May 09, 2012: The Official End of Christendom?

Fox News journalist, Shep Smith, welcomed President Obama into the 21^st century and declared those who still oppose same-sex marriage to be on the wrong side of history.

May 9, 2012 was indeed an historic moment. Though President Obama bathed his decision in Christian principles: “…our faith…is not only Christ sacrificing himself on our behalf but it’s also the golden rule…treat others the way you’d want to be treated…” For the first time ever, a sitting US president, considered the most powerful political leader in the world, has endorsed a marital arrangement that formally constitutes the pagan “worship of the creation rather than worship of the Creator” (Romans 1:25).

“How do you get there?” you may ask. My statement is neither panic nor exaggeration, since it comes from the theological reasoning of the inspired Apostle Paul: “For this reason,” he says, “God gave them up to dishonorable passions [of lesbianism and homosexuality] contrary to nature” (Romans 1:26–28). The “reason” to which Paul refers is what he stated in the previous verse (25), namely the exchange of the truth for the lie, and the worship of creation rather than the Creator. That process includes an exchange of sexuality for a practice “contrary to [created] nature.”

Historian Elizabeth Fox-Genovese, once a radical Marxist feminist, observed (as a chastened older observer of the Cultural Revolution in which she had enthusiastically participated): “within a remarkably brief period …has occurred a cataclysmic transformation of the very nature of our society.”

The speed of this “cataclysmic” change takes our breath away. At the same-sex Stonewall riots of 1969 few people had even heard of homosexuality. Just forty-three years later, a president publicly announces support of same-sex marriage. In the 1960s, thanks to the Beatles and the hippies 1960s “Christian America” discovered for the first time the spirituality of the East. In August 2009, Newsweek announced: “We are all Hindus Now,” as yoga studios outnumber Starbucks cafes in New York City, and we massage our karma with mantras and meditation.

The “cataclysm” is due to the invasion into the “Christian” West of pagan spirituality, with its strident intention to “eliminate the binary.” The foremost “binary” is the distinction between the Creator and the creature. Other binaries then fall like dominos—the binary of right and wrong, for example. “We must beware of thinking of good and evil as absolute opposites,” says a leading theorist. Modern psychologists tell us that a binary view of reality (as made up of opposites) produces guilt, the hallmark of neurosis. The Hindu notion of Advaita, “not two,” dominates spirituality and “non-dual spirituality” is taught even in some “evangelical” schools. Lesbian activists ask: “Can We Put an End to the Gender Binary?” (The Advocate.com) because “there is no one way a person should be.”

On all these levels we see Two-ism (theism) undermined for the promotion of a One-ist worldview. Of course, it is said that same-sex “marriage” will not harm anyone. However, its legalization will introduce a God-denying civilization that will erase 2000 years of Christendom based on Two-ism. The past will be labeled “homophobic.” Nursery rhymes, literature and art that consider heterosexuality normal (including the Gospel) will be declared illegal and obsolete. Christians will be outside the law. Already the fifteen Christian groups (Catholic and Protestant) at Vanderbilt have been kicked off campus for refusing, by principle, to allow gays on their leadership teams. This is a classic preview of what the future holds.

May 9th 2012 is in many ways the final “sacralization” of the Sixties, where behind the pretext of the Golden Rule, the “revolution” fraudulently covers its unrestrained libido in the white robes of bridal purity.

We must not panic or exaggerate, nor cease to love homosexual individuals. But we must not re-interpret “Christian” love, so that our contemporary culture can reject God the Creator in favor of self-serving desires. The Gospel love story of creation and redemption must be heard via a clear witness to the biblical worldview, as Paul articulates it in Colossians 1:19–20:

For in Christ…by whom all things were created…[God] through him reconcile[d] to himself all things, whether on earth or in heaven, making peace by the blood of his cross.

The President’s “Christ sacrificing himself” is not a decorative element of the Faith but the very essence of all things, expressed distinctively in male/female marriage as the love of the other for the different. In this way, Christ the Creator loves his people. Paul in Ephesians 5:32 calls this a “mystery,” the deep meaning of all things on earth and in heaven. The radicals rightly call their same-sex marriage “the sacrament of monism,” and see in it a pagan celebration of One-ist sameness and of the divinity of self-creating Nature. Alas, Paul would call this a part of “the mystery of lawlessness” (2 Thessalonians 2:7).

Fifteen years ago James Twitchel’s For Shame: The Loss of Common Decency in American Culture argued for the socially redeeming character of shame: “Shame is the basis of individual responsibility …It is where de­cency comes from… shame inhibits behavior— that’s the point. It retards action, it increases reticence, it invokes self‑censorship. Its final object is not banishment, but reintegration.”

Twitchell’s book describes a past moral ethos eroded by an ideology of radical sexual freedom that shamelessly rejected the “old ways.”  In 1996 Senator Fred Thomson said of Bill Clinton: “He is a man of his times…He literally has no shame.” And Bill agreed, saying: “I do not regard this impeachment vote as some badge of shame.”

But shaming has not disappeared. It is now used to punish speech against the new reigning orthodoxy of politically correct relativism, rather than to condemn personally reprehensible moral acts. People lose their jobs because of one misplaced word. Pat Buchanan recently observed: “The new mortal sins are not filthy talk or immoral conduct, but racism, sexism, homophobia and nativism. The establishment alone defines these sins and enforces the proscriptions against them, from which there is no appeal, only the obligatory apology, the act of contrition and the solemn commitment never to sin again.”

Ideologues control the cultural discourse, and have become the new thought police. This new shaming seeks to seed the collective conscience with new principles of acceptable human behavior, thereby integrating “dissidents” into the reigning new “social conscience.”

Steven Goldstein, of the homosexual Garden State Equality, spoke of a verdict passed on Daharun Ravi, an 18 year old student at Rutgers who was sentenced to ten years in jail for filming his male roommate having sex with another man. This “verdict,” said Goldstein “should serve as a warning to homophobic bullies.” “Kids will be kids,” is no longer a valid excuse.  Daharun Ravi was found guilty of “bias intimidation” and “homophobic bullying.” His roommate, Tyler Clementi, committed suicide, which is indeed tragic.

Ravi’s actions were judged as a hate crime, though he threatened no violence.  A juror admitted: “You can’t know what someone is thinking. You have to get inside their head.” This is where hate crime legislation and court cases are going—into the heads of a population with new norms of morality— in particular, the unquestioned inviolable right of publicly endorsed homosexual activity.

The speech police were also out in full force against Rush Limbaugh, calling for his removal for labeling Sandra Fluke a “slut.” With no shame, Fluke publicly supported mandated insurance coverage for the contraceptive costs of the busily promiscuous lives of single female Georgetown students like herself. Angelica Huston was beside herself—against Rush. “It’s the Dark Ages,” she shrieked. Her moral outrage was due to her horror that anyone would make a moral judgment about a woman’s sexual behavior. Any such reflection is hyped as a “war on women.” The right to promiscuous sex is endorsed by President Obama, who telephoned Fluke to make sure “she was OK,” and stated that her parents should be proud of her.

Anti-Limbaugh ads urged listeners to call their local station to say “we don’t talk to women like that in our city.” Ironically, liberated college students do talk about themselves that way, having adopted “Slutwalks” as statements of freedom. But all this is child’s play. Hard-core feminists declared years ago: “we must re‑establish the consciousness of the Sacred Prostitute.” Their daughters have listened well.

Fluke’s moment in the sun lifts the veil from what is really going on among our students. The title of an article says it all: “Dorm Brothel…College as Sex Carnival.” At Oberlin College in Ohio, founded in 1833, where Charles Finney served as its second President, every year one third of the student body attends the college-sponsored, administration-approved “Safer Sex Night,” an orgy held on campus during which students sit in booths in g-strings and halter tops, or naked, and visit the “Tent of Consent.” “Slut” is too mild a word.

The real ire is not against the offensive word (a delicious pretext), but against those who presuppose and support the sexual morals of the recent “Dark Ages.” The sleeping giant of feminism has been roused to action, threatening to silence anyone who dares to question its now dominant values.

The hypocritical shaming of those who live by the old standards, seeks to integrate the general public into the new standards of “decency” and “shame”—where evil is good and good is evil–standards that take us into an immoral morass from which we may never extricate ourselves. May God in His grace keep us from a collective conscience “seared as with a hot iron.” Pray for conviction of sin and for repentance, so that we are not utterly judged.

We live in a period of theological confusion that the book, Allah: A Christian Response by Miroslav Volf, does little to alleviate. Formerly a professor at Fuller Seminary, and currently Professor of Theology at Yale, Volf asks: “Can it be said of Muslims and Christians…that they too worship the same God?”  He answers, “Yes, it can” (11), and it must!

This thesis has major problems in three areas: theology, missiology and eschatology.

Theology

Volf admits that the God of Christianity and the God of Islam are not “completely identical” (91). To me, the differences are overwhelming. In 2007, in A Common Word, 138 Muslim leaders affirmed that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. However, they were careful to quote Muhammad’s words:  “there is no god but God…He hath no associate,” thereby eliminating the Trinitarian foundation of the Christian Gospel.

Any religion without the Trinity makes God a lonely singularity and becomes a form of impersonal Deism. The Hadith-e-Qudsi, which Muslims regard as the word of God, tries to relieve this problem. Allah says: “I was a hidden treasure, being unknown. Then I desired to be known. So I created creatures and made Myself known to them; and by Me they knew Me.”Here God admits that to be personal or to have a personal relationship, he needs creatures.

If God depends for personal existence upon something created, then his transcendence is compromised. Oddly enough, unrelieved transcendence leads to unrelieved immanence. The Deist who longs for a more personal God often turns to Pantheism, as do the Islamic Sufi mystics.

Here Volf makes an amazing admission: “God’s love is less obvious in the Qur’an than in the Bible…in Islam, theologians do not play nearly as central a role as they do…in Christianity…But the religious sensibilities of a great many scholars and common believers alike have been…shaped above all by the Sufi masters” (153, 165). Unfortunately the Sufi masters are pagan One-ists.

Take the Sufist al-Ghazali, (AD 1056–1111) who, says Volf, “is in many ways the most representative Muslim thinker you’ll find, from any period” (169). Al-Ghazali says: “God does indeed love [people], but in reality He loves nothing other than Himself, in the sense that He is the totality [of being], and there is nothing in being apart from Him” (169).  For the Sufis, as for Hindus, physical reality is illusion, and the human soul is part of divine reality.

Astoundingly, Volf allows this notion of God to be “sufficiently similar” to the God of Christianity. But surely neither Deism nor Pantheism is Christian.

Missiology

Neighborly love in Islam is an expression of the Golden Rule found in many religions. Ultimate self-giving love is found only in the Gospel, where God the Savior takes the sins of mankind on Himself.  No other religious system knows the love that the Christian scriptures affirm: God’s love has been poured into our hearts…For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly (Romans 5:5–6). Without the Trinitarian God, there is no Savior, no Gospel and no Christian mission of sacrificial love.

Volf’s version of “Chrislam” only confirms the conclusions of the syncretistic Insider Movement which counsels Muslim converts to Jesus to remain in the Mosque and practice a “Christianized” form of their Muslim faith.

Eschatology

Volf’s thesis is driven by pragmatism: “I leave the questions of salvation and eternal destiny aside…the book is not an exercise in soteriology, but in political theology” (13). In this game of what he calls “high stakes,” the highest stakes go to this-worldly “human flourishing” rather than to  other-worldly eternal joy.

By favoring present cultural peace, as do many in the “Progressive Christian” movement, Volf fails to do justice to the organic heart of the Christian Faith. Christ’s future reconciliation of all things to himself is based on his death and resurrection in the past, which determines how believers live and love in the present. Volf opts for “human civilization over the salvation of one’s soul” (252), thereby refusing the urgency that Jesus teaches:   “What shall it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his own soul?”

Cherry picking elements from the message of Jesus for political purposes is both an act of theological disfigurement and a false, unloving promise of “security.”

Volf is only comfortable with this because he is a self-described universalist,  believing that “as creator and redeemer, God loves all with preserving and redeeming love—Christians and non-Christians” (171).

World peace and the alleviation of injustice are worthy issues of basic human respect, but false hopes of religious unity and this-worldly  flourishing cruelly obscure the fact that true peace with God and man, now and in eternity, is found only at the foot of the cross of Christ, the only Son of the Father.

Yoga, mantras, and the new spirituality—  Is it true America has evolved into a new Hindu culture?  A 2009  Newsweek article  in 2009 presented America as a conceptually Hindu nation.  Dr. Peter Jones quotes C.S. Lewis, who stated that the two forms of opposing religions are Christianity and Hinduism.    Please click the link below to listen to Janet Mefferd and Dr. Peter Jones discuss this fascinating spiritual rift.

Hindu America

Dr. Peter Jones preaches on the Lord’s prayer. This is a continuation of “One-ism and Two-ism from the Pulpit” series.
Thy Kingdom Come: Being Church in the 21st century

The ministry and service of truthXchange is to speak to the culture, but through  the church.  Here is an excellent example of a local pastor using the Biblical hermeneutic of One-ism and- Two-ism to teach and preach the gospel.  Pastor Ted Hamilton of New Life Presbyterian Church in Escondido, is teaching through a series called “Fundamental Questions: Straight Answers.”

“Who Is God?”  By Pastor Ted Hamilton

“Question 1: Who Is God? Question 2: Who Are You?”  By Pastor Ted Hamilton

“Why Is Life So Messed Up?”  By Pastor Ted Hamilton

“What Does It Mean To Be A Spiritual Person”  By Pastor Ted Hamilton

“Why Is Sexuality Such A Big Issue For Christians?”  By Pastor Ted Hamilton

“Why is sexuality such a big issue for Christians?” part 2  By Pastor Ted Hamilton

“Whats up with Hell?” By Pastor Ted Hamilton

“Is there any hope for the future?” By Pastor Ted Hamilton

Dr. Beisner has been joking around about how he invited himself to speak at our think tank — but really, it was just the talk we needed to round out our look at the Beauty of Two.  Unbelievable but true: here is the last talk from the think tank, now available in its entirety for free here on the website!  Don’t miss Cal’s incredibly important ending talk — listen here now!

Cal Beisner Two-ism and Politics

In this talk on Two-ism and the Law, Jeffery Ventrealla compellingly argues that the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution depend on the rights given to us by a Creator, rather than rights based in our own personal desires. We are thankful for the work of Mr. Ventrella at the Alliance Defense Fund, and were so grateful to have him with us again for this think tank. Listen to his talk now.

Jeffery Ventrella Two-ism and the Law

Many people believe that science and faith are mutually exclusive topics. But, if you listen to James Wanliss talk, you find that it is his view and understanding of science that fuels his passion for the Lord. In our Thursday night lecture on Two-ism and Science, Dr. Wanliss shares with us about the beauty of God’s creation and how understanding that beauty helps us understand and love the beauty of the Creator Himself. Listen to his talk now!

James Wanliss two-ism and Science

Speaker: Calvin Beisner (Founder and Spokesman, The Cornwall Alliance for the Stewardship of Creation)

Session: Two-ism and Politics

I want to discuss why Two-ism is incompatible with a one-world government.

Distinctions: global government/transnationalism vs. internationalism:

John O’Sullivan: “… to sign a treaty with clearly defined obligations to other nationts is ot exercise sovereignty, whereas to sign a treaty with a postnational entity obliging you to do whatever it demands is to surrender sovereignty. The former is internationalism; the latter is transnationalism, which first imprisons and then gradually eliminates nation-states in a euthanasia of regulations.”

Anyone who cares about the pursuit of happyness should avoid the seductive lure of world peace and world government. Peter Jones: “We live in an age of projects that ‘would bring the world together…”

Scriptural foundations against global government:

• Deuteronomy 17:14-20
• 1 Samuel 8:1-22
• Isaiah 33:22

Deuteronomy 17:14-20

In this passage, God’s people are about to make choices – among them, the choice of king.

There is a clear warning and a few basic ideas:

• The king is under the law, not above
• The king is not to become so constantly embedded with people from other countries that he forgets how closely related he is to his own people. He is supposed to rule over them and build relationships with them.
• How can one world government maintain close relationships with people?

If you are a One-ist, you don’t have a transcendent Creator to give law to everyone, so instead, you have the king as law.

In contrast, Samuel Rutherford noted: “The law is (ultimate) king and the king is subject to it, just as we are subject to it.

1 Samuel 8:1-22

The elders of Israel were acting as One-ists. Yahweh was merely a tribal God and not Creator of heaven and Earth. Thus, Yahweh says to Samuel: “I am going to give them over to a depraved mind.” They have exchanged the truth of God for a lie and became wise in their own eyes. They did not want to have to relate to the transcendent God; they wanted someone immanent. They came to worship the creature instead of the Creator.

Isaiah 33:22

Yahweh is our judge; Yahhweh is our lawgiver; Jahweh is our king; he will save us.

Belief in Two-ist government:

1. Belief in a transcendent Creator is necessary for belief that “all men are created equal” with “certain unalienable rights.”
2. belief that “all men are created equal” with “certain unalienable rights” is the indispensable ground of belief in government by consent of the governed—that is, government by representation.
3. Belief in government by consent of the governed is the indispensable ground of belief in a limited government.
4. Belief in limited government entails belief in the necessity of restraints on government.
5. Belief in the necessity of restraints on government leads to belief in the necessity of 
enumerated powers; division of persons; and separation of powers.
6. Belief in limited government entails belief in multiplicity of government.
   6a. multiple sovereign states rather than a single, universal government.
   6b. multiple gradations of government within a sovereign state (i.e., a federal system).
   6c. right of people to relocate and change their allegiance from one government to another
7. Belief in a transcendent Creator who is Judge, Lawgiver, King makes rejection of a single universal human government rational, for it assures us that the existence of such a government is not necessary for justice to prevail.
8. Belief in a transcendent Creator, human equality under God, unalienable God-given rights, government by consent of the governed, limited government, restraints on government, enumerated and divided powers spread among separated branches of government, and multiplicity of governments entails the rejection of a single, universal human government in principle.

CONCLUSION

Psalm 136: “…his steadfast love endures forever.”