Well, I thought of saying something different. Unfortunately, what I would say is a massive lecture of some 47 pages, so I can't give you a lecture on this subject, but I just thought it'd be good to For those of you there last night, to place what I said last night in a much broader context, because it is only one expression of what is happening to the culture as it adopts what I'm calling a onest worldview. And the title of this lecture, which I won't give, is The Great Opponent of Contemporary Christianity, A Pagan Cosmology of Synthesis. a new joining of reason and spirit. And what I do in this lecture is to try to show that the new antagonistic position relative to Christianity is not secular humanism. I mentioned last night there are a number of posts we deal with, post-Christian, post-modern. And I've been reading by secular philosophers the term post-secular. Did you hear me right? Yes. Post-secular. We all thought that secular humanism was the great opponent. And of course, that's what was being said in the 19th century even, that the 20th century would be a century without religion. And that was all imploded. and actually secular humanism as a materialistic thesis about the nature of existence is on the way out. Because post-secularism is really defined in terms of intellectuals who have now left that materialistic view of existence and are adopting a new spirituality. Now these are the people dismissed this kind of spirituality as primitive superstition in the past, right? Secular humanists were atheists who dismissed any kind of spirituality, Christian spirituality, but also what you could call the old animistic Eastern spiritualities is not worthy of attention. Now intellectuals are buying deeply into this new spirituality. obviously many of them getting involved through Buddhism and Hinduism, but others in more the notion of the spirituality of the earth as intellectual evolutionists now give a description of the earth in terms of the Gaia hypothesis. So we're seeing a big change in secular humanists from being anti-spiritual to being seriously involved in it. And that's what I mean by the joining of reason and spirit. Because in the past, the rational approach of secular humanism dismissed all spiritual issues as primitive foolishness. That's no longer the case. There are two important figures in this movement that I want to mention. But before I do that, Mike King, a teacher at the London Metropolitan University, actually published a book in 2009 entitled Post-Secularism, A Hidden Challenge to Extremism. And this is a very interesting approach because The extremes that this intellectual wants to avoid are the extremes of atheism on the one hand and theism on the other hand. So what's the middle ground? Well, it's pantheism. So that the extremes are dismissed as invalid and where you end up is in the middle ground of a spirituality based on pantheism. So those are the three options, obviously, atheism, theism, and pantheism. And that's in a rather large way of describing this new spirituality. But the two figures I want to mention, if I can just find them here in this long lecture, Richard Taunus, The Passion of the Western Mind. I'll write that on the board. Passion of the Western Mind. Tanis argues that the Western mind has been thoroughly committed to rationality, but that the great conflict in our present time is not between Christianity and the rational mind, but between Romanticism and the rational mind. Namely, that sort of spirituality that was common to people like Emerson, which hardly made any dent, But this guy chooses to raise this up as significant as the real conflict. And that in this modern age, romanticism and rationalism are coming together as the Western mind finds its fulfillment now in the joining of the rational with the spiritual. And this is a brilliant philosopher. I like to think of him as the Van Til of the pagan world in our day, raised as a Jesuit. His book is studied in most philosophy departments in the States. And so he has a tremendous influence. And I would recommend, if any of you are teaching philosophy, that you take a look at this book, because it's brilliantly argued. But what it never does, having dismissed Christianity basically with the Reformation, he hardly takes any interest in that from then on. He never deals with the issue of oneism and twoism. Now the same is true for the other figure I want to talk about is Ken Wilber, a theory of everything. So both these men were raised in some form of Christianity. Wilber is now a Mayahana Buddhist. Tanis, this brilliant philosopher, when I got to the end of his book, Passion of the Western Mind, I thought to myself, when he announced another book coming, I've got to read this one, because he sort of described this incredible apocalyptic synthesis as the coming together of these two massive forces to produce the new world. So he announces this book, and it was called Cosmos and Spirit, I think, which I bought, 600 pages of a defense of Babylonian stars, Babylonian astrology. 600 pages of a brilliant analysis. of Babylonian astrology. So that's where he ended up. Ken Wilber is much read by folks in the emergent movement. Some of you have probably heard of the emergent movement. Rob Bell and Brian McLaren say that they've been deeply influenced by Ken Wilber. Wilber is read by many people in the United Nations. He's one of the leaders of the progressive movement And his theory is integrative spirituality, integrative. And he has nine phases of spirituality. He begins with the animistic religions and so on. He ends up with a sort of a Buddhist notion of nirvana and the all. And then he goes through history describing the various stages. And his theory is that each one of these stages blends into the next one. And he calls the stage of Christianity the mythic God stage. And that blends into sort of a form of liberalism in the fifth stage, I think. But all his stages, except the fourth one, are onest. And so he doesn't deal with the onus to his problem either to be able to create his beautiful bringing together of all these various ways of thinking in his nine steps ending with this unity of everything in the all where everything loses its own self perception. So these are the two men that have been influencing intellectuals at least, and they predict this age that we're in now, which is the bringing together on a human level of all this kind of thinking, which is obviously where I want to place what I said last night, that the busting of the binaries is a very practical way of seeing the emergence of this bringing together of science and spirit in a new synthesis that is held out as the basis of a this worldly utopia. And it seems to me that as Christians, we need to be able to address this problem. I think for too long we've thought that The opponent was secular humanism, sort of a denial of the spiritual. But we're in the context of a deeply spiritual movement in our time, but which has denied the whole notion of a theistic God. And so that kind of spirituality, which as you know I call one-ism, actually believes that we are creating ourselves. And that's where I put what I said last night, as we create our sexual perceptions of ourselves, that's part of this process of self-creation. So the conflict is still then between a world created prior to its own existence by God, and in it placed the structures of life that make life possible, which is the worldview of twoism, which I believe is good news for everybody, you need to hear it, over against this other view which is really espoused by the progressive wing of the society, the intellectuals, and I think that much of that is being taught in our colleges these days. A fundamental egalitarianism where everything is brought down to a common denominator so that we do not see distinctions and we will create our utopian world on that basis. So that's, I believe, the great opponent of the Christian faith in the days to come. And I think we do well as we train both our kids and our students and our seminary students to be aware of these movements in our society and be able to address them and I believe really the only way to address them is to get to this level of cosmology. I must say by the way that that doesn't eliminate the gospel because I believe the gospel is a fundamental statement of twoist cosmology. Without a twoist cosmology the gospel is meaningless With it, it's a glorious expression of the God who is other than us, who bends down towards us to save us in an act of incredible condescension. So that I don't see a difference between cosmology and the preaching of the gospel. I do see them needing to be held together and presented at the same time. Well, there was my 45-page lecture. I managed to do it in 10 minutes.