By Richard Eason B.Ec. (Hons.) jssc

Emblazoned over the gates of what used to be Dacau concentration camp is this sombre warning:

"those who refuse to learn the lessons of history will be condemned to re-live them."

Are today's Australians learning the lessons of history? Are we aware of the historical reasons why we enjoy freedom while most people in today's world are enslaved? Or will our ignorance condemn us or our children to re-live the bitter struggles that produced our peace, prosperity and freedom?

We must stop taking our freedom for granted. It did not happen by chance. Previous generations earned it.

The tranquil order and freedom with which we are blessed was won inch by painful inch as ordinary people sacrificed their comfort, their careers and often their lives in the struggle against those who held great power. The cost has been enormous.

Millions who died in war were part of that cost. Others like the Tolpuddle martyrs were cruelly punished for joining the first labour unions. Then there were those like William Tyndale, who used his freedom to translate the Bible into English and was punished by being strangled and burned at the stake.

Today it is not quite so fashionable to burn people at the stake. Instead, grinning media executioners are employed to assassinate the reputations of freedom loving people who oppose the powerful.

But the basic issue has not changed: big money, big government and big religion versus individual freedom.

Most Australians have never been taught the history that shows the true source of our freedom. Robbed of that understanding, we make easy prey for politicians who want the same tyrranical powers that our forefathers removed from kings and priests.

So it is worth investing some time learning the history that produced our priceless heritage of freedom.


Constitutionalism: Until recently the most distinguishing feature in the development of our freedom was that, unlike most countries, government power in Australia was limited by an effective constitution - a widely accepted set of rules that actually limits the power of kings, politicians, judges, public servants, etc...

This precious set of rules took nearly two thousand years to build. And just like the rules of a cricket match, these more precious rules should never be changed by the players (i.e. the politicians) while the game is in progress; and even the selectors (i.e. the voters) should be very careful about changes. As Sir Winston Churchill once said: "a thousand years scarce serve to form a state, an hour may lay it in the dust.".

Individuality: Our forefathers adopted this constitutional approach to government because they believed that each individual is a unique and very special creation, made in the image of God. This Christian view of individuality enabled them to see clearly that the state exists to serve the individual and not vice-versa. So they made rules to limit the power of government.

One practical effect of their belief is that, in our courts, every individual is held to be innocent until a jury of twelve of his equals has unanimously accepted that he has been proven guilty under stringent rules of evidence, with two witnesses being heard separately to establish every fact under the watchful eye of an independent and impartial judge. This major protection of our freedom is being undermined daily by politicians who are passing laws based on a totally different belief about the individual.

Most people do not realize that their beliefs and the beliefs of their politicians and judges have a major impact on their freedom or lack of it.

For example, neo-Darwinian evolutionists believe that the individual is just an insignificant fragment of the total population of a species, all of which came about by accident. Holding such a view makes it easy to accept domination of the individual by the State.

Extreme cruelty, gross injustice and complete disregard for the life of the individual has characterised regimes which have accepted this evolutionary approach, such as Hitler's National Socialism and Stalin's Soviet Socialism and their all too numerous offspring.

Glossy magazines and epic TV series portray evolution as "scientific", but it is actually a religious belief. It cannot be subjected to the scientific method. No repeatable scientific experiment has been conceived which, if it had failed, would disprove evolution.

Hence evolution is as much a religious belief as creation. People who choose to believe evolution should be aware that it is no more "logical" or "scientific" than creation, nor can it offer any real escape from our individual responsibility to a personal creator. What it does do, is to move our attitudes away from compassionate concern for each individual, toward survival of the fittest and eventually, mass brutality.

The Common Law: One powerful pillar of individual freedom in Australia is the common law; which is not the statute law made by Parliament, but the much greater quantity and quality of law made by judges whose decisions down through the centuries have become legal precedents.

Lord Denning, perhaps the greatest judge of our time, has written an excellent non-technical book on the common law entitled The Changing Law. He shows that our common law has been largely based on the Bible as judges over many generations have sought to provide the real justice contained in the command: "love your neighbour as yourself".

It is this common law which has given our British legal system its well deserved reputation for true justice - one of the keystones of a really free society.

Are you surprised that so much of the law that governs Australia is so deeply rooted in Christianity? If you are surprised it is because, like most Australians, you have been taught to believe that government should be "secular" - that is, not based on, and quite separate from, any religion.

The truth is that there is no such thing as a "secular" nation and there never can be, it is an academic fantasy because:

  • all nations must have laws;
  • all laws attempt to define right and wrong (morality); and
  • all morality is a matter of belief (i.e. religion).

So all law is enacted morality. A nation cannot be "secular" because its laws must be based on someone's beliefs about morality.

One of the most fundamental and crucial questions facing every nation is this:

on whose morality shall we base our laws?

Until recently, our judges based their common law on the rock of Christian morality and freedom and prosperity prevailed. Nowadays more and more judges and politicians are changing the moral basis of our laws without the knowledge or consent of the people of Australia.

These "change agents" are basing their laws on beliefs which caused all the bloodshed of the French revolution and the modern socialist dictatorships. They call their beliefs "Secular Humanism" and their Manifesto says it is a non-theistic religion.

This deceptive cult is centred solely on human interests and values. Its morality is based on what Humanists think is the temporal well-being of man to the exclusion of all belief in God.

A typical example of the Secular Humanist approach to morality can be gauged from the fallible pontifications of the Report of the 1977 Royal Commission on Human Relationships. The Royal Commissioners, Justice Elizabeth Evatt, Ms Anne Deveson and Dr Phelix Arnott, recommended that:

"Education courses should reflect a view of homosexuality as a variation of sexuality"
"Selected homosexuals should explain that the homosexual lifestyle is a valid, positive and healthy alternative."

Obviously the report was written before any human being was aware of AIDS. But that only serves to show the foolishness of mere human wisdom by comparison with the eternal Word of God which, centuries ago, warned the wise against homosexuality.

Some of the objectives of Secular Humanism are to establish:

  • a new economic system (to be run by international bankers)
  • a new world order (one world government)
  • a new race of people (by means of genetic engineering) and
  • a new world religion

That the Humanists want one world government is clear from the Humanist Manifesto which states:

"We deplore the division of human kind on nationalistic grounds. We've reached a turning point in history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look toward the development of a system of world law and order based upon trans-national federal government."

Their fervour for one world religion has been expressed this way:

"The battle for mankind's future must be waged and won in the public school class room by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytisers of a new faith. The class room must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new; between the rotting corpse of Christianity on the one hand, and the new faith of humanism on the other. (Humanist Magazine, January/February 1983)

Part of the Humanist strategy is to legislate to control Christian churches. The Humanist Manifesto states:

"Humanism maintains that all associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life. The intelligent evaluation, transformation, control and direction of all such associations and institutions with a view to enhancement of human life is the purpose and programme of humanism. Certain religious institutions, their ritualistic forms, their ecclesiastical methods and communal activities must be reconstituted as rapidly as experience allows in order to function effectively in the modern world."

These statements are a direct attack on the 80% or more of Australians who said at the last census that they identified with some Christian denomination.

Perhaps you find it hard to believe that some politicians, judges, university lecturers and others would deliberately work against widely held beliefs of our community. Well, the clearest evidence is available.

Professor Manning Clark was quoted as saying of his friend the late Justice Lionel Murphy:

"it had been one of Murphy's aims to dismantle the Judeo- Christian ethic of Australian society."
(Sydney Morning Herald, 30 October 1986, page 8)

Murphy's protege, Senator Gareth Evans, former president of Humanist Society and key advocate of the infamous Bill of Rights, was himself once quoted as saying:

"children want a right to sexual freedom and education and protection from the influence of Christianity."
(Sydney Morning Herald, 7 May 1976, page 11).

It's time for Australians to wake up. We will experience continual loss of freedom until we have the courage to insist that our judges, politicians and teachers base all their public duties and decisions on Biblical morality.

We need Voter's Veto immediately to reverse the legislation of modern atheistic politicians and judges who are undermining the principles of freedom enshrined in our common law. We also need Voter's Veto to stop their surreptitious use of UN treaties as a means of replacing the Christian moral basis of our law with Godless Secular Humanism.

The Monarchy: The hereditary Monarchy guards our freedom not so much by the power that it exercises, but by the power it denies to others. Big money, big government, big media and big unions, in their attempts to manipulate the so-called "will of the people", simply cannot influence who gets the top job. Kings are born into the position, God chooses them, and this is a bulwark of our freedom.

Republican systems select their leader and determine all their laws on the false idea that "the will of the people" determines what is right. Throughout history the "will of the people" has been manipulated by powerful minorities and should no more be absolutely sovereign than a tyrannical king or other autocrat.

Those who manipulate the "will of the people" in a republic to make or break presidents expect a payoff. They expect the president to accumulate and use power to quell opponents and advantage friends.

Our Monarchial system has moved in exactly the opposite direction. Over many centuries, the personal power of kings has been appropriately regulated and distributed. Apart from infrequent personal exercise of Reserve Powers, emphasis has been placed on those kingly virtues such as servanthood and exemplary conduct that were modelled by Christ.

Furthermore, as long as the common law continues to be developed from the Bible, both Monarch and people are progressively brought under the authority and blessing of God's Word. It has taken nearly 2,000 years of sacrifice to develop this uniquely Christian approach to government, yet the Laodicean church of the twentieth century seems oblivious to its benefits, particularly for the spreading of the gospel.

Republican systems lack legal appeal to any authority higher than the specious and corrupt "will of the people". From above, those with power manipulate the "will of the people" driving a republic toward dictatorship. From below, ordinary people drive a republic toward revolution because they sense that the "will of the people" is manipulated and become frustrated and rebellious.

Corruption and violence are therefore inevitable in a republic. History bears testimony to this.

Even the Americans seem to be waking up to the inbuilt weakness of a republican system. Weldon M. Hardenbrook, US author of the recent book Missing from Action (published by Thomas Nelson Inc., Nashville) after dropping the bombshell that "there is a fly in the ointment of the American Revolution", says in a section headed "the Price of Revolution":

"The Revolution was born out of an admirable desire to shrug off unjust British rule. But as often happens, the baby was thrown out with the bath water. In this case, the baby was the essential paternal pulse of colonial life. Instead of correctly identifying and trying to escape from oppressive patriarchalism, Americans began to look upon all civil patriarchy as inherently evil, and they became intent on not being ruled by anyone. ...Dr. Price gleefully described America as 'a rising empire extended over an immense continent, without bishops, without nobles and without kings.'

"That may all sound quite liberating, but it was an idea unprecedented in the history of humanity. There have always been bishops and kings and accountability. The development (and growing acceptance) of the idea that patriarchy is evil must have had a jarring effect on people with a Christian heritage. Up to that time, Christians had been taught to 'honor the king' because earthly kings represented the 'King of Kings', and godly bishops imaged 'the Shepherd and Bishop of their souls'. How in heaven's name could this new anti-authoritarian attitude be reconciled with such biblical injunctions."

A destructive spirit of rebellion gave birth to American "independence". It has plagued the US ever since.

The same spirit is invoked today by those who seek to control the "will of the people" in Australia. They urge us to become "independent" of the Queen and Great Britain; presumably so we can become dependent upon them.

The last thing Australia needs today is to give more power to politicians, media barons, bankers and the like, by becoming a republic.

Some ex-Prime Ministers and ex-Premiers make frequent statements designed, in true Fabian form, to convince us that a republican Australia is distant but inevitable. This is a blatant attempt at brainwashing. Australians are overwhelmingly monarchists and likely to remain so.

A recent Prime Minister, indulging the pride that goes before a fall, proclaimed "I am the head of government, she (presumably a reference to Her Majesty the Queen) is the head of state." Such an assertion is quite false and entirely without foundation. According to Section 61 of Australia's Constitution Act, the Queen is both head of state and head of government.

The recent tendency of several Australian Prime MInisters to strut around speaking of "my government" is therefore, pompous, power hungry, propaganda. Those who framed our very successful Constitution Act did not find it necessary to mention even the existence of a Prime Minister or a Cabinet.

Legally the Monarch is the fountainhead of all our government authority (delegated power). So everyone who exercises such authority in Australia draws it from the Monarch. In turn, the Monarch agrees in the Coronation Service, that all his or her authority is drawn from God and promises to use it in accordance with the Word of God as expressed in the Bible.

Therefore, to be legitimate, every exercise of power in our community must be at least consistent with the Bible. This makes the Lord Jesus Christ the only absolute sovereign in Australia.

Churches must begin to show Australians that this is the true source of our freedom. Too many Christian are caught up in the spirit of the world system which is trying every trick to destroy this key aspect of our unique system of government to remove our God given freedom.

Distributed power: One of the most effective protections of our individual freedom is distribution of power. For example, as Commander in Chief of our Defence Forces, the Queen has power to order our soldiers to make war on the moon. Should she wish to succeed however, she would need to pay and equip the soldiers from public funds which must first be authorised by Parliament.

Because Parliament has this decisive authority over funds, some power hungry politicians would like us to believe that only they have the real power and the Queen's powers are purely ceremonial. But consider the practical consequences of giving command of the Defence Forces to the Prime Minister.

An unscrupulous Prime Minister could then use soldiers to quell his political opponents. He would have both the numbers in Parliament to authorise the public money needed, and the power to give orders to the troops.

So we have always insisted that no politician give orders to defence or similar personnel such as police and we should continue to do so. Moreover, we should reject the dangerous propaganda that the Queen's powers, or the powers of her Governor General, are purely ceremonial.

Distribution of power provides checks and balances that prevent any mortal person or group from holding or exercising absolute power. Our history has taught us that we should yield to only one absolute sovereign and that is the Lord Jesus Christ Himself. This is not just some comforting religious dogma, but an intensely practical statement of principle that has proven over centuries to be the keystone of our priceless heritage of freedom.

The Parliament: Parliament in Australia consists of the Queen and both Houses of the Parliament. This is yet another safeguard - another form of distributed power.

The original idea was that the Monarch provided leadership on the basis of counsel and advice given by the Houses of Parliament. This accounts with the perfect pattern given by God:

"Where there is no leadership the people fall, but in an abundance of counsellors there is safety." (Prov. 11:14)

Senior members from the Houses of Parliament became the Monarch's closest counsellors (advisers) known as Ministers. Ordinary members of the Houses of Parliament were to re-present the multitude of counsels that come from the community. This is why they are known as re-presentatives.

Re-presentation, not of party dogmas, but of the multitude of counsels of electors, is a safeguard designed to make Ministers publicly accountable if they ignore wise counsel in advising the Monarch. The need for this safeguard is obvious when you understand that the Houses of Parliament cannot make law. Only the signature of the Queen or her Governor General makes law.

This enormous power of the Crown is not just theoretical or ceremonial because under our constitution the Queen may withhold her signature from Acts of Parliament. However, as one would expect in a large, complex, industrialised society, such great power is under all normal circumstances exercised on advice.

The problem today is not that the Monarch exercises these vast powers arbitrarily, but that her advisers try to do so, deluded by their belief that the Queen must do whatever they advise. Ministers with tame supporters in Parliament frequently hijack the Queen's powers for their own narrow interests and abuse it as kings of old did, without proper counsel and consent.

Some centuries ago the Houses of Parliament brought to account kings who wanted unfettered and arbitrary powers. Since then some politicians have come to believe that the Houses of Parliament themselves have unfettered power. They claim that the Monarch must accept the advice of those Ministers who can command a majority in the Lower House, even if their advise is:

  • against the Monarch's Coronation promises; or
  • against a majority in the upper House; or
  • against the will of a majority of electors.

This view is completely unconstitutional in Australia and differs little from the so-called "divine right of kings". It is just as dangerous and dictatorial. Justice and individual freedom are jeopardised today, not by the old "divine right of kings", but by the new "divine right of politicians".

Great parliamentarians of the past had the courage, commitment and principle needed to shackle the ambitions of power drunk kings. Today, the major crisis which faces Australia's Houses of Parliament is whether there are any, let alone enough, politicians of sufficient calibre to tame the insane ambition of Ministers and their powerful public service advisers and media backers.

Wisely, we have never been prepared to entrust absolute or unfettered power to any mortal person or assembly in our system. Even the names Minister (which means servant) and Prime Minister (which means chief servant) convey something of the spirit it was always intended should be at the heart of our Parliamentary system.


Second Century:

The first stirrings of our national approach to individual freedom came at Winchester in 156AD when King Lucius, established Christianity as the national religion.

England did not suddenly become a nation of Christians, but it did become a Christian nation. Its leaders began to see that the gospel applied not only to the individual, but also the nation. In practical ways they started to yield national sovereignty to the King of Kings.

Sixth Century:

King Ethelbert of Kent, after his conversion to Christianity, was probably the first absolute ruler ever to introduce laws designed to limit his powers of government. This was a rudimentary form of constitution. Thus the cradle of constitutionalism was a Christian king's compassion for those he governed.

Ninth Century:

King Alfred the Great declared the law of England to be the law of God as expressed in the Bible and decreed both King and courts of law subject to it and unable to change it.

Perceiving the need for a living law which would grow to cover new circumstances, King Alfred revived the common, or judge-made, law. Courts had to decide new questions by reference to the Bible and their decisions became precedents to be followed in later cases unless overruled by the king's statute law. A council like Parliament examined new common law precedents and advised the King to overrule any that were considered un-Scriptural.

Also during the ninth century, there emerged a version of the Coronation service that has been used with few changes ever since. While such a service cannot guarantee good personal character, the promises made by each new Monarch reflect the Christian requirement for leadership by servanthood.

In one of the most important moments of the Coronation service the Monarch, before receiving the Sceptre (the symbol of kingly authority) must first accept the Orb (a golden sphere surmounted by a cross, symbolising Christ's sovereignty over the whole earth). The Orb is given to the Monarch with the words: "take this to remind you that the whole world is subject to the power and empire of Christ our redeemer'.

Only after thus acknowledging the absolute sovereignty of the Lord Jesus Christ, may an heir to the throne become our Monarch.

Eleventh Century:

Some aspects of our British constitutional system were modified by the Normans (French Kings) who did not understand its Biblical foundations.

For example King William II, known as Rufus the Red, refused to recognize constitutional limitations on his power. Every now and then a Prime Minister qualifies as a modern day Rufus the Red.

Twelfth Century:

Even the Norman conquerors were changed quite rapidly by the eternal principles on which our system is based.

Henry I, successor and brother of Rufus the Red, agreed to limitations on his power in a document which became known as Henry's Coronation Charter. Subsequently, Henry himself became known as "the lion of justice".

Later in the twelfth century a Plantagenet king, Henry II, re-introduced a system of Royal courts to administer the common law and to ensure that it was effective and indeed common to all England. He also fostered trial by jury as an instrument of true justice and equity.

Thirteenth Century:

Until the thirteenth century strong kings had generally used their power wisely and made England stronger. But with the advent of England's most popular king, people realized that kings were now too strong. So on the meadow at Runnymede in 1215AD, King John, who had considered himself above the law, was brought to account by Christians and he signed Magna Carta.

Based on Henry's Coronation Charter, Magna Carta (the Great Charter) established very little that was new. Its importance was that it documented the ancient principle that the king is subject to the law.

It is interesting to consider whether modern Ministers of the Crown, like kings of old, have become altogether too powerful and whether today's Christians, like those of old, have enough faith in the God and His Word to reform and restrain them.

Fourteenth Century:

England's unique freedom still depended on the faith of a privileged few who could read the Bible in Latin. For this reason John Wycliffe became devoted to making the Word of God widely available to the common man.

Wycliffe translated the Bible into English and sent out men to preach the gospel to the poor. The effect was immediate and widespread. A revival broke out as many people experienced for themselves the meaning of John 8:32 which says:

"you shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free."

Large numbers of people joined Wycliffe in denouncing worldly, hypocritical and repressive church officials. The Reformation had begun.

Wycliffe's impact went well beyond England reaching as far as Bohemia, which is now part of modern Czechoslovakia. There his writings influenced John Huss, Dean of Philosophy and Rector at the University of Prague. Huss' faith and preaching founded what later became the Moravian church, one of the most dynamic missionary churches the world has ever seen.

For believing that the Bible is the supreme authority for Christians, and for denouncing the practice of the Papacy to teach what is contrary to it, Huss was burned at the stake in 1415AD. Nevertheless, by the 1500s most inhabitants of Bohemia were members of Hussite churches and Bohemia had achieved a surprising degree of political freedom.

In an age of powerful kings the Bohemians set up constitutional government with the king's power carefully defined and limited and considerable power in the hands of a representative assembly. They demonstrated once again that only the Christian gospel has the power to ignite within individuals the inner freedom and compassionate sense of justice which produce lasting political freedom.

Sixteenth Century:

The effects of Wycliffe and Huss reverberated around Europe until they culminated in the sixteenth century reformation in Europe begun by Martin Luther who wrote:

"If John Huss was a heretic, then there is not a single Christian under the sun."

Unfortunately for its people, Europe experienced constant armed opposition in Europe to the Bible based faith that produces real freedom. Even today in most European countries you are assumed guilty until you prove yourself innocent. Europe was thus held back from the political freedom which developed in the more remote and geographically protected island of Britain.

But Britain was protected by more than geography.

When King Phillip II of Spain heard of the astonishing defeat of the Spanish Armade by the English fleet he remarked:

"I sent my ships to fight against men, not against the winds and waves of God."

To commemorate the British victory, Queen Elizabeth I had a medal struck which acknowledged the hand of God by stating:

"God blew and they were scattered."

So both victor and vanquished admitted that God was protecting the island nation that was, as a nation, yielding to the Word of God.

In the twentieth century we have seen similar deliverance granted to Great Britain by the grace of God. Three outstanding examples are the Angels of Mons in World War I and the miracles of Dunkirk and the Battle of Britain in World War II.

Notwithstanding the armed opposition that Bible based faith was encountering on the continent of Europe, Luther, Calvin and other great European reformers helped accelerate the pace at which political freedom was being developed in Britain. And that pace became intense.

England's Chief Justice, Sir Edward Coke, insisted that neither the King nor Parliament were supreme and if either enacted legislation contrary to the revealed laws of God, such legislation is wrong, and God's law should prevail. He was sacked for his wisdom by James I, but his work still benefits us today.

Seventeenth Century:

James I was the first of the Stuarts, all of whom believed in the so-called "divine right of kings". Because the Bible states that the king is appointed by God, the Stuarts quite wrongly assumed that this gave them absolute power.

Coke earned the wrath of the king by bringing this wrong assumption into public focus. He had put his finger on the one question which, more than any other, affects individual freedom, namely: who is the absolute Sovereign of the nation. If the answer is a man, or any group of men, history shows that tyranny will eventually ensue; but if the answer is that the nation yields absolute authority only to the Lord Jesus Christ, then the dignity and freedom of each individual will be guaranteed.

Insistence on the "divine right of kings" eventually brought about the demise of the Stuart dynasty. Charles I, son of James I, lost his head for it and provoked the English civil war. Later, in the Glorious (or Bloodless) Revolution of 1688, James II lost his Crown for his unilateral attempt to reimpose Roman Catholicism to England - a move which caused Parliament to pass the English Bill of Rights (1689), declare the throne vacant and offer it to William and Mary of Orange.

Ironically, while Parliament was resolving the momentous question of the "divine right of kings", the seeds of the "divine right of politicians" were planted within Parliament itself. On 4 January 1649, after the execution of Charles I, Parliament resolved that:

"...the people are, under God, the original of all just power... the Commons of England in Parliament assembled, being chosen by and representing the people, have the supreme power in this nation."

Was this yet another claim by men to absolute sovereignty? No it was not, unless two little words are omitted from their claim.

All that was now needed for the emergence of tyranny by Parliament itself was to overlook the two words "under God". Such a tyranny could be disguised as "democratic" if:

  • most people came to accept that a Parliament fairly elected has no limits on its powers, and if
  • major political parties made agreements (such as bipartisan policies) that restrict freedom of choice.

However, such a situation did not arise in the seventeenth century. What did happen in the seventeenth century was that the value of constitutional law became widely accepted.

In 1644 Samuel Rutherford wrote a masterly exposition of the constitutional limitations on arbitrary government. It was marred only by its title "Lex Rex" (Law is Sovereign) which suggests that man made law has an absolute authority that only belongs to the Lord Jesus Christ and His complete Word.

Another significant contribution to our freedom was the Habeus Corpus Act of 1679. Under this Act, no one could be held in prison without charges being laid and swiftly brought before a court.

Crucial though these legal developments were, no analysis of our heritage of freedom from the seventeenth century would be complete without a mention of Sir Isaac Newton (1642-1727) who arguably contributed more to science, and hence our present well being, than any other man in history. Newton was an outstanding Christian. His Biblical view of the world and understanding of God as a creator of order and truth, prepared him to expect and discover order in the world around him, and find a cause for each effect. Newton was described by the French mathematician Legrange as "the greatest genius that ever existed".

Eighteenth Century:

In chilling contrast to our British heritage of Bible based freedom, the French, whose leaders had rejected God in favour of secular humanism, endured the destructive anguish and pain of the French revolution. A sinister coalition of occultic priests and despotic financiers incited base instincts in the ordinary people who murdered a complete generation of France's leadership.

Having been promised "liberty, equality, fraternity", the French instead got Napoleon who slapped them into armies and marched them throughout Europe.

It is a miracle that a similar revolution did not occur in Great Britain. The same harsh social conditions which prevailed for the majority before the revolution in France also prevailed in England, but whereas the French heeded the atheistic scholars of the "enlightenment" and got bloodshed, the English heeded the Word of God through John Wesley and not only averted disaster, but enjoyed a season of national greatness and prosperity such as the world had never before seen.

This contrast between Great Britain and France is a contrast between the results of Bible based faith and Secular Humanism. It is a contrast which provides cogent evidence for the truth of the Scripture which says:

"Righteousness exalts a nation, but sin is a reproach to any people." Proverbs 14:34

John Wesley (1703-1791) was inspired, courageous and dedicated.

Riots, death threats, bad weather, long absences from home, criticism and opposition from Church of England clerics who refused to believe the Bible: nothing stopped Wesley and his followers as God worked with them to give large numbers of English people a new spirit, a new loving nature within and a new start in life.

English society was rapidly transformed as the reality of Jesus Christ alive within individuals touched a nation. Prostitutes vanished from the streets. A Christian parliamentarian, William Wilberforce MP, after reading a pamphlet by Wesley against the degrading practice of slavery, was inspired by God to resist and eventually abolish slavery throughout most of the world.

William Wilberforce

Another Wesleyan Christian, Hannah Ball, started a school on a Sunday to educate the children of the poor in reading, writing and arithmetic. This compassionate Christian vision was taken up by Lord Robert Raikes of Gloucester who spent his very considerable fortune setting up hundreds of these "Sunday schools". They became so popular that government was eventually induced to provide mass education.

For the first time in the world's history all people, not just the privileged classes, were to receive education. As with so many other major reforms it originated in the compassion and sense of justice of a few Christians.

Unfortunately once again, parallel developments threatened to deprive ordinary people of the freedom offered by education. The problems arose because government got into the field of education which is not part of God's charter to government.

From the Biblical perspective education is the responsibility of the church and the family - the church as God's channel of truth and the family as God's channel of provision. So government education can be provided only by excessive taxation of families and at grave risk of government control of truth!

We are now reaping the consequences of thinking that we know better than the Word of God. Compulsory government controlled education has gradually been hijacked to spread into Christian homes the Godless Secular Humanism that caused the French and other revolutions. But it is difficult to escape to private schools because it is hard to afford fees in addition to the taxes which must be paid for government schools whether or not your children attend them.

Nineteenth Century:

This slow subversion by "education" was facilitated by yet another claim of absolute sovereignty.

A nineteenth century lawyer, A.V. Dicey, asserted that Parliament is absolutely sovereign. Most modern party politicians are possessed by his doctrine.

Some commentators have even gone so far as to suggest that Parliament is so sovereign that if it passes a law that all blue eyed babies must be killed at birth, the law though evil is just and must be obeyed! Such is the insane but inevitable tyranny that follows when men forsake reverent submission to the King of Kings. He alone can be trusted with absolute sovereignty.

As the industrial revolution progressed in the nineteenth century the working conditions of ordinary people became dangerous and dehumanising. Christian men met in secret on the moors of England to organise reform. When they eventually emerged in public as labour unions they carried placards bearing the Scripture:

"...the labourer deserves his wages..." (Luke 10:7)

Some of the early unionists, such as the Tolpuddle martyrs, were cruelly punished. Even the juveniles were deported to Australia.

Trade unions today have obviously drifted a long way from their Christian roots. Yet the opportunity exists to lead unions back.

Unionists and private employers alike are being crushed by high debt, soaring interest rates and excessive taxation. The primary cause is our unjust financial system which is crying out for a compassionate Biblical solution and people who can explain that solution to the unions.

Unions led by Christians who understand issues could change the face of Australia very rapidly.

Twentieth Century:

In the twentieth century, 32.7 million people have been killed in war and a further 97 million have been killed by their own government.

Socialism has been responsible for most of this mass slaughter, whether through Hitler's National Socialism, or Stalin's Soviet Socialism, or one of their many modern descendants.

This fact often irritates those who call themselves "democratic socialists", people who sincerely believe that the policies of socialism will induce justice. Such people fail to understand that all policy comes out of philosophy and all brands of socialism are based on two key atheistic philosophies which must in the long run, despite the best intentions, bring dictatorship.

These two philosophies are evolution and the dialectic.

We have already shown that faith in evolution destroys the sanctity of the individual, regarding him or her as an insignificant fragment of the total population, a mere genetic accident. Moreover, the faith of evolutionists in the survival of the fittest promotes acceptance of the kind of cruelty, mass brutality and injustice that was seen when the rulers of China slaughtered their own students on Tienanmin Square in 1989.

The dialectic is a diabolical concept of "truth" invented by the philosopher Hegel. He asserted that thesis and antithesis (e.g. good and evil) are accompanied by synthesis (some blend of both good and evil) from which "truth" is supposed to emerge. The end result is relative morality in which the end justifies the means - a formula for lies, brutality and injustice.

Irrespective of any policy changes that might appear to be occurring in the USSR, the underlying atheistic philosophies remain. Indeed these Godless foundations are being strengthened by a world wide alliance between big money, big government and big religion based on Secular Humanism.

This alliance is a dagger pointed at the heart of our British Bible based system of government,. It is an alliance with the common cause of submerging Christian civilisation in multi-culturalism and "regional" approaches to one world government.

This is why so many of our politicians are betraying our Christian heritage by giving away our political sovereignty to the UN and our economic sovereignty to international banks.

A glorious alternative to this counterfeit exists. It is an alternative which has proved throughout history to be the only source of lasting peace and fredom, because it brings true love, peace and freedom to each individual. Obviously, this alternative is the good news that God will impart the benefits of His eternal Kingdom to all individuals, families, churches and nations that yield to the Lord Jesus Christ as their only absolute sovereign.

The clear verdict of history is that individual freedom endures only where absolute sovereignty is not yielded to a king, a law, a Parliament, or even "the will of the people", but it is yielded solely to the King of Kings and the Prince of Peace, the Lord Jesus Christ Himself.

Back to CHAPTER 9 Go to CHAPTER 11