Queer theory is the application of postmodernism to sex, gender and sexuality. And its main goal is to liberate these three from their historic, religious foundations. Regarding gender specifically, there is no truth about what is a man or a woman. A person mutilating his or her own healthy body is labeled beautiful. And it is considered good that gender no longer dictates who can participate in men’s and women’s sports. This is where the transgender movement comes from. Might this be where Wheaton College or its psychology professor is headed, teaching aspects of queer theory? It is uncertain, but not implausible. It is certain the college is permitting the professor to advance his views about identity that have roots in an anti-God philosophy. 

Wheaton College is often called the “Harvard of Christian Schools” due to its academic rigor being relatively comparable to the Ivy League titan. Its graduates of note range from Billy Graham to Dan Coates, former Director of National Intelligence and U.S. senator. 
But recently, the school in the leafy suburb west of Chicago has begun to mimic Harvard’s wokeness. Banning biblical words, teaching critical race theory, and psychologizing gender identity issues may not seem extreme in modern academia. But for a school which houses the works of Rev. Graham, C.S. Lewis and J.R.R. Tolkien, it is adrift from its orthodox, Christian moorings. But this isn’t a recent drift.
In the 2000s, the education department commended the teachings of Marxists. In 2016, 78 faculty members voiced support for a fellow professor who stated Christians and Muslims worship the same God. And five years later, the school held its first ceremony recognizing graduating minority students sans White students. And currently, Wheaton permits its professors to teach critical race theory. 
Marxism, religious syncretism and segregation are incompatible with Christian teaching. 
But its most blatant offense against Christianity is banning certain biblical words that are key to the faith’s foundation. In this year’s curriculum for freshman, students are informed about opportunities to meet the needs of those less fortunate. This is commonly known as the act of service. 
Wheaton, however, instructs the students not to use the word, “service.” Instead, they are to use “sacrificial co-laboring.” The reason given is service “may invoke power dynamics across socio-economic, racial, and cultural lines.” 
Why would Wheaton sideline a word (or its derivatives) used throughout the Bible and by Jesus himself? For those in the Christian faith and outside of it, the existence of an unbalanced power dynamic is the very reason for service. Furthermore, the crux of Jesus’ ministry on earth was serving. And his service erased the superficial lines dividing people and united them around himself. 
Read More
Related Posts:

Written by R. Scott Clark |
Tuesday, July 19, 2022
The Old Testament is coming alive before our eyes. Suddenly Sodom and Gomorrah seem more real, do they not? Nothing will subvert the new sexual order more than singing joyfully the Songs of Zion in the midst of the nations raging against the King (Ps. 2).

It was only a matter of time. There is a story on CNN about the the 2019 publication of a LGBTQ hymnal, Songs For The Holy Other: Hymns Affirming the LGBTQIA2S+ Community. This collection is published by the Hymn Society, which is a century old this year.
The story begins with an acknowledgement of the affective power of singing. The first interview is with a Lesbian who chafed at being “tolerated” in the church. She wanted her Lesbian sexuality be affirmed even as she wanted to retain her Christian faith. She sought to synthesize Christianity with feminism as she studied music and “fell in love” with her “now-wife.” She contributed two hymns to the collection.
The title is a play on words. Theologians often speak of God as “wholly other” as a way to characterize his transcendence. The title uses a homonym but applies it to homosexuals in the church. They are the “holy” other. According to CNN, the hymnal was compiled by people from “seven denominations and a wide range of sexualities and gender identities.”
The contributors are explicit about their aim: “It is important for churches to explicitly state who is welcome there. It is important for members of our community to hear their names spoken—and sung—in their houses of worship…”. One authority contacted for the piece identifies as “pansexual.” “Queer people,” she says, “are longing to be heard,” she says “The church was supposed to protect them and love them and teach them about God. It has made a lot of mistakes, and we have a lot to make up for.”
Analysis
We are in the midst of the third phase of a great sexual revolution in the last century. The first, a century ago, was about the role of women in secular society and in that revolution women gained the freedom to drive and to vote. In the second phase, in the 1970s, women left the house for full-time careers, gained no-fault divorce, and abortion on demand. In the third, the very definition of marriage has been turned on its head and the heterosexual hegemony—grounded in nature since time immemorial—is being overturned in favor of queer, pan-sexual neo-paganism. It turns out that Pandora’s Box is pan-sexual chaos. It is so radical that even some third-wave feminists and advocates of homosexuality and homosexual marriage are complaining about being marginalized.
In the face of this revolution Christians have two choices, to try to co-opt the culture (or be co-opted by it) or to resist it. Of course, the mainline churches (e.g., the United Churches of Christ, the Presbyterian Church USA, the Episcopal Church USA et al) will try to incorporate the radical new sexual ethos in a sad attempt to remain relevant, but after giving up the Scriptures as the un-normed norm, what else can the seven sisters do?
For our purposes, the question facing the confessional Presbyterian and Reformed (P&R) churches is this: is there a rule of worship or not? It is the unquestioned assumption of this hymnal and its advocates that it is the function of the church and her hymns to affirm and to express the religious experience of the church. As the church changes, so must the hymnal.
The confessional P&R churches, however, do not begin with that assumption. They begin with the assumption that it is not the function of singing in worship for us to say whatever we want to God but to repeat God’s Word after him. The role of a song in worship is not for us to say to God what is on our hearts but for the congregation to say to God what is on his heart.
This is how the classical Reformed churches understood the function of singing. They understood worship to be a dialogue in which God speaks and his people respond but the Reformed all understood that God’s people are to respond with his Word. This is part of what they understood sola Scriptura to mean: God’s Word is sufficient for the Christian faith, the Christian life, and public worship.
In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, however, as religious subjectivism swept through the Modern church, first under the influence of Pietism, and then under the influence of the liberal children and grandchildren of the Pietists, God’s Word was gradually marginalized in favor of Watts’ paraphrases of the Psalms and then, finally, hymns. Eventually, in virtually every quarter of the church (and even in most P&R churches) the hymnal completely routed the Psalter.
Read More
Related Posts:

The iPod revolutionised the music industry: we no longer buy CDs (let alone cassette tapes). Instead, we download our music directly. We could say the same about cars (horses, anyone?), television, the printing press, the internet….In the same way, AI will not just sit alongside our older technology and ways of doing things: it will probably replace much of it and change how we live.

In a few years, Cyberdyne Systems will create a revolutionary defense system.
It’s called Skynet.
A computer program that automatically controls the defense of the United States. The system goes online on August 4th…Human decisions are removed from strategic defense. Skynet begins to learn at a geometric rate. It becomes self-aware at 2:14 am Eastern time, August 29th. In a panic, the US government try to pull the plug. But Skynet fights back.
Those are the haunting words of Arnold Schwarzenegger’s Robotic T–800 Terminator character in the movie, Terminator 2. Skynet is the US military’s Artificial Intelligence (AI) that turns on its makers, destroying and enslaving humanity.
Skynet is the epitome of nightmares about AI.
While Skynet-level Artificial Intelligence is not imminent, many are sounding the alarm about the dangers of unregulated AI with the advent of ChatGPT. And the spread of AI into everyday life raises the question of what it means for us as individuals, families, schools, workplaces, and society at large. How will AI impact us? Will we one day face a ‘Skynet’ moment, like in the Terminator movies?
Over the last few weeks, I’ve taken a deep dive down the AI rabbit hole, listening to podcasts, reading books, taking courses, and testing it myself. And let me say, it’s been a roller coaster ride of emotions, from dread at how this AI might eventually take our jobs and possibly even our freedom, to optimism about what AI could do for us.
Here are 12 things that I’ve discovered:
1. AI is Like Nuclear Energy: It’s Both Promising and Dangerous
Microsoft Founder Bill Gates has said the power of artificial intelligence is “so incredible, it will change society in some very deep ways…The world hasn’t had that many technologies that are both promising and dangerous—we had nuclear energy and nuclear weapons”.
2. Technological Change Isn’t Additive; It’s Transformative
When a new technology comes onto the scene—especially one as powerful as AI—it doesn’t just add itself to the existing technology we’re using: it often upends it, changing our society.
Think about how the iPod revolutionised the music industry: we no longer buy CDs (let alone cassette tapes). Instead, we download our music directly. We could say the same about cars (horses, anyone?), television, the printing press, the internet and just about any new technology.
In the same way, AI will not just sit alongside our older technology and ways of doing things: it will probably replace much of it and change how we live.
3. A Christian View of Humanity Will Impact How We Approach AI and New Technology
In the biblical view of reality, humans aren’t machines we can discard when better machines come along. We need to care for our neighbours, who are made in the image of God and who will be impacted by technological change.
Love for our neighbours should lead Christians to discern and influence how technology is developed and used, rather than just jumping on the narrative that technological change is inevitable, whether we like it or not.
4. AI Is not Ethically Neutral, but Is Furnished with the Ethics of Its Designers
AI is being used in all sorts of applications that have ethical implications: from hiring for jobs to predicting whether a criminal will re-offend. Concerns have already been raised about racial and gender bias in these programs.[1]
As Christian author John Lennox points out, “If the ethical programmers [of AI] are informed by relativistic or biased ethics, the same will be reflected in their products.”[2]
This is why Christians should try and have a seat at the table of AI design, especially of AI products that have ethical uses.
Read More

Related Posts: