We live in days when the whole sub­ject of our society is undergoing a critical examination. Days when our customs, traditions, institutions, moral standards, and ethical con­cepts are being tried and shaken and cast aside by so many intellectuals of the day who in the main are un­able to offer anything whatever to put in the place of the things that they would discard. They find themselves in an awesome vacuum and I sus­pect that they find it frightening. It is perfectly natural then to lay the blame at the door of those very cus­toms, traditions and standards, now rejected, because they do not seem to produce the kind of security, the kind of world, the kind of stability to which people feel they are entitled. Surely it is unsound policy indeed to turn out a lame horse, simply be­cause he is lame, and leave it at that! But we must confess with shame and confusion of face that our established institutions, traditions, customs, and erstwhile standards are not produc­ing very admirable results. They are lame. But is this because of some­thing inherent in them? Is this because there is something wrong with them or because there is something wrong with the way we ourselves see them — and are using or misusing them? There is the rub! You see, I submit that the root cause of the dis­mal failure that confronts us is simply that we have come to disregard the basic foundations on which they must stand if they are going to fulfil the purpose of their Divine institution. That is the situation in which we find ourselves today!

What do we do about it?

I suggest that the real cause of our problems, the ultimate reason why our cherished institutions have failed so dismally is that we have grown to look on them — and endeavour to op­erate them — as HUMAN INVEN­TIONS. There is our problem — we have largely ceased to acknowledge the responsibility to GOD which is inseparable from any true and satis­fying enjoyment of the institutions that we operate and should enjoy. "For the Lord giveth wisdom: out of his mouth cometh knowledge and understanding."

What are these institutions we are talking about?

They are

• the Family
• the Church
• the State

As we see each one in its scriptural context we recognise, in each and in all of them, the factors of authority, responsibility and privilege.

Let us look at them in this light.

1. The Family — that Divine Institu­tion⤒🔗

To those of us who have been brought up in Christian homes it is becoming distressingly evident that there is a wider gulf between the thinking of the old school and the new than many of us have come to realise. If TV serves no other pur­pose it shows, those of us who know better, something of how the other half lives. In fact, sometimes I say to myself "are there no normal people left in the world today?" Judging by the programmes that we see — who can fail to ask that question? It is becoming increasingly evident that there is a great gulf. I once happened on to a programme where a group of young people were engaged in a dis­cussion with a panel of psychiatrists and at one stage the discussion re­volved around the family as an insti­tution (that was quite a while ago) and I came into contact with the term "the counter-culture". That phrase or term "counter-culture" seemed to be nothing more than a euphemism for revolt against the established order of society and in the minds of those young people manifestly revolt against the whole concept of the family unit as we know it. There seemed to be a vague addled thought of a culture where fathers beget children, mothers bear the chil­dren and all sounds so delightful for the fathers as they beget them and for the mothers as they conceive them but what of the mothers as they await the time for them to be born ­— and subsequently?

What of the family as a unit into which children are born? You see — there comes a vacuum which the counter-culture seems to have nothing whatever to fill.

We observed that each of these three Divine institutions, the Fam­ily, the Church, the State — that each of them involves authority, and responsibility and privilege. Now the Divine institution of the family provides that the privilege of begetting and bearing children car­ries with it the responsibility of pro­viding and caring for those children and of bringing them up in the nur­ture and admonition of the Lord, and the Divine institution further confers on those parents the au­thority over their children without which they cannot discharge their responsibilities. The same Divine institution lays upon those children the responsibility to honour their father and mother, to be obedient to all their parents' lawful com­mands.

Parental responsibility could scarcely be put more clearly and plainly and positively than in the psalm we sang, Psalm 78. But it does not end with teaching only. It extends to control and discipline, so that we find very clear and defi­nite instruction with regard to the measures that are to be employed to ensure obedience. Take Prov­erbs chapter 23 for example "withhold not correction from the child. If thou beatest him with the rod he will not die" (I love the way that is put — but let's finish it) "thou shalt beat him with the rod and de­liver his soul from hell". (Verses 13, 14) There it is, but of course we cannot expect much notice to be taken of that by men who do not trust in God and do not believe in hell either. Again we read "he that spares his rod hates his son, but he that loves him chastens him betimes" Now we don't need to multiply references but I recall a conversation I had the other day with a policeman who had been lecturing children at school particu­larly on the matter of safety on the roads and so on. We were con­versing in a more general way and it seems that many of the children he spoke to were fully and firmly persuaded that their parents had no authority over them — which they were entitled as individuals to do as they pleased without regard to paren­tal authority or to parental correction. He was able to clear their minds of some of those misapprehensions, to the great astonishment of some who found that their parents did have le­gal right to exercise discipline. It is parental responsibility to provide for, to teach, and to correct their children, and due attention to these duties will bring its own reward. "The father of the righteous shall greatly rejoice, and he that begot a wise child shall have joy of him. His mother shall be glad and she that bear thee shall re­joice." (Proverbs 23:24, 25.)

2. The Institution of the Church←⤒🔗

The picture of the church that is be­ing increasingly projected today is that of an ancient entrenched institu­tion which is slowly losing its grip but still bent on acting as a pressure group to try to impose its irksome restrictions on unwilling people, yet still looked on by the community as an institution which owes something to society — at least by way of baptis­ing its children, burying its dead and offering a prayer for the repose of the soul. Now that is the view that is so widely held of the church of today. How far the church itself is responsi­ble for that image is difficult to say, but this much is clear, she herself has made her own contribution to­ward it. She has grown increasingly ready to dispense her privileges with­out at the same time insisting on re­sponsibilities, insisting that those who would receive privileges should face up to their responsibilities. Peo­ple who are utter strangers come to the door of the manse and perhaps say "I've got a couple of kids in the car and we're going on holidays and I would like to get them 'done' before we go". Now that is the kind of thing that a minister can face in a manse today. It reflects the attitude to which I refer. Others have taken marriage vows and set little store by them. If the church at large were constant in making it clear that privileges are to be dispensed only in the framework of a scriptural mandate, and not otherwise, I believe that this kind of thing would not happen. It is to be feared too that in much of this kind of approach to the church there is more than a little element of superstition. It is to be regretted that the church, intentionally or otherwise is prone to encourage this and particularly, does that seem to be the case, in the mat­ter of prayers for the dead.

Why is this so?

I will tell you why it is so. It comes about because the church is leaning more toward the side of human wis­dom, forgetting, as our Word says today, that "the Lord giveth wisdom, out of His mouth cometh wisdom and understanding." The Word teaches as clearly as words can say it "He that believeth on Me hath everlasting life and shall not come into condem­nation, but is passed from death unto life". That same Word teaches that "as the tree falls, so shall it lie."

3. The Institution of the State←⤒🔗

Again it is abundantly clear that the state has fallen on the very same rock as has the church. You say "What is that?"

She has "…forsaken ME the fountain of living waters, and hewed out for herself cisterns, broken cisterns that can hold no water" (Jer. 2:13). She too, leans heavily toward the side of human wisdom, forgetting that "out of His mouth comes wisdom."

A leading member of parliament in Canberra some time ago, in a speech proposing certain legislation covering members of the "gay libera­tion", so called, said (and I quote) that "legislation has one ultimate justification, namely the welfare of the individual." I am persuaded that in saying this, he expressed the opin­ion of the vast majority. He main­tained that it is necessary to distin­guish between what ecclesiastical authorities consider to be sin and what parliamentary authority considers to be a crime.

The same issue has raised its ugly head again today and our Confes­sion sums up the scriptural position in this way:

…God, the supreme Lord and King of all the earth has or­dained civil magistrates to be under Him over the people for His own glory and the public good, and to this end He has armed them with the power of the sword for the defence and encouragement of them that are good and for the punishment of evil doers.

So many members would make the ultimate justification of legislative measures "the welfare of the individual". The bible clearly makes it the glory of God.

They have left out of consideration the fact that, which promotes the glory of God alone can promote the welfare of the individual. This human attitude is the very essence of proposals presently being can­vassed in our halls of government, proposals designed to meet the demands of the "gay/lesbian lobby", and to clothe what God Himself has called an abomination in the guise of respectability. Having said these things let us hasten to add that when the glory of God is made the supreme, the ultimate rule, the welfare and the well being of the individual is going to follow as the night follows the day.

What kind of double talk is it that pretends to draw a distinction be­tween what Scripture considers to be sin, and what parliamentary au­thorities consider to be crime? Crime is defined among other things as "an act contrary to law, human or Divine". When parlia­ment assumes the power to determine whether conduct that is con­trary to God's law may be regarded as acceptable and not to be re­garded as a crime, then parliament has arrogated to itself the authority to depose the law of God, and to put in its place the laws of man. We know of course, that certain actions and activities, perfectly good and right and acceptable in themselves provided that they are carried out in privacy, would be unthinkable in public, but when par­liaments begin to legislate as though abominations are accept­able, provided that they are carried out in privacy, then I say (and I say it reverently) may God help us. Our parliament must rely, for the privileges it enjoys, on God. Practi­cally every page of Old Testament history testifies that these things are so.

You and I personally, as individu­als, perhaps do not have very much voice in the matters of state — only at election time. But we are very much a part of and very closely involved in the family and in the church, and if we are going to enjoy God's blessing in this life as well as in the life to come then we must submit to His authority. Sub­mit to His authority, shoulder our own responsibility and look to Him to confer on us the blessings and the privileges that He undertakes to con­fer on those who truly repent and unfeignedly believe His Holy Gospel. Briefly then, each of these three institutions must cease to be guided by the light of worldly wisdom. As our text says, "the Lord giveth wisdom" — "out of His mouth proceeds wisdom and knowledge."

The family, the church and the state must come to recognise that the Word of God which is contained in the Scriptures of the Old and New Testament is the only rule to direct us how we may glorify and enjoy Him.

The church must declare the way of salvation through repentance toward God, faith in the finished work of Je­sus Christ our Lord, and hand in hand with her mission in the work of pure evangelism she must exhort all people to the exercise of obedient and godly living.

The Master says "without Me ye can do nothing" but when we come in true repentance to receive and rest on Him for salvation then we can be sure that, as we earnestly seek to know and to do His will, we can rely on Him to make known to us what that will involves and to give us ready hands and willing hearts to do those things which are well-pleasing in His sight.

May the Lord bless to us this medi­tation. Let us conclude, singing together from Psalm 73:23;

Nevertheless continually O Lord I am with Thee, Thou dost me hold by my right hand and still upholdest me.