Category: Culture

Tim Phillips

“The article by Trueman

http://www.reformation21.org/blog/2010/08/gay-marriage.php

is spot-on. He is not defending homosexuality, only stating that evangelicals need to be better equipped to explain why the practice is wrong — they can no longer argue from a cultural perspective, since the perspect…ive of the culture has been changing over the last few decades. When sinful practices like no-fault divorce and adultery are often tolerated in evangelicalism, a simple “ick-factor” argument is not going to be very persuasive. To use an analogous argument that James White once made, if you ask the average evangelical why he or she isn’t Roman Catholic, most cannot give a biblical/theological answer, only that they consider RC “strange” or something of the like. That’s just not a good response.”

Bret L. McAtee

If Trueman’s article is spot on he needs to learn how to write with more clarity so as to identify the spot he wants to be on. I found the article, because of its it’s ill written structure in the first couple paragraphs to be thoroughly confusing.

Tim Phillips

“What exactly was confusing about the first couple of paragraphs? All he says is that the decision wasn’t a surprise, a significant comment on a morning talk show, and the fact that there is a generational gap on the issue. One factor that you may not be accounting for — he is British. There’s a certain subtle rhetoric that can be somewhat more difficult to grasp. My point was that the substance of his argument (in the latter part of the article) was spot on.”

Bret L. McAtee

I would prefer to understand it as a certain subtle confusion that is more difficult to grasp precisely because it lacks clarity.

What was confusing is his search for a sociological answer to why there is a difference between the under 35 crowd and the over 35 crowd quite apart from the realization that the problem is theological.

What was confusing was his invoking the idea of culture w/o a corresponding understanding that culture is merely theology externalized. He writes about our culture informing us on the issue without seeming to realize that culture is theology a couple steps removed.

What was confusing is that the man made gross generalizations. Not everyone over 35 was clueless on the biblical reasons as to why homosexuality is wrong. Indeed, a person only need be conversant with Romans 1:16f.

Also, I found his use of the word “Bigoted” to be confusing. While, technically it is acceptable to speak of being bigoted against things like “Apple Juice,” or “GM products” most commonly the word is used to designate an antagonistic attitude towards something that is otherwise perfectly acceptable.

In terms of his bullet points … those weren’t confusing so much as they were “Captain Obvious” statements.

Tim Phillips

“Actually, that is not a very good definition of “bigoted” — it indicates utter intolerance for a belief or opinion that differs from one’s own. Acceptability is not the determining factor.

I agree with your first and second points in that the problem is ultimately theological, and culture ultimately reflects theology (whether good or bad). But I don’t think he would deny that either (the man teach historical theology at a major seminary). In fact, that seems to be precisely what he is saying. The culture has opposed homosexuality, but not necessarily for biblical/theological reasons. While that may not be true for everyone over the age of 35, he was reacting to a statement from a morning talk show; I’m over 35 and did not think for a moment he was including me in that demographic.

Obviously, if the last points were “Captain Obvious” statements, that would seem to mean you found them very clear.”

Bret L. McAtee

I found the latter points clear. It is the first couple paragraphs that remain thoroughly confusing.

If the culture has opposed homosexuality it has opposed it for theological reasons. Now, all of those theological reasons might not be Christian but they were nevertheless theological.

And in terms of teaching at a Reformed Seminary?

That and 50 cents might get a cup of coffee from me. I think the best thing that could happen to the ministry is to decentralize the training away from the Seminaries.

Tim Phillips

He teaches at Westminster Seminary. I did not make the comment to laud seminaries, only to point out that he understands theology. And culture. Read his _Minority Report_ or _The Wages of Spin_ as examples. I won’t dispute your last point about seminaries, except to be careful not to make a gross generalization there. Not all seminaries are bad. Actually, I’m of the opinion that one solution would be to have pastoral training done by pastors, which I think is similar to the point you are making.

I think it would be helpful to make a distinction between being “theological” and being “biblical.” The two should be — but are not necessarily — the same thing (i.e., cults have bad theology, but it is not biblical theology — at least not well-informed biblical theology). Not everyone opposes homosexuality for specifically biblical reasons. They oppose it because their parents told them to, Ozzie and Harriet society told them it was wrong, secular psychology told them it was deviant behavior. Or, they found it personally odd. His point was that this might coincide with biblical teaching, but the person did not arrive at that conclusion or necessarily biblical reasons.”

Bret L. McAtee

Tim,

Yes, but in a culture, such as ours, that has historically such deep roots in Biblical categories and Christian theology, even the culture holding people in place is a result of Biblical influence. Ozzie and Harriet, on this issue, were who they were, because deep deep down the culture had been shaped by Christian categories.

Now, I quite agree that perhaps people should have been more epistemologically self conscious regarding their belief systems but you know not everyone is called to examine the contours of a culture. Some people — indeed most people, including Christians — just swim in the culture w/o questioning the nature of the water. I don’t fault the over 35 crowd to much if it was the case that the remnants of a Christian culture was holding them in place and I certainly don’t refer to them as “Bigoted.”

Now that our culture has changed in the direction of pagan homosexuality people who are both under and over 35 need to work on understanding Biblically the most self evident of realities as to why men and women are exclusive fits.

Personally, I long for the a time when culture is so influenced by Christian categories I don’t need to spend my time proving from Scripture that men should only marry women.See

Tim Phillips

“Yes, I would agree with most of what you say (if not all with the last post). I suppose much of my reaction is can be summarized in a discussion I had with one gentleman, a congregant at a church in Mississippi. Let’s just say he was well over the 35 line. During a pastoral visit, he raised the question of homosexuality, and asked, quite honestly, if the Bible did indeed teach against it. I assured him it did, and I later preached a sermon on that very subject. The point is that he believed the right thing, even thought it to be biblical, but because the prevailing culture was changing, he was confused. Some were telling him the Bible taught something else. Some were telling him not to look at the Bible at all. That is one reason I recommended the book by White and Neill above. It addresses many of these issues and the objections that folks raise at the biblical teaching (the ol’ shellfish argument for instance). Plus, it’s much less confusing than Trueman.”

Bret L. McAtee

Rapprochement! You’ll remember that my point at the outset is that Trueman’s article in question was confusing.

Thanks for the discussion Tim. I am always for clarity.

Rob Harrison — PCUSA Pastor in Warsaw Indiana

Umm…Proposition 8 isn’t a theological document, it’s a legislative one. You might as well complain that Colossians 1:15-20 doesn’t contain provisions for enforcement, or that the Nicene Creed doesn’t specify which agency is to oversee it. Your entire argument is a non sequitur.

Bret

It is precisely because Prop 8 is a legislative document that it is also a theological document. The whole thing breathes theology. My argument isn’t a non-sequitur but rather yours is. All documents, including judicial legislative documents, are theological documents as all documents are informed by and are derivative of a theology.

RH

Bret,

Nice unsupported assertions.

Your first one is nonsensical; your second one assumes facts not in evidence, and even assuming those facts does not prove what you’re trying to assert. Even if one grants that “all documents are informed by and are derivative of a theology,” that does not mean that “all documents are theological documents.” Otherwise, one might make free to criticize your grocery receipts for the lousy quality of their theology.

The fact of it is, Proposition 8 is merely a codification in the state constitution of a principle which had always existed in the laws of California, in response to judicial aggression against those laws in the service of ideology. Is there an underlying theology to the desire to prevent the laws from being rewritten by the courts? You assume so; but one might just as well support it for reasons which have zero to do with a theological understanding of homosexuality. At the same time, calls to repentance and gospel faithfulness would be out of place and inappropriate in it, because *it is an assertion of legal principle, not theological principle.*

As such, I repeat, the original argument here is a *non sequitur* based on a misunderstanding of what’s actually going on.”

Bret responds,

Rob,

Are you being purposely thick or is this just your natural disposition?

All documents, just as all of reality, is theological in nature. You can not compartmentalize that which creates all reality from the reality it creates. Theology informs literature so that literature is just theology under another guise. Theology informs legislation so that legislation is just theology under another guise. Theology informs economic theories so that economic theories are just theology under another guise. Theology informs history textbooks so that history textbooks are merely theology under another guise. etc. etc. etc.

And yes I would include your grocery list. Why do you have on your list what you have on your list? And one might be welcome to criticize my grocery list if on that grocery list I have a product that is known to be destructive.

You’re reasoning is specious and without quality and your showing that the theology that informs your reasoning is of a nature where you have compartmentalized reality so that some areas are informed by the God of the Bible while other areas just exist. This is foolishness on stilts.

All documents are theological documents. What is in those documents is shaped and informed and derivative of some theology.

Next you go on to blather about Prop 8 being merely a codification of the state constitution … a state constitution that is reflective of some theology.

Even if someone supports the State constitution they are supporting it for theological reasons even if they cloak those theological reasons in the guise of some other type of speech.

Now, one doesn’t have to have calls for repentance in a legal document in order for it to be a document that is informed by Christian theology. Furthermore, all legal principle is an expression of theological principle. Any denial of that on your part merely communicates to me your theology — a theology that compartmentalizes reality and sees the only unity in reality to be disunity.

Since all this is true, I repeat that your argumentation is a huge non-sequitur. Indeed, what you are advancing, as a result of your theology, might be the largest non-sequitur that has ever existed.

RH

“You have a serious confusion of terms going on here, and a serious confusion of categories as well. Yes, obviously, all of reality is theological in nature. Equally, all of reality is scientific in nature, because God created everything a…ccording to a particular physical order, and all of reality is aesthetic in nature, because that particular physical order has aesthetic qualities due to the character and nature of God. One can go on and on with this, and yes, on a philosophical, theological and scientific level, one must always be aware of the interpenetration of categories.

*However.* This does not mean that we cannot categorize. The fact that there is theology in narrative or poetic sections of the Bible does not mean that we can treat them exactly the same as, say, the letters of Paul; genre matters. The fact that there is aesthetic quality to an office building does not mean we can judge it as if it were intended to be a Gothic cathedral; yes, a skyscraper is less beautiful than Notre Dame, but again, genre matters, and the two buildings have different functions which should produce different forms. And a legal document is designed to serve legal functions, not theological ones, and the fact that one can evaluate and critique its underlying theology does not mean that one should expect it to make statements which do not serve that legal function, or judge it negatively because it does not, because *that is not its purpose.* Genre matters, and the only system in which the legal and the theological are simply fused, undifferentiated, is the theocracy–and we do not have a theocracy. As such, even granting that the legal document ought to be an expression of the same reality as the theological document, there is and ought to be a meaningful distinction between the two–and ignoring that distinction creates a non sequitur.

To the man who only has a hammer, everything is a nail . . .”

Bret responds,

Hey Nail-man ….

Science is only as good as the theology that it is dependent upon. For example, if my evolutionist friend and I happen upon a fossil, my evolutionist friend because of the theology informing his science concludes that the fossil proves evolution. However, I, because of my Biblical theology informing my science conclude that it proves that God created the world in 6 days … all good. You see … once again, science is only as good as the theology that it is derivative of.

We could continue to press this point w/ aesthetics. Why do people make anti-art and call it “art” while other people make “art” and call it art. The answer is the theology that is informing their aesthetics.

Are you getting it yet Rob? All of life is theological. This is not to say that Theology doesn’t express itself in different avenues and streams. It certainly does. Literature is distinct from science is distinct from history is distinct from economics, is distinct from the juridical but it all is derivative of some theology.

What do they teach people in Seminary these days?

I quite agree that genre matters. Because God is so vast, and infinite we can expect different genres to incarnate theology in different ways. You don’t build a office building to be a Cathedral because the purpose in the theology that is driving both of those is distinct — distinct but still theological. One might say that an office building is theology at work, while a church is theology at worship, while a sports arena is theology at play.

Getting back to legal documents — when legal documents do what Prop 8 has done it must be adjudicated not only on the legislative (judicial) legal level but also the theological level since it is forcing a theology on the public square. That’s pretty simple right?

Finally, we do have a theocracy. All forms of governments are theocracies. It is never a question of “if theocracy,” but always a question of “which theocracy.” Our theocracy is one where the God is Demos. The voice of the people is the voice of God. This is why we call it democracy.

To the man who say’s no hammer exists there are no such things as nails.

Now, if you want to continue this conversational pursuit I’ll be waiting.

“This case is about marriage and equality. The fundamental constitutional right to marry has been taken away from the plaintiffs and tens of thousands of similarly situated Californians.”

Solicitor Ted Olson
Opening Statement On Proposition 8 Trial

“Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license. Indeed, the evidence shows Proposition 8 does nothing more than enshrine in the California Constitution the notion that opposite sex couples are superior to same-sex couples. Because California has no interest in discriminating against gay men and lesbians, and because Proposition 8 prevents California from fulfilling its constitutional obligation to provide marriages on an equal basis, the court concludes that Proposition 8 is unconstitutional.

Judge Vaughn Walker
Decision Striking Down Proposition 8

First, can we start here by observing that the California Court decision on Prop 8 teaches us, at the very least, that Natural Law theories will not get it done when living in a culture that does not presuppose Christianity? Natural law is a myth, and all the books and all the lectures given by David VanDrunen on the need to return to Natural Law will never convince courts, like the one in California that rejected Proposition 8, that Natural law teaches that marriage, is by definition, between one woman and one man.

Second, we would note the failure of Judge Walker’s statement in his first sentence in the block quote above is that he misses that the rational basis for singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license is the simple fact that it is literally not possible for two people of the same sex to get married. It is the same type of rational that is used in not giving a masseuse a license to be an electrician. We don’t give a masseuse a license to be a electrician because a masseuse does not qualify as a electrician. His problem in his second sentence is found in the reality that opposite sex couples are superior to same sex couples in terms of marriage because marriage is defined as being composed of two people of the opposite sex. One wonders if the judge would also object to the truth that opposite sex couples are superior to making babies then same sex couples? The problem with the third sentence will be picked up below.

As it pertains to Olson, Ted Olson, is, of course, quite wrong in his opening statement quoted above. The fundamental constitutional right to marry was never taken away from lesbians and homosexuals in California. What was taken away form the lesbians and homosexuals was the right to arbitrarily redefine the meaning of marriage.

Homosexuals and lesbians still retain the same legal right to marry just as straight people do. However, what has always been stripped from homosexuals and lesbians is the ability to redefine marriage as being something other than that which happens between two people of the opposite sex. Homosexuals and lesbians might find comfort in knowing that this ability to redefine marriage, that they desire, has also been stripped from those who wanted the right to marry their Sister or Mother or those who wanted to marry multiple people at the same time or those who wanted to marry 6 year old little boys or little girls, or those who wanted to marry their farm animals, or those who wanted to marry someone who didn’t want to marry them back. You see, anybody has the right to marry as long as it is marrying that they are doing. When Sam and Pete want to join, whatever it is that they are doing it is not and can not be marriage.

What we see here as all of this pertains to the “equal protection clause,” which is at the heart of this court decision in California, is that homosexuals and lesbians have always had equal protection under the law to marry as long as they were willing to conform to the objective definition of what marriage means; a definition that, at the very least, requires one person of each sex. The rules that give definitional meaning of what marriage is are rules that apply to everyone and so as everyone conforms to those rule everyone experiences equal protection before the law.

As a result of this court decision I do find myself a bit confused. Now that Sam and Pete can marry, I am wondering if Sam, as an Uncle, can marry Pete, his nephew. Do laws of consanguinity still apply in lesbian and homosexual marriages?

Look, folks, if a culture can not define the boundaries of marriage then marriage has no objective meaning. If marriage can mean anything then marriage means nothing. This observation brings us to a broader reality that is illuminated here and that is the common theme in our culture of the pursuit of erasing boundaries and/or distinctions, thus foisting a socialist sameness on everything.

In our country right now there is a move to erase the boundaries of our nation with the result that there will be no distinct American nation. Similarly, there has been for quite sometime the pursuit to erase the boundaries between men and women with the result that there will be no distinct maleness or femaleness. Again, there has been for quite some time the pursuit to erase the natural God given boundaries between people belonging to different people groups with the result that there will be no distinct ethnicities. And now there is this ruling where there is a erasure of the boundaries of marriage thus assuring that eventually there will be no distinction between marriage and non-marriage.

Peggy Noonan was one of Ronald Reagan’s speechwriters. She is also a neo-con Republican and so isn’t to be read without that realization. However, Mrs. Noonan has the advantage of almost always presenting her views in an attractive and convincing fashion. Because of this skill at her art I enjoy reading Noonan, even though sometimes her neo-con ideology drives me batty. Recently Noonan had a piece where, in a slight rabbit trail, she had a wonderful sentence that captured the mindset of American leadership.

“You can today go to any office of any great leader in America and Britain – business leader, church leader, political leader – and you will find the great topic of conversation, the great focus of attention, the object of daily obsession, is not the mission (making money, spreading faith, leading an anxious citizenry in the right direction) but how the mission is playing in the media. It’s all they talk about.”

The cultural gatekeepers in America have gone from a preoccupation with their calling to a preoccupation with marketers and marketing. The object no longer is being faithful to what one was called to do but rather the object has become “what kind of press can we get or are we getting for whatever fecal matter we are shoveling today.” If the mission (no matter how skewed that mission is from what it should be) is getting good press and is selling well then the conclusion is that all is well with the organization. All of life has become a literal stage, and when one is on the stage one is not concerned with anything but how the performance is being received by the audience. The media has become the audience for the cultural gatekeepers and the message and calling of the cultural gatekeepers is being changed by the medium — and that quite apart from any realization that the medium has its own agenda.

As this pertains to the Church, most Churches are more concerned with image than theology and branding over truth. The goal is to present a slick product and not to give the whole counsel of God. Spokesmen like John the Baptist, who wore camel hair and ate locusts and honey, or the Apostle Paul who was short and possibly hump-backed with bad eyes need not apply for Pastor positions. Truth that is jagged and angular is replaced in the sanctuary with movie clips and praise and drama teams. It’s all a show aimed at getting rave reviews so that when the next show starts the place will be packed again.

“Welcome to the Grand illusion
Come on in and see what’s happening
Pay the price, get your tickets for the show
Someday soon we’ll stop to ponder
what on Earth’s this spell we’re under
We watched the show and still we wonder
who the hell we are.”

“The alien who is among you shall rise above you higher and higher, but you will go down lower and lower. He shall lend to you, but you will not lend to him; he shall be the head, and you will be the tail. So all these curses shall come on you and pursue you and overtake you until you are destroyed, because you would not obey the LORD your God by keeping His commandments and His statutes which He commanded you.” ~ Deuteronomy 28

This warning of God to Israel speaks of the consequences to God’s people for disobedience to the covenant. America is not God’s covenant people as Israel was and yet all nations who flout God’s ways are subject to God’s judgments against that nation which rebels against God. One sign that God is entering into judgment against a people is the reality that the indigenous people are vomited out of the land much like the land vomited the Canaanites out of the land when God entered into judgment against a people who were not His people. The pursuit of comprehensive immigration reform (aka — Amnesty plus for Illegal immigrants) for 12-20 million illegal immigrants is a sign that God has sent a strong delusion upon our elite for the purposes of continuing to judge America.

The result of amnesty for 12-20 million illegal immigrants will be the erasure of our unique identity as a nation-state. This move takes us from citizenship as Americans to citizens of the continent of North America. Just as with the victory of the North over the South in the war of Northern Aggression deleted the notion of unique identity by regionalism or by state in favor of identity according to attachment to the Nation State so amnesty for illegal immigrants will delete the unique identity of Americans according to the nation in favor of identity according to our hemisphere. This is all part of the new world order of globalism that all people’s are being herded into.

Also, keep in mind that if amnesty (comprehensive immigration reform) goes through this means additional pressure on the social order through the certain collapse of the social safety net. There is simply no way that our social services infrastructure can accommodate the additional millions and millions of people who will come to America after amnesty is given to the 12-20 million illegal immigrants that are already here. (Remember we tried this “one time amnesty” shot once before in 1986 and 25 years later we now have another 12-20 million we for whom we are going to render up another “one time amnesty” program. If the last “one time amnesty” program ended up with 12-20 million more illegal immigrants how many more illegal immigrants will this version of the one time amnesty program yield?)

It is probably to late to stop this illegal immigration amnesty program though there are times I think that if the elite really push this it will be their Waterloo. I sometimes think that this is the issue over which the bullets could start flying.

A few random thoughts on illegal immigration.

1.)A biblical approach to immigration would be to allow untrammeled immigration AND to have provision by which unbelieving immigrants could not change a godly social order. This is what you find in the Old Testament. However, one can not say they are advocating for a Biblical basis of immigration by insisting on untrammeled immigration without the mechanisms in place to create and maintain a godly social order. To insist on the first half (untrammeled immigration) without insisting on the second half (godly social order) is like advocating for Biblical sex without a bride.

Without a bride Biblical sex is not biblical and without a godly social order advocating untrammeled immigration is not biblical. You can’t appeal to half a solution and insist that you are being true to the whole solution that Scripture warrants.

You have to have a godly social order being maintained before you can argue that untrammeled immigration is biblical. If there is not godly social order in place and being maintained then whatever you are arguing for when you argue for untrammeled immigration you are not arguing for a Biblical position.

2.) If you stop the welfare state and if you enforce the demand side of the problem by bring heavy fines against those who hire illegals then you won’t need to ask for papers. Illegal Immigration will largely take care of itself. This is important to keep in mind when people continue to insist that one certainly can’t be in favor of rounding up 15 million illegal immigrants. We won’t have to round up illegal immigrants if there is no incentive for them to stay.

3.) The idea that Leviathan will shackle American citizens if we stop illegal immigration is easily countered by the reality that if we extend amnesty to 15 million Hispanics we will guarantee Leviathan will never be brought to heel as the overwhelming percentage of these votes will be cast to permanently establish the welfare State and to fix upon us the cultural Marxist vision.

Again … enforcement can be easily settled by turning off the cash incentives. Also, we should legislate against the whole notion of anchor Babies.

4.)

Question asked,

Gentlemen, do Ex. 22:21 and 23:9 have anything to say about this situation?

Bret responds,

Scripture can not be successfully appealed to, to support illegal immigration UNLESS Scripture is also appealed to in the means it required to protect a God ordained social order. The stranger was to be treated w/ kindness BUT he was not allowed, by the mass of his numbers, to establish a social order that was contrary to God’s law Word.

So, when we have a social order that will not allow the immigrant to destroy what very little remains of a social order that still has a trace of memory of Christianity then I will be all for untrammeled immigration.

Also, keep in mind that being kind to the stranger does not mean endorsing the welfare state.

People, have to keep in mind that what is behind the call for amnesty for illegal immigrants is the desire to completely demolish the residue of Christian influence and Christian structures and Christian social order. To support this is to support the death of institutional and culture wide Christianity in support of Leviathan — a religion where the state is God in which the citizenry lives and moves and has their being.

5.) I know America is not Israel. That reality makes flat appeals to the Scriptures to be as flat as they are. This is why I insist you can’t just read the requirement for kindness to the stranger as support for the erasure of borders. We also have to think about kindness to those who are living here. It is entirely possible that a certain kindness to illegal immigrants could mean a definite hard-hardheartedness towards the citizen and the native born.

Since America is not Israel then we should not point to passages in Exodus to inform us of our position on illegal immigration and amnesty since our domestic situation is completely and utterly contrary to Israels. As such, we have to know the times and understand the ideological currents that are pushing certain immigration advocacy.

And I’m telling you, that the ideological current that is pushing amnesty for 15 million illegal immigrants is one that desires to use the votes of those new citizens to completely overthrow any remnant whatsoever of America’s founding ideology and theology.

6.) Also, this matter of amnesty for 15-20 million illegal immigrants brings us to the subject of balkanization. A case can be easily made that with comprehensive immigration reform, as it is now packaged, the result will be to turn this nation into what the former Yugoslavia was after WW II. America is increasingly turning into a nation of nations, and a culture of cultures as these are both produced by various faith systems. The only way conflicting cultures, faiths, and visions of nationhood can be tamed is by a governmental apparatus that can use the heavy hand of the nation state to police the competing interests. In such a balkanized arrangement the State becomes the mediator, policeman, judge, and executioner in order to determine the limits of the competing cultures, faiths and visions of nationhood that exist in the balkanized nation-state.