ecclesiology – Page 12

Tales from the Ecclesiastical Post-Modern Crypt

Achilles had been trained has a minister in the flagship Seminary of APE (Apostolic Presbyterian Ecclesial) and had spent some 20 years in the Ministry. He was, by all accounts, well liked and successful as a Churchman and Minister.

Achilles had a standing appointment with his ministerial colleagues at the local pub. At the pub (named aptly “Haags Hall”) community ministers from liberal, yet diverse, backgrounds and denominational affiliations would show up to talk about their lives, their faith, and the times in which they lived. Usually matters were congenial. When hard disagreements did arise they were quickly followed by a shot and a beer which either made the various ministers gathered forget the disagreements or made them ready to fight. The ministers had a rule that if someone raised their voice in a discussion they would be forced to down a Boilermaker as discipline for their unseemly ministerial outbursts. This was supposed to keep hissing, clawing and pushing (what liberal ministers call “fighting”) at bay. Fortunately for all the ministers in attendance, ministers fight like Junior high girls and so little damage was done the very few times disagreements were raised to a level higher than what a Boilermaker could tame.

At this bi-monthly meeting Achilles decided he was going to probe the issue of gays in the church. He wanted to discuss, with his liberal counterparts, how it was that the Fundamentalists couldn’t see the necessity to accept the LGBTQ crowd into the Church. Achilles thought if nothing else the assembled clergy could have a good laugh at the way the Fundamentalist troglodytes read the Bible.

The Sherry, Margaritas and wine spritzers (the preferred drinks of liberal clergy) were flowing like the water off the head of a dozen baby baptisms. All assembled were in a good mood when Achilles tossed out the topic of conversation of “gays in the Church.”

The conversation went pretty much as expected. All the liberal clergy gathered drank to the health of gays. Many of them knew what good givers the LGBTQ crowd were at their local churches. They also knew that the quickest route to losing their positions was to stand up against the zeitgeist. And so they laughed and guffawed at their clumsy and backwards fundamentalist “brethren.”

After agreeing, over several rounds, at the nekulturny character of the fundamentalists Achilles piped up with a complaint about the few remaining old school Presbyterians that remained in his denomination,

“I think one of our problems in the Apostolic Presbyterian Ecclesial (APE) is that many of our Pastors belong to the intellectual class and they have this overwhelming necessity to be right. They sense that being right is of ultimate importance. They are always studying, always reading and so being right is important to them. And I think we must agree that is poisonous to the Church.”

All agreed but suddenly the waiter, who was serving up the girly drinks, couldn’t resist and asked,

“So, tell me Achilles, are you insisting that you are right about that observation you just made?”

This waiter was not unknown to the Liberal, Sherry-sipping clergy. This was the walking conundrum waiter they loved to tease good-naturedly. Christopher Roberts was an anomaly that the liberals couldn’t resist. They always insisted on his being their waiter. Christopher was a tent-maker minister who had no problem with an occasional stiff drink, salty phrase, or stinging pejorative. Christopher didn’t have a pietistic bone in his body and the only people he lampooned more than Fundamentalist preachers were the Liberal and “diverse” crowd that gathered twice a month during his shift.

Achilles was mute over Christopher’s question, and so he asked again, amidst the nervous laughter of the other assembled clergy.

“Achilles, you just noted that the problem with too many of the fundamentalist clergy in your denomination is that they insist on being right.”

“What I want to know Achilles, is if, whether or not, you are, as a non fundamentalist minister, insisting upon being right about the poisonous scourge that clergy are who have to be right?”

Achilles looked as if Christopher had just thrown a ice cold beer in his face.

All were looking on waiting for Achilles response.

Finally Achilles offered up,

“I don’t know.”

Christopher let out a booming laugh. The diverse and liberal clergy just stared at their waiter not getting the joke.

When Christopher looked at their puzzlement he doubled his laughter. Finally, upon regaining composure, Christopher, between continued intermittent peals of laughter, informed them,

“You liberals are hilarious. You can’t even see the delicious irony of Achilles answer. When Achilles says, ‘I don’t know,’ all you can hear is the idea that Achilles is being consistent with his statement on the poisonous nature of clergy on insisting on being right.”

“But,” Christopher continued, “the irony is that Achilles and all of you can’t see that Achilles and each of you, in the depths of your post-modern muck, can’t see the joke that you can’t even be certain in your decrying of certitude. You complain about Fundamentalists having to be right, but you can’t even own the fact that you are right in your complaint about them having to be right. You have to be uncertain of your claim on the wrongness of certitude. But are you even certain that you have to be uncertain about the claims of certitude?”

All stared up from their pretzel bowls and wine spritzer glasses with the look of a waitress that had just been goosed by an anonymous patron.

“And the really funny thing is,” Christopher continued, “is that all of you here are so dull that even after explaining this to you, you’re still either to dumb or to drunk on wine spritzers that you don’t have any understanding of what I just explained to you.”

“You complain about your Fundamentalist competition having to be right, but you can’t even be certain about your uncertainty … and yet you still have the moxy to complain, as if you were right, about the faults of other ministers, who you think, have to be right.”

“I could spend a week laughing at your idiocy, but other tables, who tip better then you guys do, are waiting to be served.”

“Let me know if you ever figure it out.”

Ask The Pastor; Shouldn’t We Show More Love?

Dear Pastor,

In reference to your critique of Tullian Tchividjian a week or so ago I would like to make a couple of comments.

First, I find it amazing that you would cite Billy Graham’s visits with the presidents. Graham has made a conscious effort to be bi-partisan and non-political, something which cannot be said of many evangelicals today. Rick Warren tried that route and was thrown to the evangelical wolves.

Second, I remember someone saying once that it is easy to preach against sins that no one in your congregation commits. It is easy to preach against abortionists and homosexual marriage advocates.

The individual sinner (me and you!) however, are not brought under conviction for the sins of our culture. It is our sins: self-righteousness, unbelief, hatefulness, greed, selfish ambition, impatience, anger, holding grudges, having a sharp tongue (and pen), pride, and the like. Some of us commit acts of murder or sexual sins, as well. But the good news is not that we are sinners, it is that Christ came to save sinners.

Sadly, we have become not associated with Christ and his love for sinners, but the Pharisees and their condemning words.

David

Dear David,

Just a brief response seeking to help you see where you’re in error.

1.) Graham was hugely political. To sanction what US Presidents were doing by appearing with them was HUGELY political. Take only two examples.

a.) When he appeared with President Bush I in the context of Gulf War I, thus communicating the Evangelical approval. Instead Graham should have, at the very least, not appeared with Bush I since the Gulf war was naked aggression. Something no Christian had any business supporting.

b.) The 9-11 Memorial where Graham went all political by being part of a service that communicated that all religions are equal. A political statement if there ever was one.

Billy Graham was a political beast and there is no arguing that he was “non-political” and bi-partisan.

I always liked this quote from R. J. Rushdoony on the likes of Billy Graham.

The kind of religion Billy Graham … represents is readily approved of by corrupt politicians and venal communications media. It does not challenge their godless dreams of dominion, and it does sugar-coat their sins with the veneer of religious respectability, with a facade of pietism. Such men can have the ear of national leaders and preach in the White House and in Congress without affecting even to the extent of an iota the national march into degeneracy and apostasy.

RJ Rushdoony- God’s Plan For Victory

2.) Really? You think it is easy to make a public stand against Abortion and Homosexual marriages? You think Evangelicals in our congregations are not involved in those sins so that they don’t need to be addressed from the pulpit?

3.) Christ came to save repentant sinners. Christ did NOT come to save sinners who are not repentant. This is the problem with the antinomian “Gospel” of Tullian and (presumably) yourself. You think that repentant sinners and unrepentant sinners should be approached in the same way. Here are some words of Geerhardus Vos which might assist you,

“From the fact that to a generation which knew God only as a righteous Judge, and in an atmosphere surcharged with the sense of retribution, He (Jesus) made the sum and substance of His preaching the love of God, it does not follow that, if He were in person to preach to our present age so strangely oblivious of everything but love, His message would be entirely the same.”

Geehardaus Vos
Redemptive History & Biblical Interpretation
The Scriptural Doctrine Of The Love Of God

4.) All I see is self righteousness in the school which flings around the accusation of self-righteousness against those who hold up God’s standard. All I hear them saying is, “Look how much more righteous we are because we don’t expect people to have God’s standard placed before them, unlike those mean people who insists that the Gospel must be preceded by the proclamation of God’s Law word.

5.) I quite agree that all God’s people have sins to repent of. That is why, in our Worship every week, we hear God’s Law, Confess our sins, and then hear God’s declaration of absolution.

6.) David, you said, “The individual sinner (me and you!) however, are not brought under conviction for the sins of our culture” —- Where, pray tell, do you get this David? I am convicted daily.

7.) You seem completely blythe to the fact that there is a set agenda being pushed upon the Church and culture to normalize particular sins. It is not me who is making a hobby horse out of preaching against “Sodomy” or “abortion.” It is the fact that my people are inundated with the message that sodomy and abortion are “normal.” Ministers, preaching in this cultural context, are fools if they don’t take a stand, for the sake of Christ and His people, against those prevailing sins of the zeitgeist that are seeking to force God’s people to conform to the zeitgeist.

8.) In closing allow me to suggest that it is you, by offering the love of a harlot as the love of Christ, who is showing a lack of love to and for the sinner. The good news is that Christ came to save those who see themselves under God’s wrath because they are sinners.

You can be sure that when I am face to face with someone broken by their sin the last thing I will offer is condemnation. You can be sure that whenever I am face to face with someone who is repentant all I have to offer is the Character of God who loves us in spite of our sin. You can be sure that when I am face to face with someone who is repentant what I do is enter into repentance with them.

Seven Signs We May Be Worshiping Our Churches

I love the Church I serve. I love being a minister. I’ve been at the Church I serve 20 years this year. I am convinced that a connection to the Church and one’s attendance on Word and Sacrament are necessary for sanctification in the Christian life. I love the people I serve and pray for them and minister Christ to them regularly. However, having said that, I want to be and I want them to be on guard against loving the Church inordinately.

As such, I want to raise a warning that it is possible that there may be those who are practicing Church-olatry (Worship of the Church). The following are possible signs that we have begun worshiping the Church rather than attending the Church to worship.

1.) We think that whenever the doors are open we have to be present.

One of the Changes of the Reformation was to reduce the time laity spent in the Church building. In the Medieval age the Church was open for Matins, Vespers, Masses, canonical hours, confessional, etc. It was thought that the more time one spent in the Church the better Christian one was. The Reformation changed all that with the understanding that all of life could be lived unto the glory of God. The Reformation actually reduced the time one spent in Church.

Certainly Worship should be attended but the idea that members have to be present for every single function of the Church suggests that the Church may be seeking to replace the role of the Family as the institution responsible for the rearing and raising of children.

2.) We keep attending a Church even though we know the Church refuses to challenge a pagan culture

Worshiping the Church can be seen by the fact that often people who know better will keep attending a Church even though there is a refusal to challenge worldliness. For example, people remain though youth groups are prioritized over family. People remain though no teachings are heard against the sin of causing little children to stumble by placing them, for hours a day, in institutions that catechize them into a false religion. People remain though no teachings are heard warning about the child centered family. The Reformed antithesis is not drawn over against theologies alien to the Covenant Reformed faith.

3.) We keep attending even though there is an attempt to use false guilt to involve us in certain behavior patterns

Teachings are given where members are told that God expects them to do “X,” “Y,” or “Z” with little or no Scriptural support to sustain the appeal. Often times Scripture is taken out of context in order to support some kind of hobby horse of the ministerial staff.

4.) We keep attending even though the leadership is not Covenantal Reformed

If we are in a Reformed Church we should expect Covenant Reformed leadership in the lay Elders elected. We should expect that the pulpit is not turned over to those who are not Covenant Reformed. We should expect that conferences are not organized where Arminians are invited to speak as headliners.

5.) We keep attending even though the Church doesn’t appreciate how central the family is in God’s economy

We get teachings that suggest that the Church is more important than the family and should be prioritized over the family when in God’s economy both the Family and the Church are equally ultimate, each in their proper sphere. There is little or no sympathy of the Parent’s desire to protect the children from bad teaching in Sunday School or Youth Group precisely because there is little or no understanding that the teaching in Sunday School and Youth group is unwholesome.

6.) We keep attending even though the Leadership does not manage their own household well.

There is, among some or all of the leadership, children of varying ages who are out of control or who have repudiated or redefined the Christian faith. Yet despite that the Leadership is allowed to continue in leadership positions. Children are allowed to be “salty” to their Elders showing little or no respect.

7.) We keep attending though the Church is antinomian

There is a refusal to understand that for Christians there is a harmony between Law and Gospel. As such there is a constant warning about falling into “legalism” whenever any member suggests that the standard of God should be applied. As such there is a bent towards antinomianism in the Church.

By all means, let us enjoy and treasure our Churches. Let us celebrate the gift they are. Let us pour out our lives and hearts into ministering to God’s people — including God’s people who also happen to be our children. Finally, let us realize that just as we are not perfect so our Churches will not be perfect, and so let us be patient. However, in doing so, let us also be mindful of the necessity to properly prioritize our own family, remembering God’s word that “He who does not provide for his own family is worse than an infidel.” Let us beware the danger of falling into Ecclesiolatry.

CNN Belief Blog Goes All Emotive & Irrational

Here is another brilliant commentary on sodomite marriage by Rachel Held Evans at CNN Belief blog. I don’t know who she is. I am told she is another influential writer.

How evangelicals won a war and lost a generation

How evangelicals won a culture war and lost a generation
Opinion by Rachel Held Evans, special to CNN

(CNN) – On March 24, World Vision announced that the U.S. branch of the popular humanitarian organization would no longer discriminate against employees in same-sex marriages.

It was a decision that surprised many but one that made sense, given the organization’s ecumenical nature.

But on March 26, World Vision President Richard Stearns reversed the decision, stating, “our board acknowledged that the policy change we made was a mistake.”

Supporters helped the aid group “see that with more clarity,” Stearns added, “and we’re asking you to forgive us for that mistake.”

So what happened within those 48 hours to cause such a sudden reversal?

The Evangelical Machine kicked into gear.

Albert Mohler Jr., president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary, said the decision pointed to “disaster,” and the Assemblies of God denomination encouraged its members to pull their financial support from the organization.

Evangelicals took to Twitter and Facebook to threaten to stop sending money to their sponsored children unless World Vision reversed course.

Within a day of the initial announcement, more than 2,000 children sponsored by World Vision lost their financial support. And with more and more individuals, churches and organizations threatening to do the same, the charity stood to lose millions of dollars in aid that would otherwise reach the poor, sick, hungry and displaced people World Vision serves.

So World Vision reversed course.

Stearns told The New York Times that some people, satisfied with the reversal, have called World Vision headquarters to ask, “Can I have my child back?” as though needy children are expendable bargaining chips in the culture war against gay and lesbian people.

Many of us who grew up evangelical watched with horror as these events unfolded.

As a longtime supporter of World Vision, I encouraged readers of my blog to pick up some of the dropped sponsorships after the initial decision. I then felt betrayed when World Vision backtracked, though I urged my readers not to play the same game but to keep supporting their sponsored children, who are of course at no fault in any of this.

But most of all, the situation put into stark, unsettling relief just how misaligned evangelical priorities have become.

When Christians declare that they would rather withhold aid from people who need it than serve alongside gays and lesbians helping to provide that aid, something is wrong.

There is a disproportionate focus on homosexuality that consistently dehumanizes, stigmatizes and marginalizes gay and lesbian people and, at least in this case, prioritizes the culture war against them over and against the important work of caring for the poor.

1.) Why does Evans believe that all because Evangelical dollars were taken away from World Vision because of their change of policy that therefore those dollars were no longer going to go to the poor? There are many many relief ministries out there and it is not unreasonable to think that Christians withdrawing money from World Vision would not take that same money and support some other relief agency that was not compromising on the Gospel. The poor would still be aided. True … different poor but poor all the same.

2.) Why are Evangelical principles misaligned? Why should they support with their monies a ministry that is contrary to their convictions? What would it take for Evans to conclude that people could withdraw their money, once designated for a set ministry, in order to protest the direction of the company the monies were formerly designated? What if World Vision had come out in favor of Pedophilia? Would that be a good enough reason? By what standard does Evans adjudicate that withdrawing support is commendable?

Held writes,

Evangelicals insist that they are simply fighting to preserve “biblical marriage,” but if this were actually about “biblical marriage,” then we would also be discussing the charity’s policy around divorce.

But we’re not.

Furthermore, Scripture itself teaches that when we clothe and feed those in need, we clothe and feed Christ himself, and when we withhold care from those in need, we withhold it from Christ himself (Matthew 25:31-46).

Why are the few passages about homosexuality accepted uncritically, without regard to context or culture, but the many about poverty so easily discarded?

1.) We should discuss the Charity’s policy around divorce if it needs discussed.

2.) Held misinterprets the Matthew 25 passage. The passage is referring to ministry to the Brethren of Jesus — that is those who wear the name of Christ. Secondly, Held assumes that all because monies were going to be withheld from World Vision that necessarily means that those same funds were going to be withheld from the poor. That is a very tenuous assumption. People can withhold money from the poor of World Vision and still help the poor of some other organization that they believe is more faithful to their convictions.

3.) Who says that the passages about poverty are easily discarded? Held doesn’t get what she wants and she throws a fit insisting that the passages that have to do with poverty are neglected?

4.) The “without regard to context or culture” comment of Held is suggestive that she likely dismisses the passages forbidding sodomy.

Held writes,

As I grieved with my (mostly 20- and 30-something) readers over this ugly and embarrassing situation, I heard a similar refrain over and over again: “I don’t think I’m an evangelical anymore. I want to follow Jesus, but I can’t be a part of this.”

I feel the same way.

Whether it’s over the denial of evolutionary science, continued opposition to gender equality in the church, an unhealthy alliance between religion and politics or the obsession with opposing gay marriage, evangelicalism is losing a generation to the culture wars.

A recent survey from Public Religion Research Institute revealed that nearly one-third of millennials who left their childhood faith did so because of “negative teachings” or “negative treatment” of gay and lesbian people.

1.) If the Church must lose people because it is faithful to the message of Scripture than it must bear that loss. What will it profit the Church, Rachel, to gain the whole world but lose its own soul?”

2.) Rachel’s comments above demonstrate that “Evangelical” means both nothing and everything. We are better off being done with the whole word and movement. Let the various splinters go their various ways and find another orbit to circle around.

Held holds,

Christians can disagree about what the Bible says (or doesn’t say) about same-sex marriage. This is not an issue of orthodoxy. But when we begin using child sponsorships as bargaining tools in our debates, we’ve lost the way of Jesus.

So my question for those evangelicals is this: Is it worth it?

Is a “victory” against gay marriage really worth leaving thousands of needy children without financial support?

Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth losing more young people to cynicism regarding the church?

Is a “victory” against gay marriage worth perpetuating the idea that evangelical Christians are at war with LGBT people?

And is a “victory” against gay marriage worth drowning out that quiet but persistent internal voice that asks, “what if we get this wrong?”

I, for one, am tired of arguing. I’m tired of trying to defend evangelicalism when its leaders behave indefensibly.

I’m going AWOL on evangelicalism’s culture wars so I can get back to following Jesus among its many refugees: LGBT people, women called to ministry, artists, science-lovers, misfits, sinners, doubters, thinkers and “the least of these.”

I’m ready to stop waging war and start washing feet.

1.) This is an issue about orthodoxy. See Romans 1, I Cor. 6, Jude 1, Galatians 5, etc.

2.) When other poor are being still helped because previously designated money is going to different poor people, it is not holding the poor as bargaining chips when money is no longer sent to merely one of dozens of agencies for the poor.

3.) Held seems to hold that the money that is committed to World Vision is automatically World Visions whatever it does and that somehow there is some immorality in someone deciding that they are going to support someone different than World Vision with their monies. That is a most tenuous assumption.

4.) All because people are not interested in supporting an agency that supports the LGBT movement doesn’t even get close to meaning that we have lost the way of Jesus. That is just more emotive language to try to get people all verklempt.

5.) As to Held’s questions

#1 — Does not apply. Withholding money from World Vision does not equal withholding that money from the poor.

#2 — Yes

#3 — Yes

#4 — We are not getting this wrong.

6.) As to Held’s “least of these comments” she should try being a White Male Biblical Christian Minister. Talk about the least of these.

Answering A Push Poll

Recently, a friend of mine who is a Pastor in New England went to a weekly community Pastor’s meeting and he was polled as to some of his opinions regarding sodomy. He sent me a copy of the poll and I’ve answered only a few of the questions here. It was quickly clear that this poll is what is known in the political activist business as a “push poll.” A push poll is an opinion poll whose real purpose is to influence people’s opinions rather than to collect information about them. Push polls often rely on innuendo or knowledge gleaned from opposition research on a subject. Push polls have as their purpose to confirm the desired opinion held by those conducting the poll and the questions are often either biased or indefinite by the way they are phrased, thus allowing their interpretation to be spun as favorable to the pollsters doing the polling. In this push poll questions were worded to make the position of acceptance of sodomy more rational and compassionate. The traditional position which opposes sodomy appeared unreasonable and rigorous. In push polls the phrasing of the language is everything.

Dear Pastor,

What practical dilemmas do you encounter related to homosexuality or same-sex marriage? (for example, situations at church, in your family, at work, or at school).

The largest practical dilemma I face is the necessity to repeatedly show from Scripture that sodomy is sin. However, because sodomy and sodomite marriage is being pushed on us in culture and in the Church in every quarter and because the Church is constantly being bombarded with the message that, “to oppose sodomy and speak against sodomy is hateful” it makes it difficult, as a Pastor, to give the Biblical message that it is the most loving thing in the world to speak out against sodomy and sodomite marriage.

So the chief dilemma I have, as a Pastor, is to help congregants hold on to the idea that sodomy and unrepentant sodomite “sex” and sodomite marriage is an offensive sin before God almighty and is a sure sign of God’s judgment against a people for their rebelling against Him. I have the dilemma that fewer and fewer people believe that sodomy and sodomite marriage is the consequence of God “turning them over (Romans 1).”

Another dilemma I have is how “God’s love” is used as a blanket phrase to somehow excuse all sins but no less the sin of sodomy and sodomite marriage. It’s as if the idea of God’s love is interpreted to be the equivalent of the love of a whore or a gigolo.

Finally, another dilemma that crops up frequently is the idea of how as Christians we are not to Judge therefore we can’t judge against sodomy and sodomite marriage.

Pastor,

What do you see as the most pressing questions for your congregation in regards to same-sex attracted people and/or same-sex marriage?

The congregation I serve, unknown possible exceptions notwithstanding, have no pressing questions. They pretty much uniformly realize that sodomy and sodomite marriage is sin and that God can forgive this sin and that the Church must be declaiming against this cultural sin du-jour, while tenderly shepherding former sodomites who repent and join themselves to Christ’s Church.

Pastor,

What are your greatest fears, if any, concerning same-sex marriage?

I have no fears.

Here are my concerns.

1.) I am concerned that the sodomite agenda is about destroying heterosexual marriage. See the links below that discuss this.

see — http://salvomag.com/blog/2013/03/five-gay-marriage-myths/
see — http://www.peter-ould.net/2012/12/07/gay-marriage-and-the-effect-on-heterosexual-marriage/

2.) People will begin to believe sodomite marriage is possible. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then being an accomplished rider of a two wheeled unicycle can be accomplished. Sodomite marriage is no more possible then the drawing of a square circle. Sodomite marriage is not possible given the very definition of marriage as between one man and one woman. Are we forgetting the Scripture by even talking about the possibility that sane Christians can subscribe to “sodomite marriage?” Will we advocate next that Christians subscribe to the reality of Fairies and Goblins?

3.) I am greatly concerned that the Church is going to rebel against God on this matter by normalizing sodomy and sodomite marriage and so diminish His glory among men and incur His wrath.

4.) I am greatly concerned that the souls of sodomites, that are precious to God, will end up being confirmed in their sin and be told that God loves them “just the way they are,” in their unrepentant sodomite behavior. I am concerned over how hateful and cruel any action that “normalizes” sodomy or sodomite marriage would be, to yet unrepentant, practicing sodomites.

5.) I am greatly concerned that humanistic sociology and psychology will be used to reinterpret the clear teaching of Scripture that forbids sodomite behavior. I am concerned that passages like Romans 1, I Corinthians 9, and Galatians 5 will be reinterpreted via a LGBT sacred canopy.

What are your greatest hopes, if any, concerning same-sex marriage?

My greatest hope is that sodomite marriage will be seen as an absurdity and will be recognized as always characteristic of a social order about to flame out. My greatest hope includes that men and women will be set free by the Lord Christ to repent of their sins, whatever those sins might be.

Resources I recommend,

Homosexuality; A Biblical View — Dr. Greg Bahnsen

Libido Dominandi: Sexual Liberation & Political Control — Dr. E. Michael Jones

Degenerate Moderns: Modernity as Rationalized Sexual Misbehavior — Dr. E. Michael Jones

Redeeming the Rainbow — Scott Lively