Some Days You Just Have To Cry

If you’re anything like me, there are news items that just blow your mind; you think, ‘How could this be?’

I’ve had a few of these days recently. Many of you can relate, I’m sure.

Do you, like me, shake your head in disbelief when you mention the abhorrent practice of abortion to a group of Christians online, perhaps on your Facebook page, and are confronted with almost deafening silence?

It’s very discouraging, to say the least.

After all, if Christians don’t stand up for the unborn, who will?

The Canberra Declaration proudly supports all pro-life organisations, including Cherish Life and the Walk For Life. In the video below, you can hear from Senators Matt Canavan, Ralph Babet, and past member of parliament George Christensen. George was instrumental in proposing the ‘Babies Born Alive’ bill. They are men of compassion and love.


Next time you see a politician on TV, ask yourself this question: will this person protect the unborn baby, the victims of paedophilia, or the right to refuse a medical concoction you don’t want? Will they call out the madness of LGBTQ+ agendas, or the support of racial discrimination under the guise of ‘inclusivity’?

Will they stand against grooming our children to think that the colour of our skin is the defining factor of our character? Or do they support genital mutilation of children due to the influence of the evil agendas of gender change activists?

Upping the Ante

Just when you think you might have seen or heard it all… wait! There’s more!

This afternoon, hubby and I watched an episode of The Ingraham Angle on Fox News. What we saw just broke our hearts and spurred the need to write this article.

According to the news site Townhall, there’s a story that’s pretty much been glossed over, if not suppressed by the mainstream media. It’s a story that a mere five years ago would have had the country exploding in righteous outrage and disbelief; instead, it’s a by-line in tomorrow’s fish-and-chip paper.

The headline reads: “TAPES: We investigate a Suburban Paedophile Ring. Here’s What We Found“. This is a four-part series that contains a ‘Content Warning’. This article contains graphic descriptions of child sexual abuse. Reader discretion is advised. Let me reinforce this warning now.

Here’s the outline of Part One, and a quick summary of each part of the investigation will follow. Kudos to brave and intrepid reporter Mia Cathell:

A months-long Townhall investigation reveals disturbing new details about the affluent LGBTQ activist couple accused of sodomizing their young adopted sons-now ages 9 and 11-and distributing ” homemade” child pornography of the sexual abuse.

Half a year after the shocking story made national news, Townhall is the only outlet following up on the criminal case in Georgia that has seen zero headlines written about it. We’ve found that is far, far worse than what was first reported.

Not only did the married men allegedly rape the two boys who were adopted through a Christian ‘special needs’ adoption agency, but they were pimping out their children to nearby paedophiles in Atlanta suburbs, Townhall’s follow-up investigation discovered.

Recorded jailhouse calls reveal a trove of never-before-seen court documents, and testimony from a family member who spoke exclusively with Townhall uncovered the extent of the physical and emotional trauma that two elementary school-aged brothers endured, as well as the red flags that the state overlooked during the same-sex couple’s “faster than expected” adoption process.

As reported in August, the suspects were darlings of the LGBTQ media. They were part of an anti-gay hate campaign promoting “NOH8”, and Out magazine, which holds the nation’s highest circulation among LGBTQ monthly publications, repeatedly asked them if its website’s Pride page could feature their photos taken at the Atlanta pride parade.


The adoptive fathers, 33-year-old government worker William Dale Zulock Jr. and 35-year-old banker Zachary Jacoby Zulock (who was previously accused of raping a child) from Oxford, Georgia, have been indicted by a grand jury on charges of incest, aggravated sodomy, aggravated child molestation, felony sexual exploitation of children, and felony prostitution of a minor.

William and Zachary are each facing over nine life sentences. They’ve pleaded not guilty.

“Records indicate that the child sexual abuse stretches back to as early as late 2019 and intensified in January 21 March 21 and December 21 as the offence dates are listed.

… an updated criminal affidavit says the child sexual abuse was filmed by William’s husband Zachary, with whom he “routinely engaged in sexually abusive acts” on the boy. Zachary, the household breadwinner, confessed to being the cameraman, and authorities allegedly found folder in his cell phone labeled “us”-that contain videos of William sexually abusing the child.

The indictment also charges Zulock co-defendants with soliciting two other men, through the use of popular social media platforms, in the greater Atlanta metropolitan region to “perform an act of prostitution” with their child, who suffered physical injuries from being brutally raped. Townhall is the first to publicly identify these two alleged members of a paedophile ring in the heart of the Peach state. 27-year-old Hunter Clay Lawless and 25-year-old Louis Armando Vicaro-Sanchez, both of Loganville.

The accusations are horrendous, heartbreaking and sadly more common than we could ever imagine.

Zachary, who lists his Snapchat name in his Instagram bio, where the self-described activist brags about being “Papa to our two wonderful boys”, admitted to sending such material “to less than a dozen people”.

There are other potential co-defendants under investigation that are “out there circulating videos of the Zulock boys”.

According to District Attorney Randy McGinley, “They just viewed underage boys as sex objects.”

More than Meets the Eye

Since their arrest, the married men’s assets have been seized, their vehicles have been forfeited, and their home is now the property of the state, with a lien filed against it. In jailhouse recordings in May, they are heard complaining about the raid that took place upon their home, and “how unfair it is that their assets were seized.” William said, describing the custom-built home he designed:

“I think they took our house because they think there was extra money coming in from somewhere, and we are, like, in our 30s and have this big, giant house. And they didn’t think we could afford it.”

The couple’s dream home sits on a two-acre secluded cul-de-sac in a private prestigious upscale neighbourhood, where pre-existing houses are selling for as much as US $900,000. Construction of the mansion from the ground up took only half a year in 2020. They said:

“The kids loved the forest behind us and the playroom for all their toys.”

Before, the Zulocks lived out of a small house in Snellville, which neighbours Loganville, at the time the boys were adopted. The couple’s lavish lifestyle began to materialise about a year after the Zulock men obtained the boys, the family insider told Townhall.

In addition to the mansion, the Zulocks considered purchasing the adjacent property, Zachary told friends, and they were looking to buy a condominium over the next few years somewhere in Gulf Shores or Orange Beach along the southern tip of Alabama’s white sand coastline.

It appears the funds for this massive mansion nestled within a suburban paradise were probably funded by wealthy outside influence. It was a house of horrors, with surveillance cameras installed on every square foot of the property. There was a secret windowless room the size of a closet without any doors, hidden behind a movable bookcase in the home office that the cops left open, which felt like something out of a horror movie, a relative said. Another creepy interior room devoid of windows was purportedly used as a “home theatre”. LGBTQ Pride paraphernalia littered the family’s extravagantly furnished four-bedroom, five-bathroom house, plus a packed three-car garage. A neon sign, “love is love”, adorned the kitchen’s granite countertop.

Doormats proclaimed: ‘Gayest place in town” and ‘it’s basically a zoo in here’.

“Our business is our business. What happens in our home, stays in our home,” the gay couple allegedly told their abused sons.

Beyond the sexual abuse, as punishment during after-school hours, the Zulock boys were forced to stand in a corner for eight hours straight over back-to-back days, only being allowed to move either to eat or to use the bathroom. William was also witnessed slapping their younger son hard in the face. “They were just abused every possible way,” the relative told Townhall. “The boys were just another commodity to them.”

The family is questioning, in hindsight, how a low-level civil servant and a small-town bank teller could indulge in such niceties openly on display in their home. After an application was submitted for representation by the public defender, a letter addressed to William shows that the county’s indigent defence program found them to be ineligible, citing equity ownership and his spouse’s whopping $7500-a-week income. A similar denial memo was also sent to Zachary, who handles their money, pointing to his supposed well-to-do weekly earnings.

Part 2: Just How Big Was the Operation Led by the LGBTQ Couple Who Abused Their Adopted Sons?

Covering the crimes of the co-defendants Lawless and Vicario- Sanchez could be the tip of the iceberg. People are still under investigation and out there distributing videos.

Could the Zulock couple face federal charges? How far-reaching is the paedophile ring, and will other members be unmasked?

“We decline to comment,” a public affairs officer in the US attorney’s office replied when Townhall inquired if the US Justice Department had any interest in investigating and prosecuting a federal case against these co-defendants.

Last year Georgia’s DOJ office pursued a handful of child sex crimes-related cases in this jurisdiction. Now as Townhall previously reported, the Biden administration’s Department of Justice is preoccupied with targeting peaceful pro-life leaders and rounding up elderly Christian preachers who stand up for innocent unborn life. One father, who protested outside an abortion clinic in Georgia’s northwest neighbourhood of Tennessee, was arrested at home by a swarm of armed FBI agents in front of his children.

Townhall goes on to explain the intricacies of the American judicial system, where child pornography is illegal contraband under federal laws of child exploitation and the obscenity section. Child sex trafficking is prohibited by 18 USC 1591. They talk of the Rico Act, which is basically racketeering.

For the Zulocks, living outside of their visible means was certainly a matter of boasting on social media, where their pages were full of gay pride family trips. They enjoyed lengthy AirBnB stays in Chicago, Ohio, Indianapolis, Indiana, and the Gulf Shore’s Alabama, listed as a go-to vacation spot for gay tourists.

In May 2018, they attended a Gulf Shores pizza place, where Zachary had drawn a rainbow circle around a portion of the children’s menu for kids aged 12 and under that jokingly quipped, “Children unattended will be sold as slaves!”

Other destinations over the years included New Orleans and Baton Rouge, Louisiana, and a cabin in Pigeon Forge, TN. The nationwide road trip also took the Zulocks to the national capital in September 2019, in addition to a White House tour where the family took a selfie in front of the Human Rights Campaign headquarters in Washington DC.

Part 3: How Did An Accused Child Rapist Adopt Two Children?

This instalment exposes everything they learned about the faith-based special needs adoption agency that the same-sex couple used to adopt the two boys; the role that Georgia’s child-welfare system played in placing the children in an abusive home, and the lack of accountability across the board.

Red Flags

Seven years prior to the adoption, Zachary was accused of being a child rapist, but never charged. The 2011 probe into paedophilic behaviour covered the accusation of luring a 14-year-old boy to a residence and having sexual intercourse. The probe was closed without a full investigation. Townhall was denied a copy of the incident report.

The boys could have been rescued as early as June 2020.

Zachary affectionately calls his husband, “My #partnerincrime for life.”

How was this previously accused child rapist allowed to adopt two children with his new husband? Apparently with ease!

In 2018, the Zulock co-defendants adopted the two brothers through All God’s Children, Inc., a now-defunct private special needs agency. They specialised in matching more difficult-to-place children. As well as undergoing police background checks, the men were required to attend mandatory pre-adoption classes called “Parents as Tender Healers”. A case worker completed the assessment, and the children were in the hands of these monsters 8-12 weeks later.

The usual jargon of how the process was managed came forth from Georgia’s DFCS.

“Everything seemed fine, I actually thought DFCS would scrutinize them more, being a same-sex couple, but it seems they passed with flying colours. The process moved faster than expected,” a family source told the reporter.

The agency closed in October 2022, and not a moment too soon; the couple were considering applying to adopt a daughter! Zachary asked the executive director for further references to other agencies. Ms Bailey cited two agencies ‘open to same-sex families.’

Fast forward to last summer, the county’s DFCS office was notified about the need for emergency protective placement for the two children and joined Athens-Clarke County Sexual Assault Nurse Examiners Program advocates, who provided forensic medical attention to the abused boys during the midnight July rescue operation at the family’s mansion.

The narcissistic nature of the paedophiles continues unabated, when William complained: “They made us sign over our parental rights, I really don’t want them back in foster care; they really don’t deserve that.” He criticised the former foster parents, saying, “They were only in it for the money.”

Part 4: What it’s Like In Jail For Two Accused Child Rapists

Frankly, who cares?

Evil rises all around us; the destruction of the family unit is a top priority for the communist/Marxist system that the world seems to heartily embrace.

I have included some links for your perusal.  It’s becoming patently obvious that some VERY powerful people are behind promoting paedophilia as a ‘new normal’ as society evolves. Scotland Police are calling the perpetrators Minor Attracted People (MAP). These are the folks we used to call upon to protect our kids! What the heck is going on?

Thank God that some journalists still have a backbone and righteous anger! Here’s Sky NewsRowan Dean’s take on it.

Perhaps you might think, oh well, there are always some bad apples. True. However, it becomes apparent with some research that the foster care system is broken in the USA, and the rot doesn’t stop there.

German authorities reported on an ‘experiment’ that placed foster care children with paedophiles! Are you kidding me? When you read the article, you soon realise that the man at the centre of this diabolical practice was himself a paedophile. Cosy.

Sin as Old as Time

When we search ‘sexual immorality’ in the Bible, 69 verses come up with the phrase. People perpetrating these acts and seeking to ‘normalise’ them are the same ones pushing abortion, LGBTQI+ and the genital mutilation of our children.

Make no mistake — this enemy, this anti-Christ, anti-human agenda is from the pit of hell.

Let’s recognise it for what it is and treat it as such. Anything less is unbecoming a follower of Jesus Christ. After all, He told us plainly how He loved and cared for the children brought to Him (Mark 10:13-16).


Photo: The Trumpet

Thank the Source

Born This Way vs. Born Again: ‘Conversion Therapy’ Lawfare’s First Victim is Ex-LGBT

Conversion therapy lawfare claims its first victim with Maltese police criminally charging a former homosexual under Malta’s 2016 “conversion therapy” laws.

Summoned by police in June 2022, Matthew Grech is accused of ‘advertising conversion practices, and breaking article 3, chapter 567 of Maltese laws’ after sharing his ex-gay testimony in an interview with free speech media PM News in April 2022. The event had been advertised on Facebook.

Malta’s three-page 2016 “Conversion Therapy” law defines “conversion practices” as “any treatment, practice or sustained effort that aims to change, repress and, or eliminate a person’s sexual orientation, gender identity and, or gender expression.”

Any person found guilty of breaching Malta’s LGBT protection clause faces up to EUR €5,000 in fines, and five months in gaol.

This increases to EUR €10,000 and one year in prison if ‘any professional is found guilty’ of breaking the law.

The 33-year-old LGBT leaver will ‘appear before the Magistrate on 3rd February, to face a Criminal Judiciary Court.’


Grech, a trustee of Core Issues, a Christian ministry leading the way in providing a home for former members of the LGBT lifestyle, said he’s being ‘aggressively targeted.’

In a statement shared online, Grech argued:

“I have the names of the individuals who reported me to the police. I believe they are the same people who publicly clashed with me before, who have jobs with the Maltese government, and are also linked with the Malta Gay Rights Movement.”

He then offered up the reason why the group is throwing Article 3 at him:

“They are afraid of the Gospel message we preach that offers change and transformation. It simply tears down all the LGBT lies.”

Resolute, Grech added that by defending himself, he was defending all Christians, and “people of goodwill who care about human rights, no matter what opinion they might hold.”

“God is on our side,” he noted, “Victory belongs to the righteous, and we will not bow down to tyranny.”

Simple Testimony

Grech’s defiance is as strong as his defence.

His lawyers argue,

“At no point during the PM News Malta programme did Mr Grech invite any listener to attend therapy or encourage anyone to get help for unwanted same-sex attraction.”

Christian Concern — part of the civil rights group representing the case — also explained that two journalists were facing similar charges.

The group rightly described Grech’s case as one of ‘international significance.’

Its outcome lays the ground for responses to similar loosely defined “conversion therapy” bans implemented in Australia, Canada, and the United Kingdom.

Grech’s legal advocates add:

“The LGBT lobby has struggled to define what the imposed term ‘conversion therapy’ is. No evidence has been provided to justify the bans, but instead, the aggressive campaigning is aimed at criminalising Christian beliefs on human sexuality and silencing any opposition.”

There’s little room for anyone to accuse Christian Concern of overstating this point.

Malta’s first test of Article 3:567 is an example of “born-this-way” belligerents bullying born-again believers.

It’s a test to see how these vague, poorly constructed laws will affect individuals, groups, and the fundamental rights of others, such as the right to speak truth freely, without fear of repression.

Such laws, writes Christian Concern, are easily abused.

They provide hate-filled LGBT activists and advocates with a legal and political platform from which they can punish dissidents, by reducing any ‘debate surrounding LGBT lifestyles to a criminal offence.’

Those targeted are people who hold to hard-science biological facts, which strongly support ‘Christian beliefs on marriage and human identity.’

As the X-Out-Loud leader among LGBT leavers warned:

“LGBT activists will use this ban to target churches, to target Christians and believers in all communities. It’s not just about what the law says in writing — it’s about how it will be used and how it will be interpreted by activists to come against individuals.”

Furthermore, the LGBT lobbyists’ apparently vindictive use of Article 3:567, reveals the oppressive side of these so-called “conversion therapy” bans.

There’s an unavoidable irony in a former homosexual being the first victim of the globalised push for ill-defined, arbitrary LGBT lawfare.

Ultimately, these laws are designed to make falsehoods sacred, and legally stop people from voluntarily leaving the LGBT cult.

People can check in, but they’ll never be allowed to leave.


Originally published at Caldron Pool.

Thank the Source

National Socialism The Hitler Elixir

12 years not a slave – January 25th, 2023

I sometimes share videos/articles produced by normies so please keep that in mind. Take the info with a grain of salt.

You can also find me here:

Videos, written works, etc I share are not my creations unless otherwise specified.

SourceSouth Australian Gov Criminal Organisation

What This Same-Sex Attracted Pastor Said About Churches and Sexuality

Vaughan Roberts is a same-sex attracted Christian pastor in the United Kingdom.

At the recent National Training Event for the Aussie Campus ministry AFES, he did a training seminar on sexuality. Here’s what he said about how churches should respond pastorally to sexuality:

1) Churches must remain firm on the truth

Churches and Christians are under increasing pressure to compromise on biblical sexuality. But instead of giving in to secular cultures’ views of sexuality, we must speak with Scriptural clarity. As per Jude 3-4, Churches must ‘contend for the faith that was once for all delivered to the saints.’ Including on the issue of sexuality.

2) Be open about our struggles (2 Cor. 12:9)

Christians haven’t always been good at sharing (or responding to) struggles, especially in the sexual realm. We need to support each other and not be shocked to hear that we struggle with sexual sin.

And as we confess our weaknesses, we open the door to God’s grace working powerfully in and through those weaknesses (2 Cor. 12:9).

(To use a metaphor I heard from Tim Keller, our churches should be more like the waiting room for the Doctor rather than the waiting room for job interviewees: we should admit that we all need (God’s) help.)

3) Be clear on our identity

Our sexual failures (and illicit sexual desires) are part of our history, our reality, and our experience.

But they don’t define who we are. Christ Jesus gives us our Ultimate identity, which eclipses all other identities. And if we remember our new identity in Christ, we’ll face our struggles — sexual and otherwise — with Gospel-fuelled hope and joy that nothing can take away.

4) Be positive about singleness

Churches have often struggled with what to do about singleness and single people.

Roberts related the story of a young adults group, which had the charming name ‘Pairs and Spares’ (referring to whether people were in a relationship or single). With a name like that, no doubt the single people in that group felt loved and valued (!).

But as we see in Scripture, the Lord Jesus was single as was the Apostle Paul. Singleness must be held up as biblically virtuous and good (1 Cor 7:8), not something to look down on or escape from at all costs.

5) Be strong on fellowship (Mark 10:29-30)

The world says you can only have intimacy within marriage (or other sexual relationships).

That’s a lie.

Christians should have spiritual friendships with fellow believers. As Jesus points out, those who leave everything and follow Him should receive ‘houses and brothers and sisters and mothers and children’ by virtue of the family of God (Mark 10:29-30).

Nobody should feel isolated in the family of God.

6) Be full of the Gospel (1 Cor. 6:9-11)

The Gospel makes the Christian life liveable and joyous amid our struggles.

Yes, when it comes to sexuality, biblical commandments must inform our thinking and practice.

But these Biblical commandments spring from the gracious Gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ. Remembering the privileges of the Gospel will help us respond joyfully to our struggles and the struggles of one another.

Roberts had a lot more to say about sexuality, but hearing this guidance from a Christian pastor who is same-sex attracted helped reaffirm that biblical sexuality is not something to be ashamed of, but something good to uphold. Especially as Christians who struggle (together) with sin in this present evil age.


Originally published at Photo: Quaerentia

Thank the Source

Sexual License and Culture

How do sexual mores affect a civilisation? Here are two books that closely examine the worldwide historical link between sexual promiscuity and civilisational collapse.

Amidst a mild internet debate, I made a Google search regarding the connection between sexual freedom and societal health throughout history. In the back of my mind was an essay I had recently read under recommendation, titled The Fate of Empires, authored by Sir John Glubb.The Fate of Empires book

Under one heading, Glubb describes aspects of the Arab decline, as described by historians of Baghdad in the early tenth century. The historians despised the degeneracy of the times in which they lived, featuring the laxity of sexual morals.

They commented disapprovingly upon the powerful influence of popular singers over young people, as their erotic songs resulted in a decline in sexual morality. Obscene sexual language became increasingly common, to a degree that would not have been tolerated in earlier years.

Glubb also noted that the increase in the influence of women in public life has often been associated with national decline. I later discovered that, in his second essay (Search for Survival), he elaborated that the prominence of women seemed to coincide with a desire of some men to imitate women (this may coincide with an increase in homosexuality).

He observed that this ‘reversal of the sexes,’ in which men try to be women and women men, seemed to be a sign of decadence, i.e. societal decline. [It is well worth reading both essays for a broader picture. Glubb’s second essay is particularly expressive regarding the role and importance of women in society.1]

Throughout Time and Space

With these ideas in mind, I soon stumbled upon the name J.D. Unwin and his book Sex and Culture. In this 600+ page work, Unwin summarises ten years of his relentless research as an Oxford social anthropologist.Sex and Culture book by J.D. Unwin

He writes as a rationalist, with no indication of being religious, and examines data from 86 native cultures and civilisations — from the ancients onwards (e.g., Sumerians, Babylonians, Egyptians, Assyrians, Romans, Polynesian societies, Indian tribes, etc).

Unwin’s goal was to identify the relationship between sexual liberty and the flourishing of cultures. Flourishing is measured in terms of art, engineering, architecture, literature, agriculture, etc.

Certainly, there is much to be studied. The ancient Greeks were no stranger to homosexuality and paedophilia, and the Romans would gradually lend themselves to self-indulgence, political corruption, adultery, homosexuality, sexual orgies, live sex acts in theatre, brutal sports, family deterioration, and moral laziness — all reaching a climax with their destruction. Unwin described four “great patterns of human culture.” Namely:

  • Zoistic – does not practice any form of prenuptial chastity. Self-focussed on daily life, wants, and needs. No interest in understanding nature. A ‘dead’ or ‘inert’ culture.

  • Manistic – does not practice prenuptial chastity (or maintains limited practice). Holds superstitious beliefs and/or special treatment of the dead to cope with the natural world.

  • Deistic – prenuptial chastity is practised. Attributes the powers of nature to a god or gods.

  • Rationalistic – uses rational thinking to understand nature and make daily decisions. Emerges when a society has been deistic for long enough to appreciate “a new conception of the power in the universe, based on the yet unknown” that is the result of a widening scope of understanding of the natural.

Unwin also divided degrees of sexual restraint into two key categories — prenuptial (before marriage) and postnuptial (after marriage). Prenuptial degrees included:

  • Complete sexual freedom

  • Irregular/occasional restraint – cultural regulations which require occasional periods of abstinence

  • Strict chastity – remain a virgin until marriage

Postnuptial categories included:

  • Modified monogamy – one spouse at a time (association can be terminated)

  • Modified polygamy – men can have multiple wives (a wife can leave her husband)

  • Absolute monogamy – only one spouse for life (or until death)

  • Absolute polygamy – men can have multiple wives (wives cannot leave)


Dr Kirk Durston summarises Unwin’s work into a 26-page collection of quotes. He summarises Unwin’s most significant findings as follows (paraphrased):

  • Increased sexual constraints always led to the increased flourishing of a culture. Increased sexual freedom always led to the collapse of a culture three generations later.

  • Data revealed that the most significant correlation with cultural flourishing was whether prenuptial chastity was required or not.

  • The highest flourishing cultures entailed prenuptial chastity and absolute monogamy. Rationalist cultures that retained this for at least three generations exceeded all other cultures in every area (only 3/86 cultures ever attained this).

  • When prenuptial chastity was no longer the norm, absolute monogamy, deism, and rational thinking disappeared within three generations.

  • Within three generations, a culture that embraced total sexual freedom would collapse into a dead/inert culture. This culture is usually then conquered by another with greater flourishing.

  • The full effect of a change in sexual constraints is not realised until the third generation (about a century — approximately 33 years per generation, after the initial generation has died off).

Randy Alcorn writes that historian Arnold Toynbee similarly concluded that a society’s creative energy is connected to its sexual self-control, which is directly linked to national strength and accomplishment. Alcorn writes,

“Toynbee’s research indicated that of history’s twenty-one greatest civilizations, nineteen perished from internal moral corruption, not external enemies.”

The Modern West

Durston notes that, interestingly, the West is now in a position to test the conclusions that Unwin arrived at. Unwin published his book in 1934, and the West’s sexual revolution occurred throughout the 1960s, ’70s, and ’80s. Since then, we have rapidly moved from prenuptial chastity to prenuptial sexual freedom, and from absolute to modified monogamy. He writes that:

“The inherent nature of the human organism, however, seems to be such that these desires are incompatible, even contradictory. The reformer may be likened to the foolish boy who desires both to keep his cake and to consume it. Any human society is free to choose either to display great energy or to enjoy sexual freedom; the evidence is that it cannot do both for more than one generation.”

C.S. Lewis writes, similarly,

“Though the “right of happiness” is chiefly claimed for the sexual impulse, it seems to me impossible that the matter should stay there. The fatal principle, once allowed in that department, must sooner or later seep through our whole lives.

We thus advance toward a state of society in which not only each man but every impulse in each man claims carte blanche. And then, though our technological skill may help us survive a little longer, our civilization will have died at heart, and will — one dare not even add “unfortunately” — be swept away.”

(essay, “We Have No ‘Right to Happiness’“)

Unwin predicts that after one generation, a significant decline in culture sets in and becomes apparent. This “having your cake and eating it too” phase would have ended in the early 2000s (at the latest) — now we are seeing the consequences.

As predicted, absolute monogamy has been replaced with the modified version, with those who practice life-long commitments in marriage becoming the minority. Deism is rapidly declining, as the concept of God is pushed away from government, education, and the public sphere.

In its place rises the superstitious manistic culture, as well as early signs of a non-religious zoistic culture (the lowest of Unwin’s categories). And finally, rational thinking has been largely replaced by post-modernism, featuring scepticism, relativism, post-truth, an appeal to feeling, sophistry, etc.


Evidence of the West’s decline is readily identified. We see increases in children born out of wedlock, millions of babies aborted annually, every letter in the LGBT+ acronym rejects science and the observable nature of man and woman, the definition of marriage has been taken apart, identifying as non-religious has increased, and the concept of anarchy has grown in appeal. In the eyes of many, sexual freedom is synonymous with the liberation of women. Sex is desirable and liberating, while marriage and family are not.

Given the living realisation of these predictions, it seems inevitable that, somewhere in the last third of this century, we will see the collapse of the West. Naturally, we want to believe we are the exception. Unwin describes this as ‘pardonable egocentricity’, and a position that flies in the face of data which reveals a monotonous and regular pattern of decline.

It’s not too difficult to believe that the West will only get more depraved. Indeed, Sigmund Freud (considered a key root in the revolution‘s formation) emphasised the role of sex as a primary force in human behaviour, and Alfred Kinsey (dubbed ‘the father of the sexual revolution’) suggested that incest and paedophilia could benefit children. The reality is that we’re well on our way to collapse. Ruth Graham states, “If God doesn’t judge America, He’ll owe Sodom and Gomorrah an apology.” Sexual hedonism will destroy the West, or at least accompany it as it plummets downward.

One can certainly throw in some criticism along the lines of ‘correlation does not equal causation.’ Unwin doesn’t pretend to know why sexual freedom has a direct link to cultural collapse, though he does make suggestions, but the fact remains regardless of the why. Durston directs readers toward Mary Eberstadt’s research, connecting identity and well-being to growing up with sizable immediate and extended family, and the decimation of the family with the recent sexual revolution. Her research indicates that increased sexual liberties led to the destruction of the family, which in turn resulted in the loss of family identity, which produces ‘primal screams’ (e.g., mental health issues, mass killings, extreme identity groups).

Biblical Injunctions

Of course, the Christian Scriptures are plainly against adultery, fornication, sodomy, prostitution, incest, and all other forms of sexual deviance. Sodom and Gomorrah were cities that were sexually depraved, and God destroyed them. Sexual immorality was widespread in ancient Babylon. Cult and temple prostitutes were common. Wicked or negligent kings of Israel or Judah would lead their people in sexual immorality. It’s easy to argue that King David and King Solomon would ruin the united monarchy due (at least in part) to their lack of sexual self-control.

Sexual immorality (namely adultery and prostitution) is used as images of idolatry and a rejection of God’s covenant relationship. The prophets warn Israel and Judah of their future destruction, which would result from their sin and continual rejection of God. Durston writes that although God’s laws regarding sexuality may restrain us from some immediate pleasure, they “protect us from enormous long-term suffering while maximizing our long-term flourishing.”

Jonathan Doyle et al. identified sixteen facts-based reasons for sexual integrity (i.e., prenuptial abstinence and postnuptial faithfulness). These included the ideas that sexual integrity ensures gender equality, preserves marital relationships, increases satisfaction in sexual relationships, is essential for manhood, is basic to successful fathering and strong families, helps prevent violence against women, reduces child abuse and exploitation, prevents the pornographic exploitation of women and exploitation of men, lowers rape and homicide rates, helps prevent prostitution and sex trafficking of women, is essential to prevent sexual exploitation on the internet, is essential in the media and workplace, and safeguards human health.

Chastity, not sexual liberty, is the sign of a culture thriving.


[1] To further pique your interest, Glubb writes: “Women are the guardians of the national future by the dedication with which they bring up their children. When women neglect small children to earn a double salary for the family, there is grave danger of injury to the next generation… Men should venerate women for their noble and selfless service. Women, in their turn, would do better not to descend from their high estate.”


Originally published at The Walk. Photo by Asad Photo Maldives.

Thank the Source

Huxley and Orwell’s Nightmare Visions

Aspects of the totalitarian dystopias described in the seminal works of Aldous Huxley and George Orwell have sadly come to pass in our lifetimes. Let us take heed of their warnings, lest we further succumb to the creeping encroachments upon morality and freedom.

Decades ago I read those two dystopian novels, Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (1932) and George Orwell’s Nineteen Eighty-Four (1949). Like many of my fellow students, I was sickened by the scenarios depicted, but was reassured by the belief that it couldn’t happen here.

Brave New World

Aldous HuxleyAldous Huxley’s novel depicts a future where peace has eventuated under world government after a disastrous global war in which, he imagines, anthrax bombs were used. Benevolent-seeming Controllers preside over a society where social stability is paramount and the economy is focused on maximising consumption. This is achieved by manufacturing human beings to fit the requirements of this society, their abilities being chemically determined to supply Alphas, Betas, etc, down to Epsilon semi-morons, all conditioned to accept their lot.

This is achieved by eliminating families and separating sex from procreation. Fertilisation and gestation are both totally in vitro, and children are raised in hatchery conditions with sleep-teaching to meet the needs of their social conditioning, including a required predisposition to sexual promiscuity. Recreation caters exclusively to the sensual appetites, and comprises complex sports, orgiastic sex and a psychotropic drug called soma. Youth is prolonged and old age is avoided via an overdose of this drug.

Brave New WorldThe novel’s title is itself ironic, echoing the rapture of Shakespeare’s Miranda in The Tempest on learning of a world outside her island: “O brave new world, that has such people in it!” Huxley introduces John, a “savage” from a reservation, who is at first dazzled by, and then disgusted at, this society, having imbibed his moral and aesthetic values from reading the works of Shakespeare. He at first tries to protest against this obscenity of a society, then seeks isolation to purge himself of its effects, and finally in despair, he commits suicide.

Chilling Reality

The modern reader might find Huxley’s vision unexceptionable. Consider how far we have gone in sidelining the family, making children a commodity, elevating a fabrication of freedom and autonomy, and removing nearly all the taboos of sexual behaviour. Graphic pornography is there now for the young at the touch of a screen, to desensitise them to all but the most horrifying of material. Both social and mainstream media are so pervasive that their effects are comparable to sleep-teaching.

Millions of babies’ lives are lost to abortion, while reproductive technologies are employed to manufacture human life in our brave new world, where sections of the medical profession seem to play God. There are calls to legalise all mind-altering substances, in spite of mountains of evidence of the damage it would inflict. As for the meaning of life, hedonism is almost a human right, while transcendental beliefs are derided — unless they are chemically induced or those of some primitive society.

Nineteen Eighty-Four

George OrwellSeventeen years after Huxley’s prophetic masterpiece, George Orwell, with his insights into totalitarianism both in his personal life and in the world, gives us an even bleaker vision of the future. Unlike others of his generation who had joined the International Brigades, his illusions concerning Communism had been shattered in the 1936–39 Spanish Civil War, after which he had witnessed the privations and suspension of freedoms imposed on the British people during the Second World War. His novel envisages a world where force and propaganda enslave the bodies and minds of mankind forever.

As in Huxley’s novel, the early chapters give us the scenario. The world is divided into three power blocs: Eurasia, East-Asia and Oceania, permanently at war, with alliances shifting so regularly that the populace remains confused about who is the current enemy.

In his futuristic England, “War is Peace” is the repeated slogan and the country’s Ministry of Peace wages an interminable war. This state of war perpetuates the maintenance of a savage police state with shortages of every consumer item, reminiscent of wartime Britain and what was to be the norm in communist Eastern Europe for the next forty years after Orwell published his novel.

1984England, renamed Airstrip One, has a population divided into the equivalent of party members and a lower class of “proles”. The latter live in deplorable conditions, distracted by lotteries and Victory gin, but are relatively ignored by the anonymous figures who wield real power. As in Huxley’s novel, love and intimacy are discouraged, and those who break rank are “disappeared”, as in Stalinist Russia. Informers are everywhere, even in one’s own family.

Two-way telescreens, with the capacity to spy on citizens in their homes, bark commands and unleash the daily Two Minutes Hate, in which everybody is expected to participate, against the principal enemy of the state, a subversive figure named Emmanuel Goldstein

Language is a vital means of control, and the novel’s anti-hero, Winston Smith, who introduces the reader to his world, is employed at the Ministry of Truth, where the vocabulary is progressively shrunk, in order to restrict critical thinking. Thus the word “bad” is no longer necessary and is replaced by “ungood”, the concept of the most dire evil being conveyed by the term “double-plus ungood”.

In this ministry also, file copies of past newspapers are reprinted with omissions and alterations in order, in effect, to change history. The ruling Party justifies this with its mind-deadening slogans: “Who controls the past controls the future; who controls the present controls the past” and “Ignorance is Strength”.

When Winston and his lover Julia rebel in thought and deed by building what they believe is a tiny oasis of privacy, they are duped into believing that they are secure, until a brutal raid by the Thought Police has them hauled off to the Ministry of Love for torture and re-education.

A senior Party official, Comrade O’Brien, explains to Winston and the reader the rationale of a system where power — essentially the capacity to inflict suffering on others — exists for its own sake and that minds must become capable of “double-think”, that is, believing two mutually exclusive points of view. In the process, Winston betrays Julia, as she does him, and when released he comes to realise that he loves the dictator, Big Brother, the cult figure unmistakably based on Josef Stalin.

Sobering Developments

So much of Orwell’s nightmare has comes to pass, not only in the former Soviet Union, Communist China and North Korea, but even in today’s Western world, that Orwell is hailed by some for his eerily prophetic powers. His warning is often hidden from the young by so-called progressive educators, so it is little wonder that freedom of speech, and even of religion, are imperilled. Cancel culture has captured the universities and tolerance is beginning to become a one-way street in public and even private life.

The worst offences now seem to be those committed against the dictates of the environmental movement and the canons of racial and gender identity. A new tyranny has made the legal principle of innocent until proved guilty problematic, if not obsolete. The past is dredged for offenders whose statues must be toppled and histories rewritten by our current ministries of truth.

Australia’s retired tennis champion, Margaret Court AC, MBE, currently a Christian pastor, has spoken against same-sex marriage. As a consequence, she has been vilified, and even her reputation as the greatest ever women’s tennis player must be expunged.

During the recently induced pandemic panic, police powers in Australia were wielded in the manner of the Stasi, the feared secret police in the former communist East Germany. State premiers even assumed the role of Orwell’s Big Brother. Recall those daily television appearances by Daniel Andrews in Victoria.

Orwellian “double-think” is clearly discernible in the hypocrisy of a government that believes that it can eliminate fossil fuels, while simultaneously deriving revenue from exporting them and coercing its producers to make the supply more affordable and reliable.

Thought crime is now definitely on the agenda, as we saw in the case of the Essendon Football Club firing its newly appointed CEO, Andrew Thorburn, within 24 hours, because of something the pastor at his church reportedly said a decade ago. If the bludgeoning today is done to reputations and careers rather than with the truncheons of Orwell’s Thought Police, the difference is only a matter of degree.

While a defence of Huxley and Orwell’s respective classics ought to be unnecessary, the contest for the place of Western civilisation in the school and university makes these prophetic works worthy candidates for inclusion alongside the Bible and the works of Shakespeare, as championed by the Ramsay Centre for Western Civilisation.

Winston struggles to recall what life was like before the scenario presented in Nineteen Eighty-Four came to be; but the ideals and aesthetics which Huxley’s John the Savage espouses, after being exposed only to what we now call “Great Books”, underline by contrast the drabness and sterility of what the two dystopias offer and the printed and electronic fare on which the young are raised today.

Both of these works deserve a recall to the literary canon.


The above article originally appeared in the December 2022 edition of the Endeavour Forum, Inc. newsletter. Photo by Moose Photos.

Thank the Source

How NOT to Help Others

If we really want to help other people, we must do it God’s way.

If we care about others, we of course want to help them when and where we can. But not everything we do may be helpful. We may in fact cause more harm than good by not doing that which is really in the other person’s best interests. Here I speak more to this, coming from a biblical point of view, of course.

Consider this: You will take a stand for biblical truth and morality, and you will get plenty of opposition, resistance and angry reactions. This is to be expected of course from non-Christians. But the really worrying thing is how many folks calling themselves Christian will have the same negative reaction. And so often this happens because the believer has a close friend or relative involved in some harmful or sinful behaviour.

Making Excuses

So you will often hear something like this: ‘I have an X (sister, brother, spouse, cousin, niece, relative, friend, etc), who is involved in Y (homosexuality, transgenderism, fornication, adultery, etc), so I will not judge them or call out their sin. I care about them and therefore I cannot speak against what they are involved in. I would rather defend them than go with what Scripture might say on this issue.’

Sadly, this is so very common among some Christians. Sure, we can all understand wanting to support a loved one or relative and be there for them. But when you end up siding against God and His Word to do so, you really are not helping these people — you are actually hurting and damaging them.

I am sure many of you have encountered folks like this as well. Because they have a loved one who is involved in some sin or some activity or lifestyle that the Bible clearly condemns, they will stand with them and reject what the Bible says about it. In their mistaken sense of ‘loving’ the person, they prefer to tell God that he is wrong.

They have made a choice. They can either keep agreeing with what God has said on these matters, or they can reject that and instead seek to validate and justify the activities and behaviours of their friend or relative. Of course, we should seek to obey God and seek to help others, but that always involves telling the person truth — biblical truth.

When the Bible says without equivocation that no adulterer or homosexual will enter the kingdom of God (see for example 1 Corinthians 6:9-11), then we either agree or disagree. Here we have a choice to make: we either affirm what God has said about these matters, or we run with a fake love and tell God to butt out. And that is exactly what too many believers do.

True Compassion

As I say, I see this happening all the time. In one situation, someone took me to task for writing on a recent case on transgenderism that had made the news. An Anglican priest had fully embraced and defended this and was causing all sorts of mischief in the churches. But this person said he had a relative who was trans, and so I needed to stop being judgemental and show some compassion. What follows is a version of how I sought to respond to this person:

Sadly you have completely missed the point of this article, and really about everything I have ever written on this and related subjects. And I have written hundreds of articles on this — even books — to carefully make my case. So let me try to once again explain things in a brief and simple fashion.

~ I of course knew nothing about your situation in this regard. I did not write this piece with you in mind. I had no awareness that you might have a relative involved in this. This article is about a vicar in the UK and the damage he is doing, as he twists the Word of God in diabolical ways to justify his lifestyle.

Did you actually read the whole article, or did you instead just run with an emotive knee-jerk reaction? Moreover, did you think the priest was right in what he was saying and doing? If not, why not? It would be interesting to hear your views on the topic that I actually wrote about.

~ I always have a real problem when someone comes along and says that we cannot comment on something unless we have experienced or encountered it directly. That of course is the standard line used by folks to justify all sorts of things.

How many times have pro-lifers heard it said, for example, that we cannot speak out against abortion unless we are female and unless we have had abortions ourselves? This is obviously just plain foolish. I can and should denounce things like rape, even though I have never experienced it personally. Some things are wrong, full stop, regardless if they have been personally experienced or not.

~ It goes without saying that as believers we are to have compassion on others and pray for them. And I did speak of the need for prayer in my article. Prayer and compassion are for everyone, whether the person is a Sunday School teacher, a homosexual, a trans person, a drug addict, or a bank robber. But obviously, we are to love them in the biblical sense of the word.

And that always means willing the highest good for the other person. Loving a homosexual means wanting to see them set free from a risky and dead-end lifestyle. Thus the most loving (and truthful) thing you can tell a homosexual is, ‘You don’t have to be gay.’

It is the same with those caught up in the trans agenda. Loving a trans person is not catering to their delusions and not being happy with them lopping off parts of their body and causing irreversible physical damage to themselves. Instead, loving them means wanting them to get the mental, psychological and spiritual help they really need.

~ As I have often said, if we have a person who is anorexic and identifies as being overweight, and is close to dying because she is so underweight, is it really compassionate and loving to go along with this harmful delusion and encourage the person in that?

How can anyone claiming to be a Christian just pretend everything is fine in this situation? How can we say God is wrong when He clearly said He made us male or female? It is always tragic when concern for someone we know causes us to jettison Scripture. Doing that will not help the person we are concerned about — it will harm them instead.

~ In this article, I was NOT talking about some person that you might know, but an Anglican priest who is misleading many. Approving of those who are twisting Scripture and misleading people into a lost eternity is hardly a loving or compassionate thing to do.

If a loved one comes out in any sinful lifestyle, we still love them of course, but we love them enough to want them to be set free, because Jesus is in the transformation business. That is what the Gospel is all about: turning peoples’ lives around and freeing them from the clutches of the devil.

All this is just basic Christian teaching. How anyone claiming to be a biblical Christian can not understand all this is a mystery to me. It really is. We have simply ditched Scripture and basic Christian ethics when we think the loving thing to do is affirm and encourage a person who is living in a sinful, ungodly lifestyle.


It should be clear that I am not picking on just one individual here. As I say, I come across folks like this all the time. Often they are strong Bible-believing Christians, but because some situation like this arises in their personal circles, they may start to waver or weaken in their beliefs.

Again, it is understandable that a person wants to support and stay close to a friend or loved one. But there is a basic biblical reality that we must always keep in mind: when a conflict arises between a personal experience (our own, or that of another) and the clear teachings of Scripture, then the latter should always trump the former.

But way too often, we allow experiences we have had — or others have had — to determine how we run with the Bible. This is not only doing things backwards, but it is sinful and idolatrous. God and His truth must always come first. Otherwise, we demonstrate how little we care about Him and His Word.

And as I keep saying, if we really want to help and love other people, we will do it God’s way, and not against God’s way. When we run with a humanistic, sentimental or worldly ‘love’, it is NOT going to help the other person. It will simply harm them further, as well as send them to a lost eternity. There is certainly nothing loving about that.


Originally published at CultureWatch. Photo by Andrea Piacquadio.

Thank the Source

Why Start a New Diocese? Interview with Rev. Glenn Davies

As more and more Christian denominations and churches question the complete authority of Scripture, faithful Christians will increasingly seek new places of worship. In this interview, Bishop Glenn Davies of the new Diocese of the Southern Cross calls it a “lifeboat” for Australian Anglicans fleeing revisionist dioceses across Australia.

After a high-profile schism sparked the establishment of a new Australian Anglican diocese back in August this year, Warwick Marsh sat down with the new diocese’s bishop, Rev. Glenn Davies, to discuss the bombshell announcement.

They discuss the importance of marriage to Christian doctrine, conservative versus revisionist readings of scripture, the rationale behind the creation of the Diocese of the Southern Cross, and the Global Anglican Future Conference (GAFCON)’s support of the new diocese.

You can read or watch the full exclusive conversation below.


Warwick Marsh: Well, Bishop Glenn Davies, it’s a great delight to be talking to you today. And thank you for your time, because I know, even though you’re not the Archbishop of the Diocese of Sydney anymore, you’re the Bishop of a very new diocese—Diocese of the Southern Cross. Tell us the story: how did this come to pass?

Rev Glenn Davies: Oh, thank you, Warwick, and thank you for this opportunity to tell you about the Southern Cross. I think that in the Anglican Church of Australia, which has had a Constitution which was well grounded in the scriptures as God’s authoritative word, the Book of Common Prayer as a liturgical expression, and the 39 Articles, which is a theological expression of what we stand for—of our common faith… and there have been Bishops unfortunately—and some Synods and Diocese—which have been moving further and further away from the authority of scriptures and listening to the allurement of the world and therefore changing their views about scripture in order to address—or adapt to—the mores of our society, which of course is very foolish.

It’s not that we always get things right in reading the Bible, but we’ve got to make sure the Bible is authoritative in every aspect to us, because the Bible contains the Gospel, which tells us how we come into relationship with God through the Lord Jesus Christ and faith in Him. That’s what it’s all about; that’s what Christianity is all about.

So there was a particular Bishop in Wangaratta in the province of Victoria, and he said in a bishop’s meeting, “I’m going to get the blessing of same-sex couples into our church.” And he said, “I’m going to do it in a lawful, legal way.” Well, he attempted to do that—and then he resigned, because he was of the age of resignation—retired, really, I should say—and that blessing of same-sex couples was endorsed by the Synod. And the Primate immediately sent that to the Appellate Tribunal, which is a Judicial Group, which is the, sort of, the like a High Court in Australia. The Appellate Tribunal has three bishops and four lawyers on it—

WM: What year was this, by the way?

GD: This was—that’s a good question; let me think… they came down with their… the decision in 2021, and I think it was 2020. It took a year to do it, so it’s in 2020 that this took place.* And they came down and—I won’t go through the details, but basically—they said “doctrine” in the Constitution only refers to that which pertains to salvation. So a doctrine about Jesus the Son of God is a doctrine that pertains to salvation, but a doctrine with regard to marriage is not—it doesn’t pertain to salvation. And, therefore, you could have a blessing of a same-sex couple because it didn’t affect one’s salvation.

That opinion… which was egregious in so many ways, particularly when the Appellate Tribunal had references from the House of Bishops (minus the two Bishops on the Appellate Tribunal) and what are called a “Board of Assessors”—clergy elected by the Synod—there was a unanimous report from both groups to the Appellate Tribunal to these… there were only six of them, because the very Bishop of Wangaratta was on the Appellate Tribunal and had to recuse himself, naturally… so these six people—and it was a 5–1 judgment, so only five people—completely ignored the advice of the House of Bishops, which said that homosexual behaviour is contrary to God’s Word, but excludes one from the kingdom of God. 1 Corinthians 6 makes this very plain, as does 1 Timothy 1.

And that sense in which they were just overturned—the very Guardians of the Faith—the Bishops—let alone the Board of Assessors—clergy (and these were theological lecturers in theological colleges and experienced clergy). They ignored that and said we’re gonna run down this track. It’s almost as if they’d made up their mind and tried to find a lawful way to get there. It was an erroneous decision, in my view, but it actually recognised that suddenly same-sex blessings was now legal in every diocese—not just in Wangaratta—because the Appellate Tribunal said a big tick.

There was a canon which was being used, and we thought that the canon was sufficient when it said you can’t have a new service if it’s contrary to the fundamental declarations and the doctrine of our church and as long as it’s edifying and reverent. The Appellate Tribunal put a big tick—“yes, it is consistent with the doctrine of our church”—which in my view is a very, not only a foolish decision, a decision which dishonours God and the consequence of their opinions—which I said publicly—dishonours God.

The president of the Appellate Tribunal was very upset with me that I said that, but I still stand by that, because if homosexual unions are sin, you cannot bless sin. That’s the whole thing: you can’t sanctify sin by a blessing, by a priest or a pastor in a congregation.

So, GAFCON Australia, which is part of the GAFCON Global Movement, we decided we need to put in place something to rescue people who found themselves unable to work in dioceses which accepted that. I said to all the Bishops, in 2020, that they could all stop it dead in the water if they wanted to. All they had to say is it was irreverent and not edifying… only very few have done so.

We did in Sydney, [the] Bishop of Tasmania sent out a message to all clergy—“I consider this was to be neither edifying nor reverent”. Therefore, it’s illegal in the Diocese of Sydney and, likewise, in Tasmania, and a couple of dioceses have done the same thing, but, by and large, the rest of them have not adopted that course, because they don’t want it. They want to embrace homosexual society, embrace those who are in these sexual relationships which are outside of marriage as God has ordained it.

The fact that it’s marriage as the state has ordained it is irrelevant. That’s Unholy Matrimony; we’re talking about Holy Matrimony—what God has ordained between a man and woman from as old as Genesis 1 and 2. We see that God’s plan is for marriage, procreation within the bonds of a man and woman in a joint, one-flesh relationship—a loving, exclusive, permanent relationship until, of course, the new Heavens and New Earth when there’ll be no marriage.

A Lifeboat

WM: The other thing, of course, is that, you know, marriage—Ephesians—is a type of Christ and the church, so… and, in Hebrews, it says that the marriage bed is holy and undefiled. Now that’s whether it’s a Christian marriage bed or a non-Christian marriage bed—marriage is something that comes from heaven because it’s the type of Christ. It’s some mystery in there, as it says in Ephesians, so to actually try to change marriage is actually changing the very foundations of the Word of God, the very foundations of our society, the foundations of our future society, which is procreation. So, you know, I can see why this was a great concern to you.

GD: Well, we made all these statements when we were having the big debate about same-sex marriage in Australia. And we said, “The consequences are significant,” and the opposition said, “No no no; love is love,” you know, “Don’t be such… wowsers that you’re going to stop people having the expression of their love”.

And we’re now seeing it in the Church of all places; we’re seeing it on TV. We’re seeing it in football clubs in Melbourne, whereby a person who has an association with a church which doesn’t hold to same-sex marriage or holds the biblical views on abortion, etc., is ineligible to become the chairman of a football club. The world’s gone crazy; it’s just gone crazy.

So the Diocese of the Southern Cross was vitalised by GAFCON Australia, and I was invited to become the initial bishop. I’m a retired bishop, so I won’t be doing it for very long until a Synod is called and then that Synod will elect its own bishop and it will carry on. It’s a parallel jurisdiction across all of Australia which is a lifeboat for people who cannot abide the leadership of their bishop or the decisions of their Synod. For example—and the bombshell of course took place in the middle of this year when in the Diocese of Brisbane, the Archbishop declared publicly that we no longer share the presuppositions of the Biblical authors…

WM: This is Archbishop Aspinall?

GD: This is Archbishop Philip Aspinall.

WM: Yep.

GD: … therefore, we are no longer bound by their moral imperatives. He affirmed this view, which was a view of… he was quoting someone else. And the same Synod… the motion was moved and seconded by two assistant Bishops in the Diocese of Brisbane to remove chastity as a requirement for church workers. This wasn’t just to do with same-sex marriage—so that now Church workers—clergy—could be in a same-sex marriage—but it includes adultery…

WM: It could be adulters; they could be fornicators…

GD: … any sexual misconduct of which chastity has been a long-held binding aspect, that sexual activity takes place in a marriage—only in a marriage between a man and woman… They’ve just opened the door to immorality. And so we had one clergy and his representative just walk out of the Synod. And, shortly thereafter, two congregations—two Ministers of congregations in the Diocese of Brisbane—have left the Diocese of Brisbane and joined the Southern Cross. And it’s a delight for me to care for them, pastor them, assist them. It’s a sacrificial move to leave… to lose your property to walk out of the church—here we are: look at the beautiful Church we’re in here today, to walk out of a place like this—and then start afresh.

WM: … in a school hall, rented building…

Ecumenical Support

GD: … RSL Club, whatever it might be. Or a Seventh-day Adventist Church or a Presbyterian Church in the afternoon. So…

WM: … thank God for the Presbyterians…

GD: Thank God for the Presbyterians.

WM: They came to your rescue, if I understand correctly. They actually very soon after the decision was—this bombshell announcement about the Diocese of the Southern Cross—they actually said, “we will offer our buildings to any congregation—Anglican Church—that needs refuge”, correct?

GD: Correct.

WM: It was a beautiful thing, wasn’t it?

GD: It was a letter written by the Moderator-General, which is all of Australian Presbyterians, co-signed by previous moderators-general. It was a very full endorsement, saying, “if we can help you with our property, we’re happy to do so”. And one of my guys is doing that. I’ve got the same letter from the Christian Reformed Church. They understood the same situation… Christian and Missionary Alliance have indicated to me personally that they’re in the same situation. They want to support us. I haven’t had any letters of support from other bishops—revisionist bishops—around Australia, of course. They’re just somewhat upset with me… I understand why, but they only have themselves to blame.

Authority and Unity

WM: Now, can I just say something here: with Bishop Aspinall, if I’m correct in saying this, they attacked you and attacked this whole movement and said, a), “it was divisive” and, “no, we didn’t really”—you know—“say that same-sex marriage relationships were okay in the church”.

And I looked at the history—as you just told us—and I’m thinking, “this guy is”—the nicest way to sell it is—“he’s telling a big, giant fib”, but it’s an outrageous lie. I was so annoyed because he actually got coverage in the newspaper—in the mainstream media—and I’m sure a lot of people believed it. What’s your comment about that?

GD: Well, I never want to make this personal with individuals. I want to direct my attention to what they say and what they do. And Archbishop Aspinall and I have had good relationships over many years, but he has made a fundamental error, in my view, in trying to endorse the authority of scripture but then wipe out the very text of scripture, which is part of God’s Word. To override it and say experience and reason is going to tell me that Paul didn’t understand homosexual behaviour—we know better than Paul, which is a way of saying we know better than God.

And God is the author of scripture. Paul is the human author; God is the Divine Author. And unless we come to grips with that… that’s why—it’s ultimately not about sex; it’s about the authority of God’s Word, plainly written. The text of scripture has been undermined, destroyed, eradicated by so many of these revisionist bishops. It’s not just in Australia; it’s in North America; it’s in South America; it’s in Europe. And what we want to do is reclaim the living Oracles of God, because that’s what brings the message of Salvation.

And if you start deleting sections of scripture, you undermine the very authority of God in the places which talk about salvation. So, you know, marriage is not about salvation, but marriage is about living God’s way as the saved people of God, and that’s what we want to do.

Our love for people who are same-sex attracted is undiminished. They’re all welcome to our churches, because any sinner is welcome to our church, but what we want to do is see them grasp the message of Christ and the ownership of Christ as Saviour and Lord, and then the sinner becomes a saint. That’s what we want to do. And that Saint is going to live in accordance with God’s ways.

WM: Yeah, 100%. It’s interesting, if I understand correctly, that the whole move to GAFCON—and maybe we can just go through a bit of that sort of background, so we, you know… you’ve told us where we’re up to today… but first if I can ask this question: how does it—how do you feel… you know, you said you just had a great relationship with, you know, Archbishop Aspinall and, you know, obviously working with all these bishops across Australia. Personally, you must have felt almost tormented inside to have to do this. It would have been a difficult thing for you to have to make this stand, so can you tell us about those—how did it make you feel?

GD: Oh, it’s gut-wrenching, really, because it’s a great sadness the Southern Cross Diocese has to come into being. It should never have had to—in actual fact if the Anglican Church of Australia were to repent and turn back to the authority of scriptures, the Diocese of the Southern Cross would disappear. There’d be no need for it.

So, for example, in the Diocese of Sydney or in the Diocese of Tasmania, or Armidale, or Northwest Australia, there’s no need for a Southern Cross church, because these are faithful strong dioceses who love God’s word and teach God’s Word. But, unfortunately, those dioceses around the country which are adopting this revisionist agenda… revising the teaching of scripture so that they become the arbiters of what is true and what is relevant for today, all in the name of trying to be more inclusive. They accuse us of disunity, but you cannot have unity with two opposing views.

I think this is the problem, and we recognised this in 1998, in Lambeth, when all the Bishops, by an overwhelming majority, adopted what was called Resolution 110—and, interesting, Archbishop Aspinall was at that meeting and voted against it (he told me that personally, so I don’t believe that’s something I can’t say publicly)—which talked about same-sex, homosexual activity as being contrary to God’s Word—and there are other aspects of that.

But that was overturned, within five years, by the Canadians and then by the Americans with same-sex blessings in Canada and then, of course, the election of Gene Robinson: the first bishop—openly homosexual—but in a relationship with a man. He left his wife, divorced his wife, and then, you know, lived with this man in a very clearly identified sexual relationship. He became a bishop; all the bishops around the globe objected to this.

The Archbishop of Canterbury called a special meaning of primates, and they had this famous statement: you have torn the fabric of the communion. And the Americans just, you know—the Lambeth Resolution 110—said, we’re not going to follow them, we don’t care what you say; it only has moral persuasion, but has no juridical persuasion—and that’s true, but if they want to be part of the Anglican Communion, they have gone contrary to the very teaching of Anglican Communion. And so Gene Robinson—he was just the first of many people in same-sex marriages.

Of course, marriage then became legal in America after the Supreme Court identified that it was possible. So, therefore, they’ve gone down that track. There is no way in which they’re going to repent. They’ve said so so many times. We’ve had two Lambeths since then—2008 and, just recently, in 2020*, and although the Archbishop of Canterbury, who is a good and godly man, Justin Welby, and I have a warm relationship with him, he says Resolution 110 from ‘98 is the doctrine of Anglican Communion… but he then goes on to say, “But some people have actually studied the scriptures and prayed about it and come to a different view.” He’s not going to discipline them.

My problem is, you cannot have two integrities. You can’t say same-sex marriage, or same-sex union, is sinful and same-sex union is holy; you can’t say that when Arius, in the early centuries—in the fourth century—was challenging Athanasius, the great bishop—Arius was just a priest—and he was saying that Jesus was not divine, He was created. And the Council of Nicaea said, no, Jesus is divine. You know, Son of God; begotten, not made; of one union with the Father; God from God; light from light, etc., as the Athanasian Creed gives us. Nicaea didn’t say, oh, we’ve got two integrities here: you can have an Arian view and an Athanasian view. No, no. [The] Arian view is wrong; it undermines the very Gospel, and the Athanasian view prevailed.

Unfortunately, the Archbishop of Canterbury thinks that you can have two integrities. I believe that now becomes the “Canterbury Communion” view. The Anglican Communion is one integrity. Resolution 110: same-sex union is against God’s Word; it is declared as sin, but anyone can be saved if they repent and put their trust in Jesus. And that’s the message of the Gospel to anyone—thieves, murderers, whatever they might be—repentance is essential in order to lay hold of the claims of Jesus as your Lord and Saviour.

Repent and Believe in the Gospel

WM: And that word repentance in the Greek actually means to have a change of mind. It’s not just about tears or emotion—

GD: It’s turning around.

WM: … it’s turning around—

GD: Exactly.

WM: —having a different mind. And, I mean, these challenges aren’t new, in a sense that… look at, in Corinth, it was a very licentious—a very maybe we would call it libertarian—place…

GD: Absolutely.

WM: Temple prostitutes—both male and female—and there was enormous conflict with the Spirit of the Age and what was happening in the culture. So Paul came with a message of purity—the love of Jesus—preaching the Gospel. But he also came with a message of sexual purity, because it’s still—these laws from the Old Testament still actually came through into the New Testament, because it says it that the Council in Jerusalem said, “you must abstain from sexual immorality”. So, these things carried through and, yes, we’re all sinners saved by grace, but our job as believers is not to promote the sin. Comment about that.

GD: Yes, repentance is turning around, going in the opposite direction. So, rather than following the natural carnal lusts of the flesh, which is what Corinth was doing, you need to receive God’s grace. The wonderful thing about becoming a Christian—Paul makes this point—is that God gives His Holy Spirit so that we become temples of the Holy Spirit. Individual Christians are temples of the Holy Spirit. The Spirit of God takes up temple residence in us so that God’s grace is transforming—it’s transformative with regard to our desires, our goals.

Our whole life is directed now to serving God and honouring the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, as Christians, we still sin. We still make mistakes. We still need to repent every day, but the thing about the Christian is that sin doesn’t characterise them. There may be episodes of sin, and when you recognise your sin, you repent and move forward. So, the sin of same-sex unions is a sin whereby people need to repent and recognise, “this is not the way”. Of course, companionship between people of the same sex is a perfectly proper and God-given thing. It’s the one flesh relationship that is exclusive to the marriage of a man and woman, which the Bible clearly states from Genesis to Revelation.

WM: And Jesus quoted that scripture, too. It’s important, because people say, “oh, that was Genesis—that’s the Old Testament”. But what did Jesus say in the New Testament? Tell us.

GD: Well, in Matthew chapter 19, He’s talking about divorce, and you don’t understand divorce unless you understand marriage. And He said that marriage was made with a male—God made them male and female, and, in so doing, He’s establishing that this is a divine institution. It’s a divine relationship that God has given to man. But it’s not for everyone to marry. Some people are eunuchs—that is, they’re unable to marry because of their physical situation. Some are made eunuchs—that is, they choose to become celibate—but others are married. All people are loved by God, [both] single or married—that’s not the defining feature of a person. But… so Jesus was single and didn’t marry because, ultimately, He will become the bridegroom of the Church, and that symbolism is there with regard to our all being joined to Christ.

So, at that level, Corinth was an appalling place of immorality, both heterosexual and homosexual sin was there. And that’s where Paul talks about “glorify God in your body” because your bodies are temples of the Holy Spirit. And, in the same chapter, he talks about theft, murder, gossip, a whole range of things, unrepented—including sexual immorality; and he specifically mentions homosexuality (homosexual activity, that is)—excludes you from the kingdom of God. But he says, “you were washed; you were sanctified; such were some of you, but now you’ve been joined to Christ”. You have new life. That’s the new life; that’s the promise that the gospel has. And the Diocese of the Southern Cross wants to bring that message to every Australian in this country.

WM: Can I just say something about that? You know, I’ve looked at your website, and, you know, it’s a beautiful website. So if anyone’s watching this interview, I encourage you to go to the Southern Cross website—Diocese of the Southern Cross. Just Google it. And it’s a beautiful picture of family, children, couples—family life. And front and centre is not the issues we’re talking about today; front and centre is the gospel of the Lord Jesus Christ—the good news of God’s love that He gave His Son as a ransom for us all.

GD: Yes, and that message comes to us because God has revealed it to us—not only in history in the coming of Jesus, but in His Word, which affirms all that God has been doing from the creation of the world. There is a lovely story of salvation, a unified story of which sexual activity is one small part. Integrity, truth, honesty, love…

WM: … humility…

GD: … justice, humility—all these are features of the nine fruits of the spirit that Paul speaks about: love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, gentleness, self-control… All these are part of the Christian life—transformed by the Spirit of God. And that’s what we want to offer to people. But you don’t understand that unless you understand what the Bible says.

WM: What happens with these, sort of, issues is they actually distort the image of Christ. As you said, there’s a story that goes right back to Genesis. And, yes, the Gospel is the Lord Jesus Christ giving Himself on the cross as a ransom for many—His blood poured out; His blood redeems us, and that sacrifice—and yet we find right through the Old Testament—the Old Testament’s a shadow for Christ—and you’ve got this beautiful, if you like, Gospel stories weaved right through there.

Abraham takes his son up on the hill; he’s prepared to kill his own son, and God says, “stop! I’ve provided a lamb”—and it was His own Son He was providing. So right through the Old Testament, you have it. So that’s why it’s so important—your comment—why we need to hold to the Holy Scriptures—not just some parts that we like, but the parts we don’t like and the parts we need to like and the parts we need to accept, correct?

GD: Indeed. What Abraham’s a good illustration of is the obedience which comes from faith. He trusted God. It was against all his natural instincts to sacrifice his son. But when he was walking up—he leaves the servant behind and he’s with his son Isaac—and Isaac said, “well, where is the sacrifice, father?” And what does Abraham say?—“the Lord will provide”. He trusts God even though he binds Isaac on the altar. He has his knife raised to kill his own son and God says, “No, I know that you obey Me and you trust me… go and find that ram in the thicket”—which he does.

And there’s a beautiful illustration of God providing in this case His own Son. Just as Abraham was prepared to kill his own son, God provides His own Son to live the life we could not live and to die the death that we deserve. And that’s the beautiful story of the Gospel—that Jesus takes our place. And once that grips you—once you grasp that—you just want to serve God with every fibre of your being—and that means following God. It means curbing the natural desires. We have lots of desires in our body which are wrong desires. Same-sex attraction is not a sin. It’s just part of the consequence of the Fall where—like kleptomania, you know, you might want to steal, but it is when you put that into action is the problem.

WM: Yeah.

GD: And, just like lust, you know, you’ve committed adultery if you look lustfully—if a man looks lustfully at a woman who’s not his wife, then that is a wrong thing. So that sense in which we need to curb our desires which have been distorted by sin. I know many—or a good number—of Christians who are same-sex attracted and have chosen the path of celibacy and chastity.

One’s a leading minister in the city of Oxford—a strong Evangelical; Vaughn Roberts is his name—and he’s a shining example of what it means to be—though same-sex attracted, what he does not put into practice, but he continues to serve God in his singleness. Like John Stott was a single man too, and John Chapman, and Dick Lucas. Singleness can give you great opportunities for the gospel—Charles Simeon is the same.

So, Vaughn Robertson is doing that, but he trusts God. He’s never going to be married—he realises that—but he, of course, is ultimately married to the bridegroom. And he’ll enjoy with all God’s people that wonderful Marriage Feast of the Lamb in the Last Day, and the New Heavens and the New Earth, where there’ll be no marriage between husbands and wives as we know it now.

My wife will be a sister in the Lord in the New Heavens and the New Earth. And there’s so much I can’t understand about what that’s going to be like, but I do know that God has it in hand, and so I trust Him for that future. Meanwhile, in the present, I need to trust Him with a life which pleases Him in every aspect.

WM: 100%. It’s interesting that this rescue mission, in a sense, has come out of, to a certain extent, the African church, not the western church, whereas, you know, arguably it was England getting the Gospel out through, you know—well, the Moravians in Germany, God bless them, too… William Carey… settle Australia. Yes, the Puritans went to America and that country was established with a very strong Christian Foundation… But the West seems to be falling into decline, and often I say, thank God for Africa; thank God for Southeast Asia, where faith is still holding on to the scriptures. And, tell us about how this GAFCON really started, because it actually, sort of, in a funny way, I believe, came out of Nigeria, correct?

GD: Well, it’s… Archbishop Peter Akinola was certainly the leader. And he was the first chairman of the GAFCON Primates Council. He was instrumental as was Archbishop Peter Jensen in Sydney, I might add, but a number of primates from around the world—what was part of what we call the global south, so both in Africa, Southeast Asia and South America—and they came to a decision in December 2007 that they wouldn’t go to Lambeth, which was 2008, but they would have their own conference. And where better to hold it?—in Jerusalem.

And not just a conference of bishops, but lay people and clergy as well. So it became a much more representative body of about 1100 people gathered in Jerusalem. I was there; it was a wonderful experience. And we wrote together and affirmed—the whole conference affirmed what’s called the Jerusalem Statement, and in that statement, was the Jerusalem Declaration—14 points of what identifies us as Anglicans with the authority of the Bible first up [and] a recognition there were some things which would separate us.

So women’s ministry was an issue which some people in the Diocese of—in the Province of Nigeria, for example, they don’t ordain women as deacons; in the Diocese of Sydney, we do; in the Province of Kenya they ordain women as deacons and priests, so you’ve got variety across the globe, but they’re on secondary matters—matters of order, not matters of the Gospel…

WM: … Gospel and the Word of God…

GD: … and we saw the consecration of Gene Robinson in 2003 and the inability of the Anglican Communion—under the leadership of Archbishop Rowan Williams—the inability to resolve the issue. They kept sending up committee after committee after committee, report after report after report—no action. Meanwhile, the Americans keep on their merry way with regard to endorsing same-sex unions and same-sex marriages and blessings, so that it’s completely their way of life in North America. And in 2008, the GAFCON (Global Anglican Future Conference)—it’s the future…

WM: It’s important to get that one…

GD: …that’s what GAFCON means…

WM: …it’s about the futu—it’s all about the future, isn’t it?

GD: … it’s all about the future, and it’s global. As I said before, the Anglican Communion is a communion of churches that hold the scriptures as authoritative and the Book—and the 39 Articles as an authoritative teaching of scripture in its theological expression, and the Book of Common Prayer as a liturgical expression thereof.

The Canterbury Communion represents those whom the Archbishop of Canterbury gathers to Lambeth. Well, God bless him; may he do so, but Nigeria, Uganda and Rwanda did not go to Lambeth. There are 80 million Anglicans worldwide—that might be an inflated figure, of course, but 80 million is the number the Anglican Communion office represents—but 60 million are in GAFCON. That’s a significant proportion—and to think that we’re part of a breakaway movement!

The Diocese of Southern Cross is recognised by the GAFCON Primates Council, which represents 60 million Anglicans. You can’t say that we’re some kind of little minority. We are part of the continuity with Anglican history, theology and faith.

WM: Unpack the countries and the numbers behind GAFCON.

GD: Well, globally the Anglican Communion office talks about 80 million people—some of those might just be people who tick an Anglican box—and, of that 80 million, 60 million are in the Global Anglican Future Conference network. They’re GAFCON provinces or churches. So, for example, the largest is Nigeria and, I’ve forgotten the exact numbers, but it’s something like 20 million.

There are 11 million in Uganda, and then you have Rwanda, Kenya, the Congo, and Egypt—or the Province of Alexandria, which is in North Africa—then you’ve got Chile, Argentina, Brazil—very strong—the Anglican Church in North America—which is growing faster than the old Episcopal Church (the Episcopal Church in America) and very strong in both the United States and in Canada—you’ve got the Diocese of Sydney, of course—which has always been of this ilk and always kept strongly to the Bible—and other dioceses—Tasmania, Armidale, Northwest Australia—and, you know, and good Bishops in other dioceses, which might have a mixed, you know, population—Canberra/Goulburn and Bendigo, for example, the Murray.

So we are not a minority, in that regard, we actually are the majority. And, notwithstanding there might be viewpoints against us, we hold to the Reformation principles. The Pope excommunicated Henry VII after previously calling him the defender of the faith, so what does that mean he’s saying? “You’re no longer part of the Christian Church!” Well, people may want to try and excommunicate me—I don’t know what they might want to do—but I’m going to stand firm, because this is the Anglican tradition.

This Diocese of the Southern Cross is a genuinely Anglican Diocese and recognised by the GAFCON primates, as I said—so part of the Anglican Communion, not part of the Canterbury Communion. [It] may not get an invitation to Lambeth, but that is of such little importance. So many bishops didn’t go—about three hundred bishops didn’t even go to Lambeth, because they saw the revisionists.

The incoherence of the Archbishop of Canterbury, despite my love of the man, he invited the bishops in same-sex marriages in North America to come to Lambeth, but chose not to invite their spouses because their spouses were in breach of Resolution 110. And the incoherence is, “well, surely, if the spouses are in breach, surely the bishops themselves are in breach”—because they’re male and female bishops—some in lesbian relationships; some in homosexual relationships. The incoherence of that just upset everyone.

And I think the problem for the Archbishop of Canterbury is he’s part of an established church, and the government want to have same-sex blessings and same-sex marriage in the church, and the pressure is enormous. When the Archbishop of Canterbury was visiting Australia, recently, he said that it’s inevitable the General Synod will approve same-sex blessings—which they’ve currently not approved—because if we don’t do it, then the government will force it on us and we won’t be able to have the provisions for conscience.

Interestingly, since the Archbishop of Canterbury has returned to England, the Bishop of Oxford—a very senior bishop—has come out saying “we can no longer stop—we can no longer prevent—not only the blessing of same-sex marriages but solemnising same-sex marriages”. And a number of bishops come out—they’ve got a General Synod in February next year. I’m pretty certain they’re going to go down that route, and that will cause a great concern for us in Australia because we’re in communion with the Church of England. I think our communion with the Church of England will be broken because of their movement in this direction.

WM: The phrase that’s famous in Genesis in chapter 3 verse 1. It says the devil came to Eve in the garden and said about that tree, that she was forbidden to eat, “hath God said”. Of course, I’m using a King James—so, “has God said”. And in some ways, this seems to be almost a found— it’s not so much homosexual unions or this or that or that or this. It’s actually, “did God say it”, and there’s a doubt that that devil seems to enjoy pushing into the minds of us believers—not just the churches, but even as individuals: “did God really say that?” Your comment.

GD: Well, that of course is the beginning of the problem for humankind. Eve—and of course subsequently, Adam (and Adam has responsibility, in many ways)—but Eve hears Satan’s words—“has God said”—that immediately puts doubt in her mind. God had spoken to Adam; Adam had told Eve; she didn’t trust her husband in that regard—she could easily have spoken to him—Adam falls into the same problem that he doesn’t believe what God has said.

And Satan continues to rattle humans and say: “why don’t you think about what’s this situation?—you’re a human being; you’ve got rationality; you’ve got experience. Why don’t you make the decision? God may not have said this—perhaps we’ve misunderstood what God said. Ultimately, do we care what God says?” That’s the situation in Australia.

Martin Luther, in the 16th century, came to what was called the Diet of Worms—it sounds like a menu, but it was a council. And he says: “here I stand upon the teaching of the Word of God. I can do no other.” And that’s where we stand. Significant revival preachers, significant leaders in the church—not only in the Anglican church; in other Protestant churches too—have stood on the teaching of scripture, and that’s what the Diocese of the Southern Cross wants to do. That’s what we thought the Anglican Church of Australia was grounded in—in its Constitution—and that’s been unravelled now by the Appellate Tribunal in an egregious opinion which I think is entirely wrong.

And yet, for some people, that becomes, “Well that’s the rules; that’s how we played the game.” Well, I’m not interested in playing games; I’m interested in standing firm with what God says, and I want to give that message to every Australian: if you’re listening and not even an Anglican and perhaps not even a Christian, let me suggest to you—let me implore you—to pick up a Gospel. Read the New Testament about the story of Jesus and what He came to do because that is compelling.

I believe—and it’s been shown throughout history—that the Word of God, with the Spirit of God, can change a person’s heart and see the importance of Jesus coming into the world. To ignore Jesus, we do so at our peril. To ignore the teaching of Jesus, we do so at our peril. To ignore the teaching of God in His Word, we do so to our peril.

And what the Diocese of the Southern Cross is is a lifeboat—particularly for Christians and clergy in those dioceses where they have ignored the teaching of scripture; they’ve twisted the words of scripture so it conforms to the views of the world… it conforms to— they want to have unity but the unity will be, “let anything happen; let anything go; let any truth that they perceive to be the case…” …rather than saying, anchoring it on God’s truth—what God has said to us in His Word. The plain teaching of the Bible is there for everyone to see.

It’s very interesting: the very minister— the very academic that Archbishop Aspinall referred to—a fellow called Dr Bill Loader—when he talked about, you know, “we can move away from the teaching the Bible”. He actually says, “of course”—this is Bill Loader, the academic—“of course, Paul’s against homosexual activity, but the question is: we can disagree with Paul. We can, we don’t have to subscribe to the teaching of scripture because we’re 21st-century intellectuals. We can have our own view.” And that, of course, is the same ancient temptation of Satan—“has God said?”—and enticing us to think differently from God and use our own experience and rationality to overturn the teaching of scripture. But that’s not going to last at the Last Day, when God will judge the secrets of men’s hearts by Jesus Christ.

WM: It’s been an absolute pleasure to talk to you, and you really have wrapped up our conversation so beautifully just then. But I’d like to give you one more opportunity: if you could in one or two minutes. What would you say to the people of Australia and to your Anglican brothers and sisters in Christ—wherever and whoever they might be—to look at the camera and speak those wonderful words.

GD: “If you’re an Australian or anyone in the world listening: you’ve been made in the image of God. You are precious to God, and God loves you. He sent His Son Jesus to live the life you could not live and to die the death that you deserve. Your deepest need is a relationship with the Living God who created you because that God is going to judge the world one day. We know this because He’s told us and the Lord Jesus came into this world to explain the message of God’s love and how we can escape the coming wrath.

Friends, believe in Jesus; put your trust in Jesus; read His Word and let it fill your heart that His Spirit will join you to the Lord Jesus not only in this life but forever. Your sins will be forgiven; you’ll become heirs of the Kingdom of God and be with God and His Saints and His people forever. If you’re an Anglican, in particular: hold firm to the faith that has been delivered once to all the saints. Hold firm to that and if your bishop is teaching otherwise, you hold firm to the teaching of Jesus. That’s what I implore you to do.

If you need to join the Southern Cross, by all means, do. I’ve just provided a lifeboat; that’s all we’ve done. I’m not persuading people to join us. You might be able to continue faithfully in your congregation, and do so. Be a light in a dark place. But if you aren’t able to do that, the Southern Cross will welcome you as a brother or sister in Christ who wants to honour Jesus in every aspect of their lives.”

God bless.


*Glenn has kindly pointed out a few minor errors in his interview: “The reference in question to the Appellate Tribunal was in 2019 and they gave their Opinion in 2020 (not 2021). I also referred to this year’s Lambeth Conference as being held in 2020, instead of 2022. My apologies.”

Thank the Source


Please help truthPeep spread the word :)