In our first article, we looked at the specific question of whether or not the legalising of homosexual marriage would lead to the legalising of polygamy. Our answer was both “possibly” and “definitely maybe”! The more erudite answers came as a twofold response. First, we needed to understand that legalising homosexual marriage would not hurt the cause of the polygamists. Second, and of greater importance, is the fact that the polygamists have the same opportunity now, regardless of what happens with homosexual marriage. We saw that the “potentiality” for all types of perversion had been introduced long ago. What we are experiencing now with homosexual or polygamous marriage, is not the beginning of a journey upon the Slippery Slope, but a siding along the way. Exactly how far along that journey we are will only be known with hindsight. The important aspect to grasp is that the journey has well and truly begun.

The aim of this particular blog is to try and build upon the foundation already set. Space simply did not allow for a well rounded treatment of the main principle in the former blog. The main point of the previous blog was “Relativism” and its impact upon culture – poorly defined though it may have been. Here, we intend to pick up this point and attempt to illustrate it more fully.

We must understand and grasp the fundamental principle that Relativism begins with the dumping of the Bible’s God as in any way relevant to salvation, life, and culture. Once God is denied, we simply have no objective reference point. At this instant, we have essentially committed ourselves to grope in the dark. At this point, we have set foot upon the Slippery Slope. Our journey begins at this point and no other. We do not wait for the first hiccup to present itself and then search for the big, mushroom-shaped, red button labelled “panic”! No. We should have panicked at the very thought of jettisoning the knowledge of the One, True and Living God. This is the scariest thing possible for man (Deuteronomy 4:24; Romans 1:21-23; Psalm 10:4). After this, everything is a cakewalk.

This principle can be well illustrated by looking at Israel’s history. In Judges 21:25, we read these disturbing words: “In those days there was no king in Israel; everyone did what was right in his own eyes.” Most would interpret these words as referring to an earthly king. This seems a little redundant as a monarchy had not yet been established in Israel. The more potent interpretation would be to understand these words as stating that Israel had broken covenant with Yahweh by denying Him as their true King and Monarch. When Israel rejected God’s Law–Way, they reaped the negative covenant sanctions and they began to grope in darkness. They had no answers to the cultural torment of the day. Only when Yahweh had mercy and raised up a Judge did light appear to the land. Further proof for this position can be found in 1 Samuel 12:12 – “When you saw that Nahash the king of the sons of Ammon came against you, you said to me (Samuel), ‘No, but a king shall reign over us,’ although the Lord your God was your king”; and Deuteronomy 17:18-19 – “Now it shall come about when he (a king) sits on the throne of his kingdom, he shall write for himself a copy of this law … And it shall be with him, and he shall read it all the days of his life, that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, by carefully observing all the words of this law and these statutes.” In these texts we are clearly instructed, a) that Yahweh was always Israel’s true King; and b) that even when an earthly king reigned, he was to be nothing less than an analogue of Yahweh. He was to learn and know Yahweh’s Law so that he could govern Yahweh’s people appropriately. Scripture shows Messiah as Yahweh’s true King, established in God’s place of rule, Zion, and ruling as Yahweh would and does rule (Psalm 2:6). Thus, abandoning God as the absolute touchstone is nothing less than setting foot on the “Slippery Slope.”

With this established, we need to ask the pertinent question, “Have we rejected the God of the Bible as our objective standard for salvation, life, and culture?” One would hardly think that an answer is required, but just in case you are unsure, we answer, Yes! Absolutely! Most Definitely! Of course, some will not be happy with such a weak and compromising answer, but it would seem that we are faced with incontrovertible evidence that support such statements. As noted previously, we live in a Postmodern world. Although some may debate this term’s legitimacy and definition, it has nonetheless passed into common usage. I prefer ‘Applied Modernism’ as a term. However, at the end of the day the label is redundant. What is important is that we understand that we live in a world that denies, from an epistemological and philosophical perspective particularly, that anyone can know anything, that reality is, and that absolutes exist. In such an environment, language, knowledge, and concepts are relegated to the scrap heap. We cannot even begin a discussion because there is nothing to discuss, no prior learning to inform us, no means of communicating, and no mean of verification. Thus, the question concerning the rejection of God answers itself. In such a milieu, to talk of an absolute God that reveals knowledge and seeks man’s obedience to His Law is to speak “molecules to moo cows”!

One further observation is requisite. At any one time, there is going to be a variety of worldviews in the public square. The parable of the Tares and the Wheat (Matthew 13:24-30) indicates that there will be a mixture. The deviant belief, by extrapolation, is the false belief sown by the enemy. That the false belief exists is not necessarily the problem. The setback is encountered when the false belief dominates. It can only have one detrimental consequence, namely, that God is robbed of His glory. This happens because God is not gloried in by His creation, thus requiring God to impose the negative covenant sanctions, which in turn results in God not being able to glory in His creation. This results in a necessary downward spiral (See Romans 1.). Therefore, when the Enlightenment came and effectively caused, not one nation, but a hemisphere or a globe to reject the knowledge of God as their epistemological standard, the final product had to be relativism – decisions made by the finite, for the finite ,in the finite.  The conclusion of the matter? We are well and truly on the “Slippery Slope”.

The consequence of this is that we must understand that any perversion is possible. In rejecting God, we have left the door unlocked and slightly ajar. We can blame the Homosexual Lobby for the current dilemma, but that would be a mistake. Just as it would be foolish to blame them if polygamists were to be encouraged by any gains they make. Again, understand well, the door was ajar! When the Homosexual Lobby came knocking on the door labelled “Equal Marriage”, they did not force it; they did not jimmy the locks. Not at all. The energy of each knock imparted, opened the door wider until there was no impediment. It would not have mattered what perversion arrived at the door or what “barrow” they were pushing. Once that “barrow” impacted the door, it would have swung open. The rejection of God unlocked and set this door ajar a long time ago.

Who is to blame for this mess? The Enlightenment? The homosexuals? The polygamists? Well, essentially the Church is, for she has abandoned Her call to be herald, watchman, teacher, and preserver. We have arrived at this point precisely because the Church failed to proclaim the One Word (Jesus) as the rule of the One God over this earth and that in its (His) fullness. Therefore, it is futile to play the blame game, in terms of worldly agendas, and it is futile to speculate concerning what perversions may walk through this open door. Our only valid response at this point is to ask, ‘How do we stop this cursed slide?’ For the tradesmen among us, the question would be, ‘How do we seal the doorway and reattach the locks?’ It is in answering these questions alone that we can find the right remedy.

As the Church has left the door ajar by Her failure, so it is encumbered upon the Church to remedy the situation. That remedy calls for the Church Herself to abandon relativism and to return to the prophetic utterances given Her. The Church must cease with the uncertain sounds of compromise; with the platitudes that desire peace at any cost; with the voice that whispers because She has no confidence in the content of Her speech; with the anti-covenantal view that says that She can be happy and prosperous while living in open rebellion to Her Lord, Jesus! This She must abandon for the clear, confident, and uncompromised proclamation, “Thus says the Lord God!”

This alone “places the wood in the hole” and locks it tightly. This alone will secure the door against whatever perversions may come a knocking. This alone will lead us back to the place of covenantal blessing in which the gracious mercy of our God will establish for us peace and security from without and within (Deuteronomy 30:1-10). This alone will seal the door and lead our nation from death to life.