Blame Your Theology, Not the Sodomites
I am sure I am not the only one living today who remembers how Hollywood movies of 30 years ago depicted sodomites. In dramas, they were usually dark characters, either outright criminal or, at the very least, sinister and untrustworthy. In comedies, they were goofy oddballs, buffoons who were good for nothing more than being an object of ridicule. There certainly weren’t any sodomite heroes in the Hollywood fictional universe; sodomy was an aberration, and the subconscious message of the movies was that it was either morally repulsive or grotesquely ridiculous. nos a days is a bit better, and people can even see more movies from other countries since VPN made a netflix guide.
Not that Hollywood at the time was more Christian, or even remotely Christian. Christians got about the same bad press – or should I say, bad film – as the sodomites; there was no Christian influence in Hollywood. The truth is, Hollywood wasn’t politically correct, didn’t care to be politically correct, and wasn’t concerned about possible political backlash from the tiny percent of sodomite perverts in this country. And that not because sodomites weren’t in influential positions as they are today. Hollywood has always been a hotbed of all kinds of perversions and immorality. Rather, at the time, sodomites hadn’t thought of a strategy for political protection of sodomy and of politically mandated sodomite propaganda. In fact, no one at the time seriously thought such political strategy was possible or that it could have any chance of success; no political party thought seriously about adding political endorsement of perversion in its platform, and no government thought seriously about making legal changes to accommodate sodomites.
Fast forward 30 years. Things have changed, haven’t they. Hollywood doesn’t mock sodomites nor presents them as sinister characters, and in fact, the sodomite lobby is on the offensive. Looking back, one can conclude that there has been a strategy at work, strategy focused on politics and legislation, aimed at forcing sodomite propaganda on the society and marginalizing Christians, culturally, legally, and politically.
Now, before I continue, let me say that while I recognize the conspiratorial character of sodomite activism, I am not as concerned about it as most American Christians and conservatives in general are. Why? Because I try to think covenantally and historically and to learn from the Bible and from history. (History interpreted through the Bible, that is.) Modern sodomite activism is not something new, and in fact, sodomy has been on the decline in the world for a long time now. The culmination of sodomite activism in Christendom was in the 14th century when male sodomy was really rampant in northern Italy and France, the two most populated regions in Christendom at the time. England and Germany weren’t spared either. Governments didn’t do much about it because the perversion had spread mainly among the elite classes – nobility and priesthood. Kings and government officials were involved in it, some monasteries were hotbeds of sodomy, and pre-Renaissance pieces of art reflect the prevalence of sodomy in the society at the time. (There are multiple such examples but I will refrain from posting them for they are too graphic for this blog. The reader can himself google images for “homosexuality in the 14th century” for examples.) Sodomite marriages were performed in the churches of Italy, and many Italian cities had special part of town for male prostitutes. In general, there was very little resistance against this rampancy of perversion until the mid-15th century, and even then, most of the resistance was at grass roots level, with the elite very much in favor of sodomites. And yet, this outbreak of perversion died out of itself, and by the time of Erasmus very few traces of it were left. Sodomites can’t have a next generation.
What is more important to me is the question: Why did the sodomites in the US in the last 30 years choose to develop a strategy for political dominance? And specifically political dominance over the Christian cultural majority. While sodomy was rampant in the 14th century, there were no attempts at political dominance to promote sodomite practices. Sodomy was present among the elite classes of the Kingdom of Great Britain in the 19th and early 20th century (with the student culture of Cambridge and Eton leading the way of corrupting the best and brightest of England’s young men), and yet, that elite class never tried to advocate or promote or even change the anti-sodomy laws of England. Why did sodomites choose a political and legislative strategy for America in the last 30 years? What led them to adopt such a strategy? Why didn’t they choose a strategy of intellectual or economic conquest? Or why didn’t they choose to do what they have always done, remain in the shadows of the society, practicing their perversions without coming in open? What is it in the modern society that told them that an all-out political and legislative assault on Christianity would be successful?
Before we answer these questions, we need to answer the strategic question: What should a tiny minority of limited resources do if it is to win the cultural war against an enemy who controls the minds and the purses of the vast majority of the population?
The answer is: Use leverage. Find an area that the enemy is not interested to fight for, and yet will have the maximum impact on him. Thus, the expenditure of holding the ground will be minimal, and the results will far outweigh that expenditure. The greatest bang for the least buck, to put it simple.
And politics and legislation is that area. How so?
Because the theology of the modern church says it. And it is the theology of the modern church that tipped off the sodomites to the possibility of defeating Christianity without much effort.
First, the modern church openly declares that it won’t involve in politics. This declaration is present everywhere in the theological statements of the modern pulpits in churches and seminaries. It is present in the reductionist statements of churchian celebrities who beat themselves in the chests that they are “only preaching the Gospel and nothing else”; the “gospel,” of course, defined as a few propositions for personal salvation, not as the Gospel of the Kingdom of God which takes over the whole world. It is present in their rejection of the concept of a Christian culture. It is present in their rejection of the Law of God as the only valid standard for justice in the society, thus leaving justice to be defined by secular politicians. It is present in dualistic theories like the “two kingdoms” rhetoric, or dispensationalism, or radical “grace vs. law” dichotomies which cripple Christian efforts in the legislative arena. It is present in the fact that Christian seminaries – even those that claim to be “Reformed” – include courses on all kinds of bizarre and obscure topics but never courses on Biblical economics, or politics, or law, or education. Etc., etc. Directly or indirectly, today’s churchian elite in the US has effectively declared the total retreat of the church from any relevant fight in the legislative arena, and has limited their preaching and teaching to issues of personal morality and ecclesiastical organization.
To any intelligent observer, therefore, the field of politics and legislation is a ripe fruit to fall in the hands of anyone who wants it, no matter how weak they may be in terms of cultural influence and resources. But that in itself won’t be enough if politics and legislation can’t affect Christians in any way. After all, the Amish don’t participate in politics but they also do not submit to political pressure, and that’s why they have been able to avoid being forced to pay to Social Security and have been left alone. But what about the American church?
Second, the modern church openly declares that it won’t resist the decrees of the political authorities. The theological justification for this is a twisted, dualistic, heretical reading of Romans 13:1-7 and of 1 Pet. 2:13-14 which declares the legitimacy of all political power and all political decrees, and forces the Christian conscience into submission to the state no matter what. (After all, Paul was speaking of the Roman authorities, right?) The declaration is present in the sending of millions of Christian children to the government schools. It is present in the pathetic idolatry and worship of the police state by Christians, and even official church ceremonies of “honoring” the standing army of government oppression called “police.” It is present in the gleeful war-mongering every time politicians come up with a new “threat to security.” It is present in the acceptance of more and more taxes (because we “should give Caesar what is Caesar’s”) and in the total silence from the pulpits on the evils of inflation, Social Security, government healthcare, etc. At every step, the churches in the Unites States declare with a loud voice, “Who is like the Beast, and who is able to wage war with him” (Rev. 13:4), and refuse to resist it, becoming accomplices in the Beast’s arrogant words and blasphemies.
With these two, the sodomites didn’t have to think of a strategy: it has been laid out for them by the elites in the church: non-involvement in politics and legislation plus non-resistance to politics and legislation. What more can the enemies of Christianity ask for?
Well, assurance of victory, for example.
For eventually, some politicians may brave the cultural tide and actually enact some legislation that could at least try to stop the victorious political march of the enemies of God. What is important is that Christians do not take such example as normative but as exceptions to the rule. Otherwise, Christians may decide that it is possible that the tide can be turned.
So, third, the modern church openly declares that it doesn’t believe in victory for the Gospel in history. Or at least that victory doesn’t really matter, what matters is that we are saved. It is in everything the modern church says, and not only the modern church, but all the conservative news sources and pundits. It is in the defeatist, pessimistic eschatologies of amillennialism and premillennialism. It is in the “exile theology”: the theory that claims that the church is analogical to the Hebrews mourning by the rivers of Babylon. It is in the false theological dictum that the Kingdom of Christ is “here but not yet.” (Of course, eventually, the “not yet” is what’s applied to the culture.) It is in the false humility of applying total depravity to politics but never applying Christ’s redemption to it; because, you know, God is not redeeming civil institutions. It is in the pretended piousness of the call to “live godly lives among a perverted generation,” instead of actively preaching and working of turning a perverted generation into a godly generation. Etc., etc.
The psychological result of this is obvious: When the enemies of God score a cultural, political, or legislative victory, it is taken for normative. Of course, it is a perverted generation, God is not redeeming the institutions, we are exiles, what else do you expect? When Christians succeed in stemming the tide, it is by default taken to be a temporary respite of the general march of the culture to darkness. It is for this reason the sodomites reacted so violently in Indiana: They know that given enough public pressure – even if it’s miniscule and politically irrelevant – Christians will be easily convinced by their own theology that nothing can stop the tide. Resistance is futile, and the theology of the modern pulpit reinforces this statement.
These three – non-involvement, non-resistance, and historical pessimism – have been part of the Church’s theology for quite a while, and have been noted and used successfully by other groups against Christianity. That Karl Marx was smart enough to notice the retreat of Christianity and take advantage of it was evident from this statement of 1872, to the Hague Congress:
Someday the worker must seize political power in order to build up the new organization of labor; he must overthrow the old politics which sustain the old institutions, if he is not to lose Heaven on Earth, like the old Christians who neglected and despised politics.
Hitler was also quick to grasp the benefits for his regime of the “two kingdoms” theology and the amillennial eschatology of the German church. European and American liberals of the second half of the 20th century, and the Communists in Latin America were also quick to take advantage of it. Seems like the sodomites in America are about the dumbest group ever of all opponents of Christianity, if it took them so long to take advantage of the false theologies in the church to fight against Christianity.
Not as dumb as the church herself, though. After a century and a half of cultural defeats caused by its false theology, the church still doggedly clings to it. And complains about the defeats, without removing the reason for them.
Talk about dumb. Or insane.
Non-involvement, non-resistance, and pessimism. As long as the theology of our modern seminaries and of the pulpits of our churches continues to endorse these beliefs and practices, don’t expect the sodomites to back off from the cultural war. Why should they, if the very theology of their enemy assures them of victory? In fact, if anything, we are lucky the sodomites weren’t smart enough to start much earlier, when the church adopted these false ideas.
But if the church is to win the cultural war, a purge of pulpits is necessary. A purge that will remove those who preach non-involvement, non-resistance, and pessimism. And restore the victorious, uncompromising message that defeated the mighty Roman Empire. Without such a purge, we can’t hope to leave a better world for our children.
I was listening to lectures of a Southern Baptist reformation conference. They spoke, it seemed correctly, about sphere sovereignty. Voddie Baucham, a gifted speaker, gave a stunning defense of his amillenialist position. I say stunning, because the audience audience pared absolutely stunned, that he was blowing holes in their dispensationalism and historic premillenialism. He spoke with such force fullness regarding the kingdom, God’s sovereignty, and God as a Man of War. I half expected him to carry the ball into the end zone and announce that he was now postmillenial. But alas, he put the ball down announce last the one yard line, and returned to the bench.
Totally agree. I’ve come to realise that when Christians state the dictum ‘now but not yet’ with respect to the Kingdom of God, what they really mean is ‘not yet.’
Excellent work, as usual. Thanks Bo.
Indeed, the pulpits need to be purged of the hirelings and replaced by genuine, bold shepherds who won’t hesitate to spit out the 501c3 bit and bridle. Also, congregations need to decide whether their pastors’ freedom to preach the full counsel of God’s Word or deduct their tithes and offerings from their taxes is more important.
Amen Bro, you are making my blood boil when I look at the suffering of the weak and helpless as well as the injustice of lawless humanism
And Churches what are they doing? Carrying there water!!!!
I think you miss a more fundamental point of churchianity’s complicity in supplying undefended territory to sodomite advocates, that is, the ‘church’ has, with the courts, been re-defining marriage for over a century. Marriage is defined as the union of one man and one woman until the death of any one member. The church, complicit with the courts, has redefined marriage to comprise dissolution for causes other than death. This is not marriage, by definition, any more than the conjugation of two men is. Second, the church, complicit with the courts, has redefined marriage further to comprise the union of more than one man with more than one woman but sanctioning second/third/fourth/et al. marriages in cases where previous spouses yet live. The result of this is multiple wives/husbands with any number of related/half-related/hemi-demi-semi-related siblings in the custody or partial custody of any number of parents/stepparents/fosterparents/mailmen/gardeners/gas station attendants/et al. This is not marriage, by definition, any more than the conjugation of two women is. Yet these practices are widespread and universally accepted in society on the basis of the church’s endorsement. No strong sentiment exists across society of ‘the church’ to roll back such perversion because of the lust for unabated access by heterosexual perverts to unimpeded sexual gratification.
Right on Bojidar!!
It’s the “Failure of the American Baptist Culture.”