We have been looking at the issue of the Slippery Slope. Our starting point was the question, “Will the acceptance of homosexual marriage lead to polygamy?” We have argued that polygamy is a possibility regardless of the approval of homosexual marriage. Our argument is based on the very simple premise that when the Bible’s God is rejected as the only objective and absolute standard, ‘Relativism’ must reign. There simply is not any other possibility. When God is removed, finite man exalts himself so as to become the measure of all things. Thus, Man begins to grope in the dark. He has set foot upon the Slippery Slope.

Some will see this as demeaning to man. If that is the case, good! Man needs to be humbled and realise his place. The simple reality is that Man is a finite being. Whether we take into account the Fall or not, Man was never God. Even in the Paradise of God, Man had (will have) limitations. Even if we momentarily go insane and allow for evolution to be accepted as a valid worldview, we are still faced with Man’s finite nature. The evolutionists still ‘guess’ because the evolutionary process has failed to pass on brains that can remember back to the beginning. Evolution has failed to develop sensory perceptions that will allow us to accurately predict the future. Consequently, Man needs instruction. He needs revelation. The only question is, “What will be his source?” Will it be based in Man – looking to the world around him and hoping to find some clues – or will it be based in God – God revealed in Jesus Christ and Scripture?

Our task, in this article, is to look at how the rejection of God demands a change in culture and cultural standards. Specifically, we would like to look at the path that has led us to this point of discussion and thereby reinforce the thesis that what we see today is a consequence of the Slippery Slope and not an initial stepping upon it.

To understand this, we must first grasp the fact that Fallen Man simply will not have anything to do with God, so he will reject the reality of God or the fact that God has spoken (Psalm 14:1; 2 Peter 1:20-21). This is Fallen Man’s a priori position. Thus, Fallen Man demands for himself a closed system; a system without revelation. As stated, this rejection is the Slippery Slope. From this point on, everything is to Man relative, subjective, and transient. The outward effects of this rejection may, at first, seem to be of little consequence, but in time it will have a radical culture altering impact.

Let us begin by examining two people and their contribution to our current cultural decline. These men are chosen at random and represent the sacred and secular – please allow the latitude in terminology. The first of these men is Albert Schweitzer. Known in the West for his book, The Quest for the Historical Jesus, Schweitzer was the son of a Lutheran pastor, an ordained man, and the holder of a PhD in Theology. The book mentioned was a “best seller” and had a huge impact on the Church. People all over the globe were influenced by this book, and why not? Look at the title. Surely any good Christian wants to know the Historical Jesus! The problem was that the “quest” began with a faulty premise, namely, the rejection of authoritative revelation in which man submits to God. What was the conclusion of this Quest? Says Schweitzer, “The Jesus of Nazareth who came forward publicly as the Messiah, who preached the ethic of the Kingdom of God, who founded the Kingdom of Heaven upon earth, and died to give His work its final consecration, never had any existence. He is a figure designed by rationalism, endowed with life by liberalism, and clothed by modern theology in an historical garb.” ¹

The second person to be considered is Charles Darwin. Well known for his On the Origin of Species, we need to also understand something of his thought process. Darwin was raised a Unitarian. This means, in essence, that he believed in one God. Not in the Biblical sense of one God in Three persons, but essentially one God in One person. Thus, Jesus was not God. Jesus may have been spoken of in exalted terms, but He was not ascribed His rightful place as the Son of God. They only way to arrive at such a position was to clearly and systematically deny the explicit teachings of Scripture and the claims made by Jesus Himself therein – including the fact that Jesus was God’s agent of creation.

What was the impact of these men’s denial of God’s revelation? Essentially, it robbed them of meaning and purpose. The conclusion of Schweitzer’s quest was mere subjectivism. Says Schweitzer, “He comes to us as One unknown, without a name, as of old, by the lake-side, He came to those men who knew Him not. He speaks to us the same word: “Follow thou me!” and sets us to the tasks which He has to fulfil for our time. He commands. And to those who obey Him … He will reveal Himself in the toils, the conflicts, the sufferings which they shall pass through in His fellowship, and, as an ineffable mystery, they shall learn in their own experience Who He is.” In Schweitzer’s mind, Jesus was not the God-man, revealed by God at the appointed time for salvation (Galatians 4:4-5). No, he was just a spiritual symbol, unknown, unnamed, that one may encounter upon life’s journey. In true existential terms, Jesus then became to you what you needed him to be or what you believed him to be.

For Darwin, His crisis of faith was apparent from the start. As a Unitarian, he did not believe that Jesus was the exact representation of God (Contra Hebrews 1:1ff). Thus, revelation was removed from the beginning. Consequently, by the end of his life Darwin described himself as an Agnostic. He was not prepared to totally give up on the idea of God, but he certainly was not prepared to embrace the God revealed in Scripture. BB Warfield makes this point, “The History of the drift by which Mr. Darwin was separated from faith in a divine order in the world, divides itself into two well marked periods. The first of these … ends with the loss of Christianity. During the second, which extended over the remainder of his life, he struggled … to retain his standing as a theist. At the end of the first he no longer believed that God had spoken to men in his Word; at the end of the second he more than doubted whether the faintest whisper of his voice could be distinguished in his works. He was never prepared dogmatically to deny his existence; but search as he might he could not find him, and could only say that if he existed he was, verily, a God that hides himself.” (Selected Shorter Writings vol., 2.)

Please take careful note of Warfield’s summation and note the epistemological circle – applicable to both Darwin and Schweitzer. The first stage ended with the denial of revelation. The second stage concludes with Darwin essentially blaming God as one who ‘hides himself’. Darwin’s problem was simple. He refused to look in the one Book and to the One Person through Whom God had made Himself known. In opposition to Darwin’s ‘god-whisperer’ theory, we should adopt Schaeffer’s “He is there and He is (most definitely) not silent!”

When these men rejected God’s specific revelation of Himself in Jesus Christ as canonised in Scripture, they had nowhere to turn but to the subjective, transient, and ephemeral dream that is fallen finite man. They condemned themselves to grope in the dark and hope that they might stumble upon God or hear that ‘faint whisper of his voice’ in His works.

In terms of our discussion, the question is asked, ‘How have these men influenced our day?’ The answer is, Completely! In society, you cannot go anywhere without bumping into the God-denying theory of evolution. People now believe it to be absolute fact. It is so entrenched that people do not question its validity. The impact for culture can be seen in the realm of science. Men, denying God, look for ‘little green’ men on distant planets; they spend trillions on telescopes and rockets, but cannot feed their hungry neighbour; they spend billions on weapons, but cannot fund life saving medicine. In the Church, the theories popularised by Schweitzer and others, denying Biblical revelation, have spawned denominations that no longer believe the literal truth of the Bible and question the historicity of Jesus. This then opens the door even further to auto-salvific discovery – find your own god and saviour wherever, if you think you need one! These teaching have even infiltrated the majority of main stream denominations, causing people to doubt God’s revelation. These denominations still hold to the core doctrines, but examination shows that they have been savaged in many areas.

Let us fine tune this. Darwin and Schweitzer existed in the mid- to late- 1800’s. For sake of argument, let us say the Enlightenment began around 1700. What we have here is a three stone path. We look at the philosophies of the Enlightenment and the essential questioning of the notion of or need for an Absolute God who Speaks. 150 years later, we encounter Darwin and Schweitzer who have now all but denied God. Some vague concepts may remain, but they have denied the Historical Jesus as revealed in Scripture. 150 years later, we arrive in our day. Who believes in an absolute God who speaks? Who believes that this God gave Law? Who believes that the Law revealed is binding? Who believes that Jesus Christ is the epitome and embodiment of God and His Law?

Stone one: Step onto the Slippery Slope. Stone two: Revelation to Relativism. Stone three: ‘There was no king in that day and everyone did what was right in his own eyes!’ Voilá, the path to cultural disintegration!