Stephen McAlpine: When The Bodies Start Washing Up On The Shore

Stephen McAlpine talks about the casualties of the Sexual Revolution and the people who defend child abuse when it’s committed by their leftist heroes. Not so much tolerance for other perpetrators who have not been pre-approved such as Rolf Harris or alleged perpetrator George Pell. Just another but of lefty double standard I suppose.

As McAlpine suggests there is a huge tsunami of damage wrought by the Sexual Revolution and it is only going to get worse through the generations.

When The Bodies Start Washing Up On The Shore

Screen Shot 2018-06-14 at 2.03.26 pm

It’s been my contention that the bodies of the Sexual Revolution tsunami will eventually start to wash up on the shore.

It’s also been my contention that the church has to be prepared for that time; to put behind it its sin of falling under the spell of that cultural narrative, admitting it has been complicit in it, and first living, then telling a better story.

The liberal arm of the church decided the future lay in accepting the Sexual Revolution – only at half speed.

Many within the evangelical arm of the church decried the sexual revolution, only to practice it “in-camera”, but is now being exposed by camera for its hypocrisy.

It’s always a good time to repent.  But no time like the present, for the bodies are starting to wash up on the shore.

Thick and fast.

This came home to me reading the harrowing account of two of the children of one of the revolution’s sexual heroes, the Australian playwright and poet Dorothy Hewett in the Weekend Australian newspaper.

In my university days Hewett was lauded as pinnacle of the new age, the sexually free age in which the old repressed ways were being laundered out of our culture, and the utopian dreams of the sexual sixties and early seventies were being realised.

Only those dreams are now becoming a nightmare. Hewett’s daughters, Rozanna and Kate, have revealed that the sexual liberty of their household was a sexual dungeon in which adult men repeatedly forced both girls into sex, often at their mother’s tacit approval, and more tragically, as a way to further her own interests and image as a new age libertine.

What’s more galling is how many of those men were the heroes of the progressive narrative in Australia over the past forty years, including the late writer and film director Bob Ellis, whose every utterance and written word was viewed as gospel by the sexular Left, and who was also a speech writer for  ALP luminaries.

The searing concern, however, is that the girls thought these sexual encounters were the new normal, the way things were to be.  At least they did back then when it was happening, as Kate says in the article, there was no coercion:

“…just an understanding that he wanted to have sex with me and I just did…whenever he turned up, he’d have sex with me.  I didn’t at the time think that some big terrible thing…I was reasonably neutral about it.  I didn’t hate him.”

Rozanna recalls it like this as she and her sister slept with men twice their age:

“We felt we were special people doing special things.”

Special things like realising Mummy’s dream of a sexual utopia.

Well that’s alright then.  Except of course it wasn’t.  And for both of the girls, the dream has turned into a nightmare. Both women, now in later middle age, have been living the life if anti-depressants, therapy for decades, and a fear of the backlash of telling the stories which indict the literati and pop cultural icons of our fair land.

When Ellis died everyone lined up to laud him, from former Prime Ministers to journalists, artists and other bastions of our arts scene.  But with the bodies washing up on the shore, those days of hagiography are over.

The interesting thing is, however, those who decry the sexual revolution can carry on all they like about the body count, it’s only when the revolution’s former advocates and children line up to put the boot in that anyone sits up and takes notice.

Hence we get this in The Guardian:

Screen Shot 2018-06-14 at 2.21.09 pm

Delaney states:

finding out your literary hero is not only a grub, but had sexually abused underage girls, forces a major reconsideration of the man and his work.

Yes I imagine it must.

But not for all:

I’ve spoken this week to half a dozen people who knew Ellis (although not during the era Hewett’s parties took place – their friendship with him was more recent) and one or two are of the opinion “judge the times, not the person”. The rest of us are taking our weighty copies of Goodbye Jerusalem off the shelf and hurling them across the room.

In other words, the secular church is at as much pains to protect its sainted ones as the actual church has disgracefully, been. Of course this all happened forty years ago.  So let’s judge the times, and not the person, as per the request.

Read the rest of the story here


The Slippery Slope To Morality

Now, the Left finds itself sliding down a slippery slope of its own making, unable to reach out and grab a branch or tree trunk to slow its out of control descent.

But the left’s slippery slope is different from the one conservatives have sought to avoid. The Left finds itself slipping uphill toward morality, and they are panicked by it.


BEVERLY HILLS, Calif., January 8, 2018 (LifeSiteNews) – The upcoming Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences (AMPAS) annual “Oscars” award night is shaping up to be more conundrum than celebration. Liberal elites who have always scoffed at conservatives’ warnings of slippery slopes when it comes to moral issues, now faced with their own moral dilemma, are suddenly true believers.

And they are scared.

When the Academy’s board of governors — including luminaries such as Tom Hanks, Whoopi Goldberg, and Steven Spielberg — held an emergency meeting in October to deal with multiple sexual harassment allegations against Harvey Weinstein, they had no choice but to oust the legendary producer from their ranks.

After all, with the flood of Weinstein allegations the Academy quickly found itself drowning in bad press. A petition with more than 100,000 signatures demanding Weinstein be expelled no doubt helped to cinch the decision.

They thought they had disposed of the issue quickly, freeing themselves from future controversy and unwanted attention. They were wrong. Dead wrong.

After the Weinstein story broke, one story after another of sexual impropriety by some of the biggest names in Hollywood erupted. It seems like it will never end.

Now the Academy doesn’t know what to do.

According to a report in, one male Academy member said, “Harvey opened the floodgates. Now the Academy’s drowning in a tide of s—t. They don’t know what hit them.”

Kevin Spacey was accused of assaulting young men. Dustin Hoffman, brothers Ben and Casey Affleck, and former Saturday Night Live cast member Al Franken were accused of assaults against women. Screenwriter James Toback and director Brett Ratner were also accused of inappropriate sexual behavior.

Sliding Toward Morality

“Kathleen Kennedy [producer of the ‘Star Wars’ series] and some other female governors panicked and felt compelled to act,” according to a prominent female AMPAS member in the report. “They thought [Weinstein] could hurt AMPAS’ cred. Some of them did admit this was a slippery slope. But I don’t think they imagined how slippery.”

By admitting that the immoral sexual behavior of one man — Harvey Weinstein — was a bad, if not criminal thing, and that it was something that AMPAS and its members could neither ignore or sweep under the carpet, the liberals who control the entertainment industry are in a quandary: Where do they stop? When can their consciences be safely ignored again?

The slippery slopes that conservatives have dealt with over the years have been issues triggered by the sexual revolution.

A Different Kind of Slippery Slope

For decades, conservatives have been assured that abortion would be “safe, legal and rare,” and that no slippery slope existed. Fifty million-plus in utero infant murders later, the slippery slope was clearly there.

Conservatives were also assured that gays and lesbians only wanted to be left alone to live their lives in peace, and that same-sex marriage wouldn’t impact anyone outside those “marriages.” Yet now those who can’t in good conscience bake cakes, arrange flowers or photograph gay “weddings” are harshly punished, faced with exorbitant fines and the dissolution of their businesses. Though conservatives were laughed at — told that their homophobia was running wild, imagining there was a slippery slope — the slope was there.

And religious organizations which once enjoyed the fruits of religious liberty, such as the Little Sisters of the Poor, found that the slippery slope resulted in them being bullied and discriminated against for choosing to uphold their religious beliefs.

Now, the Left finds itself sliding down a slippery slope of its own making, unable to reach out and grab a branch or tree trunk to slow its out of control descent.

But the left’s slippery slope is different from the one conservatives have sought to avoid. The Left finds itself slipping uphill toward morality, and they are panicked by it. Suddenly, they are unable to continue to protect or legitimize the sexual revolution – a revolution for which they have gladly marched out front carrying their banners.

How can they possibly continue to defend the sexual revolution while condemning the behaviors the revolution fosters? It’s a no-win situation.

They have brought this upon themselves via the monsters they created and whose enormous appetites they fed.

Reason tells them they must keep moving forward down their treacherous, icy Matterhorn, glancing off sharp-edged, craggy rocks of truth and buffeted about by unwanted self-realization.

At the end of their slippery slope, however, lies not the death of countless innocents and the destruction of marriages, families and freedom, but salvation and reformed lives.

In fact, it’s almost as if they are afraid of sliding uphill, not down.

No wonder they are scared to death.

Should Adulterous Pastors Be Restored?

Here is a thoughtful article from “Christianity Today”  about how the church should handle pastors who fall from grace. The author makes the strong distinction between forgiveness and restoration to ministry. I don’t know that I agree with everything in the article but it’s worth a read.

“Genuine forgiveness does not necessarily imply restoration to leadership,” former CT editor Kenneth Kantzer once wrote after the moral failure of several prominent evangelical leaders. Yet the impulse to link forgiveness with restoration to ministry remains strong. Here two pastor-theologians argue for the importance of keeping separate the restoration to the body of Christ and restoration to pastoral leadership.

The North American church is seriously vexed by the question, “What shall we do with an adulterous pastor?” Over the past decade, the church has been repeatedly staggered by revelations of immoral conduct by some of its most respected leaders. How do we respond to those who have sexually fallen and disgraced themselves, shamed their families, and debased their office?

The typical pattern goes like this: The pastor is accused and convicted of sexual sin. He confesses his sin, often with profound sorrow. His church or denominational superiors prescribe a few months, or often one year, in which time he is encouraged to obtain professional counsel. Then he is restored to his former office, sometimes in another location. He is commonly regarded as a “wounded healer,” one who now knows what it means to fall, to experience the grace of God profoundly.

While each situation must be handled with pastoral wisdom, and some fallen pastors indeed might someday be restored to leadership, we believe this increasingly common scenario is both biblically incorrect and profoundly harmful to the well-being of the fallen pastor, his marriage, and the church of Jesus Christ. Our Lord Jesus was tempted in all points just as we are, yet it was his testing, not any failure, that made him strong. If we do not think clearly, we may be subtly encouraging people to grievous sin so they might experience more grace and thus minister more effectively. Incredibly, in the present context, some are saying things that imply just this notion.

The Forgiveness Approach

The commonly held view. reasons that a repentant and forgiven minister who was previously qualified for pastoral office remains qualified on the basis of God’s forgiveness. Was he qualified previously? Has he confessed his sin? Has God forgiven him? Then we must also.

This logic rests upon the unbiblical assumption that forgiveness of sin is equivalent to the “blamelessness” (or unimpeachable character) required of pastors in 1 Timothy 3:2 and Titus 1:6. If this thesis is accepted, all God requires is that a fallen pastor be forgiven.

But this confuses the basis of our fellowship with Christ with public leadership and office in church. No one argues that the fallen minister cannot be forgiven. No one should argue that he cannot be brought back into the fellowship of Christ’s visible church. But to forgive a fallen pastor and to restore him to membership in the church is much different than restoring him to the pastoral office.

The “forgiveness approach” is inadequate because it does not deal realistically with two facts: First, adultery is a great sin; and second, pastoral adultery is an even greater sin.

Full article here