That Hideous Strength – Part 3 – Barbarians Through the Gates – The Destruction of the Family

downloadThat Hideous Strength – Part 3 – Barbarians Through the Gates – The Destruction of the Family

AS we continue our review and summary of Melvin Tinker’s  That Hideous Strength: How the West was Lost, this week we come on to chapter 5 where Tinker argues that the purpose of Cultural Marxism is to destroy the family.

“Equality is never going to be enough: what is needed is a total social revolution, a complete reordering of civilisation.  Reform….cannot change the deep-down attitude of straight people that homosexuality is at best inferior to their own way of life, a worst a sickening perversion.  It will take more than reforms to change this attitude, because it is rooted in our society’s most basic institution – the Patriarchal Family”  The Gay Liberation Front Manifesto

“Fighting for gay marriage generally involves lying about what we’re going to do with marriage when we get there.  Because we lie that the institution of marriage is not going to change, and that is a lie.  The institution of marriage is going to change and it should change, and again, I don’t think it should exist”   Masha Gessen (Lesbian author and activist).

I experienced this with Peter Tatchell when I debated with him on Revelation TV.  I challenged him that he had not really changed his view on marriage (he was opposed to SSM but then said he had changed) but that he was using SSM to destroy what was termed traditional marriage.  He did not disagree.   I also remember David Cameron as Prime Minister writing a letter (or at least his office did) in which he justified SSM by stating that two people who love one another should be able to marry whatever (which as a legal definition is to say the least absurd) and that marriage was going to be redefined for everyone!

My own view is that the vast majority of problems in our society either stem from, or are made much worse by, the break up of the family which has been at least partially caused by the redefinition of what family is.

downloadTinker points out that leading Church figures including the Archbishop of Canterbury have bought into a malleable concept of the family.   “The eminent surrender of the church to the world’s ideas in this particular area of sex, marriage and family is deeply disturbing to observe – not unlike watching a car crash in slow motion” (Will Jones)   This is an astute and sad observation.

The traditional Church institutions such as the Anglican and the Roman Catholic have been a particular target for wooing from this new sexual philosophy.   Pope Francis seems to be softening his stance, although officially the Catholic Church still holds to biblical teaching (by and large) on marriage, sex and sexuality.  But the Church of England is rapidly disappearing down the rabbit hole.

Tinker cites Jayne Ozanne as an example.  I have written about her book here.   Tinker accuses her (accurately) of the heresies of Pelagianism (that we are born sinless) and Socinianism (all evil within us is natural).

641636Dr Chik Kaw Tan. a member of the General Synod,  describes how the LGBT lobby is taking over the Church of England (again on a personal note let me state that when I was at the University of Edinburgh, 1979-1983, it was reckoned that 25% of the trainee Anglican clergy were gay).

“12 years ago when I first joined Synod, the LGBT lobby consisted of a little stand with a few people handing out leaflets.  Many Synod members subtly changed the direction of movement away from them and politely avoided any conversation with LGBT activists.  12 years on, they are the all-winning victorious juggernaut, crushing all in its path.  Not only is the LGBT constituency well and truly embedded in the organisational structure of the Church of England, its agenda for change dominates proceedings.”

Tinker then goes on to cite the non-Christian Camille Paglia has having more insight than many Christians.  Her essay on The Joy of Presbyterian Sex  and Carl Trueman’s observations on that:  “Liberal churches do what they always do: In an effort to remain credible they dutifully turn up to baptise whatever sentimental mush the world wants to promote on the trendy topic of the moment.  Of course, it always does this a day or two late, but that’s what happens when your ethics are simply a response to norms which the world has already embraced.  No longer is it ‘Thus saith the Lord!’ so much as ‘Now, now, poor dear, you just do what feels right for you.  Oh, and please, whatever you do, don’t feel guilty about it.”  

Tinker then talks about how the biblical cosmology is being taken over by a pagan one.  “Either there is objective reality to which we are to conform our minds, senses and values and so have genuine human flourishing within the boundaries God has given, or all such claims are to be regarded with suspicion and further expressions of repressive tolerance.”  

When God removes the boundaries ‘society collapses in on itself in excessive self-confidence.”    Tinker then more controversially but in my view correctly and logically, goes on to point out that zoophilia (bestiality) and paedophilia are inevitable steps on the slippery slope.  He cites Malcolm J. Brenner who made a documentary “Dolphin Lover’ which of course won awards.  Brenner states: “150 years ago, black people were considered a degenerate sub-species of the human being….And I’m hoping that in a more enlightened future, zoophilia well be no more regarded as controversial or harmful than interracial sex is today”  (Interestingly I am writing this just after seeing on a mainstream BBC TV comedy show comedians making jokes about zoophilia – all part of the normalisation process described in part 2).

Tinker concludes the chapter by pointing out that “the end of all neo-Marxist philosophies is not the liberation of human beings but their destruction – the abolition of man”  (C S Lewis’s book with that title is well worth reading.).   “If it is a human right for those who are gay to marry, it will be unacceptable to have a society which refuses it.  It will be forbidden to forbid.

 

That Hideous Strength – How the West Was Lost – Melvin Tinker Part 1

That Hideous Strength – Part 2 – The Gender Agenda

That Hideous Strength – Part 3 – Barbarians Through the Gates – The Destruction of the Family

https://wordpress.com/post/theweeflea.com/20440

 

39 thoughts on “That Hideous Strength – Part 3 – Barbarians Through the Gates – The Destruction of the Family

  1. On your recommendation I have read the book. I cannot say I “enjoyed” it – it was far too uncomfortable and disturbing for that. However it filled in a number of gaps in my own understanding of the contemporary scene today. It is an important book, and a must for thinking Christians (and indeed non thinking ones). As such it is a commendably short book, I read it in a couple of sessions (I lose the will to live with some of the larger tomes) and it is ideal for a Christian culture that largely doesn’t read (my own church does not have a book stall). It is also well referenced, which many books are not).

    I do not make a habit of writing to authors, but in this case I made an exception and wrote to thank Rev, Tinker.

  2. Eph 5:31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[c] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church

  3. Regarding bestiality. (Let’s call a spade a spade.) The word itself conjures up something very nasty. Most people would have a strong reaction against the idea if they heard that word. Hence the activity must be given a new name: zoophilia. People haven’t yet got an immediately hostile reaction to that word. (Like ‘gay’ and ‘homosexual’.)
    Now, one of the current buzz words is ‘consent’. (Apparently it is now an important part of Primary School sex education.) Anything goes as long as there is ‘consent’. But how can humans ever assert that the animal ‘consents’ to their activity? Those who favour this kind of activity will, of course, argue that the animal gives its consent (they just know that) but that’s just them saying that, not the animal. So then we move into the area where one participant in the activity can give the ‘consent” of the other participant. And it’s quite easy to see where that goes in the case of paedophilia.
    Another aspect of this normalisation of bestiality is the assertion that human beings are just the same as animals, only a bit more ‘developed’. So, the argument will go, there’s nothing innately different between human-human sexual activity and human-animal activity.

    1. Tbh I’ve never come across anyone whose sexual morality relies on consent alone.

      Consent is being taught as an important pre requisite in schools and universities because our society has woken up to the epidemic levels of sexual assault on women and children that were going on around us and because educators are attempting generational change away from that.

      Neither children nor animals can consent to sex, so any sexual morality which includes the need for consent can include approval of bestiality or paedophilia

      1. I agree of course that animals cannot ‘consent’ – in most understanding of the terms. They don’t consent to be being kept on farms, slaughtered etc. Not quite sure what your point is.

        I also agree completely that children cannot consent (in any real and meaningful way) but that contradicts your earlier defence of the Trans ideology which says that children can consent to having their gender changed and their bodies mutilated. Are you saying that they can consent to that but not to sexual relations? On what basis do you make that distinction?

      2. My point is that the morality about sex that is now being taught in schools and universities is not “consent and anything goes”, but that consent is an absolute must.

        I have not claimed that children can consent to sex change surgery. In fact, if you look back, I said it was illegal in the U.K.

        I have, however, had to complain previously about you arguing against things I haven’t said. Why not be happy that we agree on some things instead of trying to make out that I am saying things that I am not?!

      3. No sex change therapy/surgery etc is NOT illegal in the UK. Do you think that primary school children can determine what gender they are? I’m just asking you to follow the logic of your own position…if children can choose their own gender why can’t they choose when to have sex? And yes – what is being taught in schools and universities is basically ‘consent and anything goes’? Have you read any of the teaching materials yet? Do you not realise that the basic mantra is ‘if adults consent (and in some cases teenagers) then its fine (as long as they practice ‘safe sex’)…?

      4. I have now asked you several times to stop arguing against things I have not said.

        Sex change surgery is not being carried out on children in the UK and nor do I agree with such surgery on children.

        I don’t believe anyone can choose their gender and – as I have proven before – this is not what trans people are claiming.

        I disagree that teaching that consent is important is the same as teaching “anything goes”. I do think that sexual assault is a serious crime that many churches do not seem to take seriously enough.

      5. Gender reassignment therapy is offered to children in the UK.
        It all depends what you call gender – if you have faith (no scientific evidence for it) that biology has nothing to do with gender then you don’t think that changing biology is changing gender….but on the other hand if you stick with facts then you believe you can change your biology/gender.
        If consent is the main factor then what people consent to is the same as ‘anything goes’. Could you tell us what does not go = which is consented to? And on what basis?
        Could you tell us specifically which churches do not take sexual assault seriously? That is a very serious charge for you to make – I assume you have some evidence….would you like to name them?

      6. Children who are facing distress because of gender issues are of course offered appropriate advice and treatment, but this does *not* include surgery.

        I’d repeat for at least the third time that I don’t believe it is possible to change gender and neither do trans people (or at least the vast majority of trans people). Trans people are people who experience (or at least claim to experience) being a gender at odds with their birth sex. If you listen to parents of children who have genuine cases of this they will tell you that it is something that they have been extremely distressed about for many years – I think anyone would say that, yes, medical treatment is appropriate. Medical treatment is not surgery. I have been to the doctors and even the hospital many times, but have only had surgery twice.

        Consent

        It’s illegal for a person to smoke if they are under 18. That does not mean that it’s then OK for a person over 18 to smoke wherever they wish. Likewise I continue to reject your premise that by teaching children and young adults consent schools and universities are saying that nothing else matters when it comes to sexual morality. I find it hard to believe that you are not just arguing with me on this for the sake of arguing!

        The Roman Catholic Church, The Church of England and Hillsong are amongst those churches which have not taken sexual assault very seriously in the past. There have been endless stories about this in the last two decades eg the former archbishop of the CofE said he didn’t think it mattered if there was no penetration! The RCC and the CofE continue to have real problems in this regard – about a year ago I heard an interview with a leader for safeguarding in the church who said she had a commitment for all bishops to attend safeguarding training. I think if your senior leadership is not even attending the training then you cannot claim to be taking the matter seriously.

      7. For the last time…and then you are done – because to be honest you are becoming tiresome. You show an inability to listen and you keep changing subjects!

        Yes – children can get medical treatment (puberty blockers etc) and surgery in the UK.

        What you believe is irrelevant. We are going by what is fact. It is a fact that many people believe in gender fluidity and that they can change gender.

        Re Consent – what other principles do you think schools teach which override consent? (by the way I agree with consent – I just don’t think its right to consent to what is wrong – and I don’t make consent an absolute).

        The Catholic Church, the C of E and HIllsong do not support child abuse…you seem to listen to a lot of gossip (and accept that which supports your view point). Yes of course there have been horrendous cases in these churches (as there have been in every area of society) but they do not accept nor support child abuse. Which archbishop of the C of E said that there sexual abuse didn’t matter if there was no penetration (you will forgive me if I don’t believe you until you actually provide some evidence. You have form!).

        You also have a naive trust in ‘training’! You think that if someone has training they will never abuse?!

  4. “Pope Francis seems to be softening his stance, although officially the Catholic Church still holds to biblical teaching (by and large) on marriage, sex and sexuality.”
    Firstly, it is correct, up to a point, to make a distinction between what a Pope has said as an individual and what he says as Pope. Pope Benedict XVI, for example, said that he had written ‘Jesus of Nazareth’ as an individual and that people were quite at liberty to disagree with what he wrote. Similarly, comments made to journalists on aeroplanes have no magisterial standing.
    However, it is somewhat muddying the waters to imply some sort of distinction between the ‘stance’ of a Pope and the official teaching of the Catholic Church. The doctrine of papal infallibility does not allow a Pope to invent new doctrine. His main function is to preserve the teaching handed down to him. There is such a thing as the development of doctrine. Examples include the doctrine of the Trinity and the doctrine of the Godhead and humanity of Jesus Christ. However, any development has to be in the nature of a clarification. There is no development of doctrine which is a denial of previous doctrine. Thus, if the doctrine of the Catholic Church is that marriage can only be between a man and a woman, no Pope has the power to change that.
    Secondly, it would be of interest to know where David thinks that” Pope Francis seems to be softening his stance.” This is not intended polemically; it would be interesting to know. (It would only be far to point out that there are Catholics, some in very high places, who have expressed concern at some of the things that Pope Francis has said.)
    Thirdly, I would be interested to know where Catholic teaching on marriage, sex and sexuality does not fully accord with ‘biblical teaching’. (At least, that is what seems to be suggested by the words ‘by and large’.) Again, this is not intended polemically. Any such lack of accord will, of course, depend on interpretation of the Bible but it would nevertheless be of interest to know where the difference is perceived to be.)

      1. I have to say despite the current Pope’s comments, Pope John Paul II’s “Theology of the Body” is an exceptional work and was way ahead of its time on making clear the true meaning and theology of sexuality.

        Christopher West has written a number of books translating it and making it accessible to everyone.

        As someone who had SSA I have found the teachings so helpful in understanding what godly sexuality looks like.

      2. “The one area I would disagree is not giving communion to divorcees and not allowing re-marriage under any circumstances. ”
        And yet you say, further down, that “divorce is a threat to family life”. Which certainly accords more with our Lord’s clear teaching – much clearer than His silence, for whatever reason, on other non-Genesis -2 arrangements.
        Those of us who have (and not in any particular hurry) remarried, find ourselves lost and distressed between two churches – my own until very recently, and the Pope’s, who consider me sinful for doing it at all – and all the rest, including yours, who might well judge me for not having “made myself an honest woman” for the second time sooner.
        As it is, I do take Communion, but with deep humility and recognition that it is a favour, not a right – and plead that if I am allowed by the same Grace to join Judas and Peter at the first Table, I may be held and saved afterwards from doing as they did.
        And I haven’t presumed to ask for a wedding in Church, although I think my present priest-in-charge (jarringly Evangelical-liberal, in a previously liberal-Catholic parish) would have eagerly accepted the task.
        Whatever one thinks of “Romish doctrine”, they are nothing if not consistent – they believe marriage to be a holy sacrament, not a mere contract between two humans, and require fidelity within it, and clerical abstinence altogether, equally from every natural sexual inclination, not just one. It is not true that they deny Communion to divorcees – any priest who does is exceeding his brief – only to those who have formed a sexually active (or presumed so) relationship while the first spouse remains alive. And I’ve personally seen people in that position receive in a Roman Mass without protest – the restriction isn’t that rigorously policed in some places.
        If denying me the Sacrament were the price of the Church not losing the run of itself altogether on “sexual morality” the way it has, I would willingly pay. As it is, I think we have already knocked down our own argument so effectively at that earlier stage, that it cannot now stand against all or any “change” demanded now.
        We will have to work from the other end, by demonstrating in our own lives the alternative rather than policing everybody else. Perhaps we should have done that all along?

    1. Pope Francis is said to have softened his stance against gay people because he once spoke to a gay catholic and because he once said that he once said something like “who am I to judge gay people”.

      During his reign, the Vatican, if not him personally, has blamed the RCC child sex scandals on gay people and, most pertinently, Pope Francis has said that gay men may not join the priesthood – which is a change in practice. I’m not an expert on the RCC, but I’m certain previously any man could join the priesthood.

      Part of the problem with understanding what Pope Francis has said is that we are relying on translations and he has fallen out with American bishops because he has criticised the president.

  5. I’m unconvinced that allowing gay people to marry is a threat to family life. I would argue that divorce is a far bigger threat to family life than allowing gay people to form families, yet most churches (including Tinkers own denomination) oppose same sex marriage, but see divorce at worst to be a necessary evil.

    However, I would agree to a certain extent that same sex marriage is a threat to the patriarchy, but again is not such a big threat as giving women the vote and allowing women to have careers. As I commented on a previous post, I think we are seeing a shift in society away from a utilitarian view of sex and marriage and towards a view of sex and marriage that is focused on companionship.

    I have heard that a close family member of Cameron’s wife is gay and this is why he supports gay rights.

    1. Divorce is a threat to family life. SSM is a threat to family life. Pornography is a threat to family life. Queer theory is a threat to family life. Turning away from the teaching of Christ (as you seem to be recommending) is the greatest threat to family life.

      1. How is allowing gay people to marry a threat to family life?

        Maybe it is obvious to you, but it isn’t to me!

        Indeed, I could point you to several families I know where it has brought stability because the parents relationship is now legally recognised.

      2. Because it changes the whole nature of marriage. It redefines marriage for everyone – turning it from a sacred covenant between a man and a woman to a civil partnership….

      3. To clarify I think all life in this country would be greatly enhanced if Christians took the teaching of Christ seriously (and by that I mean the things that Christ taught, as recorded in the gospels).

      4. I’d quite strongly disagree that marriage for gay couples is somehow less sacred than marriage for straight couples.

      5. I’m sure you would…but you have no reason for doing so – and certainly no biblical reason….unless you just mean by ‘sacred’ what you think…

    2. Sorry, but you still haven’t answered my question

      Even if I accept that allowing gay couples to marry changes the nature of marriage, how is that a threat to family life?

      I’m not trying to be difficult I genuinely want to understand. Amongst my friends are every combination of straight/gay and single/married/divorced and the only one of those that has threatened families is the divorces.

      1. Because if you change the definition of every marriage, you redefine it for everyone. If you go against the Makers instructions you end up breaking the whole system. Watch what is happening in countries throughout the world who are adopting this..

      2. So you are saying that because your gay neighbour can now marry that your marriage has become meaningless? No, of course not.

        Allowing gay couples to marry creates stability for their children. Did you know that gay couples make up 1-2% of all couples and are responsible for about a third of all new adoptions? If you ban gay people from adopting (I suspect you think gay people shouldn’t be allowed to adopt either) then these kids will just live out their lives in care homes, because the U.K. has far more children than straight people want to care for.

        Even if adoption were not an issue, gay people are not infertile and often times have their own biological children who are also granted better stability because their parents are able to marry.

        There doesn’t seem to be any actual reason coming from conservatives about why gay people shouldn’t be allowed to marry. The only “reasons” given amount to ideology or personal disgust.

        I dare say that if conservatives had come up with actual reasons why gay couples shouldn’t marry and presented an alternative then they may have won the debate and we wouldn’t be living in a society where it is legal and becoming more and more socially acceptable.

      3. No – that is not what I’m saying – any more than when I say slavery is a bad thing – it somehow makes my job a bad thing. You really do need to try and stick with the logic of what is being said. We are talking about the States view of marriage.

        Gay couples cannot have their own biological children (at least not without the intervention of a 3rd party). A

        I have given you the reasons many times about why gay marriage does not exist. The fact tht you choose not to read them instead continue to pontificate without ever considering alternative points of view is disturbing. You also seem to have this rather strange faith in society – if something is right and logical then society will choose it…if it is not then ‘society’ wont’.

        I don’t have your faith and trust in society. I trust Christ and go by his word alone. You can go with the zeitgeist of the moment. I don’t.

  6. Wonderful to see religionists are still obsessed and full of christian hate regarding SSM and the “lifestyle” sone people have. Thankfully this ongoing obsession can only continue to cement the decline of religion in the west. Merry xmas.

    1. Its interesting Gail – there is not a drop of hate in anything that is said there….unless you, as you apparently do, equate disagreeing with you in any form, as hate….I think you will find that as religion declines in the West – so will the West – given that it is built upon Christianity. How much self hate must you have to want to destroy yourself and your community?!

      1. Why do you say that the West is built on Christianity?

        For much of our history, Western Europe has been split by state religion – either catholic versus Protestant or Catholic versus Muslim or Catholic versus another type of Catholic.

        Now we have freedom of religion we have to find more esoteric things to squabble over like the common agricultural policy.

        I’d be careful what you wish for. If we didn’t have freedom of religion then your church would likely be shut down for being the wrong type of Christianity and Tinker would be in jail for preaching against the teaching of the state church

      2. Because it is!

        Who is not wishing for ‘freedom of religion”?! And Tinker and yours truly are very likely to end up in jail for preaching against the teaching of the State….we are already heading that way. It is the militant secularists with their ideology who are threatening freedom of religion.

      3. “Because it is” isn’t an explanation.

        You can’t demand a return to the time when Christianity was enforced by the state (actually a certain type of Christianity – and not your type!) and, at the same time, claim to want to keep freedom of religion. Lots of European people are atheists, Jews, Muslims and Hindus *because* they have the freedom to do so.

        You won’t go to jail for preaching Christianity. If you start inciting murder or child abuse then maybe you might, but you aren’t going to do that so you don’t need to worry.

      4. You are so naive. Yes I will end up going to jail for preaching Christianity….our society is becoming less and less tolerant. We are losing our freedom of religion and the naivity of people like you is partially responsible. Wake up and smell the coffee!

  7. If natural law followed its natural course SSM would result, progressively, over time to in human extinction, unless heterosexuality, were preserved as a world-wide conservationist project for the preservation of the human race.
    Divorce and broken families is not an argument against marriage, but an argument for good marriage and the raising and flourishing of children (a quiver full?) within a faithful, monogamous M+F marriage, for the good of society.,

  8. Maybe you could actually answer my question? Even accepting that same sex marriage is somehow less sacred than opposite sex marriage – how does that harm families? Surely marriage actually improves family stability?!

    1. I’ve already answered it. Its not marriage….its a civil contract…and an attempt to turn all marriages into civil contracts. Just calling something a name does not mean that it becomes that name.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *