animal-cruelty charges, were later withdrawn.

The withdrawal of those charges did not constitute a judicial finding that the original seizure of his cattle was unlawful, nor did it dispose of the remaining proceedings against him. The Carter matter therefore should not be presented as establishing wrongdoing by police.

What the case illustrates is the difficult position officers can occupy when disputes involving government agencies, regulations and individual citizens eventually require police intervention.

Officers frequently have little involvement in the policies or administrative decisions they are required to enforce. Yet they may ultimately be the people exercising coercive powers against the citizen affected by them.

Christian ethical thought has long distinguished between the legitimacy of authority and the moral responsibilities of the individual exercising it. The fact that a direction comes from an institution does not, by itself, settle every question about whether an action is just or appropriate.

That distinction has also been raised by people who have served in law enforcement.

Former Los Angeles Police Department officer and writer Michael C. Ruppert placed considerable importance on the police oath and the personal obligations he believed accompanied it.

During the Occupy movement in 2011, Ruppert spoke about deciding to stand between protesters and police in Santa Rosa after hearing authorities intended to clear an encampment.

His explanation was straightforward: “I took an oath.”

Ruppert said military veterans had independently reached a similar conclusion and were prepared to place themselves between protesters and police if force was used. For him, the oath represented an obligation that survived his career in law enforcement.

NSW police officers also take an oath, or alternatively an affirmation, before exercising the functions of their office.

An officer promises to serve “without favour or affection, malice or ill-will”, to preserve the King’s peace, prevent offences to the best of their ability and discharge their duties “faithfully according to law”.

The oath is not a promise to follow every instruction without question, nor does it authorise officers to replace legislation with their personal religious or political beliefs.

Police are required to act within the law, and professional judgement remains an essential part of fulfilling that obligation.

The Police Act 1990 also establishes a mission for NSW Police that includes placing integrity above all, preserving the rights and freedoms of individuals and exercising authority responsibly.

Those duties are consistent with moral principles that have long been emphasised in Christian teaching: justice, honesty, restraint and accountability for the treatment of others.

An officer deciding whether to arrest somebody, how much force to use or whether discretion is appropriate must make a judgement that cannot always be reduced to a departmental instruction.

Technology is making those decisions more complicated.

Police drones have been operating over Moree in north-west NSW as part of an Australian-first trial, which has now been extended for another two years.

Drones offer clear operational advantages. They can help locate offenders, search large areas quickly and provide officers with information before they enter potentially dangerous situations.

Some Moree residents, legal advocates and the Australian Human Rights Commissioner have raised concerns about privacy, transparency and the safeguards governing their use.

NSW Police has said the drones are being used to prevent, disrupt and respond to criminal activity, while the NSW Government says governance arrangements and operating procedures are in place to ensure their use remains lawful and proportionate.

Australian Human Rights Commissioner Lorraine Finlay has argued that effectiveness is only part of the debate.

“This isn’t just a question about whether the technology works or doesn’t work,” she said.

“It’s a question of what impact that technology is having and how it’s being used by the police in terms of protecting our rights and freedoms.”

Western Australia provides another example of how policing technology is developing.

WA Police has been trialling live facial-recognition technology in public spaces. During the trial, more than 900,000 faces were scanned, producing 209 alerts and 79 arrests. Eight incorrect alerts were recorded.

The trial has prompted questions about privacy, consent, accuracy, possible demographic disparities and transparency surrounding police watch lists.

The implications could become more significant if technologies currently operating separately begin working together, and to be honest, it seems more than probable this will eventually be the case.

There’s no suggestion the Moree drones are conducting live facial recognition, but future systems could potentially identify faces or number plates (think Flock cameras) while artificial intelligence analyses large quantities of online communication and flags individuals for further investigation.

Britain’s experience with communications offences gives some indication of the scale involved when policing intersects with digital information. AI could substantially increase the amount of material capable of being assessed and brought to police attention. So, it’s what happens next that’s key.

Christian ethics places the individual human being at the centre of moral responsibility. Technology may assist in identifying suspects or gathering evidence, but it cannot possess a conscience or accept personal accountability in the way a human officer can.

The responsibility for exercising police powers lawfully and fairly must therefore remain with the people and institutions entrusted with them.

I’m certainly not suggesting officers should become individual arbiters of which democratically enacted laws they will enforce. The rule of law depends on impartiality, and allowing personal convictions to determine enforcement would create its own dangers.

But professional responsibility also requires officers to understand the limits of their powers, question directions they reasonably believe are unlawful and exercise discretion where legislation permits it.

Courts, oversight bodies and legislation should provide safeguards against mistakes and abuses of authority. The judgement of the individual officer remains another important protection.

As I’ve said, police themselves have a personal stake in maintaining those standards.

The civil liberties they uphold while serving are the same liberties they will rely upon when their careers end.

Due process, the presumption of innocence, reasonable use of force, privacy and equality before the law apply to retired officers just as they do to the people they encounter while serving.

For Christians, the principle of treating others as one would wish to be treated offers a straightforward moral test, particularly for those entrusted with power over another person.

It asks the officers to consider whether they are exercising authority with the fairness, restraint and humanity they would expect if their own circumstances were reversed.

Drones, facial recognition and artificial intelligence will continue to give police more powerful tools to prevent crime and protect the public. They will also require governments, police leadership and the community to confront difficult questions about how far those powers should extend.

Whatever technology sits behind an investigation, there will still be occasions when an officer must decide whether the information before them justifies using the authority of the state against another person.

The Christian understanding of conscience offers one framework for considering that responsibility, alongside the legal and professional obligations that bind every police officer regardless of faith.

As policing becomes more technologically sophisticated, the moral character of the people exercising those powers will remain just as important as the laws governing them.

For the officer wearing the uniform, the enduring challenge is to serve the law faithfully without losing sight of the humanity of those upon whom it is enforced.

Britain’s military leaders, with the help of the mainstream media, are preparing the public for the possibility of war with Russia.

On Friday, General Sir Roly Walker, head of the British Army, warned that political leaders would soon need to have a frank conversation with the public about the sacrifices required to defend the nation.

Every citizen, he suggested, would have a part to play.

But before asking another generation of young men to fight and die in the never-ending wars of the globalist elites, there’s a question the political establishment needs to answer:

Why should British men be expected to fight for a country whose political leadership appears embarrassed by and increasingly hostile to their national identity?

For decades, Britons concerned about immigration, demographic transformation, cultural displacement, and the erosion of their national inheritance have been branded racists, far-right extremists, and even Nazis by the political establishment.

They have been told to celebrate diversity, while their own desire for cultural continuity has been met with accusation and condemnation. They have been told that Britain belongs to the world, that their homeland is everyone’s homeland, and that their national identity is available to anyone who wishes to claim it.

When the British people seek to preserve their own distinct identity, culture, and inheritance for future generations, their efforts are increasingly treated not merely as objectionable, but potentially criminal.

And now, after decades of promoting a conception of Britain in which national identity is increasingly detached from ancestry, history, and inherited culture, the establishment wants its sons to prepare for war.

But men do not fight for abstract notions of nationhood. They do not die to protect global economic zones. Men fight for what’s behind them. They die for the people they love—the people the establishment told them they ought to apologise for, the people they were told have no right to any power or place of their own.

Their wives. Their children. Their families. Their communities. The churches their ancestors built for them. The countryside they grew up in. The nation they inherited from their own people. They fight, and they die to ensure the inheritance they received from their fathers can be passed on securely to their children.

A homeland is not merely a geographic location, nor is it simply a collection of random individuals temporarily occupying the same territory.

It’s a people and their inheritance, sustained across generations by common loyalties, traditions, institutions, and obligations.

The Bible itself recognises the significance and goodness of nations. According to the Apostle Paul, their boundaries and their appointed places are established by God’s providential hand (Acts 17:26). As such, we are not to regard the existence of distinct peoples and nations as an obstacle to human progress. Nations are good, natural, and inevitable.

And yet, much of modern political discourse treats national attachment and patriotism as something potentially dangerous, particularly when expressed by the British people themselves.

This is a little more than ironic, considering the government is now asking those same men to be prepared to sacrifice themselves on behalf of the nation they weren’t allowed to express any degree of pride in.

Apparently, loving your country is dangerous, until the government needs you to die for it.

But you cannot spend decades weakening a people’s attachment to their homeland and then expect that same attachment to inspire them to die for it. Nor can political leaders spend years demonising patriotism, only to suddenly appeal to it when they need another generation of young white men willing to sacrifice their lives for the very government that was condemning their national loyalties just five minutes earlier.

Of course, defending Britain is not necessarily the same thing as defending its government. A man may have every reason to despise the decisions of his rulers while remaining fiercely devoted to his homeland.

But if Britain is worth defending against so-called foreign aggression, then surely its national inheritance is worth preserving at home. If its people are worth dying for in wartime, surely their interests, identity, and continuity are worth defending in peacetime.

Patriotism is an indispensable virtue in wartime, and Britain's political leaders understand its importance. That’s why you’ll only see British men calling British men to sign up, fight, and die for Britain. That’s why wartime military recruiting advertisements almost exclusively feature White people. Suddenly, their beloved diversity quotas and racial representation don’t matter.

But if patriotism is an indispensable virtue in wartime, why should it be treated with suspicion during peacetime?

Britain’s leaders are increasingly concerned about whether the country possesses the military strength to withstand a foreign enemy. But they should also consider whether they have preserved the national solidarity necessary to inspire its defence.

A government cannot reasonably expect men to sacrifice everything for a homeland while treating their desire to preserve that homeland as something shameful.

Before asking British men what they are prepared to die for, Britain’s rulers ought to ask themselves what they have allowed those men to live for.

This work will examine the criticisms made of Theonomy by Matthew Cliff of Brisbane School of Theology.

Mr. Cliff set out to speak on the Abortion Abolitionism movement by primarily criticising Theonomy, in which he says “shapes and drives the entire AA movement,”^[i] to which we now find ourselves talking about it. I’m grateful to Mr. Cliff for stepping into this arena in critiquing Theonomy. Theonomy, rather than a movement, is the theological position where God’s Law is upheld, believing it is abiding today, that it remains the just standard, righteous and sufficient to deal with all of life’s endeavours.

While it is true that there is a connection between Abolitionism and Theonomy, Mr. Cliff is correct in noticing that not all Abolitionists are theonomists, but all theonomists (to some extent) are abolitionists.^[ii] The simple explanation is that the abolitionists uphold the Law of God on this one point of murder and how it ought to be dealt with in accordance with scripture.

I grant that there is connection here, but there are plenty of Christians who consciously choose to not label themselves as theonomists while they proclaim the Law of God on the streets within Abolish Abortion Australia, and that’s fine. Indeed, I am a member of Abolish Abortion Australia. Primarily however, I will set out to defend Theonomy that is often associated with Abortion Abolitionism.

Addressing the Critique

Part 1

While I thank Mr. Cliff for attempting to bring to light theological errors of Theonomy, how and where he takes the position of arguing from needs to be taken into consideration seriously. On page eight of his critique, he explains the contrast between what he calls the Classical position over against the Theonomist position, and in doing so, argues that the “ceremonial” (i.e. sacrificial) laws have been fulfilled in Christ, to which he rightly points to Hebrews 9. But in his reasoning for the fulfillment of the civil laws in particular, his position from arguing shifts to a footnote.^[iii] Why is this the case? I think because it is not as easily answered as with what is explicitly stated in Scripture, so he had to appeal to a fallible source. I would not have a problem if what the footnote contained was in scripture, but it is not.

Moreover, in contrasting the theonomic position with the classical, Mr. Cliff rightly quotes Greg Bahnsen, but then goes on to describe his position as being “an inherently political project,”^[iv] as if Bahnsen had forced a chic idea onto the Bible. This is grossly untrue.

Preceding this point on page seven, Mr. Cliff referred to the idea made by Ligon Duncan that theonomists do not want a biblical ethic, but the ethic of the Sinai Covenant.^[v] This is a big charge against the theonomists. If this was true, theonomists do not take into

consideration the New Covenant, making us Judaisers, cutting us off from the faith therefore. If there was an ethical distinction between “biblical ethics” and “Sinai Covenant ethics,” those distinctions would be covenantal, thereby disastrous if the theonomists seek Sinai ethics over [all-encompassing] biblical ethics.

I purposely lined those criticisms up to go to what must be said before we get too hasty. What Bahnsen argues is actually an argument from Scripture. His central thesis in Theonomy In Christian Ethics, a work cited by Mr. Cliff, lays out the basis for the continuing validity of God’s law. And the text Bahnsen uses is Matthew 5:17-19:

Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever does and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.^[vi]

In his thesis, Bahnsen spends 47 pages^[vii] working through this text, and what do we find? Many things, but most importantly, conclusions from sound exegesis and sound hermeneutical methodology. From Bahnsen, “The concern of Jesus in Matthew 5:17-19 is to make clear that His purpose is not to abrogate the Older Testamental law.”^[viii]

In responding to the two criticisms made, firstly, while it is true that Bahnsen was political, that is not his starting foundation. Bahnsen sought to answer the question of what we ought to be doing, and in this case, within the sphere of law. Bahnsen maintained that there is no other standard under heaven by which men must walk in, since it continues.

Secondly, to address the charge made that theonomists seek the Sinai ethic over against the Biblical ethic, we need to ask ourselves, do theonomists hold to this? If we mean by “Sinai ethic” to be the Law given on Sinai apart from further biblical revelation, then no, we reject that. These categories are misconstruing and are irrelevant. Theonomists do not ignore further revelation, as Bahnsen points out,

“[I]f I were to continue the ritual observances under the New Covenant, I would be despising the final accomplishment of salvation in Christ.”^[ix]

So then, how can Bahnsen defend himself with a potential charge of leaving out aspects of the Law whilst claiming that all of the Law is presumed to continue? Bahnsen continues,

“The New Testament shows the Christian how to “see” the ceremonial laws fulfilled in Christ and His redemptive economy (e.g., passover is seen in the Lord’s supper). Thus the change in outward form of observance is grounded finally in the teaching of God’s word and is not arbitrarily brought to the data of the Bible as an extraneous model. Hence also the New Testament is showing the believer how it is that the ceremonial law is not abrogated but fulfilled in Christ for us.”^[x]

And he further states,

“Only scriptural authority is sufficient to alter the observance of any law from God, and only Scripture can be taken as the basis for characterizing any law as typological or ceremonial.”^[xi]

What Bahnsen gets at is that it is not up to us, or from secondary sources, to determine what classifies as ceremonial or typological, but that of only Scripture interpreting Scripture.

While it is true that the theocracy of Israel has vanished as a political entity, how does this fact correspond with scripture equipping us for every good work (2 Timothy 3:17) in light of God’s kingdom mission to reconcile all things to Himself (Colossians 1:20)?

Part 2

Moving on, the next line of criticism to address is on the Kingdom of God. On page ten, Mr. Cliff points to the position where the Kingdom of God is actually the “church”.^[xii] To know what the Kingdom of God is, we have to ask what the nature of the Kingdom is, the domain of the Kingdom, and the mission of the Kingdom. If the Kingdom of God is the church, is the nature of his Kingdom, then, individual Christians, and that its existence is

dependent on Christians? Is the domain of the kingdom the local church? Is the mission of the kingdom to bring people to church? Unfortunately, Mr. Cliff conflates the roles of the Kingdom of God with the Church, thereby reducing the Kingdom of God to the church, as Joseph Boot comments:

“Because the institutional church is rightly limited in its role and jurisdiction in the Christian life and in human society, whenever and wherever an unscriptural dualism reigns, where artificial separations of nature and grace, law and gospel, creation and redemption are propounded, God and his Word become theoretically imprisoned in the church, and Christ’s reign is faithlessly limited to one sphere of life.”^[xiii]

Boot is correct in noting that the institutional church indeed has its jurisdictions, and if the Kingdom of God is contained within the church, then the Kingdom of God is hindered by the church’s limitations amongst the rest of creation, spheres and institutions. Does the church do missions? Absolutely, the people of God apart from the institutional church ought to be operating under God’s Kingdom jurisdiction, which is not the institutional church.

If we confuse the Kingdom of God with the church, then the only time you’re operating within the Kingdom is when you’re serving within the institution, which sounds a lot like the Roman church. The nature of the Kingdom is spiritual (John 18:36), the domain of the Kingdom is all of creation (Matthew 12:28-29, Romans 8:19-21) and the Mission of the Kingdom is to glorify God in the expansion of the reign of Christ through His people; the Universal Church (Matthew 28:18-20, Colossians 1:15-20, Matthew 6:10, Psalm 110:1-2, Matthew 13:31-32).

Why did I take time to criticize Mr. Cliff’s view of the Kingdom of God? Because how you view the Kingdom of God shapes how you look at the Law (commands) of God. If God has nothing to say about law, the family, education, economics, science, or gardening, and is not under the jurisdiction of God’s rule, then obviously Christ did not come to restore it, and no good, law and order can come out of these spheres. Boot again,

“But Christianity, the true gospel of the kingdom, cannot be locked up within a single institution any more than it can be corralled into the enclosure of individual salvation from the consequences of sin. For salvation, which implies total wholeness and restoration, is also deliverance from the power and corruption of sin. The scope of salvation is as broad as the scope of the Fall. Clearly then, the faith of the gospel is centered in and focused upon Christ Himself, not in an institution.”^[xiv]

I disagree with Mr. Cliff that the Kingdom of God does not manifest itself physically, since its domain certainly does (i.e. the earth, Isaiah 66:1; Matthew 5:35a). Only by implication through the rule of Christ, and not from roots found within an earthly or worldly source,^[xv] is where we see His rule on earth be manifested, as He has all authority in heaven and on earth.

Therefore, applying it to AA, justice in proclaiming the Law of God on the streets to combat the cultural issue of abortion is Kingdom work by those, obviously, who are part of the Universal Church outside of the institution. If the Kingdom of God does not encompass law and government, then scripture does not speak on it, nor is it redeemable. But we know that it does and what it ought to look like.

Part 3

Much that has been said so far in the critique has answered much of the misunderstandings and errors of Mr. Cliff. In his next section, on page twelve, he gets into the question of how believers should relate to the Mosaic law in light of Christ and the new Covenant. We have already dealt with what Jesus had to say in Matthew 5:17-19, that the law is binding, as our Lord warns not to annul any of them (Matthew 5:19). So what about now that we are in the New Covenant?

Let us recall what is new about the New Covenant and what the first benefit entails: God will put His Law on our heart (Jeremiah 31:33; Hebrews 8:10). Part of the New Covenant benefit is that we are able to, by our affections bestowed upon us, approach God, as well as keeping His commandments (John 14:15); our affections are also set upon the Law of God (Psalm 119; Ephesians 2:10, Romans 8:4).

I agree with the scripture quotations used in this section of his critique^[xvi] in reference to what typological events have taken place, but only by the hermeneutical method he accuses theonomists of using: that the law is binding unless stated otherwise.^[xvii]

I wonder, though, what law were the apostles operating under in their ministry, as the Law of God apparently has no “determinative role among God’s people.”^[xviii] The law of Christ, then? That would work if that is defined by what He said in Matthew 4:4 and 5:17-19, that the Law still has a central and determinative role in all of life for the Christian (cf. 1 John 5:2-3).

Part 4

The term “General Equity” has definitely played a massive role in the early theonomic tradition, particularly to Bahnsen, who evidently desired to remain within the bounds of the Westminster Confession of Faith.^[xix] I do not share his sentiment. I believe “General Equity” has actually made Theonomy more ambiguous in its enforcement.^[xx] This becomes relevant now to the “General Equity” of law in the Bible in pages 13-14 of the critique.

On the not uncommon idea, propounded by Mr. Cliff, that we can define the parapet law in its General Equity to mean the government can enforce workplace regulations, building codes, and public safety laws,^[xxi] is to miss something extremely important: the jurisdiction of the government. In God’s Law, there is no legislative function apart from what has been given to the people (Deuteronomy 4:2; Deuteronomy 12:32).

The unwitting assumption that man or the government have this prerogative unconsciously shows us that the state ought to be autonomous, likely due to tradition and how drenched we are in this kind of rule in the West. But in fact, the reader may notice that along with the parapet law in Deuteronomy 22:8 there is no penalty assigned to failing to put up a parapet.

If, as Mr. Cliff suggests, we legislate a principle of the Law of God whereby it does not have a penalty, ought it be a punishable law? In fact, under manmade legislation, there would be an arbitrary penalty assigned to it, causing injustice and unproductiveness. Legislating is a prerogative only God has. Therefore, this interpretation of the “historic Reformed meaning,”^[xxii] as well as the General Equity position, are unqualified when it comes to 21st-century theological development, because both positions hold an outdated view of the legislative function.

On this, Chris Hume says plainly, “There is a place for law, but it must be limited to what the Triune God, in the Bible, has legislated.”^[xxiii] God in His law does not prescribe the state to enforce workplace regulations, building codes, and public safety laws – that is entirely up to the enterprises if they so choose within their sphere of operation (Something altogether foreign to our world currently).

Part 5

Now, up to page fifteen, we see the issue of hermeneutics come up. Briefly touched on earlier, Mr. Cliff criticised Bahnsen’s hermeneutics stating, “The error is that theonomists begin with continuity and require explicit New Testament repeal before civil laws can be set aside.”^[xxiv]

In light of Bahnsen’s appeal and expansion of Matthew 5:17-19 in Theonomy in Christian Ethics, I object to Mr. Cliff calling it erroneous because it is Scripture that qualifies this continuity, thus putting the burden of proof on my opponent for his hermeneutics. And was it not true that explicit New Testament repeal was needed to qualify the antitypes pertaining to the sacrificial laws? It is this same consistent hermeneutic, same treatment of the whole law of God, that Bahnsen uses as his hermeneutic.

Instead, Mr. Cliff wants to offer the “Classical Reformed” hermeneutic that you need to “begin with discontinuity that was introduced through fulfilment of the Mosaic covenant through Christ.”^[xxv] Could he possibly be referring to Matthew 5:17-19, where Jesus came not to abrogate, but to fulfil? I do not see that or where he is coming from here, he may need to clarify.

We do not deny redemptive history; there is a New Covenant. But the Church cannot wield the sword to punish those who do evil; that is the job for God’s minister, the delegated authority in this sphere; the powers (Romans 13:3-4). How would an authority know if he is not committing murder when he wields the sword? How would Mr. Cliff know, too?

Part 6

There seems to be an endorsement from Mr. Cliff in “seeing society shaped by biblical principles.”^[xxvi] There’s an objection from me here, however.^[xxvii] Would these Christian values be Christian values if they conflict with the Law of God? Mr. Cliff also unopposed Christian Reconstructionism “in principle” – just without theonomic ethics.^[xxviii] Nonetheless, I think we are getting to the heart of the issue here:

“[T]he objection is to the confusion that arises when the civil legislation given to the theocratic nation of Israel is applied to modern, non-theocratic states.”^[xxix]

Interestingly enough, I agree. We cannot expect to enforce God’s judicial Law within a man-made form of government. The Law, as well as the form, must be in accordance with God’s Law (Theonomy). Our current system will not last due to its imperfections, but God’s revealed form of government is perfect, and therefore appropriate to enforce the Law of God. Man with God’s Law in his hands cannot legislate God’s Law because God’s Law contains the form of government to dispense the Law of God righteously and justly.

What good is having the death penalty established for murder if you only need one witness to convict? What good is there in punishing delinquents if they’re protected by the state for crimes that, according to the Bible, would result in the death penalty? What good is having a state, or a politician, that upholds Christian values and passes conservative laws, but taxes you, all the while imprisoning you for not paying tax in the same breath?

These issues would not be systemically susceptible under a theocracy. How much evil would be done against the Law of God if we try to keep the man-made system while attempting to “establish His Law” (Romans 3:31)? So I agree wholeheartedly on this point by Mr. Cliff, not that it nullifies what God requires, but rather points to the fact that we need to think outside of our current man-made form of government.

Part 7

Now we get to see Mr. Cliff’s view of the appropriate response to the authority over us Christians in our context. Under the New Covenant, he claims, “[T]he Christian approach to law and government is characterised by holding together two complementary biblical commitments: [Respectful submission to civil authorities and unwavering primary allegiance to God.]^[xxx]

Mr. Cliff takes on the view of the authorities whereby you must, essentially, obey whatsoever they ask you unless it contradicts Scripture (and/or their conviction, generally). In his listing of the Christian approach to law and government, he neglects to include the obligations of the government (ruler) to function as a “minister of God.” (Romans 13:1, 4; 1 Peter 2:14) I will allow Bahnsen to speak for himself on Mr. Cliff’s view taken from Theonomy in Christian Ethics^[xxxi]:

“The positivistic approach to Romans 13 has been found to produce highly suspect conclusions in the past, some being willing to go so far as to grant autonomy to the state. Others have maintained that Paul is saying that all governments have divine approval of such a character that the Christian would be morally culpable for disobeying the government except where preaching the gospel was prohibited. Beyond that no ethical criteria can be laid upon the state, and the believer has a strong obligation to have a positive and patriotic attitude toward whatever government is in power.”^[xxxii]

I don’t have doubt in my mind that Mr. Cliffe wants to be as reasonable as possible with the circumstances we are in, but to submit to the government without having a higher law for them to submit opens up totalitarianism. Bahnsen again,

“It is quite clear that Romans 13 has two elements in it: practical ethics and normative description …what is expected of the Christian and what is expected of the state.”^[xxxiii]

Final thoughts

In conclusion, all that is said about the theological foundations of Theonomy, it is founded upon the Word of God; the whole Word of God. Matthew 5:17-19 is clear that Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfil (the antonym for abolish).^[xxxiv] In the end, what indeed is Mr. Cliff’s view of the state? How ought it function, and by what standard do they operate under?

Surely the state is not a law unto itself; autonomous. We can agree that the covenant community is not a nation-state, but it is the Universal Church. But that isn’t what is at stake. What’s at stake is what then ought the state be doing as God’s deacon (Romans 13:4)? And, what ought they not be doing?

I do not believe you can be doing “salt and light ministry”^[xxxv] while neglecting the very point of contact of those various ministries; doing Matthew 5:13-16 while ignoring 5:17-19. If law and order is not founded upon the whole council of God, then it is founded upon a different foundation; a foreign and pagan foundation. We know that the Word of God contains everything we need for being equipped for every good work (2 Timothy 3:16-17), and we also know that the Law is good if one uses it lawfully (1 Timothy 1:8-11). God’s minister, the powers, is a good work that God’s Word encompasses. To finish full circle with Bahnsen,

“The civil magistrate has been commissioned by God to punish workers of evil in society; this is his task and proper function. His ministry is not in vain as he executes penal justice on criminals, for he has been “ordained” and “sent” by the Lord of Justice Himself…not simply [in] God’s decretive will, but God’s preceptive will––and he sins should he fail to do so [as God’s instrument].”^[xxxvi]

[i] Cliff, Matthew, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 3.

[ii] Ibid., 6.

[iii] See Ibid., 8.

[iv] Ibid., 9.

[v] Ibid., 5-6.

[vi] Matthew 5:17-19 LSB

[vii] In the 3rd (2002) edition.

[viii] Greg L. Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics (Nacogdoches: TX. Covenant Media Press, 2002), 54

[ix] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 208.

[x] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 213.

[xi] Ibid.

[xii] See Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 10.

[xiii] Joseph Boot, Think Christianly: Developing an Undivided Mind (Ontario: Canada. Ezra Press, 2025), 98.

[xiv] Ibid.

[xv] Cf. John 18:36.

[xvi] See Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 12

[xvii] Ibid., see 16.

[xviii] Ibid., 12.

[xix] Along with the Catechisms, See Bahnsen, Theonomy in Christian Ethics, 35.

[xx] While I can see a “General Equity” function within the revealed form of government in adjudication, General Equity Theonomists, however, want to Legislate the “General Equity”.

[xxi] Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 14.

[xxii] See ibid.

[xxiii] Chris Hume, Seven Statist Sins (Lancaster: PA. The Lancaster Patriot, 2023), 48.

[xxiv] Cliffe, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 16.

[xxv] Ibid.

[xxvi] Ibid., 16.

[xxvii] For a further read of my objection to having “Christian Values,” the link to my article is found here: https://www.caldronpool.com/p/are-christian-values-enough?utm_source=publication-search

[xxviii] See Cliffe, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 16

[xxix] Ibid., 16-17.

[xxx] Ibid., 18

[xxxi] Greg Bahnsen spends an entire chapter, titled “The Civil Magistrate in the New Testament,” addressing and looking closely at Romans 13 and relevant passages.

[xxxii] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 357.

[xxxiii] Ibid., 361.

[xxxiv] Bahnsen deals with what “fulfil” entails in Matthew 5:17 on pages 54 to 74 in Theonomy, comparing and refuting various interpretations of it.

[xxxv] Cliff, “Abortion Abolitionism”: A Theological Critique, 18.

[xxxvi] Bahnsen, Theonomy, 369-370.