Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (65)

    Practical Reasons Why Vaccine Injuries Are Rarely Reported

By Dr Joseph Mercola


  • Deborah Conrad, a physician’s assistant, is blowing the whistle on COVID jab injuries, and the fact that these injuries are rarely reported to the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) as required by law
  • The purpose of VAERS is to detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines
  • Collecting data on side effects is particularly crucial when dealing with a never before used medical product such as mRNA and DNA-based COVID injections
  • Conrad saw a dramatic rise in several different health problems as the COVID jabs were rolled out. One of the most surprising problems has been a sudden rise in cancers among vaccinated patients whose cancer had gone into remission before the jab
  • Other conditions that have dramatically risen among vaccinated patients include heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, pneumonia, sepsis, gastrointestinal complaints and bleeds, appendicitis and pancreatitis

In a Highwire exclusive, Deborah Conrad, a physician’s assistant (PA), blows the whistle on COVID jab injuries, and the fact that these injuries, by and large, are not being reported.

According to Conrad, shortly after the mass vaccination campaign began, she started seeing a surprising number of hospital patients who had recently received a COVID shot and were now testing positive for COVID-19.

In particular, patients were coming in with pneumonia, and this was happening even in the middle of the summer. It’s become so common, Conrad refers to 2021 as “the year of pneumonia.” Sepsis cases have also increased.

After the COVID jab rollout, she also noticed a marked increase in heart attacks, strokes, blood clots, gastrointestinal complaints and bleeds, appendicitis, pancreatitis and recurrent cancers. All of these were “noticeably increased,” she says, and “everybody seemed to notice it.”

Tomorrow, I will publish yet another bombshell video — a documentary called “Vaccine Secrets: COVID Crisis.” It’s the first episode of “The False Narrative Takedown Series,” produced by Steve Kirsch, executive director of the COVID-19 Early Treatment Fund. You won’t want to miss that one, as it complements and supports everything Conrad shared in this interview.

Most Health Care Workers Know Nothing about VAERS

Conrad, who has worked as a PA for 17 years, admits she knew nothing about the U.S. Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS) prior to the COVID vaccination campaign. This is the case with most health care providers. None of them were ever educated on how to identify potential vaccine injuries, how to report them, or that they have a legal requirement to report all emergency use vaccine injuries.

When it comes to conventional vaccines, reporting to VAERS is voluntary. Not so with emergency use vaccines, however. Vaccine injuries caused by a vaccine under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) MUST be reported to VAERS by law. However, as noted by Conrad, there’s been absolutely no training on how to do so.

She was shocked to realize health care providers are actually required by law to report suspected EUA vaccine injuries, as none of the hospital staff had been instructed to do so. But on page 12 of Pfizer’s “Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine,” it states that:1

“The vaccination provider is responsible for mandatory reporting of the following to the Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (VAERS):

vaccine administration errors whether or not associated with an adverse event,

serious adverse events (irrespective of attribution to vaccination),

cases of Multisystem Inflammatory Syndrome (MIS) in adults and children, and

cases of COVID-19 that result in hospitalization or death.

Complete and submit reports to VAERS online at For further assistance with reporting to VAERS call 1-800-822-7967. The reports should include the words ‘Pfizer-BioNTech COVID-19 Vaccine EUA’ in the description section of the report.”

Doctors Have a Public Health Duty to Report Side Effects

In addition to a lack of education about VAERS, one of the reasons why so few physicians report suspected vaccine injuries is because there are no penalties for failing to fulfill your legal responsibilities. It’s essentially not enforced.

It’s worth noting that it is not the doctor’s job to decide whether an injury is caused by a vaccine or not. The language in VAERS is very clear on this. They are simply to report any adverse health condition that occurs after a vaccination has been given.

Over time, as reports accumulate, the FDA and CDC can then start to see potential associations, and if a particular condition occurs at high frequency after a particular vaccine is given, the link would then, theoretically at least, be investigated further. In short, VAERS function is to signal potential side effects that weren’t known before.

Naturally, collecting data on side effects is particularly crucial when dealing with a brand-new, never previously used medical product such as these mRNA and DNA-based COVID injections.

Every health care worker in the nation really ought to be on the lookout for potential side effects, and diligently fulfill their public health duty to report any and all health effects that occur within a month or two, at minimum, after the injections. We are, after all, in a mass experiment, and without rigorous data collection, how can we possibly understand what these injections are doing?

VAERS Is a Crucial Tool to Ensure Vaccine Safety

As soon as Conrad became aware of her responsibility to report side effects, she started filing reports. But there were so many that “quickly, that became a full-time job,” she says. Within a month, she’d already reported 50 suspected vaccine injuries.

Fact checkers typically dismiss VAERS data as “unreliable” because anyone can file a report. The fact that a patient experienced a problem after vaccination also does not mean that the vaccine was the cause. Such debunking attempts do not hold water, however.

The purpose of VAERS is to detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines.

First of all, filing a VAERS report is not a quick and easy task. It’s very time consuming and requires detailed data on blood work, symptoms, previous medical history, vaccine lot numbers and much more. What’s more, there’s no save feature, so you cannot walk away from it midstream, or the system will log you out and you have to start all over again.

So, to say VAERS is not optimized for ease of use and compliance is a profoundly serious understatement. Conrad, and many other doctors, have stated that the system will often also fail to authenticate once you hit “submit,” and erase the whole report. It’s almost like it’s was intentionally designed to discourage reporting.

There’s also no incentive to spend your days filing false reports, as there are penalties for doing so. This is in stark contrast to not filing a report, which carries no penalty. What’s more, while a patient or parent can file a report, most reports are done by medical professionals, and they’re not going to waste their time filing false reports.

Then there’s the actual purpose of VAERS, which as mentioned is to signal potential problems. It’s true any single report cannot be taken as proof that the vaccine caused a problem, but when you have thousands or tens of thousands of reports of a given effect, that’s a SIGNAL that there might be a link. This is clearly expressed on the FDA’s website:2

“The purpose of VAERS is to detect possible signals of adverse events associated with vaccines. VAERS collects and analyzes information from reports of adverse events (possible side effects) that occur after the administration of U.S. licensed vaccines.”

Avoiding Vaccine Hesitancy Deemed More Important Than Safety

Once Conrad started getting overwhelmed by the task of filing reports, she asked the hospital administration for help. She wanted the administration to educate the staff so that everyone could all pitch in and “do the right thing” by identifying injuries and filing reports.

Instead of getting the assistance she expected, she ran into a brick wall of resistance. The vaccination push was in full swing, and no one was willing to raise questions about vaccine safety, as it might promote vaccine hesitancy. Remarkably, promoting the idea that the shots are perfectly safe — even if untrue — was deemed more important than making sure patients were not being harmed by the millions.

Conrad then called her hospital’s president to ask why side effects were not routinely reported to VAERS as required by law. The president replied he believes “the position the system has taken is that each provider has the responsibility to report on their own patient.”

But how can they do that if they’re not educated about what they’re supposed to be reporting? Conrad asked. He told her “providers should educate themselves when they’re dealing with patients related to COVID vaccinations.”

After that, the risk management team told her she was no longer allowed to file reports on behalf of other doctors. She could only file reports for her own patients. She also received a written warning, saying she must support the hospital’s approach to the vaccine, per CDC and Department of Health guidance.

Historically, Vaccine Injuries Are Routinely Underreported

As explained by Conrad, as adult-care providers, they rarely deal with vaccinations, as adults receive very few vaccines. Pediatricians are typically the ones who administer vaccines, and they give them to babies and young children. Hence pediatricians may be more familiar with VAERS.

However, even among pediatricians, knowledge and use of VAERS is limited, and this has been known for over a decade. As noted in the so-called “Lazarus Report,” formally titled “Electronic Support for Public Health — Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System,” published in late 2010:3

“Preliminary data were collected from June 2006 through October 2009 on 715,000 patients, and 1.4 million doses (of 45 different vaccines) were given to 376,452 individuals.

Of these doses, 35,570 possible reactions (2.6 percent of vaccinations) were identified. This is an average of 890 possible events, an average of 1.3 events per clinician, per month.

These data were presented at the 2009 AMIA conference. In addition, ESP: VAERS investigators participated on a panel to explore the perspective of clinicians, electronic health record (EHR) vendors, the pharmaceutical industry, and the FDA towards systems that use proactive, automated adverse event reporting.

Adverse events from drugs and vaccines are common, but underreported. Although 25% of ambulatory patients experience an adverse drug event, less than 0.3% of all adverse drug events and 1-13% of serious events are reported to the Food and Drug Administration (FDA).

Likewise, fewer than 1% of vaccine adverse events are reported. Low reporting rates preclude or slow the identification of ‘problem’ drugs and vaccines that endanger public health. New surveillance methods for drug and vaccine adverse effects are needed.

Barriers to reporting include a lack of clinician awareness, uncertainty about when and what to report, as well as the burdens of reporting: reporting is not part of clinicians’ usual workflow, takes time, and is duplicative.”

CDC’s New System Showed 1 in 10 Had Reactions

This report has an interesting backstory. In 2010, the CDC actually hired a company to automate VAERS. Any patient who received a vaccine within the Harvard Pilgrim HMO automatically had their medical records scanned for the next 30 days, such as diagnostic codes, lab tests and drug prescriptions.

Any health problem suggestive of an adverse event was then automatically uploaded into the VAERS database. Remarkably, preliminary data showed nearly 1 in 10 people suffered a reaction after vaccination, yet the official CDC mantra is that the risk for serious vaccine injury or death is 1 in 1 million.

Unfortunately, while the creation of VAERS in 1986 was an opportunity to get a firmer grasp of the number of potential vaccine reactions, injuries and deaths occurring after vaccinations given in the U.S., the CDC didn’t follow through, and the project fell by the wayside.

As noted by the authors, the plan to automate VAERS reporting didn’t happen because “the necessary CDC contacts were no longer available and the CDC consultants responsible for receiving data were no longer responsive to our multiple requests to proceed with testing and evaluation.”

Why did the CDC drop this project? Don’t they want to protect public health from potentially dangerous products? Did they think the truth might destroy the vaccine industry?

Surprising Rise in Cancer and Other Odd Conditions

As mentioned, Conrad saw a dramatic rise in several different health problems as the COVID jabs were rolled out. One of the most surprising problems has been a sudden rise in cancers among vaccinated patients whose cancer had gone into remission before the jab.

Bigtree points out he’s spoken with a number of oncologists who have made the same observation in their practices. These cancers tend to be very sudden in onset and highly aggressive, often leading to death.

She’s also seeing new cancers that appear “out of nowhere,” and rarer types of cancer, such as solid organ tumors that kill the patient before a biopsy can even be taken.

Blood clots and strokes have also skyrocketed, and these occur even in patients who are on maximum doses of anticoagulants. Odd and unusual neurological problems with seizures and tremors are also becoming more commonplace, as is pneumonia and sepsis.

Are We in a Pandemic of the Unvaccinated?

When asked if a majority of the patients in her hospital are unvaccinated — which is what we’re being told — she says no, quite the opposite. She’s been tracking the numbers for a couple of months, and as just one example, on one particular day in July, of the 35 patients admitted, 30 were fully vaccinated, and all of the seven patients in the intensive care unit were fully vaccinated.

This despite the fact that, at that time, the county vaccination rate was only between 40% and 45%. She points out that these vaccinated patients were not all COVID-19 patients, but were admitted for all sorts of health issues. Many vaccinated patients have also been readmitted several times since they got their shot.

While Conrad has done everything she can to protect public health up until now — having filed more than 120 VAERS reports so far — she won’t be fighting on the frontlines any longer. She’s being let go from her job at the end of September 2021 for refusing to get the COVID shot. After everything she’s seen, “I’m more afraid of the vaccine than I am of COVID,” she says.                                                                                                                 

The Likely Result of This Tyrannical Intervention

This is the ultimate irony. Conrad is clearly one of the most compassionate, high integrity and absolutely committed health professionals in that hospital and they are firing her for adhering to her constitutional rights. I believe this is precisely the behavior that will ultimately lead to the self-destruction of our society.

You simply can’t fire tens of millions of some of the brightest and most honest people in the country who adhere to personal freedom and liberty and not expect it to have devastating consequences. Who will be left to do the work? The majority of these people being terminated are highly trained professionals that can’t be easily replaced.

It is clear they don’t understand the results of these tyrannical interventions. It is beyond evident that we are in for some very rocky times with massive shortages as people are fired from their jobs. So, be prepared folks, and stock up as if you were expecting a hurricane and knew you’d have no access to outside help for three to six months. I hope this doesn’t happen, but everything is pointing to this outcome.

Vaccine-Injured Patients Want To Be Heard

The sad truth is, we’re in an epidemic of vaccine injuries, and injured patients are now routinely ignored by the very people who encouraged them to get the shot. To get an idea of what the risks actually are, check out some of the cases reported to nomoresilence.world4 and,5 two websites dedicated to giving a voice to those injured by COVID shots.

You can also browse through more than 246,000 comments left on a Facebook post by WXYZ-TV Channel 7.6,7 They asked people who had lost an unvaccinated loved one to COVID-19 to contact them for a story, but what they got was an avalanche of stories of vaccine injuries and deaths instead. Below is a sampling of comments posted on the site:

“How about doing a story about my uncle who was in fine shape until he got vaccinated. Or my boss’s uncle who was healthy and in his 50s, then died suddenly a week after getting vaccinated.”

“My sister-in-law’s father died of a stroke 48H after Moderna vax. He was active and healthy.”

“The shot murdered my friend three weeks after he got it.”

“I know 2 women who had strokes aright after their shot.”

“We lost an uncle to heart inflammation 2 days after he received the vaccine.”

“Lost a very dear man after his second dose of the vaccine and he said he regretted getting it and he advised me not to get it. How about reporting on those? He died of a brain aneurysm, and was a very healthy man.”

“My beautiful mother passed away recently, 23 days after having the first AstraZeneca shot (that I didn’t know she was getting). ‘Immunization’ was the ‘cause of death’ on her death certificate.”

“I now know more people injured by the vaccine than people who even had covid.”

“No, but I know of two people who died from Covid after being fully vaccinated.”

“My uncle passed away 3 months after his second shot. He was diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer, had surgery, was released to rehab and then died of a blood clot. Thanks Pfizer.”

“I know of two women who had miscarriages within 2 days of taking it.”

Sources and References:
Pfizer’s Fact Sheet for Healthcare Providers Administering Vaccine (PDF)
FDA Vaccine Adverse Events
Electronic Support for Public Health — Vaccine Adverse Event Reporting System (PDF)
No More Silence
Facebook WXYZ-TV Channel 7 September 10, 2021
World Tribune September 13, 2021

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (57D)

“Freedom Day” Is a Joke

“In what dystopian world is all this construed as freedom? It beggars belief that mandatory vaccination, mask mandates, vaccine passports (the foundation of a Chinese-style social credit system), closed borders, and excluding people from society would fit into anyone’s understanding of the term.”


There’s been a lot of talk of “Freedom Days” lately, with New South Wales and Victoria emerging from their prolonged, gruelling lockdowns. Mainstream news reports reveal an excited, vibrant polis rejoicing in regaining their freedoms and returning to “normal.” Perhaps the nightmare of lockdowns can now recede into memory.

Except, Victoria and New South Wales are not back to normal, are they? In the latter state, people who have decided not to be vaccinated against covid are still ordered to remain confined in their homes – barred from entering restaurants, cafes, gyms, etc.

Whatever happened to medical treatments being voluntary and free from coercion? That should always be the case, even if the novel covid vaccines were the safest vaccines in the world and there had been no reported side effects whatsoever. Of course, that is clearly not the case. I personally know many people who have had loved ones suffer from severe adverse reactions, and it seems that everyone I talk with has a similar story.

Despite these alarming and widespread occurrences, people in both states must carry their proof-of-vaccination documentation at all times, either on their mobile phones or as authorised paperwork (if they don’t use a smartphone) to participate in society. Masks are still mandatory virtually everywhere, despite hard evidence suggesting that they make little to no difference regarding viral transmission. Gatherings of any kind are still severely restricted. For example, “Religious ceremonies will be allowed for up to 20 fully vaccinated people or 10 unvaccinated people indoors,” and “Masks will still be required when leaving the home. The existing exemptions will apply.” Do you feel free yet, Victoria?

Are we living in a Stephen King novel? In what dystopian world is all this construed as freedom? It beggars belief that mandatory vaccination, mask mandates, vaccine passports (the foundation of a Chinese-style social credit system), closed borders, and excluding people from society would fit into anyone’s understanding of the term. Bear in mind that this is all supposedly to protect us from a virus with an over 99% survival rate.

Perhaps Australians are so historically and philosophically illiterate that they have forgotten what freedom is (a symptom of the abysmal standards of our failed education system). Our concept of freedom was the inheritance of our British ancestry, now virtually erased from our cultural consciousness. Perhaps people think that the restrictions are worth it because they believe that covid poses a deadly threat to them due to the fearmongering mainstream media. Perhaps people simply feel hopeless and powerless to stop the wave of bureaucratic tyranny and comply to keep their jobs and avoid social ostracisation. Perhaps it’s a combination of all these things.

We will only have our freedom back when we return to the “Old Normal,” a dystopian term that, worryingly, many have accepted without much of a fuss. Freedom will be restored when we are rid of all the things described above and the government begins to treat covid like any other disease that is roughly as dangerous as the flu. There are many ways of handling outbreaks, including early treatment with the drug starting with the letter “I” that must not be named.

What Victorians and New South Welshmen are currently experiencing is not regained freedoms, but the beginnings of a society with a fundamentally different relationship to government than what our parents and grandparents enjoyed. Theirs was one in which freedom of speech, freedom of association, and liberty of conscience were sacred. Our forebears deemed these ideals worth fighting and dying for. That is the Old Normal. The New Normal is a system in which you must demonstrate your compliance with the arbitrary and dangerous whims of the medical bureaucracy to be included in society.

Vaccine discrimination is every bit as wicked and disgusting, not to mention scientifically absurd, as the racial segregation of America’s past. In fact, it’s worse than segregation. Segregation means separating different groups of people. What we are witnessing today is outright exclusion, with unvaccinated Australians increasingly having very few places to go. If you’ve ever wondered how inhumane and obviously discriminatory policies such as segregation were accepted, now you know. We are living in such a time. It’s quite ironic, given that we’ve been banging on about discrimination of other kinds in Australia for over twenty years.

Thankfully, there is pushback, and freedom of speech is not completely dead yet, despite the best efforts of the Big Tech giants and the mainstream media to censor perspectives that deviate from the public health narrative. We are seeing Victorian police officers speak out against the treatment of protestors, healthcare workers who have been sacked for refusing the jab joining forces to raise awareness (one wonders why they would refuse the jabs), and a few Liberals who still remember the values Sir Robert Menzies founded their party upon. My hope is that the public will be exposed to these perspectives more and more and, as the absurdity of the situation becomes more and more apparent, people will find their courage and speak out.

Hopefully, Australians will wake from their stupor and remember who they are and that the freedoms we have taken for granted for so long are simply indispensable. The “Old Normal” should not be relinquished as a bygone era, it should be reclaimed with tooth and nail, because it was taken on false premises. Politics is downstream of culture, and our elected officials must be made to see that they are accountable to us. Time will tell.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (57C)

Suppressing the Anti-Vaxx Movement

Gary North ( October 23, 2021

The [US] government keeps telling us that the Delta variant of COVID-19 is a major threat, and we have to be vaccinated in order to protect ourselves and protect the public.

About 40% of the American public is not buying the narrative. They are resisting.

In my lifetime, this is the largest resistance movement against the government of the United States. The anti-Vietnam War protests were noisy, but they did not constitute 40% of the American electorate.

This resistance movement is something different. It can communicate through social media. This makes it unique. Second, while it is more commonly associated with the conservative movement, it stretches beyond the conservative movement. Some of the resistors just do not like vaccinations. Third, the movement is decentralized. The government cannot move in on any one protester or protest site and shut down the movement…..More

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (57B)

           Is it “Informed Consent” if the Facts are Suppressed?

By Bob Cotton, 21/10/2021

“It appears that in many cases, there has not been ‘valid consent’ because of undue pressure, coercion, manipulation and withholding of risks. This is wicked and shameful, particularly considering that we are supposed to be a democratic and free society.”

There is a fair chance that some of you share my feelings, but if not, please strap in. I’m on a rant.

Listen up, I am sick of all things covid and the division it is causing in our society and families.

I am sick of the talking heads on the telescreen, relentlessly pushing their fear campaign and their so-called vaccination rollout.

I am sick of the government’s lies and dishonesty and I am sick of the withholding of vital information that is necessary for informed consent.

So, Why Am I So Wound Up?

On Tuesday, I received a call from a very dear friend who was in a state of great distress. Through their tears and grief, they told me they had just received the news that a close friend and work colleague suddenly died after receiving their second Pfizer shot. They were jabbed last Sunday, took ill almost straight away and passed away Tuesday morning. The person who tragically died was young and in good health.

People will tell you that there are always deaths associated with new vaccines and as tragic as they are, they are very rare and a relatively small price to pay for the greater good and all the lives that will be saved.

Try telling that to grieving friends and family with young children.

I want to suggest to you, that vaccine-related fatalities and nasty side effects may not be as rare as we are led to believe. Let me tell you about a few cases that I am personally aware of and have affected people close to me, over the past few weeks.

About four weeks ago, another close friend told me that one of his “in-laws” had passed away after vaccination, again a healthy young person in their 30s, they too left a young family.

A colleague then told me that one of his clients passed away and, like the others, was in good health, with no underlying issues. This person was in their early 40s.

These three deaths were all in our local area and not one word of any in the news, local or otherwise. Further, it should be noted that according to the statistics these relatively young people had as good as no chance of dying from Covid-19 in an unvaccinated state.

Nasty Side Effects

The more time that passes, the more I am hearing from people who have friends or family members that have had bad reactions to the vaccine. There have been incidents of stroke, stroke-like symptoms, bouts of unconsciousness, temporary blindness (in two cases) and permanent blindness in another.

I am just one person and I have heard all these accounts from close friends. I would like to know just how many vaccine-related deaths and serious side effects we have had in Australia but I doubt that I will ever know.

I am angry that none of this is making it into the news. I am angry that social media is shutting down anything that is contrary to the official narrative. I am angry that the Australian Health Practitioner Regulation Agency (AHPRA) is silencing the medical community by threatening to deregister any doctor or health worker that says anything that would affect the rollout. I’m angry that only one side of the story is being told. Further, I am angry that many people who do not want to take the vaccination are being forced into taking it by having their jobs held over their heads.

People Have A Right to Know

If the vaccines are causing death and serious side effects people have a right to know, it should not be suppressed. How can people make informed decisions without both sides of the story?

If the vaccines are so safe why are so many of our medical professionals prepared to leave their vocations rather than be vaccinated?

Why is our freedom to choose being taken from us? Why are we being punished if we don’t comply?

Why are we being coerced?

Let me be clear here, I am not and never have been “anti-vax” but I am definitely anti-coercion, anti-withholding of information and anti-mandatory vaccination.

I believe in the right of the individual to make decisions regarding their welfare based upon their free will without threat, coercion or punishment as God Almighty intended it.

Coercion and “Valid Consent”

According to the Australian Government Department of Health, Australian Immunisation Handbook, for consent to be legally valid the four following elements must be present. (Notes in brackets are mine):

1. It must be given by a person with legal capacity, and of sufficient intellectual capacity to understand the implications of receiving a vaccine.

2. It must be given voluntarily in the absence of undue pressure, coercion or manipulation.

(How does that fit in with losing your job or home or not being allowed to participate in society?)

3. It must cover the specific procedure that is to be performed.

4. It can only be given after the potential risks and benefits of the relevant vaccine, the risks of not having it, and any alternative options have been explained to the person. (How does withholding reports of vaccine-related deaths and serious side effects fit with that?)

It appears that in many cases, there has not been “valid consent” because of undue pressure, coercion, manipulation and withholding of risks. This is wicked and shameful, particularly considering that we are supposed to be a democratic and free society.

Why Take It Then?

Hardly anyone has told me that they took the vaccine because they wanted to or because they were scared of catching Covid19. The vast majority have said that they took it because they “wanted to see the grandkids”, “get back to the gym”, “wanted to travel”, “go overseas”, they “couldn’t visit relatives if they didn’t”, “to get out of lockdown”, “to get back to normal” or, they had to take it to “keep their job”.

Sorry folks, sounds like an awful lot of manipulation and coercion there.

But the Vaccination Is Not Compulsory, You Have a Choice

That is one of the greatest lies being told in this country at the moment. While the Government has not made it ILLEGAL to refuse, they have made it almost IMPOSSIBLE to survive if you don’t.

I expect far better, considering our Prime Minister has made such a big deal of his Christian faith.

Prime Minister Morrison’s “Christian Witness” Fails to Impress

Jesus said that a tree is known by its fruit. Bad trees produce bad fruit. (Matt 7:18) As far as I am concerned, at best Mr Morrison deliberately chooses his words to deceive, at worst he is a blatant liar. Neither is good fruit. Who could forget his infamous “It’s gossip” deflection?

On the matter of vaccination, he has said that it “would not be compulsory”, has also said that he expected that vaccines would be as “mandatory as possible” and also has said that “nobody will be forced to be vaccinated“.

Well, if someone cannot retain their job, can’t provide for their family or pay their mortgage without being vaccinated then I would suggest that they are being forced into it. Their choice has been removed.

Mr Morrison may not have made it illegal to refuse a vaccination but he has allowed it to become almost impossible to live without it. Further, he has hidden behind the state premiers as they have removed people’s power to choose, made them prisoners in their own homes, terrorised them with the police and come down on them with an iron fist that the CCP would be proud of.

If you think I am being too harsh on the PM, consider that he has waved his pentecostal flag, loud and proud. Before the whole nation, he has attended all the “right” conferences and been seen with all the “right” people so it is more than fair to hold him to a high standard.

In light of his spin on the vaccination, I wonder how “Scotty from Marketing” would pitch the biblical account of Shadrach, Meshach and Abednego from Daniel Chapter 3. It wasn’t compulsory for them to be thrown into the fiery furnace, it was their choice. After all, it wasn’t mandated.

How would he “massage” Revelation 13:16 where the antichrist “causes” or “forces” everyone to take the mark? It’s not compulsory or mandated, you won’t be forced, you just can’t go to market or buy or sell without it. You do have a choice, you can choose to starve, it is still up to you – your choice.

Even though Mr Morrison would be aware of Revelation 13:16-18 I am sure in light of his current conduct that he would have no problem instituting the vaccination passport with no room for objection on the basis of conscience.

If Mr Morrison really is a Christian, he ought to fear God for what he is allowing to happen on his watch.

There Is an Election Coming

There is an election coming and I really hope that conservative voters desert the Liberal Party like fleas deserting a dead dog.

I also hope voters take a good look at the Labor Party’s shameful example in Victoria. Dan Andrew’s militarised goon squad aka VICPOL SOG would have made Ernst Rohm proud.

The conduct of both major parties should have voters seriously considering minor parties and independents at the next federal election. I believe these corrupt politicians need to be held to account.

Where Are the Church Leaders?

Denominational heads and senior church leaders have been deathly silent as human rights have been violated. We shouldn’t be surprised, as I have often said, they have been bought off with government grants for the most part and so they lick the government’s hand like a good dog does its master’s. The institutional church has more in common with a harlot than it does the Bride of Christ.

We are told too often by these lackeys that we need to submit to the governing authorities (Rom 13) but we are not taught that this applies only when the state is in submission to God. Remember, there were plenty of ministers who, in their cowardice, ignorance (or deception), swore loyalty to Hitler in Nazi Germany and proudly preached from their pulpits with a swastika flag nearby and proclaimed “Gott Mit Uns”. These same ministers looked the other way as some of the greatest violation of human rights in history was perpetrated. I have learned that in this day and age, the vast majority of ministers are not shepherds but hirelings. (Jn 10:11-13)

My lack of confidence in church leaders is only fuelled by the medical apartheid that many seem to be preparing to embrace. Special services for the vaccinated only – unvaccinated, not welcome. I truly hope that such churches are boycotted for their unchristlike discrimination. It adds new meaning to “Behold I stand at the door and knock” (Rev 3:20) as I am sure Jesus would be found outside with the “unclean.”

Again, I must make an honourable mention of the good shepherds who penned the “Ezekiel Declaration” and those who signed in support of their petition. If there is any hope, it is with the ordinary people and not the compromised leadership.

As We Come Out of Lockdown

Well, here endeth the aforementioned rant.

For me, this is no longer about vaccination as such but it is about compulsory/mandatory vaccination, coercion and manipulation. It is about government overreach, the psychological torture of lockdown and the deliberate concealing of the deaths of people who had reactions to vaccines that were required if they were to continue in their work. How dare these tragic losses be ignored, what an insult to the victims and their loved ones.

People should be free to choose and consent only after being truly informed and in keeping with their conscience.

So, as we prepare to come out of this season of home detention, please be kind and considerate to all, regardless of their vaccination status and the reasoning behind it. Our enemies are NOT each other but rather those who would seek to violate human rights and usurp our free will.

Please continue to do all that you can to maintain the unity of the Spirit in the bond of peace (Eph. 4:3).

Originally posted on Maitland Christian Church Facebook page.

Why the US First Imposed Socialism

Gary North (, October 16, 2021

What is the longest-running socialist experiment? What has its success been?

If someone asked you to defend the idea that socialism has failed, what would you offer as your example?

Where did modern socialism begin?

In America.

That’s right: in the land of the free and the home of the braves. On Indian reservations.

They were invented to control adult warriors. They had as a goal to keep the native population in poverty and impotent.

Did the system work? You bet it did.

Has the experiment been a failure? On the contrary, it has been a success.

When was the last time you heard of a successful Indian uprising?

Are the people poor? The poorest in America.

Are they on the dole? Of course.

Last year, the U. S. Department of Agriculture allocated $21 million to provide subsidized electricity to residents on the reservations whose homes are the most distant from jobs and opportunities. This will keep them poor. Tribal power means tribal impotence.

The tribes are dependent. They will stay dependent. That was what the program was designed to achieve.

For some reason, textbooks do not offer a page or two on the corruption, the bureaucratization, and the multi-generation poverty created by tribal-run socialism. Here we have a series of government-run social laboratories. How successful have they been? Where are reservations that have systematically brought people out of poverty?

The next one will be the first.


The Soviet Union lasted as a socialist worker’s paradise from 1917 until 1991. As a direct result of that experiment, at least 30 million Russians died. It may have been twice that. China’s experiment was shorter: 1949 to 1978. Perhaps 60 million Chinese died.

The system failed to deliver the promised goods. I can think of no topic more suitable for a class in economics than a discussion of the failure of socialism. The same is true of a course in modern world history. A course in political science should cover this failure in detail.

They don’t, of course. They do not begin with the fundamental challenge to socialist economic theory, Ludwig von Mises’ 1920 essay, “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” Why not? Because most social scientists, economists, and historians have never heard of it. Among people over age 50, the few who did hear of it heard about it from some pro-socialist or Keynesian advocate, who wrote what he had been told in graduate school in the 1960’s, namely, that the article was totally refuted by Oskar Lange in 1936.

They are never told that when Lange, a Communist, returned to Poland in 1947 to serve in several high-level posts, the Communist government did not invite him to implement his grand theory of “market socialism.” No other socialist nation ever did.

For 50 years, the textbooks, if they mentioned Mises at all, said only that Mises had been totally refuted by Lange. The Establishment academics dropped Mises down Orwell’s memory hole.

On September 10, 1990, multimillionaire socialist author-economist Robert Heilbroner published an article in the New Yorker. It was titled “After Communism.” The USSR was visibly collapsing. In it, he recounted the story of the refutation of Mises. In graduate school, he and his peers were taught that Lange had refuted Mises. Then he announced: “Mises was right.” Yet in his best-selling textbook on the history of economic thought, The Worldly Philosophers, he never referred to Mises.


The universal failure of twentieth-century socialism began from the opening months of Lenin’s takeover of Russia. Output declined sharply. He inaugurated a marginally capitalist reform in 1920; the New Economic Policy. That saved the regime from collapse. The NEP was abolished by Stalin.

Decade after decade, Stalin murdered people. The minimal estimate is 20 million. This was denied by virtually the entire intelligentsia of the West. Only in 1968 did Robert Conquest publish his monumental book, The Great Terror. His estimate today: closer to 30 million. The book was pilloried. Wikipedia’s entry on the book is accurate.

Published during the Vietnam War and during an upsurge of revolutionary Marxist sentiment in Western universities and intellectual circles (see The Sixties), The Great Terror received a hostile reception.

Hostility to Conquest’s account of the purges was heightened by various factors. The first was that he refused to accept the assertion made by Nikita Khrushchev, and supported by many Western leftists, that Stalin and his purges were an aberration from the ideals of the Revolution and were contrary to the principles of Leninism. Conquest argued that Stalinism was a natural consequence of the system established by Lenin, although he conceded that the personal character traits of Stalin had brought about the particular horrors of the late 1930s. Neal Ascherson noted: “Everyone by then could agree that Stalin was a very wicked man and a very evil one, but we still wanted to believe in Lenin; and Conquest said that Lenin was just as bad and that Stalin was simply carrying out Lenin’s programme.” The second factor (1918) was Conquest’s sharp criticism of Western intellectuals for what he saw as their blindness towards the realities of the Soviet Union, both in the 1930s and, in some cases, even in the 1960s. Figures such as Beatrice and Sidney Webb, George Bernard Shaw, Jean-Paul Sartre, Walter Duranty, Sir Bernard Pares, Harold Laski, D. N. Pritt, Theodore Dreiser and Romain Rolland were accused of being dupes of Stalin and apologists for his regime for various comments they had made denying, excusing, or justifying various aspects of the purges.

The Left still hates the book, still attempts to say that he exaggerated the figures.

Then came The Black Book of Communism (1999) which puts the minimum estimate of citizens executed by Communists at 85 million, with 100 million or more likely. The book was published by Harvard University Press, so it could not be dismissed as a Right-wing fat tract.

The Left tries to ignore it.


The response of academia has been to dismiss the entire experiment as misguided, but not inherently evil. The cost in lives lost is rarely mentioned. Before 1991, this was even more rarely mentioned. Prior to Solzhenitsyn’s Gulag Archipelago (1973), it was considered a breach of etiquette for an academic to do more than mention it in passing, limiting it to Stalin’s purges of the Communist Party in the late 1930’s, and almost never mentioning forced starvation as a matter of public policy. “Ukraine? Never heard of it.” “Kulaks? What are kulaks?”

The decrepit state of all socialist economies from start to finish is not mentioned. Above all, there is no reference to critics in the West who warned that these economies were large-scale Potemkin villages — fake towns created by the government to mislead the Leftist faithful who came to see the future. They returned home with glowing accounts.

There is a book about these naïve, trusting souls, who were taken in completely, Paul Hollander’s Political Pilgrims: Travels of Western Intellectuals to the Soviet Union, China, and Cuba, 1928-1978. It was published by Oxford University Press in 1981. It was ignored by the intelligentsia for a decade.

The best description of these people that I have ever read comes from Malcolm Muggeridge, who spent the early 1930’s as a reporter for The Guardian in Moscow. Everything he wrote was censored before it was sent to England. He knew this. He could not report the truth, and The Guardian would not have reported it if he had. This is from his volume 1 of his autobiography, Chronicles of Wasted Time.

For resident foreign journalists in Moscow the arrival of the distinguished visitors was also a gala occasion, for a different reason. They provided us with our best — almost our only — comic relief. For instance, when we heard [George Bernard] Shaw, accompanied by Lady Astor (who was photographed cutting his hair), declare that he was delighted to find there was no food shortage in the USSR. Or [Harold] Laski singing the praises of Stalin’s new Soviet Constitution. . . . I have never forgotten these visitors, or ceased to marvel at them, at how they have gone on from strength to strength, continuing to lighten our darkness, and to guide, counsel and instruct us; on occasion, momentarily abashed, but always ready to pick themselves up, put on their cardboard helmets, mount Rosinante, and go galloping off on yet another foray on behalf of the down-trodden and oppressed. They are unquestionably one of the wonders of the age, and I shall treasure till I die as a blessed memory the spectacle of them travelling with radiant optimism through a famished countryside, wandering in happy bands about squalid, over-crowded towns, listening with unshakeable faith to the fatuous patter of carefully trained and indoctrinated guides, repeating like schoolchildren a multiplication table, the bogus statistics and mindless slogans endlessly intoned to them. There, I would think, an earnest office-holder in some local branch of the League of Nations Union, there a godly Quaker who once had tea with Gandhi, there an inveigher against the Means Test and the Blasphemy Laws, there a staunch upholder of free speech and human rights, there an indomitable preventer of cruelty to animals; there scarred and worthy veterans of a hundred battles for truth, freedom and justice — all, all chanting the praises of Stalin and his Dictatorship of the Proletariat. It was as though a vegetarian society had come out with a passionate plea for cannibalism, or Hitler had been nominated posthumously for the Nobel Peace Prize.

This phenomenon did not end in the 1930’s. It went on to the last gasp of the Soviets’ economic deception. The long-term moral and intellectual bankruptcy of the West’s intellectual leaders was finally exposed in 1991 by the acknowledged economic bankruptcy and tyranny of the Marxist regimes that the West had accepted as a valid alternative to capitalism.

No better example of this intellectual self-deception can be found than the case of Paul Samuelson, economics professor at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, the first American to win the Nobel Prize in economics (1970), former Newsweek columnist, and the author of by far the most influential economics textbook of the post-war world (1948-present): at least three million copies, 31 foreign languages. He announced in the 1989 edition of his textbook: “The Soviet economy is proof that, contrary to what many sceptics had earlier believed, a socialist command economy can function and even thrive.”

Mark Skousen found that gem. He also found this one, far more damning.


Felix Somary records in his autobiography a discussion he had with the economist Joseph Schumpeter and the sociologist Max Weber in 1918. Schumpeter was an Austrian economist who was not an Austrian School economist. He later wrote the most influential monograph on the history of economic thought. Weber was the most prestigious academic social scientist in the world until he died in 1920.

Schumpeter expressed happiness regarding the Russian Revolution. The USSR would be a test case for socialism. Weber warned that this would cause untold misery. Schumpeter replied: “That may well be, but it would be a good laboratory.” Weber responded: “A laboratory heaped with human corpses!” Schumpeter retorted: “Every anatomy classroom is the same thing.” (Felix Somary, The Raven of Zurich [New York: St. Martin’s, 1986], p. 121.)

Schumpeter was a moral monster. Let us not mince words. He was a highly sophisticated man, but he was at bottom a moral monster. Anyone who could dismiss the deaths of millions like this is a moral monster. Weber stormed out of the room. I don’t blame him.

Weber died in 1920. That was the year in which Mises’ essay appeared: “Economic Calculation in the Socialist Commonwealth.” Weber gave it a footnote in his masterpiece, published posthumously as Economy and Society (p. 107). Weber understood its importance as soon as he read it. Academic economists did not. Even today, there are few references to it.

Mises explained analytically why the socialist system is irrational: no capital markets. No one knows what anything should cost. He said that the systems would either violate the commitment to total planning or else fail totally. He has never been forgiven for this breach of etiquette. He was right, and the intellectuals were wrong. The socialist commonwealths have collapsed, except for North Korea and Cuba. Worse, he was right in terms of simple market theory that any intelligent person can understand. That article is a testimony to the West’s intellectuals: “There are none so blind as those who refuse to see.”


Mises believed that the proof of the pudding is in the recipe. If it adds salt instead of sugar, it will not be sweet. But academia is committed officially to empiricism. It thinks statistical tests should confirm theory. But the tests came for decades. The socialist economies failed them and then published fake statistics. But still the West’s intellectuals insisted that the socialist ideal was morally sound. They insisted that the results will eventually prove the theory right.

Nikita Khrushchev was famous for saying this to Nixon in the famous “kitchen debate” of 1959. He had been a bureaucrat who survived under Stalin by overseeing the murder of tens of thousands of people in Ukraine. He told Nixon, “We will bury you.” He was wrong.

College students are not informed of either the theory of socialism nor the magnitude of its failures, both economically and demographically. In the pre-1991 era, this was easier than it is today. The intelligentsia now has to admit that capitalism is more productive than socialism. So, the tactic now is to say that it is morally deficient. Worse, it ignores ecology. This was Heilbroner’s recommended strategy in his 1990 article. He said that socialists would have to switch from charging capitalism with inefficiency and waste to charging it with environmental destruction.


The comprehensive nature of the failure of socialism is not taught in college textbooks. The topic is glossed over wherever possible. It was easier to impose sanctions against anyone in the related worlds of academia and journalism before 1991.

Deng Xiaoping announced his version of Lenin’s New Economic Policy in 1978. But that did not get much publicity.

In 1991, Humpty-Dumpty fell. All the king’s horses and all the king’s men could not put him together again. Gorbachev presided over the final gasp in 1991. He received “Time Magazine’s Man of the Decade” in 1990. In 1991, he became an employed ex-dictator. Socialism failed . . . totally. But the intelligentsia still refuses to embrace the free market social philosophy of Mises, the man who predicted the failures of socialism, and who provided arguments to support his universal condemnation.

That is why it is a good idea to predict the demise of bad economic policies, along with your analysis. “I told you so, and I told you why” beats “I told you so.”

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (57)


By John Mackay (Creation News), 12/8/2021

They fear death but not God and seek salvation by Jab not Jesus, and fear is their key to
power! Yet so many who do believe this is their Father’s World and their body is His holy temple have emailed or called our Creation Research head office asking ‘What should we do about the Jab?’

Many University Students are paining with “I’ve been told my Uni career is down the drain if
I don’t get the Jab”; or Bosses are sharing “My company will get no further contracts unless
my workers are Jabbed!” Add to that the Medical Drs sharing how they won’t have the Jab
and don’t advise it, but add “Don’t say I said it!” And then there’s the Parents who are told
“Your children can’t come to our school if you’re not Jabbers,” … “What should we do?”
So what advice is correct to give re the Jab? How do we decide? Yes, we do have access to
highly qualified medical scientists and professors, plus pastors and as well as lay folk and of
course our Lawyer, so that does make it much easier. For this editorial alone, feedback was
sought from some 20 people. Here’s what we have found.

At almost every level we have been able to confirm reports of deaths after covid vax or
blindness or pregnancy problems, but when we ask; “Will you put your name to this?” – from
layman to Professor the answer is almost always – “It would cost me my job!” One dear
senior citizen reporting real post vax sickness problems in her town, finished with “I won’t
name names as I don’t know who’s listening.”

The whole nature of our western society has evidently been changed from being one of strong independence and openness, to a place where many fear the phone is tapped, their emails are read, or even their neighbours will report them. Such action is being openly encouraged as ‘the way to go’ at most levels of officialdom – even in dinki-di, downunder Oz.

It is interesting that The Australian newspaper on Sunday August 1 2021 (web post),
published an article on how Health Authorities don’t know what to do with the significant
number of doctors who are counselling patients to not have the Jab. It seems that a Dr’s oath
to protect their patients has no value in the eyes of government when Doctors disagree with
the government’s political position. Which translates to ‘by law doctors are not entitled to
have any opinion, except the official one – or be de-registered!’

The fear of professional castration dominates even those willing to spill the beans or think differently, and Doctors Against Covid run closed covert meetings that have a verbal hash tag … ‘You can’t quote us!’ Even the August 11 Courier Mail reports many Aussie Drs won’t give the vax to under 60’s because the Aussie PM has not come good with his promise to grant them immunity against legal liability for damage, disease and death.

It has become a global trend to treat the unvaccinated as ‘unclean’, as the enemy onto which
the yellow star of Covid is slowly and surely being boldly stitched, no matter what their
qualifications. Equally obvious is that at every level, fear is the chief weapon being used to
control God’s chief creation …. mankind!
It is very evident to us that the innocent and ignorant may accept the illnesses and deny or
ignore the death rate within a month of the Jab, simply regarding it as an acceptable price for
community wellbeing as they excuse vax problems on the basis this is an urgent rush job by
governments who are merely ‘Doing their best’, as they are constantly succoured by repeated
putdowns from FACT-CHECKER or shouts of conspiracy, conspiracy, to deny any factual

Yet the majority they don’t even know that the death rate from the tetanus vaccine since the
1940’s has been a total of 2 people worldwide, and anyone can find out that many more have
died after the Jab in just the last month! I remember when my friends suffered from polio and
TB – it was a real issue. Seemed I was naturally immune and didn’t need any of those shots,
but as someone who still remembers how long and hard I suffered from the common flu virus
before flu shots, I am immensely grateful for those vaccines. But that was a world where
Pfizer didn’t keep bumping its prices up, and fear was not public persuasion policy, and the
drug companies weapon of choice.

Don’t be fooled by the emotional push of ‘doing your bit … we are in this together …
remember your oldies! … get the jab now!’ But I am one of the oldies ones, and I fear loss of
truth and freedom way more than the viral spreading of politicians self-centred control of

Wherever you have politicians or medicos who have murdered millions who never had a
chance to fight back through their policies on abortions, don’t trust their claims to care for
your health. They are the ones beginning to now demand your children be free to make their
own life decisions about Jab, or Gender, and even worse, they seek to bulk vaccinate schools
without parental consult or consent. You are the Creator’s appointed protector and guardians
of your own kids. Be that!

As one refugee from behind the Iron Curtain shared … ‘It reminds him of his darkest days
under communism’ … a time when controlling minds and men through fear was the norm.
But none of this is freedom! Neither is it democracy, and all of it betrays a devil in every
detail, as political powers and company kings enforce the sad fear ridden reality of
compulsory and total vaccination.

But now our ex eastern bloc friend knows that only the ‘Perfect love of Jesus casts out fear’ (1John 4:18) and because he is currently high up in the Medical Industry, he is also able to provide us with the ‘rest of the story’. Yes – sadly even he has told us that leaking what he has could cost him his job. What a world? Pray for us as telling the truth about the Creator and creation comes at a high price, but the tarnished cost is 30 pieces of silver.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55C)

By Andrew McColl, 12th October, 2021

Whatever replaces humanism must be comprehensive: a world-and -life view that addresses every area of life. Its recommended alternative programs must also be philosophically consistent with its declared world-and-life view. If it is to survive over long periods of time, its recommended programs must also be practical. The programs must work, meaning that they must be consistent with the way the world really works, as well as consistent with its own presuppositions.

A world-transforming gospel is not one that offers a religious way of life whose visible positive effects are strictly confined to family and church-hearth and home-because people demand more from a world-and-life view than the promise of a safe place of temporary retreat when the work day or work week is done. What people insist upon is a system for their life’s work that really does work. What they demand, in short, is a system for dominion.[1]

1st Samuel is a book of pain, that commences with the narrative of a corrupt priesthood, that God is about to judge (I Samuel 4). But 1st Samuel doesn’t come from nowhere. It’s closely related to the preceding book, the Book of Judges, and its multiple, apostate attempts by Israel to centralise government in an individual or a dynasty, all of which prove futile, leading to a civil war (Judges 20).

Judges chapter 9 sounds like an abbreviated version of 1st Samuel, without the corrupt priesthood. Gideon has died, and one of his sons decides to grasp power by murdering all his brothers, arrogating power to himself, only to finish up dying in battle, leaving a mess behind him.

Why is this relevant today?

Our real problems today with Covid and its spin-offs, have not commenced with government at all, but with the church’s leadership. The Bible describes the church as “…the pillar and support of the truth” (I Tim.3:15). But in my estimation, 98% of church leaders today are quite happy to go along with the Welfare State. This means that Education, Health and Welfare are dominated by government departments at a State and Federal level, requiring that a huge amount of taxation be exacted from the community. Yet none of this has scriptural sanction, for the Bible is a document that’s implacably opposed to the Welfare State.

God wants His people to be of great influence and responsibility in the community (see Eph.3:10), but that’s not what 98% of Ministers want. It’s not something they’ve been prepared for by their training, their doctrine, their eschatology or their experience.

But it’s all coming home to haunt them, and us. They don’t like the idea that books like I Samuel, and its tale of an apostate priesthood which God judges, should speak to our situation today, because that’s too daunting, damning and radical. After all, can’t we speak of the love of God for lost sinners? Yes, we can.

And we can and must speak of His judgments on His people when they’ve been disobedient to Him, and have failed to take His Word seriously. And we can associate our problems politically and socially, directly with the Church’s disobedience.

Judgment may not be a popular sermon theme, but scripture requires us to accept that it begins “…with the household of God” (I Pet.4:17).

Rushdoony pointed out that

The cleansing of the Temple was predicted in Malachi 3:1. The Temple was the house of God, His appointed dwelling place. God speaks throughout the Old Testament of the tabernacle and the Temple as “My house.” Our Lord in Matthew 16:18 speaks of “My church.” As against this, our Lord refers to the Temple as “your house.” When the sanctuary or church becomes man’s, it is doomed, because God will move against it. At the beginning and end of His ministry, our Lord cleansed the Temple (Matt.21:12-13). He cleansed it because it was properly His house, required to serve Him and not itself. The Temple’s rejection of an inner cleansing slated it for judgment.[2]

Thus we cannot expect lasting community change will eventuate, until God’s people are on their knees in repentance, asking God for His forgiveness and mercy for our many shortcomings, and our failures to be faithful to Him in declaring the “…whole purpose of God” (Acts 20:27), and the logical applications of His law to the community.

Maybe this is too much. Maybe, He’ll have to raise up a new generation of leadership willing to obey His Word, setting aside the compromises, the accommodations with the enemies of God, along with the acceptance of such things as Public Education, Health and Welfare.

And that would be consistent with 1st Samuel: on-going social pain, till there’s change in the church. It’d be easy to avoid this, and shove the issue back under the carpet where it’s been for three centuries, pleading that

We’re not under law but under grace,


You can’t mix religion with politics,

Or some other pathetic excuse for our disobedience to a holy God. But the issue remains the same, that

Jesus Christ is the same yesterday and today and forever (Heb.13:8).


God requires that the house of God be cleaned up, and that we do it. He will not accept it left like some kind of moral pigsty, where acceptance and tolerance for abominable practices is the standard fare, because it’s not standard fare for Him.

Forty years ago, Herbert Schlossberg penned this:

Even the good kings of ancient Judah, who expelled the worship of the Baals from the temple, left the Asherim and their devotees undisturbed on the hills. So rooted in communal life these deities became, that it was unthinkable to be rid of them. In the late twentieth century the West is similarly plagued with major and minor idols, some of them all but invisible. It is hard to imagine a more important or satisfying role than to embark on the spiritual, intellectual, and political adventure of working toward stripping them, root and branch, from the land.[3]

Wouldn’t you want to be a part of that?

[1] Gary DeMar and Peter Leithart, “The Reduction of Christianity,” 1988, p.360.

[2]Rousas Rushdoony, “The Gospel of John,” 2000, p.23.

[3]Herbert Schlossberg, “Idols for Destruction,”1983, quoted in Gary North (Ed), “Tactics for Resistance,” 1983, p.81.

Coronavirus and the Country’s Future (55D)

Christian Leaders, Fight for the Conscience of Your People: Vaccine Mandates and Letters of Exemption

“Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?” Dietrich Bonhoeffer


By Giuliano BordoniTim GrantMatthew Littlefield, and Warren McKenzie.

“Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?” – Dietrich Bonhoeffer

The current state of affairs

Australia, October 2021, is a much different country when compared to Australia, February 2020. How would you have felt if, when you first heard the words “two weeks to flatten the curve” you knew that in little over a year you would be living in a country where significant portions of the population would be losing their jobs if they didn’t undergo a specific medical procedure? Or, perhaps, if you were told that those two weeks of lockdown would turn into a future where those who do not approve of having a medical procedure imposed on them would not be able to interact freely with loved ones, friends, workmates, etc. If you could have known this beforehand, how would you have felt back then when those initial weeks of lockdown were announced?Advertisement

Whilst there are glimmers of relief for the vaccine-hesitant, even coming from some quite unexpected solitary voices in secular places of authority, the silence in the room when it comes to the vast majority of Christian leaders is almost deafening. In the same week, Victoria announced the most totalitarian vaccination policy this country has ever seen, you could hear a pin drop in that hypothetical room filled with leaders from all sorts of Christian affiliations. Not even the fact that Christian leaders will be unable to continue to shepherd their flocks if they are not double jabbed by a certain date has been enough to provoke a reaction at this stage. The Church appears thoroughly cowed.

Daniel Andrews, along with Gladys Berejiklian, for example, have not only now rewritten the requirements for Christian fellowship and worship, but Andrews even took a step further and has now also meddled with 1 Timothy 3:1-7. The Victorian premier has passed a policy which, in practice, means that it is no longer enough for Elders to fulfill the requirements listed by Paul in the letter mentioned above, but they also need to be vaccinated in order to exercise their office.

In the midst of all this confusion, there was a faint light glistening at the end of the tunnel.  People started to talk about the possibility of Christian ministers writing letters of exemption for people in their churches whose livelihoods were in jeopardy, yet had objections to the vaccination on the basis of conscience. One would think most Christian leaders would be eager for the opportunity to offer some relief for the conflicted in their flocks but, instead, what we witnessed playing out is something quite different.

Many leaders, for example, The Gospel Coalition Australia, are currently arguing that unless people’s religious objections are based on a narrow set of arguments, then the objection doesn’t qualify for a religious exemption.  The main argument they allow is a narrow exception for those concerned about the use of aborted fetal tissue in vaccine development. Even some Baptists, who are supposed to hold ‘liberty of conscience’ as one of their distinctives, have followed this line of thought and argued that there are only a couple of religious grounds for declining a vaccine.

In other words, if a person is opposed to being vaccinated on other grounds besides the use of fetal cells, even, perhaps, something that could be very private, such a person will probably hear a ‘no’ from many Christian leaders in Australia today. This attitude shows many people do not understand how conscientious religious objection works, namely,  how Christians understand the requirements of Christ over their lives in regard to what is and isn’t permissible. It is unfair for Christians to be interrogated in what could be a fairly embarrassing process of trying to analyse a person’s real motivation by asking questions such as, ‘What about these other medications? They were also developed with fetal cells, aren’t they? Have you thought about that?’ Why some are trying to create a ‘gotch ya’ kind of scenario is beyond our reasoning capacity.Advertisement

Even after a person has been exposed to all of that in order to know if they are really “worthy” of that charity from one of their leaders, the ‘no’ is almost guaranteed in many cases.

The questions many are asking

But, are these limited reasons really all there are?  Aren’t any other objections that originate from the Christian conscience enough to serve as the foundation for a religious exemption? Whilst the decision about signing a letter of exemption is also a matter of conscience on the part of each individual Christian leader, to completely disregard as religious objections other types of conscious biblical objections, besides the use of aborted fetal cells in the vaccine production process, can be a real revelation about the compromised thought process of some leaders in the church.

Could it be that such leaders haven’t spent enough time considering Romans 14, or article 20.2 in the Westminster Confession of Faith or similar confessions, which contain weighty doctrines that when neglected can cause a huge impact on minority groups in our congregations? Or are they maybe being apathetic? Or are they being fearful, perhaps, since they would prefer not to risk their valuable reputations and not to appear to be at odds with the governing authorities?Advertisement

Regardless of the answers to the questions above, we most certainly believe that there are other valid types of conscientious biblical objections, especially regarding this current hesitation around the vaccine. But, before we present our case, we want to make sure we proceed on clear and common ground. Therefore, it is necessary before we continue, that we should define our terms. 



Much has been said about ‘the conscience’ or ‘the Christian conscience’ in this debate, but what is meant by those terms? Jonathan Edward’s provides a definition in his work “Ethical Writings”, namely: 

That disposition to approve or disapprove the moral treatment which passes between us and others, from a determination of the mind to be easy, or uneasy, in a consciousness of our being consistent or inconsistent with ourselves.1

In other words, the conscience is the mind’s internal referee, at times approving, at times disapproving of our thoughts, actions, inactions, and interactions with others. 

Lordship of Christ

The Christain confession that “Christ is Lord” is comprehensive and is not vague spiritualism. That Christ was crucified under Pontius Pilate is an undeniable historical fact, recorded in scripture and other external sources. Scripture attests to the resurrection of our saviour, and Paul records that upon returning to life, Jesus “…appeared to more than five hundred brothers at one time…” (1 Corinthians 15:6).

All are called to subject all of their lives to the risen and reigning Christ. This faith is revealed to us in God’s Holy Word, the Bible.  For the Christian, the Scriptures are, therefore, sufficient for life and faith and we are compelled to believe and obey all that is written within them. To do otherwise, would result in disobedience. The Christian submits to the Lordship of Christ, as they submit to His Holy Word.

Religious objection

In this debate, most agree that religious objections do exist and that they do qualify an objecting person for having a religious exemption letter signed. The issue around using aborted fetal tissue in the production process of vaccines, for example, is a clear case of a non-disputable religious objection in the minds of many. Those who hold to that specific objection do so based on their biblical understanding that offering any form of affirmation or support to products that benefited from the evil of abortion is something God would always condemn, regardless of any possible benefits.

If we are to define ‘religious objection’ based on this particular example of aborted fetal cell lines, and in light of the other two definitions previously given, we would say that a religious objection is an uneasy mind, which originates from a particular reading of the Scriptures, resulting in the inability of an individual to proceed with a determined course of action without experiencing a deep sense of disobedience against God, because one considers himself to be under the direct Lordship of Christ. 

A case for any objecting Christian to be provided with an exemption

If the previous paragraph is true, is it correct to say then, when it comes to the COVID-19 vaccines, that the only situation capable of producing an uneasy Christian mind are those narrow considerations expressed by some prominent Australian Christian leaders?  We don’t think so. The Lordship of Christ impacts the conscience in a far more comprehensive fashion.

In our current situation, we find ourselves divided because of two dichotomous positions.  However, on matters not pertaining to the moral law, God allows for liberty of conscience.  Paul assures us that there will be varying “opinions” amongst Christians on many different subjects (Romans 14:1). The word “opinions” (ESV) can be equally translated as “conclusions reached through reasoning.”2

Paul acknowledges that two separate Christians, reasoning in light of scripture and endeavouring to apply the Lordship of Christ to their lives, will, sometimes, arrive at different conclusions (Romans 14:2). He also says in Philippians “Let those of us who are mature think this way, and if in anything you think otherwise, God will reveal that also to you” (Philippians 3:15), which indicates that there is an apostolic expectation that Christians will think in a certain manner, but, as for the process of arriving at that point of agreement, that’s between each Christian and the Lord. Passages like this one show that one of Paul’s priorities in ministry is to ensure each persons’ conscience is being respected and led, primarily, by the Lord in matters where freedom of thought is allowed.  

These conclusions are not to be treated lightly, namely, they entail the formation of conscience in the life of a Christian, which directly pertains to “faith” and “sin” (Romans 14:23). “Faith” and “sin” are matters that are first and foremost directed toward God (Psalm 51:4).  One action originates from “faith” and puts the conscience at ease, yet another action proceeds not from faith and causes the conscience to become uneasy because that action is in fact sin (Romans 14:1423).

In the life of the Christian, the conscience cannot be separated from reasoning in the light of scripture, and scripture cannot be separated from its mediation of the Lordship of Christ over the life of a saint. A Christian who has reasoned in the light of scripture will endeavour to be consistent with the conclusions to which they have arrived. Although, as Paul argues, Christians may arrive at different conclusions on matters of indifference and he also urges neither to quarrel over these matters (Romans 14:1), nor to judge others on these matters (Romans 14:4,13), nor to place a stumbling block in the life of a believer. Why? Because to compel a Christian to act in discord with his conclusions is to cause them to become inconsistent with their biblical reasoning.

On such matters, the believer gives an account, not to men, but to God (Romans 14:12).  Calvin would write “Our consciences have not to do with men but with God only.”3 For any man, entity, or institution to impose something on a conscience on matters not related to the moral law, would be for that entity to usurp the place of God.  

In our context, we have a unique set of challenges. Broadly speaking, Christians are reasoning from two different sets of assumptions. The first, from the prevailing narrative, namely, that the vaccine is safe and effective, and therefore is beneficial for me and those around me; God is honoured in this act. The second, from a counter-narrative, the vaccine is a ‘clinical trial’ in a highly politicized public health environment and hence caution is necessitated.  The vaccine may not be beneficial for me and those around me; God may not be honoured in this act. These two perspectives, under normal circumstances, would be able to coexist side-by-side, with individuals acting in accordance with their conscience, and receiving or abstaining from the vaccine as seems best to them before God. However, for many people, the state has removed the matter of conscience, mandating the vaccine through coercive means. 

Indeed, for many believers, the simple fact that all of society’s major institutions such as the media, academia, and government, along with many of the public Christians leaders, are pressuring them to do something, is itself the reason for their religious objection. Some Christians are deeply skeptical of social pressure, aware that their brethren have endured extreme examples of such behaviour throughout history. Thomas Crosby describes the milieu of the early English Baptists this way, “…liberty of conscience [was] taken away, and the most cruel and barbarous actions committed”4 and, sadly,  such deprivation of liberty of conscience is still occurring today in many places. 

Think about this: when in history have all of these institutions come together to override people’s consciences, in a rushed and high-pressure situation, and done this for good? Never? Rarely? This one fact alone causes many Christians to be suspicious. For others, it may not, but compelling the conscience of those who are, only confirms their suspicions.  

How then do we articulate vaccine mandates and their resulting impact on the minority Christian conscience from a theological perspective? Candidly stated, one set of assumptions and its associated formed conscience have been imposed on the other. Conscience has been usurped. The conscience of the minority group of Christians has become uneasy, they are being coerced to act in a way that doesn’t proceed from faith. Some people are being pressured to act in opposition to their conscience when that very conscience was formed through reasoning in the light of scripture. The result of this action is that there are Christians who are now being coerced to act inconsistently with the Lordship of Christ in their lives. This is a serious point; it is the point. 

One mistake many people make when evaluating whether another Christian’s conscientious objection is a valid religious one is that they focus only on the issue. This is a mistake. The question is often not the specific issue, the real question is: who is Lord of the Church and Conscience? In the early Baptist and Puritan movements, non-conformists of both stripes were willing to be persecuted for, among other things, not agreeing with the decreed vestments5 (religious garments) commanded for Church of England ministers by the Crown.

Some people might think this is extreme, being willing to suffer over such a disputable issue. But the issue was not ever really about the vestments. The issue was who was Lord of the Church; the crown or the Lord Jesus Christ? The Puritans, and their offshoot cousins, the Baptists, were willing to suffer for this point. Their conscience would allow them to do no other thing.6  If the Baptist forebears were willing to object to required religious garments which are worn externally, how much more should we object to mandated vaccines which are administered internally?

The question, then, that we must answer for the church, in this case, is: what is the proper response when the majority’s conscience is imposed on the minority’s conscience? Dietrich Bonhoeffer in fact provided a response to this question 83 years ago, with a short pithy statement on the matter:

In June 1938 The Sixth Confessing Church Synod met to resolve the church’s latest crisis. Dr Friedrich Werner, state commissar for the Prussian Church, had threatened to expel any pastor refusing to take the civil oath of loyalty as a “birthday gift” to Hitler. Instead of standing up for freedom of the church, the synod shuffled the burden of decision to the individual pastors. This played into the hands of the Gestapo, who could then easily identify the disloyal few who dared to refuse. Infuriated at the bishops, Bonhoeffer demanded, “Will the Confessing Church ever learn that majority decision in matters of conscience kills the spirit?”

There is a need for pastors and church leaders to defend the reasoned conclusions of people in their congregations, especially on the issue of a ‘clinical trial’ vaccine. These are matters of conscience that are intimately connected to a person’s relationship with God.

Imagine for a moment that you are the pastor of the church in Rome in ~57AD.  You have read Paul’s command to provide liberty on various opinions not related to the moral law (Romans 14).  How would you respond to the people in your congregation if, on the very next day, Caesar mandated that those who only eat vegetables must now only eat meat?  Would you:

  1. Withdraw from such people, embarrassed at the indignity of having to defend their conscience which is no longer sanctioned by the state?
  2. Fight at great expense to yourself in order to protect their conscience and maintain the unity of the faith?

Choose carefully. This is not a test.  Currently, there are people in our congregations who cannot in good conscience obey the state health orders and receive a vaccine, and whose livelihoods are now on the line. There are many others who, because of excessive coercion and the lack of alternatives provided to avoid or stand against such coercive methods, have already received the vaccine whilst, in their minds, being opposed to it. Leaders have been given some reasonable power to come to the rescue of their people whose consciences are being coerced and became uneasy due to conflict with the Lordship of Christ in their lives.

Even if pastors don’t necessarily agree with the ‘hesitant’s position’, Romans 14 should guide them to come to the defence of the minority’s conscience in their congregations. A person with a conflicted conscience before the Lord is a person in serious spiritual danger because the sin born out of an action that proceeds not from faith is as dangerous as any sin.

If anything, Christian leaders should at least be seen fighting on behalf of their flocks due to the spiritual implications of an uneasy conscience. To provide letters of exemption to Christians with many other genuine concerns and objections to getting vaccinated, besides the issue around aborted fetal cells, is not only the charitable thing to do, but it is a matter of taking good care of the flock over which the Holy Spirit has made us overseers.


Giuliano Bordoni

Pastor Giuliano Bordoni is a registered minister part of Queensland Baptists. Giuliano has a bachelor of Music, as well as a master of Divinity, focused on pastoral studies.

Tim Grant

Tim Grant is the pastor of Mount Isa Baptist Church. He is a registered Minister in the Baptist Union of Queensland. Tim has a ‘Bachelor of Ministry’ and ‘Master of Arts in Theology.’

Matthew Littlefield

Reverend Matthew Littlefield is the pastor of New Beith Baptist Church. He is an ordained Minister in the Baptist Union of Queensland. Matthew has a Masters in Theology.

Warren McKenzie

Warren McKenzie is pastor at Biota Baptist Church in Inala, Brisbane. His interests are theology and evangelism. He is currently studying a Master of Theology through Malyon College.


  1. Edwards, J. (1989). Ethical Writings. (P. Ramsey & J. E. Smith, Eds.) (Vol. 8, p. 592). New Haven; London: Yale University Press.
  2. Arndt, W., Danker, F. W., Bauer, W., & Gingrich, F. W. (2000). A Greek-English lexicon of the New Testament and other early Christian literature (3rd ed., p. 232). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
  3. Calvin, J., & Beveridge, H. (1845). Institutes of the Christian religion (Vol. 3, p. 196). Edinburgh: The Calvin Translation Society.
  4. Crosby, T. (2011). The History of the English Baptists (Vol. 1, pp. 1–2). Bellingham, WA: Logos Bible Software.
  5. Bebbington, D. (2017). Baptists Through the Centuries: A History of a Global People (pp. 17–18). Baylor University Press.
  6. If you think this was a silly sacrifice, let me ask you: does your minister wear the officially decreed vestments of the crown of England? If not, thank the Puritans, it gets really hot in Australia.

Scientists Say It. We’re Forced to Believe It. That Settles It.


Scientists Say It. We’re Forced to Believe It. That Settles It.

“The first to plead his case seems right,
Until another comes and examines him” (Prov. 18:17).

Is there such a thing as “science”? There isn’t. Science is not a thing like a shovel used for digging, a microscope for viewing what can’t be seen with the naked eye, or a gun to send a projectile through the air. To “follow the science” means to follow the opinions, theories, and conclusions of people who collect and organize knowledge (the meaning of the Latin scientia) in the form of testable explanations and predictions about the world.

The process of scientific discovery requires many first principles that exist before science can be done. A scientist must presuppose the reasonableness of reason, the logic of logic, that what is done experimentally today will work in the way under the same circumstances tomorrow:

Every scientific outcome will be determined a priori by the presuppositions that the scientist, who is engaged in the scientific endeavor, holds by faith. Nobody is presupposition-free, but we all need presuppositions, by way of worldview, in order to make sense of reality. In other words, before a person — Christian or non-Christian — begins any scientific endeavor, he or she already holds basic presuppositions concerning metaphysics, epistemology, and ethics. A person holds these presuppositions or assumptions by faith since he or she cannot gain any knowledge or understanding without having a concept about reality (metaphysics), knowledge (epistemology), and morality (ethics) first.


The scientist who thinks that he is neutral, or “facts-only,” as is often claimed, has already fallen into the trap of his own biases without even knowing it.[1]

Science, the process of gaining knowledge, comes in different forms. When Galileo saw craters on the moon by use of a telescope, that observation changed the way people understood extra-terrestrial bodies. There was an increase in knowledge. The is true with Galileo’s experiment with different weighted spheres and by Italian experimenters a few decades earlier. For centuries, scientists, following Aristotelian physics and cosmology, believed that different weighted objects fell at different rates of speed. A simple experiment proved Aristotle wrong. The same was true of Copernicus’ heliocentric (sun-centered) solar system that proved Aristotle’s geocentric model incorrect where the earth was said to be the center of the cosmos, and the planets, the sun, and the moon, and the stars circle it. The new knowledge replaced the old knowledge but not before a great deal of debate took place. For example, Andreas Osiander (1498–1552) wrote the anonymous preface to Copernicus’s Revolutions of the Heavenly Spheres (1543) which was published after the death of Copernicus stating that “the theory was only meant to be a hypothesis and was not presented as fact.” This was not the opinion of Copernicus. “Osiander had penned his preface because he found the idea of the earth rushing through space at high speed while simultaneously spinning on its axis ridiculous, and he knew Europe’s intellectual elite would agree.”[2]

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Myths, Lies, and Half-Truths

Christianity’s failure to show itself practical in the past 150 years has guaranteed the success of secularism and militant Islam, both of which are doing incalculable harm at home and abroad. The rejection of any type of ‘this-worldly’ application of the Bible has resulted in the proliferation of man-centered worldviews that have steadily drained the life out of our world and left behind a spiritual vacuum.BUY NOW

Even though there was nearly universal opposition to the Copernican hypothesis at the time, the work was published, and point and counterpoints commenced.

Charles Darwin’s On the Origin of Species (1859) and The Descent of Man, and Selection in Relation to Sex (1871) faced similar opposition and debate. Interestingly, Darwin was not a university-trained scientist and yet his theory, along with the independent work of Alfred Russel Wallace, have won the day to such an extent that debate is no longer permitted in most academic circles. It cannot be challenged in government schools. For example, the Victoria Institute was formed in 1865 to challenge the new evolutionary theory. It was rebranded in 1932 as the Evolution Protest Movement which issued the following statement of purpose:

We feel the public are being deceived. Evolution propaganda does not present the facts impartially; it dwells upon those which favour the theory, while suppressing those which oppose it. Such are not the methods of true, but of false, science. Few people realise that the tactics which Evolution employs would be regarded as ‘special pleading’[3] in a Court of Law; and that many scientists have declared that Evolution is both unproved and unprovable.

Little has changed. It’s important to note “that a good deal of the opposition came not from wounded religious sensibilities but from common-sense objections arising from people’s instinctive trust in everyday forms of logic…. The whole descent-with-modification theory of animal metamorphosis was widely rejected for being ‘imaginary,’ especially since readers had noted that Darwin himself admitted that the fossil evidence was simply not there (yet) to support his claims.”[4] It’s still not there. That’s why “punk-eek” theory was created to account for the astounding numbers of gaps in the fossil record. From The Scientific American:

The fossil record is notoriously stingy in doling out clues about the history of life. Biologists agonize over whether they are inferring a distorted view of the past from the bits of bone that they pluck from the vast expanse of the earth’s accumulated sediments. But because evolution proceeds so slowly, scientists cannot test their ideas by watching it unfold in real time.[5]

The irrationality, illogic, and undying push to accept the absurd is part of the demand to “follow the science” no matter where it takes us because of who says it. Consider the following from the high priest of evolutionary dogmatism Richard Dawkins:

Natural selection happens naturally, all by itself, as the automatic consequences of which individuals survive long enough to reproduce, and which don’t…. Given enough generations, ancestors that look like newts can change into descendants that look like frogs. Given even more generations, ancestors that look like fish can change into descendants that look like monkeys. Given yet more generations, ancestors that look like bacteria can change into descendants that look like humans.

The above is from page 20 of his book The Magic of Reality: How We Know What’s Really True. There is no way that Dawkins can confirm any of what he wrote as being true. He is describing magic and not scientific reality. His claim of “what’s really true” does not compare to Galileo’s discovery of mountains and craters on the moon or his experiments with the speed at which different weighted objects fall. Dawkins is spewing speculation and calling it science!

All of this has a bearing on where we are today on the push to “follow the science.”

Try to question abortion, homosexuality, transgenderism, multiple genders, climate change. The science is settled so there’s nothing to debate. There is no debate over the COVID vaccines. Anyone who questions anything about what’s going on with the vaccine is banished, censored, or canceled. Those who claim to follow the science are not being scientific. To offer alternatives and question the science behind the science is what science is all about.

Many highly educated and responsible doctors and politicians claim with good reason that vaccine mandates at the state and federal levels are all about maintaining power and control to push a political agenda. Why is it anti-science to treat COVID-19 with Ivermectin, a safe and effective treatment that’s being used around the world? Pharmacists are refusing to fill prescriptions from doctors who are prescribing it. Read about it here. But medical marijuana and addictive opioids are legal and prescribed every waking hour.

A claim has been made that more than 500,000 adverse events have been reported after COVID vaccines, from temps to neuropathy. Shouldn’t this be reported and investigated as part of following the science?

There is a great deal of science regarding abortion. Pro-abortions claim that their unborn baby is their body. It isn’t. “Keep Your Hands Off My Uterus” is a popular slogan used by pro-abortionists at rallies. The slogan is anti-science. An unborn baby is not a woman’s uterus. Consider that actress Jennifer Lawrence — who is expecting her first child with husband Cooke Maroney — joined a march to support a woman’s right to kill her unborn baby. It would be great if Lawrence considers that her “baby bump” is a baby rather than some thing akin to an appendix. It’s called following the science!

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

Restoring the Foundation of Civilization

There are many Christians who will not participate in civilization-building efforts that include economics, journalism, politics, education, and science because they believe (or have been taught to believe) these areas of thought are outside the realm of what constitutes a Christian worldview. Nothing could be further from the truth.BUY NOW

[1]Ben Hayes and Sacha Walicord, “Science vs. Faith: The Great False Dichotomy,” Pro Rege, Vol. 47:44, Art. 8 (June 2019):

[2]James Hannam, The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution (Washington, DC: Regnery Publishing Co., 2011), 273.

[3]An argument where an advocate for a position deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to his or her point of view.

[4]Neil Thomas, Taking Leave of Darwin: A Longtime Agnostic Discoveres the Case for Design (Seattle, WA: Discovery Institute Press, 2021), 35.

[5]John Horgan, “Score One For Punk Eek,” Scientific American (July 21, 1996):


Sign up to receive emails about new articles, events, and products

“Book Review: George Whitefield” by David Chilton

By David H. Chilton (1980?)

George Whitefield: The life and Times of the Great Evangelist of the Eighteenth-Century Revival, by Arnold A. Dallimore (Cornerstone Books, 1980). Two volumes, $19.95 each.

Early in the eighteenth century, a high-society lady once joked that Parliament was “preparing a bill to have ‘not’ taken out of the Commandments and inserted into the Creed.” It was not far from the truth. By all descriptions of the period, it was characterized by rampant ungodliness and almost complete disregard for Christian standards in any area of life. J.C. Ryle wrote that “Christianity seemed to lie as one dead…There was…a gross, thick, religious and moral darkness” pervading England. The government and the courts were corrupt: open bribery was a continual practice, and the poor were flagrantly oppressed — which is not to say that the poor were any better.

Crime was abundant, and the attempt of the authorities to suppress it (by making 160 offenses punishable by death) was to no avail. Whole districts were sunk in abject heathenism, ignorant of the most basic principles of the gospel. And what were the churches doing? Says Ryle: “They existed, but they could hardly be said to have lived. They did nothing; they were sound asleep.” In short, England was well down the road which, for a nation just across the Channel, climaxed in the orgy of horror known as the French Revolution.

Yet within a few years, the situation for England had entirely changed. Thousands were converted to vital Christianity; the slave trade was abolished (in a matter vastly different from the Unitarian-inspired Abolitionist movement of America); widows, orphans and poor were cared for; hospitals were established; missionary and tract societies flourished. What made the difference? To a great extent the change can be traced to the labors of one of the most unworthily-neglected men in history — George Whitefield.

While Whitefield’s associates in the revival (John and Charles Wesley, Jonathan Edwards and others) have received much attention through the years, Whitefield has been thrust into the background — largely due to his reluctance to promote himself — and historians have tended to treat him as one of Wesley’s lieutenants. In fact, Whitefield was the evangelist of the revival, a fact undisputed by his contemporaries. He was the founder of Methodism (and even, indirectly, of the Presbyterian Church of Virginia). The extent of his ministry is staggering: he evangelized England, Scotland, Wales and the American colonies, preaching about 40,000 sermons in a thirty-year period.

With the publication of the long-awaited second volume of his biography by Arnold Dallimore, the record has at last been set straight. Dallimore’s treatment is both sympathetic and discriminating (although the work still falls into the typical Banner-of-Truth biographical style, i.e., there is a relative disregard of Biblical standards in law, economics and social relationships).

The story of Whitefield’s conversion bears a strong resemblance to that of Martin Luther. Like the Reformer, Whitefield went through an extended time of trying desperately to be justified by works, and he almost killed himself through severe punishment of his body. At last he discovered justification by faith; he wrote later in his Journals of the “joy unspeakable” that filled his soul “when the weight of sin went off, and an abiding sense of the pardoning love of God, and a full assurance of faith, broke in upon my disconsolate soul!” He began preaching, and the crowds soon became so huge that he initiated the practice of preaching in open fields — a practice which soon became the trademark of the early Methodist movement, as John Wesley and others became convinced of its propriety and effectiveness (Wesley, in his own words, had “thought the saving of souls almost a sin if it had not been done in a church”)

While at first they worked together, a serious split occurred between Whitefield and the Wesley’s. It began as a doctrinal dispute: as Whitefield became more committed to the doctrines of Calvinism, Wesley firmly adhered to the Arminianism of his Anglican upbringing. Whitefield constantly worked for peace (perhaps more than he should have), but Wesley was adamant and offensive in his handling of their differences, indulging in relentless personal attacks. In what is perhaps the single most shocking revelation in Dallimore’s work, he demonstrates irrefutably Wesley’s treachery in taking over the organization of the Methodist movement.

Whitefield sought simply to preach the gospel of Christ; Wesley schemed to build a structure around himself. He followed Whitefield around, denouncing him and trying to draw away his congregations. Whitefield established a school for children; when he returned from a trip, he found that Wesley had quite literally stolen it from him. These dishonest tactics were repeated again and again, with Whitefield never once publicly making any statement against Wesley or bringing charges against him. The result has been a massive misrepresentation of the facts in the controversy, to Whitefield’s damage and Wesley’s immense profit. Yet throughout his life, Whitefield continued, for the sake of his concept of “unity,” to support and aid Wesley in every way possible — often under extreme abuse from the very one he was helping.

This fact illustrates a continuing problem in the last two and one-half centuries of evangelicalism: the combination of neoplatonism and antinomianism. I can think of no outstanding 18th-century leader who was not deeply infected with these two errors. There is no doubt in my mind that God greatly used Whitefield and his associates for the extension of His kingdom; with me, at least, that is not the point at issue. But the presuppositions of their age were not called into question by these men — and one result has been that their followers, whether Wesleyan or Calvinist, have regarded their serious errors as evangelical orthodoxy.

Their working definition of “spirituality” — i.e., that salvation is fundamentally individualistic, internal, and immaterial — comes straight from the Apostle Plato. One example of this is Whitefield’s amusing, and very sad, experience of courtship and marriage (see esp. vol. I, pp. 468-472; vol. 2, pp. 101-113). He couldn’t bring himself to admit he actually loved the girl of his dreams —that would be too “carnal” — and his businesslike proposal (which she rejected) had a human tenderness matched only by that of frozen fish.

When he finally did marry, he became quickly disappointed, and in less than two months he was longing “for that blessed time when we shall neither marry nor be given in marriage, but be as the angels of God!” Marriage, you see, was a hindrance to his ability to serve the Lord. As he phrased it: “What room can there be for God, when a rival hath taken possession of the heart?”

We may laugh (or cry) at this, but let us be careful that our ideas of God, man and salvation are not just as distorted. We need to keep men like Whitefield in the Biblical perspective: neither attaching ourselves to his unbiblical worldviews just because God used him, nor rejecting the validity of much of what he did simply because his views were repulsive. He did preach the gospel, and he preached it with a greater degree of purity than most of his contemporaries. One of my favorite passages in the book comes from the diary of an unlettered American farmer, converted through hearing Whitefield preach on justification:

…he looked as if he was Clothed with authority from ye great god and a sweet solemnity sat upon his brow and my hearing him preach gave me a heart wound & by god’s blessing my old foundation was broken up & i see my righteousness would not save me.

Thus, Whitefield’s preaching did often have the good effect of leading people to flee from their own filthy rags to the perfect righteousness of Jesus Christ. Nevertheless, Whitefield’s neoplatonism was never fully rooted out. Neoplatonism is essentially an attempt to deny one’s creaturehood and humanity, the vain wish to be pure spirit and flee earthly cares and human relationships. Christian spirituality becomes defined in terms of transcending our creaturely limitations, rather than serving God in every sphere of life. We see the same thing today: someone wants to “serve the Lord,” to enter “full-time Christian service,” and so he abandons his trade and becomes a full-time preacher or missionary.

Now, there is nothing necessarily wrong with that, but why do we feel that a preacher is more consecrated or spiritual than a salesman or electrician? It is simply because the preacher’s work seems less tied to earth and creaturely activity. The laborer, who spends most of his time working with material reality, cannot be as spiritual as the preacher, who deals with immaterial things — “the things of the Lord” — a higher level of reality. But the Bible says that all things are the Lord’s. Unfortunately, what someone once observed of philosophy could also be said of modern theology and Christian activity: “a series of footnotes to Plato.”

When we look at the lives of the Revivalists, we can see the needless suffering they endured because of their unbiblical concepts of reality. John Wesley had a very unhappy marriage: his wife constantly opposed him in his work, physically assaulted him on occasion, and finally left him. She is usually condemned (or dismissed as insane) by his biographers, but we should approach this matter with care. Here was a woman who was often left alone while her husband was out evangelizing and organizing, doing “the Lord’s work.”

But notice what the Bible demands of a church officer: he must he a godly husband and father, governing his home faithfully, loving his wife sacrificially, as Christ loved the church. The Old Testament required that a newly married man. “shall not go out to war, neither shall he be charged with any business: but he shall be free at home one year, and shall cheer up his wife which he hath taken” (Deut. 24:5). Surely this reveals God’s major concern for the home and family. The wife is a helper, and marriage is an asset, not a liability. But the revivalists often considered marriage a hindrance, and they accorded to soul-saving a priority over the clear demands of Scripture.

In examining Wesley’s troubles, therefore, we must ask: Who deserted whom? We cannot excuse Wesley on the mere grounds that many were converted under his ministry. God used him, as He has used many who disobeyed Him. God’s sovereignty is no excuse for man’s irresponsibility. Wesley’s ministry was lawless: soul-saving does not take priority over a man’s duty to his wife.

Whitefield’s marriage was certainly not the stormy ordeal that was Wesley’s, but he held the same distorted view of its proper place. Elizabeth Whitefield was apparently able to cope with the loneliness that had broken Mrs. Wesley. Still, she came to see herself as “nothing but a load and burden to him.” He was engaged in spiritual work, and made no attempt to hide the fact that he “looked back longingly on the days when there had been no husbandly responsibilities to hinder his service for the Lord.”

Again, these men often felt it was their duty to live as close to poverty as possible, and much of their activity was spent in trying to take care of the debts they incurred. Their sermons and writings flow incessantly with longings to leave earth and go to heaven — a common theme in evangelical hymns since their time. The fact that the Bible tells us little about heaven, and a great deal about our duties on earth, seems not to have occurred to them.

As I noted, Whitefield was better than most. His meetings never approached the irrational fervor (e.g., spasms, fainting fits and glossolalia) that were common under the ministry of many of his contemporaries. His humility and willingness to be corrected were exemplary, and guarded him from the errors into which many of his colleagues fell. But in the course of bringing revival, he and the other preachers took the reigning philosophical ideas and presented them as Christian orthodoxy. Christianity became a mystical experience of the spirit, rather than the whole man submitting all his thought and activity to the covenantal demands of Jesus Christ.

This false spirituality has tainted virtually everything in the last two centuries of evangelicalism. Consider two ways in which it has affected Christian schools. First, in contradiction to Scripture, teachers are often paid the lowest wages possible. Why? Because, like preachers, they are doing “the Lord’s work”; it is a ministry, and they should therefore be satisfied with their heavenly reward. The laborer is worthy of his hire unless he’s in “full-time Christian service.” (Incidentally, when Paul said elders should be paid “double honor,” he meant double wages. I’m not sure how much “double wages” are, but I’ll bet my Social Security it’s more than minimum wage.)

Secondly, Christian schools are often seen as centers for evangelism: instruction and preparation of the children for godly dominion in every sphere of life takes second place. We want the kids to get saved, but we don’t bother much with things such as economics, law, labor principles, training in useful trades, preparing for family life, and so on. This is not a practice derived from Scripture. It derives from our view that man’s purpose on earth is to get saved. Period. (A variation might be that man’s purpose is to get saved, and then to get everybody else saved, but that’s about the extent of it.) But man’s purpose is godly dominion — salvation is necessary in restoring fallen man to the place where he can again serve God as ruler over the earth. This central Biblical teaching was neglected in the revivals, and that crucial omission was the deathblow for Christian dominion in the following generations. True, the face of England was remarkably changed — evidence that the revival was genuine — but the nation as a whole was not captured. Eventually, the good fruit of the movement was taken over by the humanists — and there, I think, is a lesson. Many in our day are praying for another Whitefield-type revival. But if it is not accompanied by Scriptural reformation and Christian reconstruction, it will fail