Two examples that the homosexualization of our culture continues apace.

1.) The Miss America contest was determined because one of the contestants insisted that marriage should be between a man and a woman.

2.) The government schools just recently held their “day of silence” event. This is an yearly event that uses the masquerade of homosexuals being harassed to recognize the legitimacy of homosexuality. If you doubt that ask yourself if students would be encouraged to have a day where it is emphasized that they shouldn’t harass students who are into necrophilia or bestiality.

Obviously, no such days would ever yet be established. Homosexuals get a day of silence in order to create compassion for them and their movement and in order to convince students that homosexuality should be treated as “normal.”

Pluralization is the process by which the number of options in the private sphere of modern society gives the appearance of rapid multipication at all levels, especially at the level of Worldviews, faiths and ideologies.

Now apart from considering pluralization as it pertains to Worldviews, faiths and ideologies no one can doubt for a second the vast plethora of choices that we are confronted with daily. A trip down any grocery store aisle will give you so many types of toothpastes or deodorants to choose from that there can be no doubt that pluralization succeeds at the most fundamental of levels.

Or to extend the illustration one can look at the Television set. When I grew up there was ABC, CBS, NBC and that was it. Now the stations and programming runs into the hundreds if not thousands. We have pluralization in entertainment.

But what is exciting at the level of the kind of soap you put in your mouth or the kind of chemical you put under your arms becomes dangerous when applied to Worldviews, faiths or religions.

Nothing dangerous is going to happen to you if you use Colgate one week and Aquafresh the next week and Crest the next week and the Amway brand the following week. But when this approach to what we believe ends up being applied to Worldviews or faith systems it becomes a little dicier.

The fact that has indeed happened to some degree can be seen in the way that people do Church in various seasons or phases of their lives. I have met many people who tell me they grew up Reformed and now they are Wesleyan or Church of Christ or something else and when they vacation in Florida they attend a Lutheran Church. When I ask them what happened that they would have such a change they look at me with what I call the ‘dumb cow’ look.

The question doesn’t even make sense to them because all of these different Churches are just like so many different tubes of toothpaste to them. They, and the Churches they attend, have been smitten by the idea of pluralization. In the thinking of those I have spoken with who have made what I would have considered drastic changes in their Church homes all they have done is to switch brand names. They have gone from using Crest to using Colgate.

The Churches they attend are part of this equation also because the Churches they attend, in order to compete for a shrinking number of consumers have standardized so that even though you have different brand names out there all of them are pretty much the same.

Here we find the irony of pluralization as it pertains to the realm of Worldviews, faiths or religions. Because pluralization in a consumer setting must respond to consumer desire what ends up happening is that the real differences that you would expect to find among different worldviews gets washed out so that the competing Worldviews, and distinctives can be competitive. The differences that exist are reduced to the way the Church markets itself.

Let’s take for example the issue of denominations. In Charlotte alone we have 23 different Churches last time I counted.

That is quite a choice for such a little city. Indeed we would contend that pluralization is alive and well in Charlotte.

But is it really?

If it was real pluralization then you could go to each of those 23 Churches and it wouldn’t take you long to realize what the distinctives were. You would learn that Nazarenes have a doctrine of perfect love or entire sanctification that teaches a person can reach a point where they never sin. You would learn that the Church of Christ doesn’t think you’re saved unless you were baptized as an adult. You would learn that the Assembly of God Church believes that unless you speak in tongues you are not saved, you would learn that in a Reformed Church we teach a kind of thing called predestination and on and on it would go.

Real pluralization in the area of Worldviews, faiths and ideologies would bring these matters to the forefront just as the differences of food are brought to the forefront when one goes to various ethnic restaurants.

The fact that doesn’t happen and that the real distinctives among these putatively competing faith systems is not accentuated is perhaps indicative that pluralization in the area of Worldviews, Faiths, and beliefs systems is just a smokescreen created to hide the reality that pluralization itself is our monolithic belief system.

Pluralization thus is the sacred canopy or global umbrella for Americans. Pluralization is our common faith that unites us into one whole. Ironically, our unity is provided by the myth of diversity.

It is the kind of unity of ancient Rome where all the gods were welcomed into the pantheon.

In this essay we want to take some time looking at the relationship between culture and cultus. So as to be clear about the words we are using we are defining cultus as, ‘a zealous devotion to a god(s) or god concept by a group of people.’ Further we are insisting that the consequence of this zealous devotion always produces a culture, which we are defining as the physical instantiation of the non-physical and non-corporeal zealous devotion of the adherents of the cultus. Put another way, culture is the outward expression of a peoples inward beliefs – beliefs that are what they are because of the cultus.

Immediately we can see that while cultus and culture are distinct realities they are so intertwined that one cannot have cultus without it producing culture and that culture cannot exist without the cultus. Every culture is created by a cultus and every cultus produces a culture. For example, the Hindu faith yields a Hindu cultus, which creates Hindustan while the Islamic faith yields an Islamic cultus, which creates Muslimville, and the Secular Humanist faith yields a Secular Humanist cultus, which creates America, and a Christian faith would yield a Christian cultus, which would create Christendom.

It should be readily apparent already that the core of a culture is its cultus. The cultus produces a ‘way of life’ that at other times we call culture. The cultus is the spiritual reality that drives how a people organize themselves in their various corporate expressions.

One point we must emphasize already in light of what we have said is that all cultures are religious phenomena’s that are produced by a people’s Theology. Should one desire to understand any culture or any aspect of culture they must work back from what they see on the periphery that presents itself as the peoples way of life to the cultus that is producing that way of life and from there back to the God, gods, or god concept upon which the cultus is exerting its zealous devotion. The beginning point for every culture is the cultus and the beginning point for every cultus is its God, gods, or god concept.

Before moving on I want to be very concrete about this point. Since a culture is the physical incarnation of the non-physical and non-corporeal zealous devotion of the adherents of the cultus that which comprises the various expressions of culture likewise are expressions of this devotion. To be even more precise what we are saying is that the various aspects of a culture such as literature, science, economics, law, journalism, entertainment, education, are varying manifestations of the zealous devotion of the varying adherents of the cultus to their God, gods or god concept.

Another observation that should be made here is that culture not only exists in order to reflect the cultus, and to magnify the god of the cultus but culture also exists in order to protect the cultus. Every culture has and is a defense mechanism whereby it protects, defends, and seeks to perpetuate itself and the cultus that creates it from the influence of another cultus. As such, where the Christian faith is introduced and takes hold in a hostile atmosphere there the antithesis is expressed in faith vs. faith, cultus vs. cultus, and culture vs. culture.

What we have said thus far leads us to three conclusions.

1.) The ancients were correct when they taught that Theology is the Queen of the Sciences as cultures are crafted according to their cultus. Moderns have a tendency to laugh this notion off but if culture and cultus are what we are saying they are then Theology remains the core discipline that informs all other disciplines and every man should start with the core discipline of Theology before moving on to other disciplines that are but seeking to express the core discipline in sundry ways.

2.) Before man is Homo sapiens man is Homo Adorans. Man, whether considered individually or collectively, is what he worships, or otherwise put man is and so creates that to which he is a zealously devoted adherent.

3.) The idea of a faith producing a cultus that only saves individuals and doesn’t yield a culture is a logical absurdity. It is literally not possible.

Having laid this basic groundwork I would like to consider briefly those religious expressions, often found within Christianity, that insist that the Christian cultus in its institutional expression (The Church) can and should be divorced from culture, even going so far as to warn of the grievous error of other leaders of the Christian cultus as they push on in seeing the connection between cultus and culture. The byword among these men who insist on a disconnect between the cultus in its institutional manifestation and culture is that Christianity is a faith and not a culture and while that is true what they fail to acknowledge is that Christianity is a faith, that like all faiths, creates a particular kind of cultus, which in turn must create a culture in order for Christianity to prosper as Christianity.

Now, it may seem a bit extreme to suggest that Christianity cannot prosper as Christianity unless it’s cultus produces an always renewing and reforming Christian culture but let us consider the alternative. If the Christian faith refuses to produce a cultus that in turn produces a culture then the inevitable consequence is that the zealously devoted adherents of some other competing cultus, which is itself derivative of some non-Christian god concept will produce a culture and history suggests that the new culture producing cultus will do its flat level best to eliminate all other competing cultus’.

Secondly, even should some other competing cultus allow the non-culture producing cultus of Christianity to exist the consequence would be that the non-culture creating cultus of Christianity would be increasingly be defined by the alien cultus and its culture. With notable exceptions, the human being is a chameleon like creature that normatively changes color to adapt to the cultural background against which (s)he is set. People who embrace the Christian faith and so become part of a Christian cultus will find their Christian faith defined and their Christian cultus radically altered as they live in and are set against a culture that is overwhelmingly contrary to their Christian faith and cultus. That this is so, one only needs to look at the Church in the West today, as she has largely become an accomadationist institution reflecting the pagan cultus and culture among where she finds herself and not the cultus of Her Lord and His Faith.

So, given these realities, I say again that if the Christian faith doesn’t give birth to a culture producing cultus then that Christian ‘faith’ is in danger of heading towards the same end as the 19th century shakers who refused to produce children. A sterile Christian cultus will have the same lifespan as those sterile Christian dervishes.

Before moving on to other cultus culture issues a word should be interjected here regarding the notion that the institutional Church (the cultus in its visible manifestation) and her spokesmen should only speak to cultus issues (sometimes referred to as Word and Sacrament) and shouldn’t officially speak to cultural issues. First, we would heartily agree that the Christian cultus issues of whom the creator God is, of Jesus Christ’s life, death, resurrection, and enthronement, and of the sanctifying work of the Holy Spirit should be directly and repeatedly be front and center before the zealously devoted adherents of the cultus (God’s people). However, we believe the problem with some of our detractors is that they are incapable of seeing the connection between cultural issues and the cultus. For example, when speaking to what are deemed as cultural issues there should be no problem in seeing that such a sermon would be directly related to the idea of Jesus Christ enthroned as a King to whom all men owe their allegiance. In the end making a hard and fast separation between issues of Christian cultus and issues that come up in culture is to potentially leave Jesus Christ to be a Gnostic Lord. Also, in a refusal to speak to cultural issues that come up we are communicating to God’s people, if only implicitly, that reality is compartmentalized into a sacred and profane realm. By our refusal to speak to all of life we are communicating that the Christian cultus and the Lord who created that cultus doesn’t care about politics, economics, law, and every other putatively non-theological area. Finally, if the cultus, in her visible manifestation, doesn’t speak from God’s Word on these issue then where will the members of the cultus (God’s people) go in order to hear how a Christian people should think about issues that create the tapestry against which they are to live out their Christian faith?

In rounding off on cultus and culture issues for this essay I would like to explore tactical and strategic thinking as it pertains to working in the non-Christian majority cultus and culture in which we currently live. It strikes me that Christians are better at tactical issues when it comes to the cultus / cultural conflict that we are in but not so good at thinking strategically. We tend to address the symptoms but seldom seem to go for the disease. Part of the reason for this is that we have as many strategic goals as we do expressions of the Christian faith, and so we are shut up to working together only on tactical issues. Concretely speaking, what it is that a Pentecostal wants to accomplish in a strategic sense is likely going to be vastly different then what a Roman Catholic wants to accomplish in a strategic sense and this is so because each have a substantially different view of who God is. Our strategy then is shut up to what we have in common in being against the current prevailing cultus / culture and not what we have in common in being for some agreed upon end. Because the cultus of each varying expression of Christianity is deep down at odds we have a difficult time with strategic plans. Another reason that we aren’t so good at Strategic thinking is that so many people who deem themselves part of the Christian cultus are ideological quislings who mistake tactical victories for strategic victory.

The Christian faith will not prevail in the West again until we realize that we are at war with not only alien faiths but also with alien cultus’ and alien cultures, all of which are created by some God, god’s or god concept. It is not enough to wrestle with only one of these apart from realizing how all the others are bound up with each other. We may and should make distinction among