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





whether in Australia, Europe, the UK, Russia or the US
(See also: News 73)


   Brussels, a marvellous new parliamentary complex, a massive edifice, an architectural declaration, worthy of the centralist thought it represents.  Thus Time Magazine (June 21, 1999) relays the caption for the Brussels affair: "le caprice des dieux", rendering it, "the folly of the gods". The sense is there: the gods. The power and pretension, the height and the aspiration: BRUSSELS!

Gods ?

This aspect reminds us of Psalm 82, so often misused by JW's who fail to see, or seem to indicate they fail, the intense and devastating irony there! These 'gods' are asked: "How long will you judge unjustly" ? But of them, it is also  said,

·       "they know not, neither will they understand; they walk on in darkness".  To these He declares:

·       " I have said, You are gods, and all of you are children of the Most High, but you shall die like men... Arise O God and judge the earth!"

Pseudo-gods, plastic pretenders, false christs, false prophets, presumptuous disposers of men by their own power, ecclesiastical mafia, judicial frauds, these are well-known in the earth, then as now.
Cultural objects or human pretenders alike, they DIE LIKE MEN! THEIR resurrection is to the files or the vials of judgment!

As to the latter, like gods they act without light, without restraint, judgment is theirs, and they misuse it, which then rewards them! The point is strengthened further in the Hebrew where the term 'gods' CAN be used simply to refer to the powerful and mighty: not by any confusion, but simply because the concept of strength is there. Thus while in II Samuel 7:23 you see the same term applied with the singular verb for the true God (triune and majestic as in Isaiah 48:16, but one Being asin 45:22-25), its deployment for the false gods is with the plural ending (many idols as in Psalm 96, making simply a number of objects). What is meant is shown not only by this majestic singularity of the one true God, and there is no other: but by the contextual lampooning of the absurd pretensions, which cannot even beat death, of the false and the fraudulent: whether they be idols explicitly, or merely the self-adulation of those satirically exposed by the true God in this way.

The case is not different today (cf. SMR Chs. 8 -  9, A Spiritual Potpourri Chs. 1 -3, Repent or PerishCh. 7

, Joyful Jottings  5). If these absurd creations or spiritual provocateurs can DO ANY THING, let us see it! in effect, the Lord challenges (Jeremiah 10-11, Isaiah 41:21-42:7, 48:2-8, John 14:11, 15:21-23, Acts 14:8-20). But neither morally, spiritually nor in dynamic presence over nature directly wrought, is anything to be seen! Broken lives, broken matter and broken homes are almost look alikes as the prodigies of fleshly enthusiasms without God, proceed in their duly appointed paths.

Jesus stands as in all things, alone. Incorruptible and immutable, He is yet available, effective, of great of heart, the very criterion of holiness, and eternal life revealed.

Yet, almost as if hypnotised, tinkering with the watch, man fails to know the watch-maker, and this in such multitudes that the world is askew all the time:

  • disdaining service from the source that is needed, or
  • inventing services that do not operate where needed;
  • increasingly out of time,
  • rejecting the Gospel of Christ the Lord,  so long presented; and meanwhile,
  • walking freely, out of line, falling over the edges and precipices of calamity.

Yet it is not out of sight, but rather immersed in revealing solvents that do nothing to remove reality,
but merely scour lives before judgment.

Where is the power of the puny innovators, these idolaters of naturalism, humanism and secularism!

Thus in Psalm 82 there is the report.  It is an evaluation and degradation of these so impudently and punily  ‘divine’. The judgment of God on these pretenders possesses a tungsten tipped, steely irony (cf. Ezekiel 28:9, and II Cor. 11, where Paul speaks of false apostles, another spirit and another gospel that IS NO OTHER); just as in II Samuel 7 there is the elaborate contrast between the God who made Himself a name, and the gods of the nations from which, as from their nations, God has redeemed His people.

Thus we read: "I have said, 'You are gods and all of you are children of the Most High.'
But you shall die like men..." - Psalm 82:6-7; and Ezekiel 28:9 is yet more trenchant in irony,
"Will you still say you are god when I slay you!"

Of Gods, there is ONE. Of pretenders there is any number and the Jehovah’s Witness movement seems determined to make use of them, whom God condemns in this very Psalm! It is old. It is also new. The trend and the use of creature for Creator is both immemorable and from time immemorial.
It is so, always has been so since man had time to develop his impostures and impositions in the field of the divine; and likewise there always has been, and will be one triune God, singular in being, triune is persons, attested super-abundantly in word as in deed (cf. John 14:9ff., Repent or Perish Chs. 2,  5,  7).

Some want to split up His majesty, making various disgusting substitutes, either sexually, philosophically or psychologically, either self-centred, society centred, or spiritually centred in some imaginary ether of the universe, some material which is mere repository of laws, some thought wave that lacks a mind, a source, a cause or self-sufficiency, a product unproduced, undetected and without operational visibility; thus one that lacks reality, power, and hence omits, so conveniently, the need to be OBEYED! Such 'gods' may be presented to society and culture by legal pen at the quill of those retained for the purpose; but their function is facade and their future death. There is but one God, and it is He who has displayed Himself in flesh as man as He promised (Micah 5:1-3, Isaiah 48:16, Zechariah 2:8, Psalm 45, Isaiah 43, 52-53); and man is His invention. The misdirected inventivenss of man alike attests the wonder of the Creator and the woe of the abuse of His gifts.

Brussels ...

But to return to Brussels, "the caprice of the gods", the whim, the idle frothy thought of the gods, of the mighty, of those who abound in their own importance, casting about their power for whatever purposes seem good, awaiting arrest as they rise like wax to be melted, somewhere in the clouds of their thoughts, by the sun. It is an old theme. It has a new face. This Brussels face is described as "the gargantuan parliamentary complex in Brussels". Strasbourg meanwhile, with its insistence on annual meeting in plenary session of the European parliament in its midst, has another gorgeous structure. So Europe progresses towards self-identification. If these affairs (pp.32 ff.) are rich, then parallel are those noted in Time on p.30.

Amidst the frustrations and power, the aspirations and difficulties, the US presence and the Russian complaint, registered in the Kosovo capital's captured airport (for how is that not capture which imposes its sovereign will on the NATO warriors, without agreement through consultation, grasping raspily the very location chosen as its centre!), so that the NATO rule will not take over in Serbia without formal thrust from beyond it: amidst all this, there is, says Time, a pressure for something else.


And that ? "a European defense identity", which it characterises as "a code word for a military compact operating from (perhaps even against) the United States." The Bosnian 'solution' of having a US General in charge, who is not under NATO as such, has been quoted and noted. But solution to what ? And is there not already in the WESTERN EUROPEAN UNION of 10 nations (cf. SMR pp. 957-958 ) such an identity ? Or is it that there is need for more specific ascriptions of power, place ?

Is the US to become merely as in Ezekiel 38-39's exposition of the coming assault on Israel (see SMR Appendix A, one of the 'young lions' of Tarshish, of the Gentile rulers (Isaiah 66:19 - and cf. Dr Lawrence Duff-Forbes' "Peril from the North", pp. 83ff.)? It certainly appears that way, with its massive debt, its moral collapse in the affair of President Clinton, who actually had the 'courage' to dub a Senator who objected to his continuance on the ground that he had breached the necessary fabric of TRUST in his actions, 'self-serving'. This denigration of the Senator occurred in a TV interview of long duration, in the Jim Lehrer review recently. The President's statement statement was this: It was self-serving to be disinclined for his leadership. Why ? It was allegedly because this implied that the Senator did not LIKE Mr Clinton (not the issue as actually stated in the interview). By a logical slide, this was presented by Mr Clinton as equivalent to the concept the Senator had voiced, which was something quite different: namely, that TRUST being assaulted, relative to the President, the Commander-in-chief, therefore co-ordination and co-operation was compromised for mighty acts and vast deeds, such as this war. That appeared to be the reality affecting the Senator; and indeed, when trust is breached over a long period, the question does, should and must arise whether it is wise to put all the national eggs of defence in one, indeed in that basket.

Nevetheless the presidency rolls on. No rebuke! Nothing. The nation continues, and evidently with it, that incredible concept, reportedly pushed earlier in the CIA, that moral power and faithfulness is NOT an issue, but rather the power to perform. Perform, however, just what ? Perform in faithfulness to such slight affairs as due order, mandate, reliability in crisis, accountability at all times, moral perception of the actual order of priorities that is not confused with a few phrases and clichés, but heart-deep, intensely felt and operable even when the mud is knee-deep ?

It is NOT a question of a fault which, as with the famed King David of Israel, comes and is repented of:
It is rather one of a vast splendour of "investigation", argumentation, prima facie equivocation and so forth, and allowing this admitted and multiple misuse of presidential authority in the very place of power and in its interstices of operation, as not really "relevant" enough to require action IN THE END! So Washington has acted, or non-acted. Could not other military commanders do the same; and argue; and have long sessions of review; and continue in their affairs as they would ? with no tangible result ? and with very tangible consequences ? What of that sort of performance ? The nation is asking for what, alas, it is very likely to get. Cost cutting and economic power is booming in many ways; virtuous ideals in the nation's political heart seem increasingly to be wearing a pimply face.

With trillions in debt, and moral vacuum coming into vogue, and indeed "the religions" becoming a way of handling social needs with some in political power, as an item for the agenda, are we not moving in the the case of the US, towards the Empire of Rome of old, with its many gods... gods who nevertheless die like men, UNLIKE THE LORD JESUS CHRIST. It is He, in the short history of the United States, who is the signally rich heritage of that land, a place now debased, as for long, since the ludicrous power-play concepts of Kissinger, and before.

If POWER, in its drab bastions, its pluses and minuses, in the arena of nations, really were the REALITY with which to bargain and to make concords and resolutions of problems, what then

  • of vision,
  • of spiritual victory, or
  • of moral power, not pretentiously perfect, but in principle incorruptible and with sound practice, what
  • of the leadership of high aims, godly ambitions ?

THIS, for such an approach to politics and international bargaining: nothing! That is how far this once great land has fallen in this regard, in its contrivings and conceiving at the high level of strategic interplay.

  • Even in World  War II, Churchill could call forth some of these elements so that even The Australian, in its insert, This Living Century (June 12-13, '99), can acknowledge the inspiring effect of his leadership, citing this, from him: The nation had "the lion's heart, to which I gave the roar". Indeed, one of the leaders from Communism could acknowledge his, as a case where one man had affected history.
  • Yet it was more than the man: it was the cry which he made, the receptivity for such a cry and the love of freedom, the relish of defiance of right against wrong, against the degradation of slavery to the cries and caprices of mere force, and the long tradition of rejecting, rebutting and resisting power whether that of Rome, as in the Reformation and the Spanish Armada, or of any other non-divine source. Indeed, Churchill could have cried to higher vision and greater power than this; but even at this level, the power to affect that prodigy of divine power in creation, mankind, was marked enough. Nor did he fail at times, to refer to the Almighty.
  • But this is far from the concept of power politics, the interchange and inter-relationship of the terrestrial 'realities', the military, economic and such considerations. Hence the greatest weapon of all, throughout all history, the reality of the truth, the courage to follow it and the vision of the Lord whose word is enshrined in the Bible and whose power is undiminished throughout all ages, this is lost in the power-bargaining and the mundane, the secular with its lowly squalor and dead eyes. A mere dog-fight of curs becomes the centre of attention, and what cynicism asserts, becomes the coin of this military and political commerce.
  • True, there is still talk of some objectives such as freedom, but freedom for what ? for immorality, for confusion, for many gods, for such an erosion of reality that the "religious" can have many gods, or one, or two, or harsh ones or HUMANITARIAN ones which regrettably are not very strong, or PEACE AT ALL PRICES even if the Russians freely take over land in Europe, or threaten to do so: a befuddled, muddled, muddy discomfiture of dirt and devices, with ill-defined pseudo-morals adrift in the quagmire!

Not that it is specifically the US to which such things are limited. It is not, for example, the case that the past President of France was a moral icon: no, this is not the point. It is rather that the US, taking over a leading role in international affairs, now can bend its head in its political and international activities in such a way as this, following the earlier British moral capitulation to Rome in the various visits of royal personages to that city from the famed religion of which, the land long ago righteously divorced itself. This was even shown in the words even of an Archbishop of Canterbury, when he spoke concerning the propriety of Papal Chairmanship of the Churches (A Question of Gifts, pp.65ff.): in such a way, Britain has joined the flock of the dispossessed NATIONALLY.

Of course in both lands, Britain and the US,  there are many who know the Lord. This again, is not the present point. It is the STATE OF THE NATION as a political entity which is the point. It is the decline, not merely quantitatively, but qualitatively.

With such leadership dwindling on BOTH sides of the Atlantic, and in Britain, the at least ostensible impact of Protestant, of Biblical and of moral power and force signally departing from the national arena, both godly vision and moral truth at  that level are draining away, like wash-up water, first dirtied and then let to flow out of the place.

In Europe, meanwhile, with Britain increasingly having the RELIGIOUS appendage appearance, the trend is for

1.   the economic, the political, the administrative

2.   the military and the operational 'realities' of the United States of Europe, with due reference to its 'historic' ... shall we say, past,

to become the aspirant medium: reluctant a little, lordly rather more.

Such is the breathing of that Brussels beast, of power without Christ ruling without fear, in this increasingly polyglot, poly-religion European Parliament.

De Gaulle's grandeur was not a mere passing phase, nor was that of the Kaiser, nor for that matter, that of Napoleon. Empire dominion and domination has shaken the lands and the world often enough from this source. Now ? Growing in intimacy and with Britain in train, it ponders anew its destiny.

Europe has indeed been so often eroded, in so much and for so long, and so devastated with such might in World War II, so harassed and harrowed in quasi-World War III - the Cold One. Yet HERE, in this growing conglomerate of heavily disciplined dynamic, is the increasing IDEAL, the formative VISION ... but of what ? Well that is just the point. It is a muddy, murky vision. It CANNOT, if it is to be centred in itself, have any basis but Rome; and that is, to speak directly, a little difficult. Thus perhaps something of the KIND of thing, some compromise such as is being forced in Ireland, some concoction, some construction, perhaps this could be managed, should, must be sought out, wrought out.

So does the 'necessity' loom; for the spirit of the Age says clearly these two things: that Europe must ALL BE ONE, for one and of one; and that the ONE TO RULE MUST NOT BE GOD (precisely, indeed, as in Luke 19:14 - "We will not have this man to reign over us!" - the man there being God as man, Jesus the Christ, relayed by parable, apparent as judge). It is as simple as that. Indeed, this is a cry which is heard in the UN and one which echoes in the misplaced entities which loom where the heart of man should be.

With such encouragement to UNITY and POWER to OPERATE, such RESOLUTION of the forces and means that Kosovo showed to be SO important, and with such tensions, the incorrigibly inventive spirit of man, a fine thing when in its place, but endlessly outrageous when it becomes the spirit of "the gods", who nevertheless 'will die like men': with THIS, comes the next phase. It moves towards the spurious new 'unity' as Biblically predicted; and that is of the utmost importance in this review of news in the setting of world history and Creator’s News in the Bible (cf. SMR pp. 726ff., 750Bff.). The spirit of Babel (Genesis 11, Revelation 13:17-18, cf. Biblical Blessings Ch.2), in its ultimate fiasco is ready to bloom.  In Australia we are already seeing what may be some artful preliminaries.


In the same issue, Time magazine refers without too much clarity or concern, to the new telecommunications law which is showing desire to VET, to PRUNE, to INHIBIT, yes, let us say it, to CENSOR internet content which is ... ILLEGAL (if the laws are good, that is good, but when are the laws centred in truth, these days, when the very meaning of the term (cf. SMR Ch.3) is not fashionable to define. Illegal ? yes that is to be prohibited. But that is not all. Expression on the internet which is to be removed, remedied or crushed, which is "offensive", says Time.

Offensive to whom ? To bigots who do not like Jesus Christ, and consider that to proclaim the Bible is offensive ? It has been done. It happened in this State, even in a program on radio which was nothing but straight Biblical exposition. It MIGHT offend someone! It COULD be offensive! Christian love and concern was interpreted to mean hate;  but that is merely the politesse, the diplomacy of iron in the affairs of broadcast. It was a libel on Christ, but then it was not exactly put in writing, merely the refusal and the law were sent. What law ? Incredibly something about 'ancient hatreds', thus libelling the Bible which is the doctrine of love! So it goes when social groups, be they radio or political, or as in this current case, political appointees such as the Australian Broadcasting Commission or its adjuncts, are put in charge of liberty.

  • It is not that the pornographic abuse of  the immature, the call to arms, to physical violence, the facilitators of filth and wild sprees of hatred against the safety of citizens is not a just subject for concern and law. Nor would it have been at all hard to LIMIT to such considerations, in any Law or proposed law, in any inhibition or restraint, in fact, any CENSORSHIP. Such restraint in the Bill is not however at all apparent!


  • It is that this concern should not be the COVER for a BOOK now being written,  about freedom and its loss; should not be  the entry into a whole fiord of narrowness now boldly sailed into, one , which allows, indeed requires, the objectionable to be the absent. Objectionable to whom ?


  • Against what is objection not made in the name of the current, the contemporary 'gods' from the days of the Ephesians riots with Paul (Acts 19) to now ? Actually, the terminology of the case, the PURPOSE of the law is rather hard to find, in terms of the SCOPE OF THE PROHIBITIONS allowed for ... On p. 3 of the 70 page presentation of the BILL for the 3rd reading, we find this: the procedure in view has THIS objective. It is "to restrict access to certain Internet content that is likely to cause offence to a reasonable adult".

That is it. It is terse, concise, taut. WHO ARE these reasonable adults ?

The question has been secularly asked since Plato ... and HE AT LEAST had some concept of the righteousness of God, as seen in the Timaeus (cf. SMR p. 1005), though his relevant material, for our present purpose, in The Republic, deals rather with the ends of things, based in some concept of the good which is undefined. Rulers who have the vision splendid, special to themselves alone, are to direct the affairs of lesser beings. They literally then become a law to themselves.

Now in our Australian case*1, there is not even any vision splendid assumed, be it ever so inchoate, so confused or so uncertain. It is just what is acceptable to the "reasonable". This confused rhetoric is an abyss. 'Likely to' cause OFFENCE ? Some are offended when alcohol is not freely available at a wedding, some when immediate retribution is not measured out to offenders, some when any retribution is measured out to them, instead of psychological affairs and suspended sentences. The mighty, the gods, have ever new combinations and perorations in morals, in ethics, in principles, or in being unprincipled as the only just principle, so humorously twitted by Sir Humphrey in 'Yes Minister', in terms of what was presented as an operationally appropriate "moral vacuum"*2, on which he doted as a civil servant.

The thought is not so acrid to reality as all that, but it is nevertheless an invitation to morbidity in morals. NOT doing this because it might offend THESE persons, interests, groups, cultural components, this element of the spirit of the Age, whatever:  and not quite putting something this way or that, in case THOSE will complain: where does this horror story lead, a narrative of subterfuge and indirection, of fake and obsession with the comfort zone at the expense of truth. Where indeed does it lead ? The subtle and diplomatic art of selling truth to avoid "offence" on the part of those always 'reasonable' gods: is it not common as dirt ? Dirt, however, being not morally culpable for its state, is preferable.

The morally gutless sacrifice of Christ is one thing: that is common in all races and not new to any government. What however of the refusal to allow those who do not so capitulate,  to present the CONFRONTATION OF GOD ? What of the not uncommon case where the populace is to be PROTECTED from the FREE presentation of  the ULTIMATUM OF THE ALMIGHTY, which on its obverse side, is THE GOSPEL OF THE FAITH, the ESCAPE HATCH FOR SINNERS and the WAY HOME FOR THIS WANDERING RACE, and the ONLY ONE ? It is this:  the refusal to allow Christians to point this out, is of course the last stage in the moral obliteration of any people.

It is like hospitals REFUSING people not only the liberty to HAVE medicines, if they can stop it, but making it an offence to TELL them of their existence or availability or both!

Will it happen here ? It is often said, ‘Of course it couldn't happen!’ It is always 'of course not', until it does! THAT is the trend. The NAZIS COULD NOT be as bad as Churchill said; and the COMMUNISTS HAD TO BE GOOD in essence, some carrying the delusion to the point that 10 million slowly whittled down 'offensive' labourers in Siberia or corpses in the groves and the dirt, did not alter this persecution! Such is fanaticism. Judgments are one thing; delusions are another, and self-serving luxuricrats (if one may coin a term), the fatter end of the leading bureaucrats, dead to vision and simple oppressors of the people whom they affect to serve: what were they like ? They were like doctors who had mistaken their calling for that of morticians, and whose call was, Kill where necessary, and use up the (human) goods in service where possible, in Siberia preferably, it is so far away!

That of course is an end product of false vision, fatuous vision, pretentious and mendacious vision, which neither helps nor could help, but it was defended in many an Australian institution of learning while Russia was strong, even to the point that one body happily announced that what was actually HAPPENING in Communist countries was not to the point. It was all theory - the Communist dream! Some concession for ‘scientific socialism’ as it was vaingloriously termed (cf. The Shadow of a Mighty Rock  - SMR pp. 925-928).

All that then, is a possible consequence in ONE DIMENSION of the loss of freedom, of that enervating failure to have COMPETITION of ideas, DEBATE of issues, and falsifying the ring by tying one hand of one contestant behind his back, or both; or just shooting him.

It is the eternal desire of the devil to prevent free competition in the realm of religion, for the very simple reason that he HAS to lose. His case is false, his claims are fraudulent. Never has one found that where truth is free, error triumphs, in nearly half a century of Christian living. The Biblical position is - as shown on this site and in particular in SMR - not merely right systematically and formally,  it is without logical contestants, in the end, all becoming invalid, while the word of truth verifies itself with the same aplomb as it is in the first place, demonstrable to be true: on all sides.

There is good enough REASON to prevent freedom of speech, or so to harass it that people for safety’s sake will not speak freely, or cringe victims of conscience, before the expected slap, to be delivered with high legal tone, by ‘the gods’, in the face of the Lord; for after all, Christ had to be silenced, as the priestly party acknowledged, for OTHERWISE all men would follow Him (John 11:47-53).

What then ? "You know nothing at all," said the High Priest as the party gloomed about the following Christ was obviously gaining, and which could swamp the land, they felt. So the deadly silence continued to its end in murder. The objective truth was murdered (John 14:6), and ever since, the treatment accorded to His presentation is frequently barbarous, and sometimes sophisticated, but in whichever way it moves, the assault is continual. Sometimes it becomes law, hiding even in alleged religious liberties, as in Russia. Sometimes it becomes a cause of judicial murder if one of those whom Christ called in advance ‘false christs and ‘false prophets’ (Matthew 24:24, John 14:6) who would abound, is exposed, or even criticised. Such has often enough happened with the doctrine of the Pope, and of Muhammad (cf. SMR 989ff., 1080ff.)

WHERE the denial of freedom leads is one thing, and empirically it is interesting to watch the various directions this action takes; THAT it leads astray however in a palpitating democracy is quite sure. The balance of powers politically has long and well been argued by Locke, and freedom is one mode of access, essential in universities, in schools and in politics, in the Press and in books, in the electronic media and in the street. Where it is denied, the  REASON for such godlike assumptions on the part of authority is one question; and the RESULT is another.

It happened in Russia, and naturally "it cannot happen here"!

Why ? Because we have had Christian Prime Ministers like Sir Robert Menzies They are not with us now. Because God Almighty is enshrined in the preamble to the Constitution ? It may be changed. In any case, with the English official religious pattern now obscure even to that nation, to judge by its numerous changes and various aspirations (cf. The Other News 13, A Question of Gifts pp. 65), the definition of that term, perfectly clear at the time of 1901, is not so allowed now. A socially NON-OBJECTIONABLE, that is acceptable 'compromise' could allow Allah with NO SON, to be merged with the Lord with ONE, to make a very pinnacle of power bow to the machinations of "the gods", who nevertheless will die like men, and meet their Maker, as Churchill reputedly put it, "soon enough".

A socially NON-OBJECTIONABLE - that is ‘acceptable compromise' - could perhaps allow Allah with NO SON, to be merged with the Lord with ONE, to make a very pinnacle of power bow to the machinations of "the gods", who nevertheless will die like men, and meet their Maker, as Churchill reputedly put it, "soon enough". Perhaps they will make this mockery, or something like it, subject to the State, by sundry laws*3 and exclusions in practice, and so ‘Caesar’ could rejoice with others of his ilk, from long ago, now in the grave. (See Matthew 22:21 - thus God was to have the whole heart and mind and strength in His service and worship, by the first and greatest commandment, in love; Caesar dealt with moneys and civic order, as illustrated by the coin).

However truth is not available for further mutilation. It was done once in fine old style, on the Cross. Its merger, its synthesis with sin, its dismissal, its prohibition (in terms where there are any nails, that is, that pierce below the fleshy surface of futile wordings to obscure their reality, and that of Him into whose flesh they bore they message of hostility which continues, world-wide in the courts of the great), what is this ? This is the norm when the Babel spirit is out, when what is 'likely to be objectionable to a reasonable adult' becomes the criterion of liberty, as sure as the winds, as secure as the waves, as ill-defined as the clouds, nugatory, nebulous, nubilous extravaganzas of  unholy humbug, waving phrases, not praises, and making the very waves the ruler.

Yet Europe ? What of that ? It proceeds on its appointed path (Daniel 7, cf. SMR 720ff. - *10a, 683ff., 886ff., 918ff., 955ff.) very well. The British have subdued the Ireland question of Biblical territory (this is not to comment in the least on how well or how badly liberty was allowed in a people who rightly sought to  make the Bible the national rule, in ideal). They have made their own fair isle, Shakespeare's demi-paradise to bow in thought at least to alien and unBiblical influences. No longer is it an assured  centre of liberty, but a place in active meddling with what has a far different name - and that on the part of the official, national church. The US is to no small degree in the grip of power-politics, pragmatic 'realities', which is about the only real thing about this diffuse mass, the name! indeed, this has even been gloried in.

The stage is prepared, and so Europe is ready to proceed, in the pangs of 'necessity' - to what ? To the new and predicted power structure to be developed, which has a 'European identity' lodged in defence, for reasonable European beings, in their mergers and rigours, to invent. That sort of piper of course, insists on being paid - well; and perhaps he is, right down to inistence on first-class plane fares - even if , it is reported in that same issue of Time (p.33) , that mode of transport is not actually opted. Palaces of Government arise, and the sky, it might seem, is the limit. Above the sky, of course, there is creative power and wise insight of the all-knowing God.


Meanwhile, the Russian maverick position, a case rather like that of son on pocket money from his dad, crashing the family car, illustrated rather well in the airport take-over, something which however impermanent it may be, is likely at least to have some more permanent consequences, either in Kosovo or Europe or both.

  • The predicted attack  from the NORTH by a multi-national force  vehemently set against Israel, in the midst of this bifurcation of Russia and Europe,
  • together with the 'pan-Islam' thrust (Teheran Conference, SMR pp. 814-815)  to "islamicize" all opposition to Israel in unified assault-ready postures towards that land (cf. SMR   pp. 510ff., 516ff., and Appendix A ),
  • and the combination of loose atomic weapons in Russia and Moslem states only loosely attached to whatever Russia is or now wishes to become:

it is all in the exact Biblical line. It is like a submarine lining up its missile tubes, slowly, but surely, in a cat-and-mouse game in the Atlantic, towards an aircraft carrier, together with its pack, until the moment comes.

JOY! This is joy. Do not show me sorrow! say the exasperated.

But it is! Do you not feel it ? It is a joyful thing to see men like ants lining up for what the directions say. Joyful ? Yes, it shows as all things do, the power and sovereignty of God, the precision of His testimonies, the unhurried, unflurried performance criteria (Isaiah 48) being met as normal, and the world as witless as blind, and as deaf as defiant, moving to its appointed roasting (cf. Revelation 16:15-16, 19:19 ff. Micah 3:5, 7:16ff., Malachi 4, 3:1ff.).


And that ? THAT is joy ? Why yes. It shows as always the incomparable competency, the remorseless efficiency, the untouchable power, the unfathomable wisdom of the God who speaks, and who in speaking, sent His own WORD incarnate to the world, so that we might behold His grace and glory as of the only begotten of the Father, the Son whose ways are everlasting (Micah 5, John 5, 8:58), gracing our poor terrestrial establishment (impoverished by sin, compromised by divine curse on its folly, but engraced by the offers of divinity from the heights of infinite power and glory). Efficiency gives joy ? Yes again. When GRACE is efficient, it comes. When holiness if powerful, it goes.

Accordingly, when the Gospel is infinitely powerful in its base and the word of the One who gives it moves quietly to its effects, like a warship gliding from its launching into the silently receptive waters (cf. Barbs, Arrows and Balms 17), this is a a cause for joy. It is NOT a matter of feeling only, but of fact. Its basis is not for man, but from God. As Paul put it:

  • "I make known to you brethren, that the gospel which as preached by me is not after man, for I neither receive it of man, neither was I taught it , but by the revelation of Jesus Christ." Small wonder he also declares: "I marvel that you are so soon removed form Him who called you into the grace of Christ to another gospel, which is not another; but there are some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ. But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than that which we have preached to you, let him be accursed. As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other gospel to you than what you have received, let him be accursed. For do I now seek the favour of men, or of God ? Or do I seek to please men ? For if I yet pleased men, I should not be the servant of Christ."

All this is found in Galatians 1. Its echoes course through the faces and abysses of  the universe. The universe ? Yes, and this is intense joy, in the midst of the moral gloom and spiritual vacuities of man's words: "He is the Head of the Church ...It pleased the Father that in Him should all fulness dwell and, having made peace through the blood of His cross, by Him to reconcile all things to Himself - by Him, I say, whether they be things in earth, or things in heaven."  That is in Colossians 1.

So history surges and resurges to its conclusion. But the conclusion that matters, that has been mouthed by God for thousands of years, and the message, like its Speaker, never changes. REPENT and BELIEVE in HIM, who is the only begotten of the Father, who has manifested God to man, God expressive; and RECEIVE HIM so receiving the peace which He has made, and provides, for many. HE is as defined in history and the Bible; the peace is as provided and the basis is as stated (Galatians 3:1-13 is one simple expression of it, II Cor. 5:19ff. another, and John 3 personalises it from a case).

Sale prices for God are very common, and have been since Judas and before (cf. Zechariah 9:6, 11:11-13, 13:6). Friends ? There are friends and friends ... In Zech. 13:6 we read this:

  • "And one shall say to Him, What are these wounds in Thy hands ? Then He shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends."

Zechariah  12:10 further specifies the actions which, once performed on Jesus Christ when God the Father gave man the opportunity to express himself towards Him: "They shall look upon Me whom they have pierced!", then became integumental to the history of mankind. Indeed, as that particular prophecy loomed on the horizon,  then opened up, and finally happened in history, that His hands should be pierced, the very 'hands' which with pre-incarnate power had fashioned the Universe (cf. John 1:1-3). As then the intolerance was expressed in His hands, being pierced, so now it is shown in all nations, towards the heart, which will not receive Him, so that one and all should fall.

Yet the joy ? It is that MANY will arise and conquer, in the conquests of Him who turned, in His wisdom, the crucifixion into the resurrection, the parade of assault on God to the empowerment of the assault on the cardinal horror of our race: its sin and the sentence of death which it both requires and gains. Intense is the joy in this: that THAT sentence has been quashed for all who receive Him, and that the brilliance of the plan of USING the hatred to SHOW the love, and turning the abuse, now so common throughout the earth, into OUR deliverance even from death, hs been consummated. History moves to its own consummation, when the lustre of Himself and His achievements will shine like the sun, just as already their light is the only one the world has - or for that matter needs.

Who so dull of heart, that seeing these things and knowing them, would not rejoice. There is NOTHING more to be done, except acceptance; there is no receipt to be gained, except the receipt of His presence; no PAYMENT is designated, but what He has paid already. As to that,  it is the transfer for us, to the accounts of believers in Him, of what He has done for us, so that what is freely and sincerely offered to all (I John 2:1-2), should become what is transferred to some, which awaits (Matthew 26:28, Romans 8:32,John 8:24,42-47, 10:26 in contradistinction to 10:27-28).

The superiority, it is His alone! This, it is not the complex but rather the very complexion of superiority, that of God over man, of sin-free spiritual beauty over sinners, of that love that ransoms over the failure that requires ransom!

And that truth, triumph, transfer, redemption ? that wonder in Christ ?

It is as near as

  • the spirit of man to man, as
  • the power of God to the universe, as
  • the prayer of repentance in faith, directed towards the ransoming Redeemer, receiving Him in truth, to the heart which utters it.

It is as far as are the pretentious and pretenders from humility, or the this-world glory-seekers, of whatever sect or variety, whether

  • ancient in Rome (cf. SMR pp. 986-993, 912-931, 946-957),
  • abundant in neo-Protestant recidivism ( SMR pp. 993-996, 861-867, 687ff., 699ff.),
  • reactionary in synthesis with aggressive but irrational Eastern exports (SMR pp. 1011ff., 1026ff., 996ff. ),
  • caught in New Age muddle that arrests like mud (SMR pp. 866ff.),
  • close in heady and high-minded Communism (SMR pp. 925ff., 586-587) ; or
  • fogged in any other of the 'Mystery Babylon Components' (SMR pp. 986-996, 727-732,750B., 923-931,, 1031C, 1080ff., 999-1002C, Biblical Blessings Ch.2, pp. 20ff.), that rush,
  • free as air and polluted as the haze over the Indian ocean, near to the size, now, of the USA!

Yet it is as close as the companionship of reality to those who love Him. Rejoice therefore; and if you fail to rejoice, use the grounds which make it fitting; and fit it does, it all fits...

Another matter for rejoicing ? It is this. The Kingdom of heaven "does not come with observation", but is "in your midst" - Luke 17:20. Indeed, the pith of the purpose of the Gospel, in one major thrust is this: "Christ in you, the hope of glory" - Colossians 1:27, and applicable to "every man" (1:28, cf. John 14:21ff.).

This reference to "within" or in the midst, was a rebuke to the power-profiteering Pharisees (cf. Matthew 23). The kingdom of heaven involves emotional, moral, spiritual and personal attributes, inter-relationships with God and leads to others with one another, which are in the end, heavenly. That is why it is the Kingdom of heaven, which is not only a destination, but the point of origin and only desirable destination, since it is the abode of God in its spiritual immensity, intensity and reality. For this reason, it is not primarily show or parade, architectural, governmental or diplomatic. Without the spirit which worships God, there is NOTHING. It is ONLY WHEN the spirit is put right (cf. Ezekiel 11:18-20, Jeremiah 31:33), that the outward forms can apply (cf. Isaiah 1, Psalm 51:17-19). It is when the point has been made amply and adequately, that the King will come in His splendour, even once more in history (cf. Matthew 24:36-51,21-30).

THAT is a splendour which is intrinsic, not artificial, acquired or imposed.




In the field of religion, there is an interesting feature, for Australia. Section 116 of the Commonwealth Constitution prohibits the Commonwealth from making


In this country, the UN Declaration on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination and Intolerance based on Religion or Belief is now law (see Mystery of Iniquity, Appendix 1, The Other News). In this UN Declaration, Article 1, para 2 is of particular interest.


 Coercion which might impair ... This means any denial or requirement which militates against such religious freedom, instituting reward for some (by having their religion imposed, or disposed advantageously), penalty for others, including of course the impairment which would make an uneven field in debate, declaration or intimation, such that one will be favoured above another, whatever the cultural climate might be.

  • This, regrettably is fundamentally violated

- as far as SA is concerned, and as in so far as its University structure is at last partly Commonwealth funded, and the State receives funds from the Commonwealth,

  • by a vast gulf set between creationism and evolutionism in the school structure, and in what has been described earlier in a University situation.

As to the School situation, see That Magnificent Rock, Ch.8. For the University, see Biblical Blessings Ch.11. The fact that such a slant as the present writer has found in University work, should exist, is not mitigated by the fact that the same is not uncommon in many other universities. It needs to be justified, not assumed as has been repetitively found in my own experience of universities, as student and teacher.

Let us proceed to the UN Declaration now, in Article 2, para 2. Here, having been told in para 1 that no one is to be subject to discrimination by any State, institution, group of persons or person on the grounds of religion or belief, we find what is MEANT by 'discrimination' in para 2.

Here it is to mean - that is, intolerance and discrimination based on belief,

  • "any distinction, exclusion, restriction or preference based on religion or belief and having as its purpose or as its effect nullification or impairment of the recognition, enjoyment or exercise of human rights and fundamental freedoms on an equal basis."

Rather amazingly this is quite clear.

This reinforces the Constitutional position for Australia in this respect. It is not only the INTENTION, but the RESULT which slants the board of play, or favours one party apart from the implements of freedom, or contrary to the licence of liberty, which is here forbidden: in removing equal opportunity. It is not even to AFFECT such liberty adversely! INTENTION AND RESULT ALIKE are prohibited!

Now clearly in the internet, if any religion were to be deemed UNDESIRABLE, for reasons other than what is deemed necessary (not ONLY prescribed by law, by ALSO NECESSARY, in Article 1, para 3) to "protect public safety, order, health or morals or the fundamental rights and freedoms of others", this would be illegal. EQUALITY of platform, provided the platform is not attacked to slant it, itself, is the essence of this: for "on an equal basis" is the phrase used. That is how the thing is to go. That is the MEANING of the freedom concerned. IF ANYONE can lay down the law in the MEDIUM chosen, or have an ADVANTAGE which freedom itself cannot secure, that is then illegal. FREEDOM is to have the say, not cultural preference, statistical evidence or even political wile. If ANYONE ELSE and everyone else can do the same, and they can meet and exchange or confront or whatever the logic of the case may require, that is equal. If some one party or body is favoured a priori, get this: it is illegal.

But let us go back a little. What is the stated PURPOSE of the UN Declaration which we are reviewing in some of its parts ? It is for one aspect, "to prevent and combat discrimination on the grounds of religion or belief". Clearly then, a result which combats freedom, which combats equality, which secures a quasi-aristocratic nod to some, and against others in the field of religious liberty, this is fundamentally, to use their so well loved word, astray. It is CONTRARY TO DECLARED PURPOSE in this Declaration. We are of course abundantly at liberty to interpret the document to mean what the declared purpose indicates it is to mean. But let us now proceed to the particular...

Now clearly if the UN wants to have all men regard each other as brothers

(and in one sense, as offspring of the Creator, they are - Acts 17;
while in another, Biblically and here relevantly,  some being rebels against reconciliation to Him, while others are reconciled and in His purchased, redeemed family, they are not,
some in fact being called "children of the devil" by Jesus Christ, quite explicitly - John 8:42-44 -
"You are of your father, the devil", those refusing Him being said to  "die" in "your sins"),

this is its own religion. Whatever its reasons, that is its religion.

It is an option, abstractly, but not in spiritual terms, for the Bible believing Christian, whose Christ is as described on those pages: that is, the orthodox Christian. Thus, the  UN Declaration in Article 5, paras 3 and 5 requires that a child should be brought up "in a spirit of ... universal brotherhood", and of "understanding". But what precisely is he/she to understand ? Why, that there is a tolerance about religion SUCH THAT we are all brothers in the religious (relevant, contextually) sense...This means that THAT part of the UN document is a travesty of the Articles 1 and 2.

That there should be a PEACEABLE and NON-VIOLENT, yes and an understanding attitude, yes again, and let one as a Christian go further, a loving attitude even to other religionists: this is one thing, and a good and a Christian thing. But that the understanding should be of some other kind, even a kind in part alien to the Bible, that is quite another matter.

The simple confusion is this: It is quite possible to LOVE someone, seek the welfare of that party earnestly, without in the least considering the position of that party, in religion correct, or other than exceedingly damaging to the one concerned. Love of liberty will NOT assail or assault the person, but love of the person will seek ways, as might a doctor for a sick person, of helping the outcome to be far superior to what is currently in view.

This then brings us to the heart of the matter. IF, and ONLY IF, there were NO TRUTH given to man about God, and His will, would this be in order. SINCE this is not the case, according to the Bible, then the faith which has this as its inspired writing from God, would be heavily discountenanced if those who held it were to be forced to consider, to think, to act as if the case stood differently. Indeed, there is LEGALLY not even to be an impairment of this necessary liberty, far less a mutation in this field! That is what the UN Declaration says.

Accordingly, since the UN is here on record as utterly against any such discrimination, it must interpret here the brotherliness so as not to clash with its liberty, and allow such concern for the welfare of others as above described, provided it does not transgress the stated will of the party concerned, as recipient. It must equally freely be made available to those who may opt to hear it, and hence be visible or audible in appropriate sites which one may visit to investigate and survey information.

Thus the Gospel must be freely narratable and audited. If this is not so, then those who have the brotherhood view for all men, religiously, would be given favour, and the others in the defined sense, discriminated against. The definition of discrimination must apply as given, so that although the brotherhood appears certainly to mean what it should not mean for 'neutrality' (that is not merely a created brotherhood, but a spiritual one, relevant to the religious topic in view), there is now a constraint to interpret it differently, if the UN means what it has just said.

Otherwise, on the basis of some sort of neutrality, it is merely a fraud in this area. Instead of not forcing this party or that, it prefers its own religion and insists on it for all! This is some impartiality! If then it proceeds with this brotherhood concept in context, it MUST be in fact be constrained to establish ITS OWN RELIGION IN THE FACE OF ANY AND ALL. That would be the RESULT (to use, once again, its own prohibited outcome, with its own chosen word for it). And that ? It is (in its own definition), what ?

  • It is, quite simply,  discrimination on the basis of religion or belief.

It would then be practising this in the very articulation of the law PROHIBITING IT! That ? It would be good for humour, but not for religion, ostensibly to be "protected". Protected ? In such a case, it would resemble the protection which imprisons a man.

The options are simple. Liberty must be real and not, as in totalitarian cases such as this document DEPLORES, merely factitious, indeed fictitious, an enterprise in words, which has as its purpose, or its result, the very bias and inhuman intrusion which it so detests (or of which it speaks in such terms!). THIS must be done, or else the UN itself will appear not merely as one doing violence to religion, but as hypocritically doing so, just precisely as was the case in Russia, which had all sorts of religious freedom in ideal and law, which in practice, through its State sacredness, it removed it as getting in the way. Necessary liberty thus tended to recline in the armchair of null liberty.

Hence the liberty to be concerned at religious issues and data, to express this, to relay it, to communicate its grounds in the love of Christ, and in such a way as to show His own regard for absolute truth, must for just one case, be uncurtailed electronically as in other media, in terms of this UN Declaration. It must not be nullified à la Russia of old, and not so very old, at that! and perhaps to some extent, even today. The Biblical teaching must thus be free, with liberty to express it with equality of opportunity not demeaned by a religious preference of 'establishment', whether this be acknowledged or not.

This is integumental to the UN Declaration. The RESULT must show this as well as the intention BE THIS. THAT is what it says. The next question or issue is simple: DO IT! If however the matter be taken the other way, and this imposition be made, favouring some, assailing the faith of others, there is only sham and shambles. Let us consider this.

WHEN a party has a sacredness in this or that imposed on law, or through law, that of course IS an aspect of the religion of that party, an indomitable, non-negotiable certainty of religion OR belief which is IMPOSED because it CANNOT BE OTHERWISE! That would make of the UN a new pope. The practice is far from new, but the international, global extent of it would be! It would also abundantly fulfil prophecy (cf. SMR pp. 683-707 etc.), and prepare for the end. THAT however would not make it better, merely a good example of the accuracy of Biblical prophecy, in its very malpractice and fraudulence, forestalled by the God whose predictions make the SCOOP OF THE UNIVERSE.

That said, let us hope that the UN will KEEP its own requirements and hence not abuse its powers; and that Australia, with a Prime Minister who has publicly deplored the practice of secreting international laws into the land through a legal device, without public scrutiny, assessment or eventually, vote of the people, will not fall for this one. It would be rather like the bowling of South Africa in the semi-final: very astute. The result ? the batsman, the government, would be OUT of bounds, and OUT of commitment to the people, and perhaps also OUT of its depth. That at least would be the preferred read-out, much better  than betrayal.

It has not happened yet. The Government has a fine time in which to show restraint, conscientious regard, thought and care, not legislating things both unconstitutional and contrary to UN 'law', in this area, but circumscribing its words with all due care. Thus can it achieve limitations against the misuse of force and of the young, without casting away the liberty which so many for so long have so prized, even fighting for something better than mere legislative betrayal.



It was not so, of course, since the MORALS were there in strength: DO NOT prevent administrative fluency and good odour, lest it corrupt progress up the tree of success. This is certainly immoral, since it pretends to serve, while being self-serving whether for a person, a sub-set or both, at the expense of the ostensible recipients. It is however a form of preference in values, and be it called anti-morals, or a negative form of morality, it certainly has a viewpoint on ‘the good’.




What then follows this early sort of action ?
What then, is  the next step ?

This is more 'advanced' altogether ? It is this: LICENCE TO  MIX what the State sanctions, or contrives, or both, to vitamise the permitted elements, in the field of religion.

Having made the brew, preferably with no label: Then insist they all get licences, this is the following gambit.

Then send scouts into the churches, masquerading as 'worshippers', to ensure they keep the 'Party Line' - but alas it is no party (terminus to that 'line' ? - hell!).

Then send police in because they didn't keep to the line, or because it is alleged they didn't. It does not make too much difference to the devoted negative bureaucrat: the police can do their stuff, however they get in, when they are in. At all events, get the police in to - shall we say, the dissidents...

The Chinese, it seems, have done something very like this - the Three Self Movement, a pitiful Buddhistic seeming quasi-Christian blight on the Christian truth, which for its own part, is this: that one is crucified with Christ and from Him takes one's life and food, so that from Him is one's fruit found (Hosea 14:8 -and study that chapter well for its delightful and evocative context, Luke 14:27ff). THAT is the Christian truth of which this three self sediment, for the actual Three, the Trinity, is a weak, socialised substitute, subsistence living in the place of the dynamic of the living God who has definitively and exclusively declared His truth for mankind in the Bible, in writing, and in Christ, in Person.

If bureaucrats do not happen in particular cases to believe this, this does not make an export licence proper for them to assail churches with their own platitudes, attitudes and paternalistic putsch. They seem very disinclined to argue, establishing anything by reason; but much predisposed to act, using mere debased force, as have some of the least of the other religions, in the past. After all, if reason is not available for a case, force is OFTEN SO USED.

Back home now, let us come for a moment. Make no mistake: What South Australia has begun in its Government Schools, fooling with schools, making authoritarian political intrusion into the fabric, design and limits of what is 'acceptable'  in phases of religion and academic affairs in schools: this is merely a testing of the waters. Some may know it; some may not: this is the function however, for the normal 'historical' development of oppression in such fields, these days.

Unless it be rebutted, assuredly more will follow. It IS rebutted, but with the lack of numbers in confrontation with this intrusive clamour, the government merely makes irrational noises, authoritarian sounds, not valid in any logical exercise, and goes on its thunderous path, the new Moses as if to ape the U.N..

Until clear-cut competition in the realm of ideas and theories is renewed in this blasted heath, and until the State stops its abysmally ignorant toying with religion (which however is not a toy, but in its spiritual, rational reality, when it is found where it righteously belongs: the truth), there is matter for judgment indeed. The subjectivistic substitution of feeling leads merely to the Government feeling what it feels like, leaving any form of rational reality as far off as the ocean from the desert. It is a gross insult to God, a surrender of common-sense, an authoritarian replacement of preferred fantasy, cultural conformity - which in this case is, rather hilariously, outdated as well - for tried and tested truth. It is an embargo on scientific method in the field where biology meets religion. Its skewed concepts and unbelievable bias is then exported to social studies and made into an entire recipe for fantasy, for the school.

But let us consider it. It is also the beginning of the governmentally autocratic end - where the State calls the shots in the field of religion, and proceeds to harass the  students who get in the way. How do they do this at present  ?

  • 1) Students are not ALLOWED to raise objective debate. It is subjective by definition at the outset.
  • 2) Teachers are not ALLOWED to give in strict scientific mode, the comparison of the contributions of creationism and evolutionism, relative their facility with the data.
  • 3) Principals are not ALLOWED to do it differently - a valid point, since in ONE STATE SCHOOL known to the author, merely as an example, the Principal allowed a due comparison of these approaches over a period of time, within and as science. This then of course suffered the impact of the embargo on competition.

And so on. It is treated in detail in That Magnificent Rock, Ch.8.

In discriminating against those who can attest and logically sustain a better way - whether parents of the child-victims who attend such schools, or the children themselves - this SA propaganda machinery is already in advanced condition, a well developed case. It discriminates economically as well, since wise parents may well have to pay private school fees for their children, to prevent methodologically inept indoctrination contrary to scientific method. They may have to do this, as well as pay their share of taxes to allow other parents to have their own children indoctrinated, if they so choose, or do not have the funds with which to do any better!

Let this mould alone, and it will spread through vast resources of academic bread.

Do you recall the earnest pleas of that brave Chinese functionary, at or near the time of Tiananmen Square, and at or near the top level of bureaucratic power, who tried so hard to avert the slaughter ?

I should think the students do - those of them who are left.

Viruses are little things, and the first golden staff stumbling into a hospital environment that suited it, might to the short-sighted have seemed but a feeble foe.

However, left alone, they have their ways. That is the nature of poor hygiene, and runabout pathology.

For the Christian ?

Give a reason for faith (I Peter 3:14, cf. II Corinthians 10:5).
Shine as light in a dark place (Philippians 2:15-16).
Rejoice, for this occult pollutions of the environment of the spirit are only temporary, the devil is as furious as spurious; for he knows his time is short (Revelation 12). Hell is long.

"Be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might," (Ephesians 6:10), speak the truth in Christ with all boldness, since after all, it is the truth ,with its personal Head, the Lord Himself (Philippians 1:20, Acts 4:29, II Cor. 11:1, John 14:6, Ephesians 2:20-22, 4:15-16). With those who follow the Lord, "stand fast in one spirit, with on mind striving together  for the faith of the gospel; and in nothing terrified by your adversaries, which to them is an evident token of perdition {or - a sure sign that they are lost }, but to you of salvation, and that of God" - (from Philippians 1:27-28).

If need be, as in v.29 which follows the above, reflect thus: "For to you it is given in behalf of Christ, not only to believe on Him, but also to suffer for His sake."

Suffering, if and as it comes ? What of this ? "If you should be reproached for the name of Christ, happy are you: for the Spirit of glory and of God rests on you; on their part, He is evilly spoken of , but on your part, He is glorified" - I Peter 4:14.

And if the devil is subtle, what did you expect ! It is a weak and slithery subtlety. But God: HE is wise, and that is a far better thing, enshrined in truth, expressed in love, glowing with holiness, unblemished, wholesome and free. THUS BE JOYFUL (cf. I Thessalonians 5:16, and add 5:17 to it!). In short: "REJOICE EVERMORE."