Just as the people around the early Christians insisted that there was no inconsistency between worshipping Jesus and offering a pinch of incense to the Emperor, people around us today are insisting there is no inconsistency between these new sexual mores and the Bible. Those first Christians knew better and bore the consequences. We, too, know better, and may be forced to bear consequences.
While recently reading some fairy tales to my children, I was struck by how deeply Christian the story of Snow White is. The story seemed almost as if it was a mixed-up cultural retelling of the fall and redemption (an innocent dies by the bite of a poisoned apple and needs to be brought alive again by a Prince, the son of a King, etc.). I was going to write a post trying to explain what I saw, but then I came across an article that does it so much better than I ever could. Here is the article for your consideration:
Dave Daubenmire hits on the only thing that can save the West:
“The wild card in this whole American mess is the once Truth-filled American church. The success or failure of our society rests not in the political process but will be directly proportional to the degree to which our pulpits strike the plumb line. Only Truth can ultimately prevail.”
A concept appearing more and more in American political discourse and on college campuses is “intersectionality,” a theory that is becoming a political movement that noted Christian thinkers consider contrary to the Gospel.
Broadly defined — though its precise meaning is disputed — “intersectionality” refers to the interconnected nature of social categories like race, gender, class and how these identity markers create overlapping and interdependent systems of disadvantage or discrimination…
“According to the science of biology, people were not “created.” They have evolved. And they certainly did not evolve to be “equal.” The idea of equality is inextricably intertwined with the idea of creation. The Americans got the idea of equality from Christianity, which argues that every person has a directly created soul, and that all people are equal before God. However if we do not believe in the Christian myths about God, creation, souls, what does it mean that all people are created “equal”? Evolution is based on difference, not on equality. Every person carries a somewhat different genetic code, and is exposed from birth to different environmental influences. This leads to the development of different qualities that carry with them different chances of survival. “Created equal” should therefore be translated “evolved differently.”” [Read more of the quote in context here.]
We are now seeing, in our day, the results of a Pietistic Christianity. Because the Pietists retreated from the culture, the institutions of the culture have been annexed and overtaken by pagan men. So thoroughly have they routed Christianity that their current mopping up efforts consist of not allowing Christmas to any longer be called “Christmas.” The Pietist, who has continually retreated for over 200 years, has now made his stand there in defense of Christmas, not realizing that it is his form of Christianity that has brought us to this point.
And this is my point – even if there was a great revival – there is no theological means within present day American Christianity whereby biblical morality could become public policy. There has to be a fundamental change in the form of Christianity in America in order to see it happen.
Aldous Huxley, Complete Essays v.2:1926-1929: “The Substitutes for Religion”:
The arts, including music and certain important kinds of literature, have been, at most periods, the handmaids of religion. Their principal function was to provide religion with the visible or audible symbols which create in the mind of the beholder those feelings which for him personally are the god. Divorced from religion, the arts are now independently cultivated for their own sake. That aesthetic beauty which was once devoted to the service of God has now set up as a god on its own. The cultivation of art for its own sake has become a substitute for religion. That it is an extremely inadequate substitute must be apparent to anyone who has observed the habits of those who lead the pure, aesthetic life. Where beauty is worshipped for beauty’s sake as a goddess, independent of and superior to morality and philosophy, the most horrible putrefaction is apt to set in. The lives of the aesthetes are the far from edifying commentary on the religion of beauty.