If you’ve ever baked a cake, you know that every ingredient plays a crucial role. You can’t just throw random things into the mix and expect a perfect outcome. The same principle applies to society. If we want a community that upholds a specific set of values, then the individuals within that society must also hold to those values. When the values of the individuals change, the values of the community will inevitably follow.

Nowhere is this more evident than in Western nations undergoing the so-called “multicultural experiment.” Once thriving, free, safe, and prosperous, the West was the envy of the world. As a result, it saw an influx of migrants—an influx that has only increased over the years. However, many of these migrants did not come from culturally similar backgrounds. They did not necessarily share the Christian religion or Christian values. Instead, they sought the economic advantages of a prosperous society.

Yet, in this pursuit, many failed to recognize why Western societies became prosperous in the first place. The foundation of the West’s success was its Christian culture, which was rooted in Christian values, which in turn were drawn from the Christian faith itself.

In effect, we altered the recipe without realizing how it would impact the final product. And now, we face the consequences: fragmented, low-trust societies where foreign conflicts spill onto our streets—whether through protests, threats, or, worse, through violence.

Governments now find themselves between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand, they have been conditioned to celebrate multiculturalism as an unquestionable good. On the other, they are forced to confront the reality that not all cultures are compatible with one another.

What’s more, Australians have long been told that no one holds an exclusive claim to truth. That there is no transcendent moral standard to which we must, as a collective, conform. That all cultures are equal, and that Australia, by definition, is multicultural—without a distinct, unified culture of its own.

But this belief system is a recipe for division, and division spells disaster. A society cannot function cohesively if its people are separated by conflicting cultural practices and moral frameworks. A society cannot function cohesively if it is superficially united, but fundamentally divided.

If you want to bake a cake, you need the right ingredients. You can’t just throw in anything and expect the same results. You also can’t blame the correct ingredients for the inevitable failure—yet politicians often do just that to avoid accountability.

Ultimately, the people, and therefore, the values we introduce determine the societies we create. Communities will naturally reflect the beliefs and principles of their dominant groups. If a significant influx of people does not share Christian values, it is unrealistic to expect the communities they form to uphold those values.

Simply put, “whatever one sows, that will he also reap” (Gal. 6:7).

Today, the world claims to have outgrown Christianity. And yet, it hasn’t stopped making moral demands. The question is, by whose authority?

One person calls abortion “healthcare.” Another calls it the murder of the innocent. One person condemns the death penalty as barbaric. Another argues that it is a just punishment for the most severe crimes.

Both sides appeal to justice. Both claim the moral high ground. But by what standard can either of their claims be judged?

As C.S. Lewis wrote in Mere Christianity, “A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line.”

When we call something unjust, we are doing more than expressing a personal dislike. We are claiming that something is objectively wrong, regardless of whether others approve of it or agree with it.

But if morality is merely a matter of opinion, on what grounds can we condemn another man’s actions as evil? By what authority is our opinion superior to his?

As such, to call something unjust is to assume that justice means something more than personal preference. Disagreement does not eliminate the need for an objective standard. It makes that standard indispensable.

Christianity identifies it in the character and law of God.

When Jesus commanded us to love our neighbours as ourselves, He was not replacing the Old Testament with a softer, “more Christian” morality. He was citing Leviticus 19:18. He was quoting Old Testament law.

Indeed, Christ said that loving God and loving our neighbour are the two commandments upon which all the Law and the Prophets depend (Matt. 22:37–40).

They are not substitutes for God’s commandments; they are their summary.

Paul is even more explicit. Prohibitions against adultery, murder, theft and covetousness are summed up in loving one’s neighbour, because “love does no wrong to a neighbour” (Rom. 13:8–10).

God’s law does not compete with or contradict love. It defines the conduct love requires.

If the unborn child is our neighbour, love cannot justify killing him. If murder is evil, justice can’t be reduced to our feelings about what we imagine is a fair punishment. Scripture gives civil authorities a real, though accountable, duty to punish wrongdoing (Gen. 9:6; Rom. 13:4).

Our age pretends it can discard God’s law while throwing about words like rights, justice, equality and compassion. But detached from an authority higher than man, these are mere labels that competing groups attach to their preferred policies.

But the question we must continually ask is, by whose standard? Who gets to decide what is just and unjust? Parliament? The courts? The majority? Whatever opinion happens to be ideologically fashionable at the moment?

The secular state prides itself on being “neutral.” It’s not. Every law permits some acts and forbids others. Every law embodies a moral judgement about good and evil.

Reject God’s authority, and religious authority does not disappear. Human opinion simply takes its place, and the only thing distinguishing one opinion from another is who has the power to impose his views on everyone else.

Western nations, having cast off their Christian moral inheritance, now drift like ships without rudders. And they’ve mistaken the direction of the current for moral progress. If you’ve read the book of Judges, you’ll be familiar with the pattern: “Everyone did what was right in his own eyes” (Jdg. 21:25).

We don’t need a morality above God’s law. We need the humility to recognise that no such morality exists.

If God’s law commands love and reveals what love requires, every alternative appealed to will be less just, less righteous, and less loving.