Friday, July 15, 2011


This-morning as I was cruising through the headlines, I immediately came across a story detailing California’s new inclusion of “gay” history in the state’s public school curriculum. After reading the article, I scrolled down through the comment thread, which was rapidly expanding, and found the taunt of a pro-gay promoter who was challenging Christians with the fact that Jesus never said anything about homosexuality. The responses to the challenge were anemic at best, and prove the difficulty most Christians have responding biblically to this question. To this end, the following is a brief summary that sets the record straight by answering the common misconceptions about Jesus and homosexuality:

Did Jesus advocate homosexuality?

The prevailing pro-gay opinion is that silence, on the part of Jesus concerning homosexuality, is golden. Pro-gay interpreters argue that since Jesus did not explicitly single out homosexuality with some defining statement, then homosexuality is no longer taboo. Erroneously, pro-gay advocates interpret silence on the part of Jesus as approval and a ringing endorsement for everything gay. On the contrary, the silence of Jesus on this matter needs to be considered in light of what we do know. Here are a few defining considerations about Jesus based on what is known. These shed an incriminating light on the stock pro-gay argument from silence:
  •         Jesus was an active agent involved in the act of creation itself (Colossians 1:15-17). As creator, Jesus came to fulfill the creation order, which the first Adam squandered. He did not come to violate creation order (Romans 1:18-32), which would be the case had He endorsed homosexuality or any other sexual sin. Jesus came in keeping with the order (Genesis 1 and 2) He helped establish in the beginning. 
  •         Rather than abolishing the Law—to include Leviticus 18:22 and 20:13—Jesus came to perfectly fulfill the Law (Matthew 5:17-19). The whole of the Law is now reinterpreted and filtered through the divine person and finished work of Christ upon the cross. That Christ fulfilled the dictates and demands of the Law does not nullify the moral principles derived from the law. On judgment day unbelievers will be judged in accordance with the Law’s just demands (Revelation 21:8). 
  •         There are many sins that Christ never mentioned or focused on. Rather than concentrating on specific acts of sin, Jesus focused on the nature and origin of sin in the heart of man. Jesus taught that because man is constitutionally a sinner by nature, individual acts of sin are the external result—whatever those individual acts of sin might be. Note the emphasis Jesus placed on the internal condition of man:
“there is nothing outside the man which going into him can defile him; but the things which proceed out of the man are what defile the man.” (Mark 7:15)

"But the things that proceed out of the mouth come from the heart, and those defile the man. 19For out of the heart come evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, slanders. 20 These are the things which defile the man; but to eat with unwashed hands does not defile the man." (Matt. 15:18-20)

In other words, homosexuality is one of a multitude of expressions of the sin nature. So rather than listing thousands of sins by name and filling up volumes of books doing so, Jesus dealt with the root of these external acts of sin. That Jesus mentioned “adulteries” and “fornications” covers the wide array of sexual sins that violate the seventh commandment. Just because Jesus did not mention a specific sin by name does not mean that it is acceptable in God’s eyes. Clearly, Jesus placed a significant emphasis on the internal matters of the heart.
  •         As a result of Christ’s first advent, the OT Law took on universal dimensions as it was applied to the gentile nations through the New Covenant provisions of redemption found in Christ. This means the Christian is to love God and then to love his neighbor as himself, which, given the extreme demands of this, is ultimately an impossibility apart from both saving grace and then enabling grace. 
  •         The whole purpose of Christ’s coming was to do what the Law could not do—to save (Mark 10:45 and Luke 19:10). The Law of God is schoolmaster that shows the sinner his need for Christ. The Law only makes the diagnosis of sin. Christ is the only prescription for that sin!
  •         Finally, Jesus upheld and reaffirmed the creation mandate of gender distinction and monogamous marriage when He was queried about divorce and remarriage (Matthew 19:4-6; Mark 10:2-11). Jesus strongly regarded the priority and prerequisite of male-female requirement for marriage as an absolute necessity. He did not alter nor amend the Genesis 1 and 2 ideal one bit. He underscored it along with the necessity of the two cardinal principles of monogamy and a lifelong commitment.
When Jesus made this marriage/divorce pronouncement He said all that ever needed to be said. As earlier noted, Jesus did not speak out on other sexual sins like incest, bestiality, or polygamy, but He did not need to when He reasserted the creation mandate. Jesus’ statement on marriage is one-size-fits-all ruling on all sexual deviations that depart from the marriage ideal.

So in answer to the question, "Did Jesus advocate homosexuality?" the pro-gay advocate is very hard pressed to substantiate that Jesus condoned homosexuality. If He condoned homosexuality, then we might conclude He condoned bestiality, necrophilia, and incest as well. After all, Jesus never uttered a word about these things either.

NOTE: The preceding is an excerpt from my book Same-Sex Marriage: Is It Really The Same?

Wednesday, February 02, 2011

The Ecclesiastical Promotion of Homosexuality and the Demise of Biblical Authority

By Mark Christopher

“All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness; that the man of God may be adequate, equipped for every good work.” (2 Timothy 3:16-17)

One would be very hard pressed to find a more contentious issue confronting the church and secular culture than that of homosexuality and its correlate same-sex marriage. To prove the point, the next time you read some internet headline related to a gay issue scroll through the comments section! Recently, when the controversial Don’t Ask Don’t Tell policy in the US military was repealed by the US Congress, I archived a related article only to find the comment thread had over 2500 comments and that number was rapidly rising. Most of the comments were emotionally charged and resembled a slander-fest as each side took aim at the other.

Many mainline denominations are splitting down the middle as this one issue reveals the polar opposite views on homosexuality and its promotion through the institution of marriage. The Anglican community has been hobbled by the gay debate, which has led some congregations and dioceses to withdraw from Canterbury. The Anglicans are certainly not alone in this. Some churches have become strident promoters of homosexuality as long as it is qualified by the relativistic parameters of a “loving and consensual” relationship. Other churches have sought a more centrist position by not speaking out against homosexuality as a sin while simultaneously withholding any direct approval of the same. Yet, this vow of silence on the matter usually gravitates to carte blanche approval later on. Then, of course, there are those who have held the line of biblical authority on the issue refusing to concede to popular sentiment and transvalued culture.

What led to this? How did we get to the place where homosexuality has become one of the defining issues of the church of Jesus Christ? We didn’t arrive at this juncture in church history overnight. Incrementally, over time, certain critical assumptions, primarily philosophical in nature, were adopted and given credence under the guise of biblical scholarship. The advances of pro-gay biblical interpreters were relentless and many in the evangelical world were caught off guard and simply didn’t know how to respond to the onslaught of sophistries proffered by the pro-gay interpreters.

Of all the “progressive” assumptions that comprise the pro-gay methodology, the most notable is the pro-gay slant on biblical authority. The pro-gay variant on biblical authority forms the basis from which the pro-gay hermeneutic is derived. To understand the pro-gay method of biblical interpretation demands an understanding of how the pro-gay lobby within the professing church approaches the authority of God’s word. For this crucial presupposition of bibliology is both formative and determinative in the debate. Elizabeth Moreau, in the book Staying The Course, underscores the crucial link between biblical authority and pro-gay interpretations, “…the disagreement over homosexuality is fundamentally a disagreement about what or how much authority the Scripture is to have in the contemporary church … How do we understand and interpret the Bible depends upon how we understand the authority of Scripture.”[1]

It is true that all of us entertain certain presuppositions related to biblical authority and the subsequent interpretation of Scripture. But not all assumptions are equally valid. This is well illustrated by Millard Erickson[2] who underscores the vital interplay between the “nature of presuppositions” in relationship to the “nature” of the hermeneutical enterprise in an essay he wrote for the International Council for Biblical Inerrancy Summit 2: Imagine an airline pilot wrongly assuming the weight of his plane, the fuel load, wind speed, altitude, and air speed while relying on a very unreliable compass. Such a pilot would terminate his flight in a rather unexpected way in an unknown destination! Hence, the importance of beginning the hermeneutical process with valid assumptions, like a commitment to biblical authority, is critical to arriving at the right interpretational destination.

To highlight the importance of a high view of biblical authority in the homosexual debate, we want to briefly examine five considerations related to the demise of biblical authority and the corresponding acceptance of homosexuality in certain quarters of the church:

First, we need to consider the jaundiced view of biblical authority by pro-gay interpreters. The assumption of differing authorities is common to pro-gay scholars. Among pro-gay interpreters there is a good deal of suspicion about the issue of biblical authority. If the Bible is not the ultimate source of authority, than where is the authority located? William Countryman maintains that “Immediate practical authority is located in the ongoing Christian community”.[3] Feminist theologian, Phyllis Bird echoes the same sentiment when she concedes that the Bible is a “product of tradition and a part of the church’s ongoing tradition”.[4] Bird’s “ongoing tradition” necessitates a continual communal interpretational dialogue. In this scenario the weight of authority is shifted away from the past author (authorial intention) to the present community, as the community “continues redefining boundaries”.[5] In two different treatise, Bird further declares that “The word of God cannot be contained in any document”[6] and in keeping with communal authority, the Bible is “a conversation partner not an oracle”.[7] In other words, authority shifts away from the Bible to the interpreter(s) and is predicated on present day realities as the group democratically decides what the Bible means in the present day context. In this, interpretation is substituted for application.

Pro-gay interpreters Daniel Helminiak and Jack Rogers find agreement with the above assertions. Helminiak ad homenizes those who hold to a literal hermeneutic saying, “it is outrageous for any educated person to quote the Bible to condemn homosexuality”.[8] Helminiak casts further aspersion on biblical authority claiming it “does not provide the last word on sexual ethics”.[9] In Helminiak’s estimation, the authority of science has trumped the Bible on this issue.[10] Never mind that this so-called science is inconclusive.

For his part, Rogers rejects an inerrancy of the Bible which extends beyond religious matters and “addresses … science and history”.[11] Why? Because “It encourages a literal reading of Scripture”[12], which is unthinkable to the pro-gay theologians. To this chorus-line of pro-gay voices, George Edwards adds, “Biblical interpretation can never be divorced from other domains of human reflection and discovery”.[13] Edward’s claim equates the revealed truth of the Bible with the incomplete discoveries of humanity. The implication here is that the discovered knowledge of humanity trumps the revealed knowledge of God though His word. Clearly, pro-gay interpreters have an anemic view of biblical authority which has a pronounced influence on the trajectory of their subsequent hermeneutic.

Given this impoverished view of biblical authority, it is fair to ask what has contributed to the pro-gay denouncements of a high view of Scripture? This leads us to our second consideration, which is to summarize the bromides (corrosive agents) of biblical authority. Much could be said here, but for the sake of space only four primary streams of thought will be succinctly entertained:

1.      Undoubtedly the Historical Critical method (JEPD) has eroded the confidence of many in any notion of biblical authority, as the Historical Critical approach has sought to emancipate reason from divine revelation. The biblical fallout from this conveniently eliminates any thought of the miraculous and supernatural. The by-product of the Historical Critical methodology so complicated Scripture with the scholarly accretions of man, that any thought of the average Christian being a good Berean has been banished as the primary authority has become the Historical-Critical scholars.

2.      Another briefly mentioned bromide to biblical authority is Naturalistic-uniformitarian science which is wed to the concept of Darwinian evolution. By deferring solely to the scientific method, propositional truth could now be abandoned because truth is not revealed but discovered through the process of scientific method. This means that what is axiomatic today can be amended or overturned by tomorrow’s discovery, like the “gay gene”. So when “science” proves one is born gay, then the Bible must give way to such pronouncements of excathedra. But what if science could prove that no one is born gay? I don’t hear of many entertaining that notion.

3.      A third bromide that permeates western culture today is pluralism, which claims that all truth claims are of equal value. Therefore, value is found in a divergence of voices. We just all need to sit down, dialogue, and learn from each other. Dialogue can be beneficial, but when it is approached with the notion that there are no absolutes it can only lead to nonsense. From a theological perspective it tends toward a buffet approach to truth which, in effect, nullifies any claim to biblical authority.

4.      This fourth bromide is the most germane to the thesis of this article, existentialism and the corresponding rise of moral relativism. William Larkin Jr. defines relativism as the “view that beliefs and principles, particularly evaluative ones, have no universal or timeless validity but are only for the age in which, or the social group or individual person which, they are held.”[14] Thus, there are no binding absolutes. The moral and ethical goal post is fluid and always on the move. One might say that morally and spiritually, the relativist has his or her feet firmly planted in mid-air!

There are two pertinent components to relativism that are helpful in understanding the erosion of biblical authority in the last generation: The first component is historical relativism. In historical relativism the value of the text is limited to the time and culture in which it was originally written. A good example of this is seen in the current debate over the US Constitution. There are those who claim the constitution is a living document to be reinterpreted by each successive generation. While originalists maintain one must study the founding fathers and framers (authorial intention) of the constitution in order to uncover the original meaning and then apply it to present day realities. Those who see the constitution as a living document will always seek to interpret it through the lens of current context. By clipping the constitution free from the anchor of the past, they can then let present culture decide the meaning. In this, primary authority is in the here and now. One can easily see how this is applied to the Bible and homosexuality today.

The second component of relativism is cultural relativism. In this, to paraphrase Larkin, values and morals are relative to their socio-cultural context and are never thought superior to other value systems. This dictates that values and morals are culturally conditioned.[15] Here democracy reigns supreme as the majority arbitrarily determine what is right and wrong. Yet, this is an ever changing value.

Putting it all together, when historical and cultural relativism are embraced Larkin warns that “…the interpreter’s context is determinative … Scripture can never be viewed as absolute, universal, or binding.”[16] In short, everything is arbitrary and ambiguous as this relativistic atmosphere gives way to situational ethics and its dubious consequences. This is the essence of postmodernism and the cherished value of tolerance. So if two people of the same sex want marry, what is to stop them? Relativism dictates that as long as they “love” each other and their relationship is “consensual”, then it is nobody else’s business. Such is unavoidable when absolutes become obsolete. In this relativistic scheme of things where does one draw a distinct line? Are there any relationship combinations that are out of bounds? If so, how do you know? Who are you to judge?: Such questions represent but a few of the conundrums of moral relativism.

All four of these corrosive agents have simultaneously converged on the Bible in an unrelenting manner. It has produced a changing of the guard where authority is concerned as biblical authority has given way to cultural authority and the emotional whims and subjective fancies of the majority. Human reason has become the ultimate authority so the concept of truth can only be understood in a relativistic way. This is the recipe that results in the irrational fury that is now so prevalent.

The outcome of the four mentioned bromides to biblical authority is fleshed out in our third consideration of this topic — the creed of diminished biblical authority.  How do those who subscribe to a watered down variant of biblical authority phrase their skepticism? Well, Francis Schaffer in his classic on this topic, The Great Evangelical Disaster, gave some good examples of the weasel words that are employed by skeptics. Here is but one example from the 1974 Lausanne Covenant which illustrates the creed of diminished biblical authority:

“We affirm the divine inspiration, truthfulness and authority of both Old and New Testament Scriptures in their entirety as the only written Word of God, without error in all that it affirms, and the only infallible rule of faith and practice.”[17]

The question must be asked, what exactly does the Bible affirm and what doesn’t it affirm? In the minds of biblical skeptics and pro-gay interpreters, the Bible only affirms that which is directly related to salvation while other matters related history, science, cosmology, and geography are deemed susceptible to errancy. The loophole here is found in the clause “without error in all it affirms”. This one statement gives many skeptics the latitude they need to justify the latest secular findings without having to suffer the academic embarrassment often associated with maintaining a high view of Scripture.

An example of this creed of diminished biblical authority was advanced by the Roger’s and McKim proposal. In 1981 Jack Rogers, a pro-gay interpreter, and Donald McKim published a tome entitled The Authority and Interpretation of The Bible: An Historical Approach. The thesis of the authors was to prove that the historically central tradition of the church emphasized a biblical infallibility that was limited to matters of faith and practice. Restated, biblical infallibility is confined to redemptive issues not to other areas the Bible mentions in passing like history, science, geography et. al.  This means the Bible carries little to no authority in matters outside the circle of salvation.

In close connection to this new creed on biblical authority, the fourth consideration summarizes the roots of diminished biblical authority by surveying one of the key contributors to this thinking: G.C. Berkouwer, of whom Rogers, above, is a disciple. Berkouwer was bothered by the dual authorship approach (human and divine) to inspiration. He held that human involvement necessitated partial annulment of the divine aspects of inspiration. So instead of talking about a God-breathed word, he substituted the word “witness” or “testimony” for the idea of inspiration.[18] Thus, the Bible is only the word of God by virtue of its witness concerning Christ. Scripture is witness to Christ crucified and risen — one can almost hear the echoes of neo-orthodoxy here. Regarding the cosmology and history of the Bible, Berkouwer would maintain there are unintentional errors. This begs the question of how one can be certain there are no unintentional errors in the realm of salvation.

This all leads us to the final consideration which culminates in the fruit of diminished biblical authority. The applications of this skeptical creed of Scriptural authority are multitudinous. Schaeffer rightly notes that “… compromising the full authority of Scripture eventually affects what it means to be a Christian and how we live in the full spectrum of human life.”[19]  When the standard of biblical authority is lowered it leads to the general worldview of the world infiltrating the church, to include the approval of ethical issues like homosexuality and its corollary same-sex marriage.

If anyone doubts that the abandonment of biblical authority leads to gross moral relativism just weigh the words of leading pro-gay interpreters Walter Wink and William Countryman: 

“The crux of the matter, it seems to me, is simply that the Bible has no sexual ethic. Instead, it exhibits a variety of sexual mores, some of which changed over the thousand-year span of biblical history … The Bible knows only the love ethic, which is constantly being brought to bear on whatever sexual mores are dominate in any given country, or culture, or period.”[20] (Walter Wink)

So, according to Wink, the moral bubble in the level is always fluctuating as the ever-shifting consensus of society morally mutates.

“To be specific, the gospel allows no rule against the following, in of themselves: masturbation, nonvaginal heterosexual intercourse, bestiality, polygamy, homosexual acts, or erotic art and literature. The Christian is free to be repelled by any of these and may continue to practice her or his own purity code in relation to them. What we are not free to do is impose our codes on others …Bestiality, where it is casual recourse of the young or of people isolated over long periods of time from other humans, should occasion little concern.”[21] (William Countryman)

In essence, Countryman is waving the green flag for Christians to pursue all that the sexual revolution has on offer, so long as you do not impose your dogma on others. But wait, isn’t that exactly what gay activists are doing (imposing their view) by legislating acceptance of their lifestyle and criminalizing all opposing views?

Another pro-gay advocate, Marvin Ellison, goes so far as to champion polyamory[22] (group marriage) in his “Christian” treatment on sexual ethics. In light of his callow view of biblical authority, Rogers pushes his creed to its logical terminus in his 2006 book Jesus, The Bible, and Homosexuality. Making use of his own Roger’s and McKim proposal, Rogers promotes the acceptance of same-sex relationships and unions inside the Presbyterian Church USA. It proves that when culture is supreme and the Bible is thought to be in error in non-redemptive texts, then any interpretation is not only possible, but is unavoidable.

The depreciation of biblical authority morphs Sola Scriptura into Sola Cultura. As Schaeffer put it, “The Bible is bent to the culture instead of the Bible judging our society and culture.”[23] Practically speaking this means that personal relationships are no longer governed by moral absolutes, so holiness is replaced with happiness as the chief goal and virtue of life. When relational happiness is the sum of life one can expect abortion on demand, easy divorce and remarriage, gender role reversal, homosexuality with its whole LGBT parade of pride, and euthanasia all marching right down the aisle of the church on the way to the altar. Those who disparage biblical authority and who then board the train of relativism, must ride that train all the way to its morally abhorrent end.

Unquestionably the deconstruction of biblical authority by professing evangelicals has swung the door wide open for the aggressive promotion of homosexuality within the church. In response to this, all confessing evangelicals need to ponder and act on Schaeffer’s poignant reminder: “We must say most lovingly but clearly: evangelicalism is not consistently evangelical unless there is a line drawn between those who take the full view of Scripture and those who do not.”[24] Schaeffer would say this is to include not only the belief, but the accompanying practice (obedience) as well.

In order for concerned evangelicals to begin reclaiming some of the valuable territory lost in the same-sex debate, it is first necessary to unapologetically reassert a high view of Scripture while striving to consistently model the holy demands of Sola Scripture!

[1] MOREAU, E.  2003.  The real disagreement.  (In Dunnam, M. D. & Malony, H. N., eds.  Staying the course: supporting the church’s position on homosexuality.  Nashville, TN : Abingdon Press.  p. 97-98.)

[2] ERICKSON, M. J.  1984.  Presuppositions of non-evangelical hermeneutics.  (In Radmacher, E. D. & Preus, R. D., eds.  Hermeneutics, inerrancy, and the Bible.  Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan Publishing.  p. 593-612.) 

[3] COUNTRYMAN, W. L.  1990.  Dirt, Greed, & Sex.  Philadelphia, PA : Fortress Press. p. 3.

[4] BIRD, P. A.  1994.  The authority of the Bible.  (In The new interpreter’s Bible, Volume 1.  Nashville, TN : Abingdon Press.  p. 63.)

[5] BIRD, P. A.  2000.  The Bible in Christian ethical deliberation concerning homosexuality: Old Testament contributions. (In Balch, D. L., ed.  Homosexuality, science, and the plain sense of Scripture. ed.   Grand Rapids, MI : Eerdmans.  p. 146.)

[6] BIRD, 1994: p. 63.

[7] BIRD, 2001: p. 144.

[8] HELMINIAK, D. A.  2000.  What the Bible really says about homosexuality.  New Mexico : Alamo Square Press. p. 13.

[9] Ibid. p. 19.

[10] Ibid. p. 26.

[11] ROGERS, J.  2006.  Jesus, the Bible, and homosexuality.  Louisville, KY : Westminster John Knox Press. p. 7.

[12] Ibid. p. 7.

[13] EDWARDS, G. R.  1984.  Gay/lesbian liberation: a biblical perspective.  New York : The Pilgrim Press. p. 13.

[14] LARKIN, W. J.,JR.  1988.  Culture and biblical hermeneutics.  Eugene, OR : Wipf and Stock Publishers. p. 18-19.

[15] Ibid. p.21.

[16] Ibid. p. 23

[17] SCHAEFFER, F. A.  1984.  The great evangelical disaster.  Westchester, IL : Crossway Books. p. 56.

[18] KRABBENDAM, H.  1980.  B. B. Warfield vs. G.C. Berkouwer on Scripture. (In Geisler, N. L., ed. Inerrancy. Grand Rapids, MI : Zondervan. p. 413-446.)

[19] SCHAEFFER, 1984 : p.  44-45.

[20] WINK, W.  1999.  Homosexuality and the Bible. (In Wink, W. ed. Homosexuality and Christian faith : questions of conscience for the churches. Minneapolis, MN : Fortress Press. p. 44.)

[21] COUNTRYMAN, 1990 : p.  243-244.

[22] ELLISON, M. M.  2004.  Same Sex Marriage? : a Christian ethical analysis.  Cleveland, OH : The Pilgrim Press. p. 155.

[23] SCHAEFFER, 1984 : p.  60.

[24] Ibid. p. 64.

Thursday, January 20, 2011

The Anatomy of a Nazi

I am intrigued with those pundits who are quick to reach into their ammo pouch and pull out the “Nazi” label and apply it to those with whom they vigorously disagree. In recent days it has become all too fashionable to tar-and-feather one’s ideological opponents with the “Nazi” brand. If one doesn’t buy the popular promotions of climate change then one is branded a “climate Nazi”. If one disagrees with Obamacare and nationalized health care, then according to one US congressman you are a “Nazi” propagating Hitler’s Big Lie. If you oppose same-sex marriage and homosexuality then not only are you a homophobe, but a “Nazi” to boot. But all of this labeling begs that all essential question: What is a Nazi and what did they really believe?

Here is a short summary and assessment of who the Nazis really were and what they believed:

1. Nazis believed in socialism--hence The National Socialist Party of Hitler. Do conservatives believe in socialism? Hardly.

2. The Nazis were committed to existential philosophy and its correlate nihilism i.e. “God is dead” (Nietzsche). Does this sound like a mainstream conservative belief? Hardly. Rather, postmodernism is closely wed to this thinking. Postmodern thought can be directly traced back to the very philosophers who had a very pronounced influence on Hitler. Who is it that subscribes to postmodern deconstructive thought today? Certainly not those who believe in absolutes and the authority of God’s word.

3. The Nazis were obsessed with Darwinian evolution and especially the tenant of the survival of the fittest. This belief led Hitler on the eugenics crusade along with "progressives" around the world. While some conservatives might hold to a belief in evolution, many deny it. But who are the main cheerleaders for this ideology?

4. The Nazis and Hitler were morbidly infatuated with the occult. In fact the swastika, along with many other Nazi symbols, was an ancient occult symbol from Hinduism and Buddhism. The whole notion of the Aryan race stems from this and was then coupled to the dogma of survival of the fittest. Hitler was a disciple of occult practitioner Guido Von List, an Austrian German. So when you hear someone say Hitler was a Christian, they are ignorant of the facts. Again, does this sound like the belief of someone who would classify themselves as a conservative? Hardly.

5. When you add up all of the above, what does the sum of this equation equal? A transvaluationist: a transvaluationsit is someone who calls good evil and evil good ... black is white and white is black. Though the Bible does not use the term, it does perfectly describe what a transvaluationist believes and does: “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; Who substitute darkness for light and light for darkness; Who substitute bitter for sweet and sweet for bitter!” (Isaiah 5:20). Interestingly, Isaiah’s depiction of a transvaluationist is clearly set in the context of spiritual and moral apostasy. As absolutes are abandoned and replaced with the sweet-nothings of relativism, transvaluations become the norm. Those who really stand for truth and righteousness will be recast as unrighteous obstacles to the truth and to progress itself. One need only to look at the issue of homosexuality and how the transvaluations have been applied to legitimize what God clearly calls sin. Those who disagree with the PC screed on this issue are readily demonized and vilified as hate-filled rubes.

Hitler was a master transvaluationist often guilty of the very things he accused others of. This is what enabled him to deceive millions with the Big Lie. Even a majority of the churches in Germany bought into the transvalutionist creed, as 100 years of higher critical thinking foisted on the Bible prepared the way. As the German church kicked God’s word to the curb with Redaction Criticism, they replaced the vacuum it left with Hitler’s lies and transvalued assessments. It is no wonder that many German churches replaced their crosses with swastikas. The transvaulation was complete.

Does any of this sound familiar? A liberal media can scream about "civility" while calling others names and using incendiary rhetoric. Under the guise of “free speech”, they try to censor the speech of those with whom they disagree. They have even gone to the extreme of criminalizing metaphors, as if they have never made use of the same! They liberally accuse others of crimes which they didn’t commit. This is the hallmark of a transvalutionist.

How many churches have replaced God’s word with so-called “science” to justify homosexuality, abortion, and left-wing politics to include socialism? How many pulpits have jettisoned the cross of Christ in favor of mainstream culture? How many churches and denominations have marginalized the gospel with recycling, curbing carbon emissions, and pursuing everything “green”? It is all a direct result of substituting God’s word for the lie and succumbing to the transvalued version of the gospel, devoid of sin and repentance. No doubt they have worshiped the creature rather than Creator (Romans 1:18-32).

Based on the above summary, whom does this really describe? Not conservatives that is for sure! Not those who classify themselves as Bible-believing Christians. Maybe those invoking the “Nazi” label need to go take a good, long, hard look in the mirror and ask "Is it I?"