LGBTQ and the Bible

The Question: 'How should a Christian approach the LGBTQ Movement?'

To answer, we need to ask, 'What does the Creator have to say on the subject?' To answer this we go to the Bible, not our feelings or cultural morals. Many Christians stake their answer upon the secular belief that sexual deviations from the established norm (heterosexuality) is okay. Secularism teaches that human beings are nothing more than 'enlightened animals' (whatever that means), and thus we are beholden to no moral framework beyond 'live and let live' (though from whence even that moral framework comes, who can say?). Secularism teaches us that because there are no moral standards for sexual behavior - excluding, one might say, coerced sexual acts, despite such things being common in the animal kingdom (though not appropriate for 'enlightened' animals, I suppose) - then there is no such thing as moral sexual deviation. Those lifestyles, orientations, and what-have-you promoted by the LGBTQ+ Movement are, top-to-bottom, deviations from heterosexual orientation and practice. While the Bible doesn't address every 'orientation' advocated by the movement (for 'orientation' itself is a concept foreign to the Bible, and even if it weren't, most of the 'orientations' now embraced didn't exist until five minutes ago), the Bible does address deviation from the created order for human sexuality. Homosexual activity, incest, and bestiality are all deviations from God's created order for how men and women embrace sexuality; what holds true for one deviation thus holds true for all deviations. Here we will look at what the Bible says on homosexual activity, for it is perhaps the most common sexual deviation of the LGBTQ movement and, as a deviation, is representative of them all; also, it was commonly enough practiced in the ancient world to be addressed in the Bible. Whether deviations should be embraced or rejected comes down to the authority by which you judge; for Christians, it means, 'By whose authority do we determine how to approach sexual deviations?' If the animal kingdom is the highest authority, then we will answer according to its rules. If culture is the highest authority, then we will answer by its rules. And if God is the highest authority, we must answer by His rules.

The Bible, which Christians understand to by God's holy and revealed Word, reveals that human sexuality is a good thing to be nurtured, cherished, celebrated, and engaged. However, human sexuality is to be practiced in the right way. In God's created order - the way He established things to operate, and in which things find true freedom and full expression - sexual practices are to be confined to certain parameters. When these parameters are breached, the result is chaos and brokenness (as the sad story of American culture makes clear). In God's created order, the way things are to be, a man is to live as a man and enjoy sex with his female wife; conversely, a woman is to live as a woman and enjoy sex with her male husband. Deviations from this standard - from the created order - are condemned across the board. The Bible reveals that homosexual activity - along with a host of other sexual perversions, such as bestiality and incest - are not only sinful but also 'abominable.' That last word comes from the Hebrew to-ebah, which carries the image of vomiting and gives us the unpleasant picture of God throwing up in His mouth at the very sight of these sinful activities. Sexual perversions of all stripes make God want to vomit; they're that detestable. The prophet Isaiah, in laying charges against the ungodly people of Judah, laments a number of 'societal sins' in the early part of his book, and he gives us a hallmark of a society opposed to God: they call evil good and good evil, they call darkness light and light darkness, and they call bitter sweet and sweet bitter. Our society mocks God's standards and laws, and some Christians have gone along with it by supporting those who do such things - despite the fact that in Romans 1, Paul says to even support such things is to be party to them. In Ephesians 5 Paul instructs God's people to expose sins, including those that infect culture, and the contemporary western belief that LGBTQ lifestyles and practices aren't only okay but also worthy of praise - something to take 'pride' in, as it were - is a blatant revolt against God's designs for men and women. 

In this first installment of a four-part series on the Christian approach to LGBTQ and its ilk, we'll examine some major biblical texts that specifically address the sin of homosexual activity (noting, of course, that what holds true for this sexual deviation holds true for them all). In the next installment we will focus in on Romans 1, paying particular attention to how Paul is building off of Greek philosophy and how that philosophy, entrenched in the western classical tradition, informs our view of men, women, and morality. In the third installment we will examine the Enlightenment-era rejection of classical western philosophy, examining why it was rejected, what was put in its place, and we will trace how modern philosophy has led us to where we're at and how modern philosophy will eventually burn itself out, for it has cut off the very branch upon which it sits. In the fourth installment we will pivot from sexually-oriented lifestyles to the modern concept of gender and gender identity and how a Christian should approach the current morass of gender politics. As we begin, note that I have made an attempt - at times failing, perhaps - to emphasize sexual activity over sexual orientation; this is because, in biblical times, there was no concept of 'sexual orientation.' The Bible condemns deviant sexual behaviors, not temptations towards deviant behaviors, and the Bible affirms that our sinful natures can lead us to do all sorts of weird stuff and swing every which way. As we examine the texts below, beginning in the Old Testament and then delving into the New, we will look at common objections against them. The last part of this first installment will look at some of the more popular objections (though in no way exhaustive) raised against the biblical approach to deviant sexual activity. We begin in the Old Testament.

Leviticus 18.22 - You shall not lie with a male as one lies with a female; it is an abomination.

Leviticus 20.13 - If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.

In the Book of Leviticus, God gave the Israelites His laws. These laws fall into three categories: ceremonial, cultural, and moral. Ceremonial laws dealt with making sure one is appropriately clean before entering the tabernacle, where God dwells with the Ark of the Covenant. Cultural laws dealt with making sure the Israelites remained culturally distinct from their neighbors; to this end God gave them some weird laws to make sure they didn't blend in with the surrounding culture. Moral laws included those which deal with what is morally right and wrong; they dealt with actual moral sin and uprightness. In these moral laws, God revealed His standard for ethical human living; violations of that standard are considered perversions, or deviations from His created order. The prohibition on homosexual activity - a man lying with a man as he lies with a woman (and, conversely inherent, a woman doing the same with another woman) - falls into the category of moral law. To do is a perversion, since it is a deviation from the created order, which refers to the way God has designed human beings to function; this deviation is not only a perversion but also an abomination, in that it is so detestable that it makes God want to puke. 

A common objection to the Levitical prohibition on homosexual activity goes like this: 'Jesus came to fulfill the Law, and Christians no longer live under Mosaic Law; therefore, the prohibition against homosexual activity is no longer binding. Those who want Leviticus 18 and 20 to remain binding need to be consistent and be bound by the rest of Leviticus, so no more pork or shellfish for you!' A Christian response to this challenge is twofold. First, Jesus did fulfill the Law in that the Law pointed to him, and in Christ we are no longer bound by the ceremonial and cultural laws of Leviticus. The ceremonial laws dealt with making sure those going to the tabernacle - and, later, the Temple - were fit to be in God's presence; Christ's atonement accomplishes our cleansing in a way that Levitical laws never could so that we can come boldly before God without having to undergo ritual purification (this is what the New Testament Book of Hebrews is all about). The cultural laws that served to keep Israel distinct from the nations are no longer binding because the purpose of those laws was to keep Israel culturally distinct for the coming of Christ; with Christ now come and reigning, those laws have served their purpose and are no longer binding. Moral law, however, such as what we find in Leviticus 18 and the Ten Commandments, remains binding. Right and wrong haven't changed with the coming of Christ, and that's why the New Testament echoes the moral laws of the Old Testament. Thus those who argue that Christians are being inconsistent in applying Leviticus 18 while eating 'forbidden foods' are really showcasing their ignorance: they don't understand what Christians actually believe and why we believe it, but nor do they have any desire to learn. They condemn us for inconsistency, but they are inconsistent as well: if the prohibition against homosexual activity is no longer binding, and such activities are to be accepted and praised, how long until one not only accepts but also praises incest, child abuse, and bestiality, which Leviticus condemns in the same breath? Sadly, some godless people are cozying up to these things as 'nothing bad at all,' for that is directly where modern philosophy takes them.

The New Testament isn't shy about denouncing homosexual activity, but nor does it harp upon it. We will look first at two texts in which the Apostle Paul uses a Greek word he coined, arsenokoites, to refer to homosexual activity; we will then examine Jude 6-7, which highlights the egregious sin for which Sodom and Gomorrah were destroyed.

1 Timothy 1.8-10 - But we know that the Law is good, if one uses it lawfully, realizing the fact that law is not made for a righteous person, but for those who are lawless and rebellious, for the ungodly and sinners, for the unholy and profane, for those who kill their fathers or mothers, for murderers and immoral men and homosexuals and kidnappers and liars and perjurers, and whatever else is contrary to sound teaching, according to the glorious gospel of the blessed God, with which I have been entrusted.

1 Corinthians 6.8-10 - Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.

In 1 Timothy Paul says the Mosaic Law is good, adding that it was made for the unrighteous, not for the righteous. He means that the Law serves to show fallen man the moral law of God, and in the Law we see where we fall short and need redemption. The Law condemns all sorts of sins, 'homosexuality' among them. The English word 'homosexuality' is used to translate the Greek word arsenokoites, which Paul also uses in 1 Corinthians 6 (here it is translated 'homosexuals'). Though both 'homosexuality' and 'homosexuals' in the English versions imply a deviant sexual orientation, we must bear in mind that Paul couldn't have been thinking of orientation for the simple reason that it's a modern concept. What he is addressing is actual homosexual behavior, saying in 1 Timothy that the Law is made for the arsenokoites and in 1 Corinthians that the arsenokoites cannot inherit the kingdom of God. Given the note made just a few sentences earlier, it's important to understand that Paul isn't talking about those having a 'homosexual orientation' but of those who persistently and willfully engage in homosexual activity. In the same vein, it isn't the one who wrestles against the urge to steal whom Paul speaks of but the one who makes a living off thievery; it isn't the recovering alcoholic who may trip up every now and again whom Paul has in mind but the willful drunk who delights in being a drunkard and persists in his sin. Paul goes on to say in 1 Corinthians 6 that the Christians of Corinth were once these very sort of people - Paul, knowing the backstory of the Corinthian Christians, likely mentioned specific sins that he knew had been present in the lives of the converts - but that they were washed and cleansed and set on the path of obedience. 

Many modern interpreters resist interpreting arsenokoites as referring to homosexual activity and, instead, advocate other interpretations of the word: perhaps Paul was referring to male temple prostitutes or perhaps, even, pedophilia. Their argument is founded on two realities: first, arsenokoites isn't found in stock Greek vocabulary and is a word that Paul seems to have coined on his own; second, if Paul was referring to homosexual activity, he would've used the Greek word androkoites, which specifically addresses homosexual activity. Because Paul coined a word rather than using the standard Greek word for homosexual activity, he must be speaking of something else (or so the argument goes). This argument seems logical on the front, but it's rooted in a straightforward assumption: 'We don't know what arsenokoites means!' However, upon closer examination, we find that we do know what arsenokoites means: we know how he coined it and why he coined it. The term he coins come directly from the two Greek words used in the Greek translation of Leviticus 18 in which homosexual activity is condemned; Paul 'coined' the compound word, but it didn't come from a vacuum. The Septuagint's translation of the Levitical passage says, in effect, 'Don't bed [koite] a man [arseno] like you would a woman.' Hence, arsenokoites is a man who beds a man like he would bed a woman. Paul coins the word so that his readers, steeped in Old Testament teaching (despite being predominantly Gentile, their holy scripture was the Old Testament), would know precisely what he was talking about. 

Jude 6-7 - And angels who did not keep their own domain, but abandoned their proper abode, He has kept in eternal bonds under darkness for the judgment of the great day, just as Sodom and Gomorrah and the cities around them, since they in the same way as these indulged in gross immorality and went after strange flesh, are exhibited as an example in undergoing the punishment of eternal fire.

Jude references two episodes in Old Testament history: the 'judgment' of rebellious elohim - the Sons of God in Genesis 6 - who committed sexually deviant acts and propagated false teachings; and the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah since they, in the same manner as the sons of God, committed sexually deviant acts. Jude says that what happened to Sodom and Gomorrah - their destruction by fire and brimstone - is an example to us of the punishment awaiting those who rebel against God. According to Jude, the sins for which these cities were destroyed was 'gross immorality' and going after 'strange flesh.' In the biblical account in Genesis 18-19, Lot gives shelter to two angels, and the men of Sodom demand he hand them over so they can rape them. The obvious sin here isn't merely violation of cultural hospitality rules - as some have lately argued - but the sin of homosexual activity. Sodom was, apparently, a bastion of gay living; for this reason, the term 'sodomy' - the act of one man penetrating another - was born. Such penetration was stock living for Sodom's men. Some interpreters, bowing to culture's softening towards sexual perversion, have argued that Sodom's sin was attempting rape, haughtiness, or egoism. Because our culture doesn't see any problem with one man penetrating another, they try to rework the Sodom and Gomorrah story, but in doing so they ignore Jude 7, which blatantly states that it was Sodom's gross immorality and desire for 'strange flesh' (in other words, deviant sexual activity) that damned them. Our culture glories in Sodom's ancient rites, and that's troubling, for we know how God deals with such cultures. Deviations from the sexual norm - whether of the homosexual variety, as we see in the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, or of any other variety, as seen in the story of the Sons of God - are detestable and procure God's wrath. 

One of the most prominent New Testament texts against homosexual activity is found in Romans 1, where Paul condemns sexual activity as being 'against nature'. We'll examine that text next week, deciphering what he means and why it's important. But before we wrap up, let's look at some common objections raised against the Bible's prohibition of homosexual activity (and, in tandem, all other deviant sexual activity). 

Objection #1: 'Jesus doesn't say anything about homosexual activity, so how come Christians - who follow Jesus - condemn it?' This objection assumes that Jesus covered anything and everything during his ministry; it also assumes the gospels record every little thing he said and did (which they do not); it further assumes that the rest of the New Testament isn't inspired by God. All these assumptions aside, while Jesus didn't, as far as we know, address homosexual activity specifically, he did affirm the created order: in other words, he affirmed that God made mankind male and female and expects them to live as men and women are to live. Deviations from the created order are perversions, and some of these perversions - such as homosexual activity - are abominations. Jesus affirms the created order and doesn't oppose the Jewish perspectives on that created order, implying that he affirmed it all the way through. 

Objection #2: 'Why does God care what we do in our bedrooms?' This question assumes that God is akin to the CEO of Company Earth: why should the CEO care what we do on our own time behind closed doors? But God is not just 'the boss' (though He is that); God is the creator, and the creator gets to decide how is creation functions. If you create a line of code, and that code becomes corrupted, operating out-of-bounds of the script, the code is thus defective. It's failing to operate how the creator intends is to operate. The creator has every right to determine how the code operates and to define what is 'normative' and 'right' for the code. In the same way, God as the creator of human beings has every right to define what is 'normative' and 'right' for human beings. Any deviation from the intended 'order of operations' for human beings (what we call 'the created order') is an affront to the creator and must be dealt with. This objection is, ultimately, rooted in our fallen desire for autonomy and self-rule; the very thought that we are beholden to a higher authority, and that we are expected to conform to rules and patterns that we did not decide for ourselves, chafes against our autonomous proclivities. 

Objection #3: 'Paul was just talking about non-consensual, or coerced, homosexual activity, not that activity between two loving or consensual adults.' This argument is popular today, and it's based on 1 Corinthians 6 and 1 Timothy 1 where Paul uses the word arsenokoites. Ignoring the context of where that word comes from - Leviticus 18 - they insist that Paul's word has to do with homosexual temple prostitution or the Greco-Roman practice of pedophilia between grown men and boys; but Paul doesn't confine his prohibition to temple prostitution, or to pedophilia, and we wouldn't argue that bestiality,  incest, murdering a child, or adultery is permissible outside religious contexts so long as it's consensual (though, ironically, these are things which our culture has consistently embraced under the authority of secular philosophy, indicating, again, the depth of our society's depravity). In regards to pedophilia, because such a practice happened in the Greco-world (though not to extent they would have you believe), they argue that Paul is condemning, particularly, grown men forcing young boys to have sex with them. However, Paul doesn't confine the act to coerced sexual activity; and if this same interpretation is applied to Leviticus 18, then we must be consistent: incest, the murder of a child, adultery, and bestiality are permissible as long as they are uncoerced (though how to get permission from a goat is beyond me)! This obviously doesn't make sense. Also, in Romans 1.26-27, Paul's condemnation of homosexual activity does not depend on the translation of a word coined by Paul in his other writings. In the Romans passage, Paul lists men and women abandoning the natural sexual act (heterosexual sex) for what is unnatural (homosexual sex) as an example of man's abominations resulting from abandoning the truth of God in exchange for a lie. The New Testament condemns homosexual activity across the board, regardless if it's between consenting adults, a form of temple prostitution, or pedophilia.

Objection #4: 'If people are born gay, then God is unfair in condemning for their desires!' This line of reasoning assumes that we are all born the way God wants us to be and ignores the biblical teaching that we are born sinful and depraved. This depravity affects our flesh particularly and our sexual proclivities especially. Sexual deviations from God's created order are so normal and widespread because sin's infections run deep and twist us up in all sorts of ways. The Bible teaches that we are born sinful, and we are held responsible for the sinful choices we make. The idea that some people are 'born gay' rather than being nurtured into homosexuality or even choosing it is used to oppose the Bible's prohibition: if someone is born, regardless of choice, with certain inclinations, should they be condemned for those inclinations? Let us assume that some people are indeed 'born gay,' destined to desire sexual activity and romance with members of the same sex. What is the Christian response to their dilemma? It is twofold: first, we acknowledge that everyone has a bend towards particular 'besetting' sins with which we struggle on a regular basis. For some this may be homosexual lust; for others it may be anger, or heterosexual lust, or pride, or love of money, or stealing. Everyone's got something. We are all born depraved with sinful natures. Second, we are held responsible for what we do, not what tempts us. God doesn't condemn us for being tempted by sin; Jesus was tempted and never sinned. What condemns us is when we choose the sin that tempts us. A person isn't condemned for being born with a disposition towards drunkenness and alcoholism; he is condemned for getting drunk and becoming a drunkard. Likewise, a person isn't condemned for being born with a disposition towards homosexual activity; he is condemned for engaging in sexual activity with members of the same sex. This is an important distinction: the Bible doesn't condemn he who is tempted by sinful desires but he who commits them.

A Parting Shot: 'How should we as Christians treat those who are sexually attracted to the same sex?' We are to treat them the same way we treat everyone else, for we are all sinful and inclined towards things which God detests. We are to be loving and graceful, not excusing their sin but not treating them as pariahs. They are made in the image of God, same as anyone else; they are worthy of the same dignity as one who is heterosexual; and God loves them no more or less than he loves the most upright among us. That being said, to love them doesn't mean to excuse their sin, tell them it's okay, or to celebrate it alongside them. Just as we wouldn't celebrate adultery, or unlawful divorce, or outbursts of anger or love for money, so we shouldn't celebrate homosexual activity.

debrief: Jeremiah

It’s taken me much longer than anticipated to finish the Book of Jeremiah (approximately three times as long as it took to finish the Book of Isaiah). My goal was to read at least a chapter a day; some days I read more than a chapter, but (more often) some days I read less. This isn’t a dig on Jeremiah. It’s an excellent book and worthy of thoughtful study. In this post I’m going to give a bare-bones sketch of the prophet Jeremiah. His book is interesting because, unlike with Isaiah, it’s about dead-even between stereotypical prophecies and narratives of Jeremiah’s life. 

The Person of Jeremiah

Jeremiah’s name means ‘Yahweh will raise’ or ‘Yahweh will cast down,’ an apt name because Jeremiah prophesies the ‘casting down’ of Jerusalem followed by its ‘raising up’ afterwards. He lived between 640-609 BC and has been called the ‘Isaiah of the 7th Century’ (Isaiah prophesied in the 8th century). Jeremiah’s also known as ‘the weeping prophet,’ for his life was one bathed in tears. God commanded him not to marry and not to party, for these actions (or, rather, inactions) served as signposts to the bitter reality coming on Jerusalem: it was no time to marry and have children, nor was there anything to celebrate. On top of this self-imposed bachelor life of drudgery, Jeremiah was persecuted, beaten, and even mocked by little children. More than once he cried out to God in bitter tears. Jeremiah’s life is ripe with emotional up-and-downs, and some scholars have speculated that he suffered major depression or even bipolar disorder. His message, repeated again and again, is clear and succinct: ‘Jerusalem will be stricken by a power from the north; this will be an act of divine judgment, Yahweh’s judgment against rebellious Judah. Egypt – though a familiar ally in chaotic times – will not be able to help; nor will Judah’s ‘beloved’ idols be able to save you! Only repentance can avert you from destruction, but your repentance must be NOW, for the drums of war are already beating!’ 

Jeremiah was born in the poverty-stricken town of Anathoth, north of Jerusalem, in the sad little territory of Benjamin. He grew up in a desert land, and his purpose in life had been thwarted by his ancestor Abiathar. By birth Jeremiah was of priestly lineage and had been called by God to serve in holy activities amongst the Ark of the Covenant and the Temple; but his ancestor Abiathar had teamed up with David’s son to try and steal the throne from Solomon. Because of this betrayal and failed coup, Abiathar and his ancestors were cursed and forbidden to live out their priestly purpose. Thus Jeremiah grew up as a boy without purpose; however, God had a purpose for Jeremiah, and had set Jeremiah out for this purpose before the day he was born (Jer 1.4-5). Jeremiah was a man of spiritual maturity: he was dedicated to the will of God no matter what, and he was willing to preach an unpopular message to very volatile and very powerful people (including kings). His book shows that he had a deep, warm devotion for God, and he was fully committed to his calling (though, at times, because of the great suffering he experienced, he was on the verge of quitting; however, he stuck with God and fulfilled his duties). He was also a man of courage, as is shown in the fact that he was willing to preach an unpopular message to a people who absolutely despised him; even one of the kings—Jehoiakim—hated him with an undying passion. He was a man of compassion; despite rebuking them for their sin, he wanted them to repent for their own sakes. He was a man of integrity: his word was his bond, his commitment was unchangeable, and he carried out his difficult call despite the countless burdens (emotional sufferings, mocking, beatings, even imprisonment in an ancient sewer!). As aforementioned, one of the most interesting aspects of Jeremiah’s life is his deep emotional trauma. Many scholars have asked the question, ‘Was Jeremiah manic-depressive?’ He often goes from great joys to deep emotional anguish. One minute he is seen exalting God with steady confidence in Him, and the next minute he is complaining to God—even yelling at God—and on the verge of tossing his prophetic career into the ocean. His message was hardhearted, but his own heart cried out in anguish (Jer 9.1, 13.17, 14.17); yet in the midst of this anguish, he found himself rising to great emotional heights (15.16, 20.11).

The Book of Jeremiah

The book of the prophet Jeremiah is one of the greatest prophetic masterpieces, ranking with that of the book of the prophet Isaiah a century earlier. The book uses a vast panorama of exquisite poetry and detailed prose; some parts even detail Jeremiah’s life (most likely autobiographical information written by the prophet himself). The authorship of the book is hotly disputed. The text tells us that Jeremiah’s scribe—a man named Baruch—wrote much of the book, but there are some sections which were most likely written by Jeremiah himself. Scholars have come up with this ‘history’ of the authorship of the book of the prophet Jeremiah:

   1) Baruch writes the original text.

   2) Jeremiah adds to the original text 

   3) Following Jeremiah’s death, Baruch edits the text and adds a historical appendix (Ch 52) 

  4)  Many years later, Alexandrian Jews, influenced by Greek philosophy, rearrange the order of the text to make it more logical

The book of the prophet Jeremiah is not written in chronological order. Where many of the chapters fall into the periods of Jeremiah’s life is disputed, though one of the most conservative and widely-appreciated views (pressed forth by Dr. Young) is this:

   The Reign of Josiah – Ch 1-20

   The Reign of Jehoahaz – Nothing

   The Reign of Jehoiakim – Ch 25-27, 35, 36, 45, possibly 46-49

   The Reign of Jehoiachin – Nothing

   The Reign of Zedekiah – Ch 21-24, 28-34, 37-39, possibly 50-51

   The Reign of Gedaliah – Ch 40-42

   Jeremiah in Egypt – Ch 43, 44, possibly 50-51

   Historical Appendix (added by Baruch after Jeremiah’s death?) – Ch 52

A simpler outline, proposed by some scholars, looks like this:

   Judah Before the Fall of Jerusalem – Ch 1-38

   Judah During/After the Fall of Jerusalem – Ch 39-45

   Jeremiah’s Oracles Against the Foreign Nations – Ch 46-51

   Historical Appendix – Ch 52

Jeremiah is also known for his popular use of object lessons. Here are a few:

The branch of an almond tree (1.11-12): “God will carry out his threats of punishment.”

A boiling pot tilting away from the north (1.13): “God will punish Judah.”

A ruined linen belt (13.1-11): “Because the people refuse to listen to God, they have become useless, good for nothing, like a ruined linen belt.”

Potter’s clay (18.1-17): “God can destroy His sinful people if He wants to.” This is a warning to them to repent before He is forced to bring judgment

Broken clay jars (19.1-12): “God will smash Judah just like Jeremiah has smashed broken clay jars.”

Two baskets of figs (24.1-10): “The good figs represent God’s remnant. The poor figs are the people left behind.”

The yoke (27.2-11): “Any nation who refuses to submit to Babylon’s yoke of control will be punished… And this includes Judah!”

Large stones (43.8-13): “These stones mark the place where Nebuchadnezzar will set his throne when God allows him to enter Egypt!”

A scroll sunk in the river (51.59-64): “Babylon will sink and rise no more!”

Scattered throughout Jeremiah’s prophecies are hints about the coming Messiah and the new covenant this Messiah would inaugurate. One of Jeremiah’s infamous prophecies is found in Jeremiah 31, and others are found in chapters 21, 30, and 33. The prophecy in Jeremiah 21 takes place during the reign of Jehoiakim of Judah. Jeremiah predicts that Jehoiakim will die, and his son Jehoiachin will ascend the throne. However, Jehoiachin will be taken in chains to Babylon and will die absent an heir on the throne. In his place ‘a righteous Branch’ will shoot up and be the means of saving God’s people and keeping the covenant promise alive. The Messiah – whom Christians understand to be Christ – came from the Davidic line; he ‘shot up’ and is the hope of eternal life and salvation for all who come to him in faith and repentance; it is through Christ that God’s covenant promises to Abraham and David are kept furnished and breathing. 

The messianic prophecy in Jeremiah 30 takes place during the reign of King Zedekiah. Jeremiah gives this message to the people concerning their coming judgment: ‘Your injury is incurable! It is a terrible wound. There’s no one to help you, no medicine to make you healthy again. All your allies have left you. They can’t save you, and it is I who have done this to you? I’ve done it because your sins are countless, and your guilt reaches to the heavens. Why do you protest your punishment? This is what you deserve! I am a just God, and I have to punish you because of your many sins and unfathomable guilt.’ The scene looks bleak, but God’s word continues: ‘But all those who devour you shall be devoured. All of your enemies will be sent into exile. I’ll give you back your health, and I’ll heal your wounds. Right now you’re called an outcast. People mock you, saying, “No one cares about them!”’ Such was Judah’s condition, but God continues, ‘You will not always be in captivity! Your punishment will not last forever. I will bring you home to Jerusalem and restore your fortunes. Jerusalem will lie in ruins, but it will be rebuilt. All the sorrow will be replaced with joy and songs of thanksgiving, and I will multiply My beloved people. I will honor them and not despise them. Their children will prosper, and I will establish them as a nation before Me. Anyone who harms them shall be punished!’ This prophecy regards the intertestamental period, the time following the exile and leading up to the coming of Christ. Jeremiah then gives this prophecy: ‘You will have your own ruler again, and he will come from your own people.’ This ruler is Christ, and he ‘shot up’ from the line of David. ‘I will invite them to approach Me, for who would dare to come unless invited?’ Approaching the throne of God is a terrifying thing, but Christ invites us to know God intimately. ‘You will be My people, and I will be your God.’ An intimacy will exist between the people and their God thanks to this coming ruler.

In Jeremiah 31, another prophecy during the days of King Zedekiah, Jeremiah prophesies the inauguration of a new covenant. Most of this prophecy regards the remnant returning to Judah following the Babylonian exile, but the latter part of the prophecy is one of the richest prophecies regarding the New Covenant. This covenant will be radically different than the former that God established with Israel; under this covenant, God’s instructions will be written on the hearts of His people (the work of the Holy Spirit), people will know God not only logically but also intimately, and sins will be forgiven, never to be remembered! God swears He will bring this about: ‘I am as likely to not do this as much as I am likely to abolish the laws of nature! There’s no way that I would even consider casting My people off, even for all the evil they’ve done!’ In other words, the New Covenant will certainly come!

The last messianic prophecy we’ll look at is from Jeremiah 33 (again, during the reign of King Zedekiah). In the midst of prophesying the coming prosperity for God’s people following Babylonian captivity, and speaking of the intertestamental period, Jeremiah gives this prophecy of the coming Messiah: God says, ‘I will raise up a righteous descendant from King David’s line.’ Jesus of Nazareth came from the line of David. ‘He will do what is just and right throughout the land.’ Christ is God in human form; he is just and righteous. ‘In that day Judah will be saved, and Jerusalem will live in safety.’ This speaks of the coming salvation and the protection in the arms of God that Messiah will offer. ‘And this will be Jerusalem’s name: Yahweh is our Righteousness.’ Our righteousness doesn’t come from our own actions but from Christ’s righteousness put on our account before God.

The Life of Jeremiah

Jeremiah was a contemporary of other prophets of this century, such as Nahum, Zephaniah, and Habakkuk. He ‘outlived’ them all. Jeremiah goes through several ‘phases’ in his prophetic career. In order to study the life and prophecies of Jeremiah accurately, one would do well to examine these phases one-by-one, paying particular attention to the historical context, what Jeremiah taught, and the cycles of life that Jeremiah experienced. A simple outline of the ‘phases’ of Jeremiah is given below, and they’re links to a more in-depth look at Jeremiah’s life (and, at times, teachings) during these historical periods.

   Jeremiah in the Days of King Josiah

   Jeremiah in the Days of King Jehoiakim

   Jeremiah in in the Days of King Zedekiah

   Jeremiah After the Fall of Jerusalem

the year in books [XVII]

This next round of fiction books includes some pretty good ones. Stephen King's Cujo was phenomenal; I hadn't read it since high school, and despite it being over four hundred pages, I finished it in just a few days. Lee Child's Night School is the second novel in the Jack Reacher series; it wasn't as good as the first, but most readers have found it to be a bit of a drudge (at least in comparison to the other books of the series). Despite being unimpressed with Night School, I'm going to keep plowing through the series. J. Todd Scott's The Far Empty was an interesting take on a modern western, but I struggled with his writing style. Eh, it happens. Kassandra Montag's After the Flood had an interesting premise, and it has plenty of great scenes and excellent quotes that could plaster a Goodreads account, but at the end of the day it had an anticlimactic ending and came across as one of those 'I am woman, hear me roar!' books. Geraldine Brooks' The Secret Chord was a thrilling treatment of the life of King David, even if the author bought into the ridiculous idea of David being in a homosexual relationship with Jonathan. My least favorite of these books was Clive Cussler's Skeleton Coast; the story just dragged on and on and didn't seem up to par with the other books of the Oregon Series I've read so far. Nevertheless, onward and upward!

the year in books [XVI]

Every year I try to read a handful of Star Wars books, and I've been slowly plowing through the Star Wars Legends. I try to limit myself to six books a year; usually this isn't difficult, because by the sixth book I'm getting a little tired of the Star Wars universe. This year, however, I felt uncomfortable leaving off with the infamous Thrawn Trilogy left undone, so I've read ten Star Wars books. These are the last four. From A Certain Point of View is a collection of short stories set within the framework of Episode IV: A New Hope. Zahn's The Last Command is the conclusion of his original Thrawn trilogy; X-Wing: Isard's Revenge is the next title in the Rogue Squadron series; and Jedi Search is the first of the Jedi Academy Trilogy. 

the year in books [XV]

These books of history include both 'popular histories' and memoirs. Max Hastings' Inferno is an excellent treatment of World War Two from beginning to end; Wolfgang Faust's The Last Panther pretends to be a memoir of a tank company from the tail-end of the German war against the Russians, but it's actually fiction (despite being highly-praised). Richard Tregaskis' Guadalcanal Diary is a true account of the Guadalcanal campaign from the perspective of a reporter. William Craig's The Fall of Japan looks at the final weeks of the war against Japan, including the dropping of the atomic bombs and the Japanese maneuvers to sue for peace. Philip Caputo's A Rumor of War is a memoir of an infantryman in Vietnam and is one of the best I've read; Matt Gallagher's Kaboom! is a memoir of an infantryman in the Iraq War in the early 2000s. It, too, was an engaging and enlightening read.

the reformation: a six-week update

 

The last six weeks have gone well for my physical 'reformation': I've cut back on alcohol (though I never get drunk, I enjoy a two- or three-shot nightcap once the girls are in bed), and I've started shifting from drinking bourbon - Maker's Mark and Woodford Reserve are where it's at! - to drinking red wine. It's rich in antioxidants, apparently it's good for your heart, and I enjoy the taste. These past six weeks I've been far more regimented in my weight lifting (minus a deload week, but those 'off' weeks are always worth it in the long run) while simultaneously nursing tennis elbow. My diet has, for the most part, been on point: rich in protein and healthy fats, moderate in complex carbs, and hardly any ridiculous snacking (though damn if I'm not a sucker for midnight cereal gauntlets; I pity poor Zoey who's woken up one too many mornings to discover her favorite cereal has been demolished in the night; 'Anty! There was still half a box! How did you eat it all?!'). Here's some 'shirtless' pics of me, in which a detailed eye will note a decent (well, minuscule, but who are we even kidding?) amount of fat loss around the midsection since the last update. My body likes to store its fat in my stomach, sides, and lower back. Gotta love it!

I doubt I'll be making another 'reformation' post until I hit the two-year mark in December. Between now and then, I hope to shed a few more pounds and begin focusing on 'problem areas' that continue creeping up. For about a year and a half I skimped out on shoulder workouts, and I regret it; I've implemented a variety of dumbbell shoulder workouts in my routine. I'm also focusing on legs: bum knees make most tried-and-true muscle building leg workouts a real pain in the ass (err, knee), so I'm experimenting with ways around it. I do a lot of pilates work on my legs, and I've been incorporating calf exercises that don't require much knee movements. My upper legs are tough to get to, and as soon as I think I've found something that relieves stress on the knees, I end up spending the next week waking up multiple times at night in knee-splitting agony. Hopefully I can find something that works, or I'll be doomed with 'chicken legs' for the rest of my life. In addition to focusing on legs and shoulders, I'm beginning to implement HIIT workouts once or twice a week. By including dumbbells, they're a lot like crossfit, but the focus is more on core strengthening than anything. Here's to another four months before the next update!

[Gospel Culture]

The following are 'potent quotables' from Joseph Boot's Gospel Culture: Living in God's Kingdom.

On the Western Cultural Perspective. "The insightful Canadian philosopher George Grant understood the West’s present cultural perspective well: 'Justice is understood to be something strictly human, having nothing to do with obedience to any divine command or conformity to any pattern “laid up in heaven.” Moral principles, like all other social conventions, are something “made on earth.” Human freedom requires that the principles of justice be the product of human agreement or consent, that is, they must be the result of a contract, and these principles must therefore be rooted in an understanding of the interests of human beings as individuals rather than in any sense of duty or obligation to anything above humanity. The terms of the contract may well change as circumstances and interests change. But the restraints free individuals accept must always be “horizontal” in character rather than “vertical.”' In this rejection of vertical accountability for horizontal relativity, modern man is conferring on himself the contractual right to redefine his gender irrespective of creational chromosomes; the right to murder (abortion); the right to polygamy, sodomy, bestiality or any sexual predilection; the right to suicide; the right to euthanize children and the elderly or sick; the right to homosexual “marriage”; the right to prostitution and pornography; the right to suppress worship of the living God and the free speech of Christians; the right to blasphemy and endless violations of Sabbath—all dressed in the garb of freedom and human dignity, which amounts to nothing but radical autonomy."

The Reality of Different Cultures. "[If] a person travels to Saudi Arabia, Syria or Pakistan, they experience Islamic culture—expressed in everything from law and education, to art and diet. If one goes to the major cities of India, there one experiences Hindu culture as the social order. In North Korea and China, one encounters Marxist-oriented cultures. The traveller in Tibet encounters Buddhist culture, and so forth. In the West today, we increasingly experience a humanistic, secular culture, deeply influenced by pagan spirituality, which at the same time displays the cultural vestiges of Christianity."

Two Directions for Culture. "There are many structures in God’s creation, but only two directions. We are either oriented toward God or toward idolatry in marriage, family, church, state, art, science and every other sphere. We will either seek to serve and glorify God in each area of life, or our lives will have an apostate direction, with no central place for God and his revelation."

The Gospel as Culture. "[Implicit] in the Christian gospel is a particular vision of culture—indeed, the gospel is a culture, because it is centred on the worship of the living God, through Jesus Christ, and the enthronement of Christ as Lord over the heart, mind, soul and strength of every believer. That the gospel forms a new culture is thus an inescapable deduction from the meaning of both terms. If culture is the public expression of the worship of a people, and the gospel restores man to true worship (i.e. of the Creator, not the creation), then the gospel restores man to true culture, which is the kingdom of God... Since the so-called Enlightenment, Christians have steadily surrendered the various organs of culture— education, law, arts, charity, medicine, government—almost entirely to the increasingly humanistic state. We have progressively retreated into a pietistic bubble, concerned largely with eternal verities and keeping souls from hell, and we have faithlessly limited Christ’s jurisdiction to the institutional church. The result has been the marginalization of the Christian church and a change of religion in the public sphere."

Our Relativistic Culture. "We see examples daily in the media of people in the grip of a radical relativism, unimaginable even twenty-five years ago. As abstracted and generalized people reduced to self-created group identities, we no longer know what a human being is. This condition has advanced to such a degree that we are essentially unsure if there are any human norms that transcend radical autonomous desire and subjective self-identification. We are not even confident of the intrinsic value of the human person made in God’s image, whether pre-born, newborn, disabled, aging, sick or despairing. Indeed, we are so fundamentally uprooted that we are no longer assured of the scientific and chromosomal reality of the binary gender distinctions of male and female, of normative human sexuality, or of the oldest institutions known to the human race—marriage and family. Our profound confusion today is such that some people are not even sure that they occupy the right age group or gender, were born into the right people group, or even gestated by the right species, since they “feel” like something else. No one dares to challenge these inner fictions, since all that is left of the human personality is the notion that autonomous and subjective feeling has the absolute existence of God himself. As such, there is no longer a basis for differentiation of any objective kind. And thus, in a world mired in the irrational fluidity of all things, where the possibility of normative differentiation between truth and falsehood, right and wrong, reality and unreality, has collapsed, culture has not simply reached a bump in the road, but has been sucked into a kind of vortex of democratic insanity, spiralling toward what Cornelius Van Til called “disintegration into the void.”... the vain rantings of Nietzsche’s over-men, who have gone beyond good and evil, declare the reasonable and sane to be sick, mad or malevolent and demand that the voice of plain reason be silenced in the face of the cultural conjurers’ reimagining of the world... It naturally follows that modern political doctrine rests, typically, on a set of beliefs that flatly contradict what God says about humanity. It is not that our culture denies that there is evil in the world, but we refuse to locate that evil in the heart of man (who is thought of as inherently good and perfectible), blaming instead the environment and spheres of social order like the family, the church and private property, as well as other structures of alleged inequality that supposedly war against an original equality and unity in the human race."

"[There is] a recurrent theological-political illusion concerning the human person: people are born without sin, and so we can change people by doing away with the evil in society by getting back to an unspoiled condition that humanity supposedly lived in in his primitive past—a condition of absolute social equality. So, if we abolish marriage and the family, no one will be subject to hierarchy anymore and women and children will not feel subjugated. If we eliminate binary gender norms, no one will feel oppressed by distinctions anymore. If we eliminate income inequality, no one will be greedy anymore. If we open our borders and embrace Islamists returning from fighting with ISIS and find them money and housing, they won’t want to crucify and behead Christians anymore or plot against our country... The key obstacle is all hierarchy (except the privilege of belonging to a new cultural elite), because the principle of hierarchy is a reminder of the distinction between man and God."

"The cultural theologian Andrew Sandlin has summarized it like this: Liberals [progressives] since the French Revolution have engaged in one massive liberation project, what has been called “the oppression-liberation nexus.” The liberal religion has become one of never-ending clawing for the liberation of humanity from every tyranny—real or imagined: the secularists must be liberated from the religionists, the parishioners from the clergy, the enlightened from the unenlightened, the citizens from royalty, the poor from the rich, the workers from the capitalists, blacks from whites, women from men, wives from husbands, children from parents, debtors from creditors, employees from employers, homosexuals from heterosexuals, convicts from law abiding citizens—and soon, if the trajectory persists, polygamists from monogamists and pedophiles from prison guards. The Great Liberation now extends even to non-human nature: the liberation of “the environment” from rapacious humanity... If the human race had adequately learned anything by now from our historical experience, it should have been that our rejection of God and the image of God in man leads to the endless defacing and destruction of that image and the steady decay of diverse cultural life, as the political sphere overreaches itself to try to play a messianic role in people’s lives."

"The Bible makes plain that there is a real archenemy of the Christian and the gospel: the adversary, called Satan or the devil. Jesus refers to his fall (Luke 10:18) and his kingdom (Matthew 12:26), identifying the character of the evil one and his martial strategy—murder and lies: “He was a murderer from the beginning and has not stood in the truth, because there is no truth in him. When he tells a lie, he speaks from his own nature, because he is a liar and the father of lies” (John 8:44). Moreover, Satan’s work is likened to that of a thief who comes “to steal and to kill and to destroy” (John 10:10). Death, robbery and deception are at the root of the worldview of witchcraft. Jesus is clear that lies and murder were on Satan’s mind from the beginning. This “beginning” is a plain reference to the Garden of Eden, where God made man, male and female, in his own image and likeness (Genesis 1:1–27). Because of his hatred of God, the adversary wanted to destroy man as man—that is, as God had made him as the divine image-bearer—and after seeing mankind cursed to return to the dust, Satan provoked the first human murder—of Abel by his brother Cain (1 John 3:12). Clearly, Satan was—and is—a rebel against God, and the primordial crime he incited embroiled the human race in his rebellion, which centred around denying that man is created in God’s image... Thus, from the beginning, Satan’s word was a lie, a word of negation and a denial of God’s creation and purpose: God in jealousy seeks to prevent man from realizing himself. This self-realization Satan claimed to have, and his offer to Eve was precisely an opportunity for mankind to recreate itself in a new image, an image divorced from God and based entirely on man’s creative will.… The nature and psychology of man thus cannot be understood without a realization that man, created in the image of God, is now trying to abolish that creation and to institute a new and satanic creation."

"Satan wanted humanity to join his project— to oppose God—and to build an order in which men are subordinate gods and servants to the dark lord—the evil one... to be human in the diabolic scheme meant independence from God and remaking oneself as, essentially, a new god. God’s original design— for human beings to pursue true wisdom and godly power to work, serve and subdue all things in terms of the rule of the triune and sovereign Creator—had been corrupted. The new human pursuit became a quest for an autonomous knowledge, wisdom and power— godless resources that could be used to create a new man and a new world in light of the satanic plan of negation, opposing the living God by parodying his creation and kingdom."

Western Culture as Witchcraft. "[The] foundation of all devilry is rebellion against God, which seeks knowledge, power and dominion through a negation of God’s Word and purpose—this is the essence of the magical worldview. As such, there is no “white” or “good” magic. Any attempt to deny and overturn God’s creative Word and divine purpose and to lawlessly manipulate circumstances to bend to my will, whether by spiritual powers and forces or by various political means, is a form of witchcraft, and evil on its face. At root, witchcraft implicitly involves the attempted remaking of man as a god with an autonomous source of knowledge and power, which is, in the final analysis, demonic."

"It is not incidental that the triumph of secularism in the public space has led to the growth of occultism and paganism in the private. C.S. Lewis pointed decades ago to a fundamental religious shift in the West, one which I would describe as clearly moving toward the pantheistic—toward the worldview of witchcraft: 'We who defend Christianity find ourselves constantly opposed not by the irreligion of our hearers but by their real religion. Speak about beauty, truth and goodness, or about a God who is simply the indwelling principle of these three, speak about a great spiritual force pervading all things, a common mind of which we are all parts, a pool of generalized spirituality to which we can all flow, and you will command friendly interest. But the temperature drops as soon as you mention a God who has purposes and performs particular actions, who does one thing and not another, a concrete, choosing, commanding, prohibiting God with a determinate character. People become embarrassed or angry.'"

"Some forms of primitive occult practice seek to engage spirits or demons directly to raise tables, levitate or move a glass on an Ouija board, but for the most part the rituals of witchcraft, from Hindu meditation to the Wiccan’s coven, are directed toward nature-based divinities, primarily goddess worship. This is not due to any notion of a moral or personal relationship to a deity, but is a personification of an impersonal nature or “pure spirit,” of which man himself is a part—that is, man is asserting himself as his own god... researcher Linda Harvey has noted in regard to the goals of the witches’ coven: Ultimately…the practitioner worships the self, whose instincts and desires are empowered by occult spiritual forces. The focus of witchcraft is to take control of one’s own (or another’s) life. The enlightened witch invokes the goddess of choice…at the height of the ritual, there is an intense feeling of spiritual power, when the priestess believes she becomes one with the goddess and nature/earth.… The godhood of self is a stated pillar of witchcraft, as expressed in the 1974 Principles of Wiccan Belief, adopted by the council of American Witches. The introduction states: “We are not bound by traditions from other times and other cultures, and owe no allegiance to any person or power greater than the Divinity manifest through our own being.”

"Although modern sorcery and occult arts are varied and inconsistent—they include everything from primitive dancing and sex acts (to induce rain or fertility), voodoo dolls, spells and talismans, to very elaborate enacted rites and rituals in covens, as well as various alternative healing practices proffered as science7—all teach that some sort of mystic correspondence exists between the metaphysical realm and the material world, so that the manipulation of forces or energy or powers to bring about man’s will requires some corresponding action, technique or drama on earth."

"[The] implicit objective of witchcraft or magic arts, as well as their moral root—the desire of the practitioner to become a god with autonomous knowledge and power, grounded in overt rebellion. Behind this rebellion lie the powers of darkness. Paul is clear that the Christian is thus in a battle, not against flesh and blood, “but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the world powers of this darkness, against spiritual forces of evil in the heavens” (Ephesians 6:12). Their malevolent stratagem, however, is typically to disguise their evil as enlightenment (2 Corinthians 11:14). Not surprisingly, therefore, satanic strongholds are more often than not erected in areas of human philosophical thought and speculation masquerading as wisdom. So the apostle writes, “The weapons of our warfare are not worldly, but are powerful through God for the demolition of strongholds. We demolish arguments and every high-minded thing that is raised up against the knowledge of God, taking every thought captive to obey Christ” (2 Corinthians 10:4–6)."

"Because all men need power, if we do not receive it from above, we will seek it from the created order below. Where God is replaced by chance or fate as the determining power over all things, meaning gives way to meaninglessness and the motive force for all things is no longer power from above, but primitive and regenerating power from below."

"If we are to understand the radical changes in our society today as inspired by diabolic principalities and manifest in ideological strongholds that set themselves up against the knowledge of God (Ephesians 6:12; 2 Corinthians 10:4–6), then we must grasp the essential instrumentality of modern political life as engaged, wittingly or not, in witchcraft—employing a “secret” (elitist) knowledge in an attempt to join opposites. The goal of modern civil government has long ceased to be focused on the administration of justice. It is increasingly about the creation of a cosmic man who is divine, to join what God has separated and create a unified, distinction-free community that represents the end of all struggle. The purpose of such manipulation is power—the power to control and transform in terms of a revived religious image of humanity."

"Our current culture is thus bent on defacing the image of God by denying that man is man and woman is woman, by negating the God-given nature of marriage and by politically manipulating people to believe and act as though an illusion were true—that homosexuality is normative, gender is fluid and that androgyny is the human ideal. Harvey has noted: Homosexuality and crossgender sexuality are embedded in witchcraft ritual, says Christopher Penczak in Gay Witchcraft. He notes that “Magick as a spiritual path is one filled with transgenderism. A magician of any sort must fluidly shift shapes between genders.” Knowledge of both masculine and feminine aspects of oneself is the reason “why gays, lesbians, bisexuals and transgendered people were recognized as potentially talented in the mystical arts.”30 None of this should surprise us, since, in the worldview of ancient pagan witchcraft, the original man was neither male nor female, but an androgynous figure possessing both sex characteristics. The hermaphrodite has always been important to pagan mythology, symbolizing the undifferentiated life force in which all conflicts are resolved—a sign and symbol for both perfection and chaos. We see the same idea in tantric symbols of Tibetan and Chinese origin.31 “The Philosopher’s Stone, the Original Man, the Androgyne and the sphere were expressions of totality, and as such, symbols of a finally abolished multiplicity, symbols of the whole and at the same time of Nothingness.”32 Further, the egalitarian political community is a kind of Philosopher’s Stone on a large scale—the “original man” of vast, even global, proportions. Such an ideal, utopian city is in fact the “final symbol for man’s divinization.”

"The radical cultural confusion and irrationality of our time with regard to gender, marriage, sexuality and spirituality is not incidental, but basic to the revival of the worldview of witchcraft. Occultism is corrosive for every aspect of life and society. Each one seeks their own way, their own spiritual ascent by their own path and falls headlong into their own abyss. The erroneous hope is that political formulas, utopias and egalitarian signs and symbols34 will transition the inclusive, gender-fluid social order into a divine state. The problem for autonomous man is that sexuality is a fixed aspect of God’s creation that proves a roadblock to man’s desire to remake himself by his own magic words."

"Great effort is being put into embryonic research and reproductive technologies, the goal of which is knowledge for the purposes of manipulation and the creation of a new man. Many strains of witchcraft in times past abhorred pregnancy accidentally produced from their perversions and orgiastic rituals and so would abort the fetus, then to be cut up and eaten by members of the order. In our own time, we have the mass slaughter of unborn babies on a scale well beyond that imagined in earlier societies. We have widespread promiscuity, the abhorrence of reproduction and the sale of babies’ body parts, by government-funded organisations like Planned Parenthood, on a black market for all manner of “research.” These practices all stem from the worldview not of science, but of witchcraft. An autonomous realm of knowledge is sought for the acquisition of lawless power, so that man might become a god. Social sorcery is all around us. The modern Simon Magus believes that he has solved the riddle of existence, like Pythagoras of old, and that he “has changed the universe into what he wanted it to be (abolition of good and evil, fusion of opposites etc.), he gained a supra-rational power, a vantage point where he usurps the right of deciding the real and the unreal, being and non-being.”35 Such is the point our society has arrived at today. And, on such a basis, politicians, judges and cultural elites make their rulings on marriage and sexuality and publish their curricula. Like the father of Gnosticism, they are poisoned by bitterness and bound by iniquity (Acts 8:23), though they walk in ignorance."