Archives for : Humanism

The deadly hypocrisy of Black Lives Matter

Posted by :webmaster On : June 19, 2020
1

Category: Culture Wars, Humanism, Marriage, Socialism, Truth

“To destroy a people, you must first sever their roots.”[1]

The above quote is from one of the twentieth century’s greatest truth tellers—Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn (1918-2008). Born in Russia, Solzhenitsyn studied mathematics, philosophy, literature, and history at the university level. He was thrice decorated for personal heroism as a Russian Army Officer during the fight against the Nazis in World War II. In 1945 he was arrested for criticizing Stalin in private correspondence and sentenced to an eight-year term in a labor camp. From that experience he wrote One Day in the Life of Ivan Denisovich which was published in 1962, the first of many books. In 1970 he was awarded the Nobel Prize for Literature. In 1974, he was stripped of his citizenship and expelled from the Soviet Union whereupon he moved to Vermont with his wife and four sons.[2]

I have taken time to briefly describe Solzhenitsyn’s background because his experiences and quiet words in defense of truth from such a man speaks far louder than the din of lies shouted by Black Lives Matter and their toadies including spineless politicians, the corrupt media, universities in name only, complicit mega-corporation billionaires, ranting Hollywood leftists, self-proclaimed “intellectuals,” and many corrupt voices/false teachers in the Church. Such lies cannot long stand against the timeless truth of which God is the author and finisher.

Regardless of their self-professed good intentions, the devil-doing of those leading and promoting Black Lives Matter is exposed by its own words on BLM’s official website[3] with regard to its beliefs and true objectives.

Black Lives Matter Beliefs and Goals

A thoughtful examination of just three of BLM’s goals gives a clear and frightening understanding of the damage that is being done in the war against the soul of American life and liberty including the culture at large and the average American family, black or white.

1. “We are self-reflexive and do the work required to dismantle cisgender privilege and uplift Black trans folk, especially Black trans women who continue to be disproportionately impacted by trans-antagonistic violence.”

BLM wishes to dismantle cisgender privilege. The term “cisgender” means “of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity corresponds with the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.”[4] Although the word may be unfamiliar to many, the concept that the two sexes equate to two genders is obvious to the vast majority of Americans and needs no label to explain it unless one is of the “woke” crowd.

Carla A. Pfeffer expands on Merriam Webster’s definition: “I grew up in a family with a cisgender and heterosexually identified mother and father of the same race (White) who had 2 children when they were well into their late 20s and early 30s and after they legally married with the full support of both their families.”[5]

For BLM, cisgender privilege has been transformed to be equivalent to white privilege. Such privilege cannot be eliminated without suppressing the carriers of this disease (privilege) by denigrating their belief systems. Therefore, the supposed evil that adherents to BLM ideology desire to dismantle are the dominant Judeo-Christian beliefs in the nuclear family, heterosexuality, marriage, and monogamy from which “white privilege” supposedly arises. However, the fatal flaw of BLM’s ideology regarding cisgender families is that the very nature of these beliefs is color-blind. To the contrary, the strength of cisgender families (of whatever color) rests on the universal truth of the values, beliefs, and structure of Judeo-Christian families.

2. “We foster a queer‐affirming network. When we gather, we do so with the intention of freeing ourselves from the tight grip of heteronormative thinking, or rather, the belief that all in the world are heterosexual (unless s/he or they disclose otherwise).”

Now we come to “trans” by which is meant transgender and defined as “of, relating to, or being a person whose gender identity differs from the sex the person had or was identified as having at birth.”[6] And trans does not mean just male and female but a whole alphabet of identities such as LGBTQ+. However, deny it as they might, it is one’s biological sex that determines gender, and there are just two. BLM calls this belief being in the “tight grip of heteronormative thinking.”

3. “We disrupt the Western-prescribed nuclear family structure requirement by supporting each other as extended families and “villages” that collectively care for one another, especially our children, to the degree that mothers, parents, and children are comfortable.”

BLM wishes to disrupt (disorder, upset) the nuclear family structure by supporting (replacing) it with extended families and “villages” (also infamously promoted by Hillary Clinton). This group care for children promises to limit such care “to the degree that mothers, parents, and children (what about fathers?) are comfortable.” Tell that to parents who have unsuccessfully objected to the things taught in their child’s classroom that made them uncomfortable (e.g., transgenderism).

History reveals the fatal flaw of BLM ideology with regard to the nuclear family, marriage, monogamy, and heterosexuality.

1. Nuclear family, marriage, and monogamy

Daniel Patrick Moynihan retired from the United States Senate (Democratic Senator from New York) in 2000. Near the beginning of his career he was an assistant Secretary of Labor in Lyndon Johnson’s presidency. At the time of his retirement, the senator was asked to describe the biggest change he had seen in his forty years of government service. Articulate and intellectual, the distinguished public servant, having served both Democratic and Republican presidents, replied, “The biggest change, in my judgment, is that the family structure has come apart all over the North Atlantic world” and had occurred in “an historical instant. Something that was not imaginable forty years ago had happened.” Author of the 1965 Moynihan Report officially known as “The Negro Family: The Case for National Action”, Moynihan knew that of which he spoke.[7]

Enormously controversial at the time of its release, the report continues to be a topic of debate in the twenty-first century. The report characterized the instability of the black families in America and the importance of the family unit in providing that stability.

At the heart of the deterioration of the fabric of Negro society is the deterioration of the Negro Family. It is the fundamental source of the weakness of the Negro community at the present time…The role of the family in shaping character and ability is so pervasive as to be easily overlooked. The family is the basic social unit of American life; it is the basic socializing unit. By and large, adult conduct in society is learned as a child…the child learns a way of looking at life in his early years through which all later experience is viewed and which profoundly shapes his adult conduct.[8]

Writing shortly after Moynihan’s perceptive summation of the condition of the family structure, William Bennett noted the deep concern of Americans with regard to the family. Bennett pointed to the general instability of the American family and the contributing factors such as the decline in the status and centrality of marriage in society, substantially greater percentage of out-of-wedlock births, and the significant increase in co-habitation. With the decline of social perception and necessity of matrimony, children are less valued, more neglected, more vulnerable to non-family influences, and have less resources devoted for their care and benefit. Bennett wrote that, “Public attitudes toward marriage, sexual ethics, and child-rearing have radically altered for the worse. In Sum, the family has suffered a blow that has no historical precedent—and one that has enormous ramifications for American society.”[9]

Two decades have elapsed since Moynihan’s diagnosis of the disintegration of the family unit as the major modern affliction of the Western world and Bennett’s reporting of Americans’ purported concern for the survival of the family. It is no longer the problem of the black population. The deterioration of the family unit is pervasive and crosses all ethnic, socio-economic, and religious lines although the poor and disadvantaged bear a greater portion of the misery. Yet, there has been no public hue and cry to reverse the decline, no urgency or sense of crisis in dealing with the problem, no new series of government studies explaining the situation, and no investigative reporting or meaningful media attention regarding the most profound change in society that has had no historical precedent. Why is this so? The answer is that the solutions to reverse the decline and devastation of marriage and the family unit stand as polar opposites of the prevailing and pervasive humanistic worldview of which Black Lives Matter is the current purveyor of this cultural carnage. Its own website condemns it.

2. Heterosexuality

Heterosexual marriage is the central organizing concept in society. By contrast, homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Heterosexual marriage orders the soul whereas sexual intimacy outside of marriage, co-habitation, divorce (apart from infidelity and willful desertion), and homosexuality (with or without benefit of a civil union) are inherently disorderly and destructive. History and human nature attest to these assertions for according to researchers, heterosexual married life as opposed to all other similar social arrangements provides greater financial security, better health and sex, and a longer and better life.[10]

Bennett called marital love that rests upon a foundation of unconditional commitment as “…safer, more enduring, and more empowering that any sentiment yet discovered or any human arrangement yet invented.” He credits these attributes to the basic heterosexual complementarity of man and woman joined together as one in marital love. The complementariness of the relationship is based on the differences, not just the physical but also the emotional and psychological. As the physical differences make sexual union possible, so too do the emotional and psychological differences of the marriage partners complement and complete each other.[11] The union becomes stronger than its parts.

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermine society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

God created heterosexual marriage as a cultural universal, and the strength and unity provided by this universal is the foundation of a strong and enduring society. Where traditional marriage is in broad disarray, as it is in most Western societies, it does not disprove the truth of the heterosexual marriage universal but rather speaks of the ravages caused by the ascending humanist worldview. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.
______

During the turmoil in America of the late 1960s and early 1970s, Russell Kirk wrote The Roots of the American Order, a book of exceptional scope and insight into the origins of America. Summarizing the words of Simone Weil, Kirk states that “…order is the path we follow, or the pattern by which we live with purpose and meaning. Above food and shelter, she continues, we must have order. The human condition is insufferable unless we perceive a harmony, an order in existence.” Kirk identified two roots of this order: the order of the soul (moral order) and the order of the republic (social order), and they are intricately linked and dependent on each other. Disorder of one leads to disorder of the other.[12]

The American order that was established by the founders was not an “ideology” nor a “thing” created for the moment. Rather, the American order is a living culture whose roots have grown over millennia and were watered by the sound principles of moral and civil social order arising from eternal truths and the revelation of God to the Hebrews and the first century Christians. America was established on these eternal truths and the revelation in which the Founders believed, and upon these pillars they built the greatest nation in the history of the world.

Kirk’s roots of order are the same roots of which Solzhenitsyn spoke in the quote given at the beginning of this article. BLM is attempting to sever those roots along with America’s cultural norms, traditions, beliefs, and even our history and that of Western civilization. Those severed roots are to be replaced with a humanistic cultural Marxist society whose citizens will be subject to machinations of an autonomous socialistic state and its evil overseers. Such a society will be devoid of the three essential elements of the good society: divine order, justice, and freedom.

Do not fool yourselves by blithely dismissing the challenge of BLM. Our present struggle is an existential war of the highest magnitude between good and evil, and the conflict is spreading around the world. What must Americans to do who love this nation and its history? For the answer we look once again to the wisdom of Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn in which he gives us both the diagnosis of our plight and a prescription for preserving America’s Judeo-Christian cultural heritage and its attendant freedom.

“In keeping silent about evil, in burying it so deep within us that no sign of it appears on the surface, we are implanting it, and it (evil) will rise up a thousand fold in the future. When we neither punish nor reproach evildoers . . . we are ripping the foundations of justice from beneath new generations.”[13]

“The simple step of a courageous individual is not to take part in the lie. One word of truth outweighs the world.”[14]

Larry G. Johnson
June 19, 2020

[1] “Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn,” AZQuotes, https://www.azquotes.com/author/13869-Aleksandr_Solzhenitsyn (accessed June 18, 2020).
[2] “Biography,” The Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn Center, https://www.solzhenitsyncenter.org/his-life-overview/biography (accessed June 18, 2020).
[3] “What We Believe,” Black Lives Matter, https://blacklivesmatter.com/what-we-believe/ (accessed June 18, 2020).
[4] “Cisgender,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/cisgender (accessed June 18, 2020).
[5] Ibid.
[6] “Transgender,” Merriam Webster, https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/transgender (accessed June 18, 2020).
[7] William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 2, 85.
[8] Lee Rainwater and William L. Yancey, The Moynihan Report and the Politics of Controversy, (Cambridge Massachusetts: M.I.T. Press, 1967), p. 3.
[9] Bennett, pp. 1-2.
[10] Ibid., pp. 14-188.
[11] Ibid., pp. 186-187
[12] Russell Kirk, The Roots of American Order, (Washington D. C.: Regnery-Gateway, 1991), pp. 3-5.
[13] Solzhenitsyn, AZ Quotes.
[14] Ibid.

Tis the Season for Secular Silliness

Posted by :webmaster On : December 8, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

[This article was first posted on culturewarrior.net on December 13, 2013. Given the growing hostility of the majority of secular culture to all things Christian,it seems appropriate to publish it a second time.]

Holiday letter to my secular humanist friends,

The first signs of the holiday shopping season peek from store shelves in September. October’s chill warns that Halloween nears. We must select a costume that tops last year’s. November heralds that most wonderful time of the year—Black Friday. But Oh My! What shall we do with December and that highly embarrassing “other” holiday? You know the one I mean. We once masked it by calling it Xmas. But the X could be misconstrued as a cross. And a cross can be associated with you know who, and that will never do. Now we call that “other” holiday by many names such as Winter Solstice celebration, Festival of Lights, and Winter Carnival. Those are so inclusive, so democratic…so…so generic. (I almost said ecumenical, but that sounds too religious.) With these new names, the holiday season can mean whatever one wants it to mean rather than have a religious meaning crammed down our throats each December. Why must we be subjected to those old-fashioned myths and fables that have lingered for two thousand years? We have Santa Claus!

But there are still millions out there who haven’t gotten the message. They are generally backward, unintelligent, and remain culturally insensitive unlike those of us who have progressed beyond those crude expressions of faith. Unfortunately, not everyone wants to join our shining, non-offensive, tolerant, all inclusive, sensitive secular society.

You hear those sentimental Christians whining every year at this time. They are always hiding behind the Constitution which they say guarantees their religious freedom. Well of course they have religious freedom as long as they don’t flaunt it in public!

We must be ever vigilant and ready to crush any efforts to return to those bad old days. Just a couple of years ago, a group of carolers singing at various businesses in a Silver Springs, Maryland, shopping center entered a U.S. Post Office also located in the shopping center. Dressed in period costumes reminiscent of Dickens’ “A Christmas Carol,” they were only a few words into their first carol when the vigilant and brave Post Office manager rushed into the lobby to stop the indiscretion. “You can’t do this on government property,” the angry manager shouted. He ordered them to leave immediately because there was a Post Office policy prohibiting solicitation. They attempted to explain that they were going to all the businesses in the shopping center. But he would have none of it and insisted they leave in spite of boos from the patrons waiting in line.[1] Even though there was no such policy, this Post Office manager should serve as a role model for that small minority of managers who aren’t so enlightened and have allowed caroling in their Post Offices. Fortunately, our government is filled with like-minded militant secularist bureaucrats rigorously defending society from such unauthorized merriment.

But we can never let down our guard. Just the other day the leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives announced that its members would be allowed to use previously banned holiday greetings in official mailings to their constituents. Representative Candice Miller said, “I feel it is entirely appropriate for members of Congress to include a simple holiday salutation, whether it is Merry Christmas, Happy Hanukkah, and so on.[2] Shameful! How could these legislators abuse their franking privileges by including messages of Merry Christmas to thousands of their constituents? Such episodes tend to be contagious and must not be allowed to go unchallenged.

Such blatant relapses can cause others to become weak-kneed when banning Christmas from any public display or expression. One example is the Bordentown, New Jersey, Regional School District administration that had banned religious Christmas music at winter public school concerts effective as of October 18th. Less than two weeks later the superintendent backed down after national attention was focused on the school’s ban. The superintendent announced that the religious Christmas music would be allowed for now “…after reviewing additional legal considerations and advice on this matter and the expressed sentiments of the community at large…” However, she promised that, “…the school board will continue to examine the issue to determine how the policy will be handled in the future.”[3] Of course it is always wise to impose these unpopular restrictions on a low-key basis. The school administration should have imposed the restrictions banning religious Christmas music in, let’s say, March. Once policies are established and in effect for a period of time, opposition to those policies can usually be attributed to a fringe element of religious fanatics bent on imposing their religion on others and which violates our constitutionally mandated separation of church and state. It doesn’t matter that the words “separation of church and state” aren’t in the Constitution; we know the Founders really meant freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion. You see, that Constitution thing can work both ways.

Wait a minute. I must go to the door. No, it can’t be! There are carolers out there singing religious Christmas songs and indiscriminately shouting Merry Christmas right there on the public sidewalk for everyone to hear. Where’s my cell phone? Hello! 911? Send the police. No, better yet send a SWAT team. We are having a major public insurrection right here in River City in direct violation of the Constitution. Hurry! There are children in the neighborhood being exposed to this brazen criminal activity!

I must go. I think I see one of my neighbors putting a nativity scene on his front lawn. Hmmm. Would that violation fall under the city’s building code or advertising ordinance? Where’s my cell phone?

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] J. P. Duffy, “Post Office Manager Throws Christmas Carolers Out into the Cold,” Family Research Council, December 12, 2011. http://www.frcblog.com/2011/12/post-office-manager-throws-christmas-carolers-out-into-the-cold/ (accessed December 10, 2013).
[2]Chris Deaton, “Victory: House members no longer prohibited from saying “Merry Christmas” in official mail,” Red Alert Politics, December 4, 2013. http://redalertpolitics.com/2013/12/04/victory-house-members-no-longer-prohibited-from-saying-merry-christmas-in-official-mail/ (accessed December 10, 2013).
[3] Billy Hallowell, “N.J. School District That Banned Christmas Music With ‘Religious Origins’ Backs Down,” The Blaze, November 6, 2013. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2013/11/06/n-j-school-district-that-banned-christmas-music-with-religious-origins-backs-down/ (accessed December 10, 2013).

Talk, trust, and truth – Polarization of American society

Posted by :webmaster On : January 27, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Humanism

Mark Brewin is an associate professor and chairperson of the Department of Communications at the University of Tulsa. Mr. Brewin’s guest editorial for the Tulsa World’s Sunday Opinion section titled “Can we talk?” states that there are remarkably high levels of distrust in America which is creating an unhealthy nation. He says that, “We owe it to ourselves, and to each other to make a more conscious effort to listen to different voices, to forcibly and consciously move ourselves out of our networks.[1]

Brewin believes that the opposing ideological sides evident in 2016 presidential election have created this unhealthy situation. Brewin described the opponents.

At times over the course of the fall election period, it seemed as though half the country existed of mean-spirited racist and misogynistic troglodytes, who lacked either the ability or the inclination to use their reason; whereas the other half was composed of entitled elitists who drank craft beer, traveled to places like Paris or Ulan Bator for their summer vacations, and looked with utter contempt on God-fearing folk who fixed their plugged-up toilets and bagged their groceries.[2]

What Brewin is really describing is the centuries-long clash between conservatism and liberalism. With this understanding we can restate his caricatures of the two groups: The first group identified is the hateful, bigoted, women-hating, caveman conservatives who won’t use their reasoning ability (assuming they had the brains to do so which is doubtful). In the second group we have the snobbish liberals. Their great sin is not who they are or what they believe but merely looking down their noses and failing to appreciate the lower classes of society.

Brewin says that the inability of well-meaning people of all political and cultural persuasions is of recent origin. He states that only twenty years ago Americans could disagree without resorting to charges of moral corruption for merely supporting the other side. However, Brewin’s claim is clearly bogus with regard to the political spectrum. Even a cursory examination of American history (dating back to the Adams-Jefferson presidential campaign of 1800) will prove the fallacy of his statement. With regard to the cultural spectrum, the drift apart began occurring mid-way through the first half of the twentieth century beginning with Franklin Roosevelt’s administration when he successfully purged the Democratic Party of its conservative voices. Thus, the cultural and political divide is not of recent origin and will not be bridged by conciliatory dialog and understanding of the other side’s point of view.

Brewin suggests that the path to a mutual disdain between the two sides of the culture wars is long and complicated. In that he is correct. This complexity arises because the nation’s problems flow from non-negotiable issues that have risen as a result of the liberal-conservative split and a consequent loss of a cohesive central cultural vision once held by Americans for over 150 years. Talk alone will not heal this loss of cohesion in the nation’s central cultural vision.

The networked society

Brewin says that we can begin to gain an understanding of the development of this divide by looking at the concept of “network.” Social scientists have theorized that modern culture has evolved into a “networked” society and that these changes came about because of the way Americans get their information. The “mass” media in the twentieth century tended to be large and centralized. Social scientists feared that it was possible for the mass media to dominate society by controlling what they saw and heard thereby create a “mass” society of apathetic clones that were easily manipulated.[3]

In the latter part of the twentieth century the power and domination of the mainstream media was supposedly replaced by the Internet and other alternative media sources which collectively became known as the “networked” media. Mass media’s so-called passive audience had become an active group of information seekers that turned to the networked media which was supposed to bring them freedom and variety. However, Brewin is concerned that information networks may only “provide a vision of the world that flatters our opinions rather than challenging them. We do not hear arguments from opposing sides that might work to change our minds, or at least modify our opinions into something less radical.” Put another way, he sees the new networked media as appealing to our worst instincts because we listen to only those things with which we agree.[4]

But who decides what is radical? Although Brewin admits that the mainstream media produced a lot of “bad cultural product,” it sounds like he longs for a return to the good old days when the secular mass media controlled content and presented its humanistic vision of society. Thus, the liberal elitists could once again protect the masses from their “worst instincts.”[5] He provides an example.

But some of the things [delivered by mass media] that we didn’t like and didn’t want to listen to were good for us anyhow. It was good for pro-lifers and pro-choicers to be forced to listen to spokespeople for the other side every night on the evening news.[6]

Given the mainstream media’s decades-long support of abortion, when in the last forty-four years since Roe v. Wade have pro-choicers been forced to listen to spokespersons from the pro-life side every night in the mainstream media? Such would be a rare and brief occurrence comparable to an eclipse of the sun. Here Brewin reveals either his naiveté or duplicity. It is no secret that Christianity and its beliefs have been substantially evicted from the public square for decades.

In summary, Brewin believes that networked media makes it possible for information consumers to “bypass challenging but important views” which leads to ideological cocoons that foster distrust among the citizenry and produces an unhealthy nation. Brewin would have us break out of these cocoons by making a conscious effort to listen to different voices, to forcibly and consciously move ourselves out of our networks so that our radical ideas caused by our worst instincts can be moderated.

Clash of Worldviews

Here we arrive at the crux of the problem that Brewin misses. Brewin and the social scientists’ assume that people were weaned away from the mass media and now have developed an ideological cocoon in their brains because they have spent too much time imbibing their chosen narcotic provided by the networked media. But the mass media continues to have much greater power to manipulate and indoctrinate the populace than the networked media. Television was by far the dominate segment of mass media since the early 1950s and continues to do so today. In 1981, Richard Adler described the power of television in forming the worldviews of the nation’s citizenry.

The TV set has become the primary source of news and entertainment for most Americans and a major force in the acculturation of children…Television is not simply a medium of transmission, it is an active, pervasive force…a mediator between our individual lives and the larger life of the nation and the world; between fantasy and fact; between old values and new ideas; between our desire to seek escape and our need to confront reality.[7]

In his article “Television Shapes the Soul,” Michael Novak called television a

…molder of the soul’s geography. It builds up incrementally a psychic structure of expectations. It does so in much the same way that school lessons slowly, over the years, tutor the unformed mind and teach it “how to think.”[8]

To Novak, television is a “homogenizing medium” with an ideological tendency that is a “vague and misty liberalism” designed “however gently to undercut traditional institutions and to promote a restless, questioning attitude.”[9]

Therefore, we must ask the question with regard to Brewin’s conclusions. Have Americans in this polarized age retreated into information cocoons fed by like-minded media sources? This is the question asked by Brendan Nyhan when writing for The New York Times website in 2014. Nyhan’s answer was spelled out in the title of his article: “Americans Don’t Live in Informational Cocoons.”

In short, while it’s still possible to live in a political bubble [Brewin’s ideological cocoon] of your own choosing, the best evidence suggests that very few people are getting their news only from like-minded outlets. Why, then, do so many Americans seem to live in different political realities?

The problem isn’t the news we consume, it seems, but the values and identities that shape how we interpret that information — most notably, our partisan beliefs. In other words, Democrats and Republicans don’t see the world so differently because they see different news; rather, they see the news differently because they’re Democrats and Republicans in the first place.[10] [emphasis added]

If Nylan’s conclusions are correct, then Brewin’s contention that Americans have retreated into information cocoons fed by like-minded media sources appears to be erroneous. Additionally, the origins of this distrust and ideological differences are far older than suggested by Brewin and his social scientist theorists. This raises a second question. If the theory that the networked media causes an ideological cocoon is a fiction, then what is the source for the polarization of American life? It occurs because of the way the two sides see the world, that is, their worldviews are fundamentally different.

One’s worldview is built throughout life and reflects the picture of one’s understanding of reality (truth). From this understanding of truth we form our values, beliefs, and identities from which we attempt to answer the basic questions of life: who are and where did we come from, how did we get in the mess we are in, and how do we get out of it.

In a free society, the worldviews most commonly held generally form the central cultural vision that brings order to that society or nation. In a humanistic society order is achieved through socialism, and in a socialistic society it is the worldviews and philosophies of the state, as crafted and dictated by its ruling elites, which flow downward to the citizenry and are imposed on each sphere of society. As Western civilization moved away from the Judeo-Christian to a humanistic worldview over the last three hundred years, the pathologies in these societies have exploded because of the tyrannical demands of relativistic humanism contradicts the God-given innate nature of man that seeks objective truth and freedom.

Requirements for cultures to survive: Unity and Truth

The two essentials that any culture must have and without which it disintegrates over time are unity and truth. A society’s central cultural vision must command unity, and such unity must filter up from individuals, not be coerced or forced down on society by its elites. Also, a culture’s central cultural vision must be based on truth with regard to the nature of God, creation, and man. Without a central cultural vision that commands unity and is based on truth, there can be no order to the soul or society, and without order in both, society deteriorates over time and eventually disintegrates.

In America there are two worldviews competing for dominance in the nation’s central cultural vision—the Judeo-Christian worldview and the humanistic worldview (defined by its various components – liberalism, progressivism, relativism, and naturalism among others). For most of the nation’s history its central cultural vision has been built on the foundation of the Judeo-Christian worldviews of its citizens.

This central cultural vision has been under attack since the late nineteenth century. Beginning in the 1960s, the humanistic worldview gained momentum and by the end of the century the predominate leadership in the spheres of American life held a humanistic worldview (in politics, government, the sciences, economy, education, law, media, entertainment, popular culture, and much of the church). As these leaders consolidated their power, they began to fashion and impose a network of humanistic laws, policies, rules, and regulations on a society that is still predominately of a Judeo-Christian worldview. Each side holds diametrically opposed views of reality (truth) with regard to God, nature, the origins and purpose of man, and a host of other flashpoints in the culture wars. These differences are immutable and irreconcilable which no amount of discussion and negotiation will bridge. This is the reason for America’s polarization.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Mark Brewin, “Can we talk?” Tulsa World, January 22, 2017, G1.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Richard P. Adler, Understanding Television – Essays on Television as a Social and Cultural Force, ed. Richard P. Adler (New York: Praeger Publishers, 1981), p. xi-xii.
[8] Michael Novak, “Television Shapes the Soul,” Understanding Television – Essays on Television as a Social and Cultural Force, ed. Richard P. Adler, pp. 20.
[9] Ibid., pp. 26-27.
[10]Brendan Nyhan, “Americans Don’t Live in Informational Cocoons,” New York Times.com, October 24, 2014. https://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/25/upshot/americans-dont-live-in-information-cocoons.html (accessed January 25, 2017).

The failure of Western liberal ideology

Posted by :webmaster On : January 20, 2017
0

Category: America, Archives, Culture Wars, Humanism, Progressivism

Nothing has exposed the falsity of the reigning humanist-progressivist worldview and its tenets of tolerance, multiculturalism, and diversity in Western civilization as has the massive flood of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East to Europe. The same is occurring to a lesser extent along America’s porous southern border. Floods are destructive, but a steady flow of unpolluted water is crucial to sustain a beautiful and bountiful land. Is the analogy of the hydrology of water and the occurrence, flow, movement, and distribution of immigrants into a country not accurate?

One is not anti-immigrant to want an orderly, lawfully conducted immigration process that respects the existing citizens of a nation whether they were natural born or properly immigrated and assimilated. Progressivist policies that fail to stem the continuing surge of large numbers of illegal immigrants were one of the greatest flashpoints of conflict in the campaigns of the two aspirants for the presidency in 2016. These progressivist policies undermine American society because they reflect a failure to understand the true meaning and importance of culture.

There is a ceaseless struggle between a culture’s will to survive and the agitant of modernist pluralism. Pluralism, rightly defined, is “a state of society in which members of diverse ethnic, racial, religious, or social groups maintain and develop their traditional culture or special interest within the confines of a common civilization.”[1] [emphasis added] But modern progressive definitions of pluralism have attempted to displace the general synthesis of values in America, that is, its central cultural vision. Humanistic forms of pluralism attempt to supersede and thereby shatter the confines of a common civilization through imposition of perverse definitions of tolerance, multiculturalism, and diversity in all spheres of American life.

Progressivist tolerance

Progressivism’s idea of tolerance is a consequence of the humanistic doctrine of cultural relativism. But how does one order a society if it is culturally relativistic, that is, what anchors its beliefs and welds together a cohesive society? Humanists claim that order is achieved by a tolerance that requires a suspension of judgment as to matters of truth and beliefs with regard to moral judgements of right and wrong since all belief systems contain some truth within while no one belief system has all the truth. In such a progressivist view, a strong belief in anything becomes a desire to impose those beliefs on other people which translate into loss of freedom. It is humanism’s values-free approach which must ultimately deny any absolutes. Through the humanist understanding of toleration comes liberty by preventing the development and promotion of strong beliefs.[2]

One dictionary’s definition of tolerance is “…the allowed deviation from a standard.”[3] This definition implies a standard by which to measure the value of other cultures as well as a limit to the extent to which deviation from the prevailing culture’s standard will be allowed. However, this definition violates the humanistic understanding of tolerance which suspends all judgement as to standards of truth and morality.

Progressivist multiculturalism

Progressivist ideas of multiculturalism closely mirror its rationale for tolerance which is based on a relativistic, values-free society and a denial of absolutes. Multiculturalism is a humanist doctrine that came into vogue during the late twentieth century. As humanists see it, morality shouldn’t be imposed by religions or legislated by governments. Rather, the alternative is to develop civic and moral virtues in accordance with humanist doctrine by means of moral education.[4] As a result the humanists’ doctrine of multiculturalism has spread throughout the educational system in America. Humanist educational elites believe that America has been too immersed in Western “Eurocentric” teachings to the detriment of other cultures. It has been their goal to redirect the education curriculum toward various counterculture teachings (i.e., Afrocentrism, humanistically defined feminism, legitimization of homosexuality, and radical doctrines such as neo-Marxism) that challenge the “white, male-dominated European studies.” But a closer examination of the humanist agenda reveals that multiculturalism is not intended to supplement but rather to supplant Western culture that is so steeped in Christianity.[5]

Progressivist diversity

Humanism’s diversity is a close kin of multiculturalism and focuses on the differences within society and not society as a whole. With emphasis on the differences, mass culture becomes nothing more than an escalating number of subcultures within an increasingly distressed political framework that attempts to satisfy the myriad of demands of the individual subcultures. There is a loss of unity through fragmentation and ultimately a loss of a society’s central cultural vision which leads to disintegration. Humanism’s impulse for diversity is a derivative of relativism and humanism’s perverted concept of equality.[6]

The meaning and defense of culture

Once again we must turn to Richard Weaver for his brilliant insights into the meaning of culture and its defense against becoming syncretistic (a culture that attempts to mix or combine different forms of belief or practices).

It is the essence of culture to feel its own imperative and to believe in the uniqueness of its worth…Syncretistic cultures like syncretistic religions have always proved relatively powerless to create and to influence; there is no weight or authentic history behind them. Culture derives its very desire to continue from its unitariness…There is at the heart of every culture a center of authority from which there proceed subtle and pervasive pressures upon us to conform and to repel the unlike as disruptive…it must insist on a pattern of inclusion and exclusion…[It is] inward facing toward some high representation…Culture is by nature aristocratic, for it is a means of discriminating between what counts for much and what counts for little…For this reason it is the very nature of culture to be exclusive…There can be no such thing as a “democratic” culture in the sense of one open to everybody at all times on equal terms…For once the inward-looking vision and the impulse to resist the alien are lost, disruption must ensue.”[7]

The essence of a culture may be described as a general synthesis of values common to a group’s vision of the world, that is, the way things ought to work. Every culture has a center which commands all things. Weaver called this center imaginative rather than logical and “…a focus of value, a law of relationships, an inspiring vision…to which the group is oriented.” The foundation of the cultural concept is unity that assumes a general commonality of thought and action. A unified culture requires a center of cultural authority from which radiates a subtle and pervasive pressure to conform. The pressures to conform may range from cultural peer pressure to moral and legal restraints. Those that do not conform are repelled of necessity. Thus, in any culture there are patterns of inclusion and exclusion. Without such patterns, the culture is unprotected and disintegrates over time.[8]

There is an inherent tension between the exclusivity demanded by culture and progressivism’s doctrines of tolerance and its corollaries of multiculturalism and diversity. Tolerance suggests acceptance and inclusiveness while exclusivity implies segregation and denial. By segregation is not meant segregation within a culture but between cultures. The culture that values its central vision welcomes integration of diverse groups that share or at least respects that culture’s common central vision. Because of such diversity, a culture becomes a stronger.[9] It is in the humanistic definition of pluralism in which cultures are prone to failure because the central cultural vision becomes fragmented as the values-free central cultural vision does not provide the cohesion necessary for survival.

By its very essence, culture must discriminate against those outside its boundaries that do not share or respect its central vision. A culture must believe in its uniqueness, worth, and the superiority of its worldview. To attempt to meld together or comingle multiple cultures into one culture with multiple centers of vision is to create a powerless culture with little influence and place it on the road to disintegration. By definition, culture must be an inward-looking vision and resist the alien. Without such is a loss of wholeness, and a culture’s cohesiveness dissolves into chaos as its various parts drift into orbits around parochial interests and egocentrism.[10]

Failure of Western liberal ideology

There is hope that Western civilization is awakening to the real and looming dissolution of its respective cultures because of decades of dominance by liberal elitists who promote a humanistic culture and impose policies in support of that worldview.

In the evening of December 19th, a terrorist hijacked a truck and ran over and killed twelve people and injured forty-eight more at a Christmas market in Berlin. Patrick Buchanan wrote of this tragedy and points out that it was merely the latest of a decade of similar attacks in London, Brussels, Paris, Madrid, and Berlin. Buchanan wrote that the responsibility for the attacks can be laid at the door of Western liberal ideology which is says is the ideology of Western suicide.[11]

…the peoples of Europe seem less interested in hearing recitals of liberal values than in learning what their governments are going to do to keep the Islamist killers out and make them safe…Liberals may admonish us that all races, creeds, cultures are equal, that anyone from any continent, country, or civilization can come to the West and assimilate…But people don’t believe that. Europe and America have moved beyond the verities of 20th century liberalism…Only liberal ideology calls for America and Europe to bring into their home countries endless numbers of migrants, without being overly concerned about who they are, whence they come or what they believe.[12] [emphasis added]

Buchanan rightly identifies the first duty of government is to protect the safety and security of the people. But the responsibility for our present peril in the West goes beyond a failure of government to protect its people. It is the failure of the peoples of Western civilization to defend their respective cultures from the false claims of those holding and promoting a humanistic view of the world. The rapidly approaching demise of the Western ethic can be stopped and reversed. It will not be quick, easy, or painless, but we have no choice other than to battle this menace if we care about what kind of world our children and grandchildren will inherit.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “pluralism,” Merriam-Webster. https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/pluralism (accessed December 29, 2016).
[2] M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom – Religion, Politics, and the American Tradition, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994), pp. 40-42.
[3] “tolerance,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publisher, 1963), p. 930.
[4] Paul Kurtz, Toward a New Enlightenment – The Philosophy of Paul Kurtz, (New Brunswick, New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 1994, p. 101.
[5] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity –The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, LLC, 2011), pp. 188-189.
[6] Ibid., p. 398.
[7] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), pp. 10-12. Originally published by Louisiana State University Press, 1964.
[8] Ibid.
[9] Ibid., pp. 11-13.
[10] Ibid.
[11] Patrick J. Buchanan, Patrick J. Buchanan – Official Website, December 22, 2016.
http://buchanan.org/blog/europes-future-merkel-le-pen-126291 (accessed January 4, 2017).
[12] Ibid.

The Church triumphant – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : November 11, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Humanism

[Part II was intentionally written before the results of the November 8, 2016 elections were known. It was released for posting on November 11, 2016.]

Will the church of Jesus Christ survive in Western civilization? If Christianity does not survive, then the church must also die, and there have been many predictions of the imminent death of both over the last three centuries.

The skeptics

Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I’ll be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first—rock n’ roll or Christianity.[1]

These are the words of John Lennon of Beatles fame who made these statements during an interview for a magazine article fifty years ago (1966). But Lennon won’t be the last and he certainly wasn’t the first to predict the demise of Christianity and the Church.

However mild and reasoned their protestations against God and His church are in the beginning, skeptics invariably end with the creature murdering his Creator. The anti-God philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) thought this the most promising and glorious event in human history. He continued his vitriolic harangue about the death of God to the end of his life from a padded cell in a Venetian insane asylum.[2]

What if our modern skeptics could be transported back in time and allowed to stand at the back of the crowds and listen to and observe Jesus during His earthly ministry, eavesdrop on His private conversations as He taught His disciples, and follow Him as He trod down dusty paths and ministered to people along the way such as the Samaritan woman at the well. Would a seeing-is-believing moment change their opinion as to the longevity of the church of Jesus? No, they would have been like the pagan rulers and religious elite of Jesus’ day who most certainly believed that the itinerant preacher who claimed to be the Son of God and his little congregation of twelve were undoubtedly destined for failure, and sooner rather than later. They would call this little church anything except “The Church triumphant.”

They had multiple reasons for their skepticism. The church did not have the right venue to be successful. It was located in a troublesome little backwater country on the fringes of the Roman Empire. The preacher had little formal education and obviously was not born to wealth and privilege. He was the son of a carpenter and trained as a carpenter. Rumor was that the carpenter may not have been His real father. Even members of his own family thought him delusional. The members of His congregation were not found on the social registers of the day. Most of these men would be called blue-collar workers in today’s vernacular—fishermen and other low-ranking occupations and one hated tax collector. Above all, the preacher’s message was too demanding and short on benefits in this life. He called His followers to a life of surrender, sacrifice, and death to self. He told them that in this life they would be hated of men, persecuted, and that many would be killed for their faith. And He was always in trouble with the establishment—both political and religious.

After only three years of ministry, the preacher was executed on a Roman cross, and his little band of followers went into hiding. The skeptics must have felt assured that their original predictions of the demise of the little church had been justified. The skeptics stooped to etch an epitaph on the tombstone being prepared for the little church. It read, “The Church humiliated.” And the skeptics would have been correct except for one thing. The itinerant preacher really was the Son of God.

The Church triumphant

Why did Jesus’ followers believe He was the Son of God? Was it blind faith? Low intelligence? Lack of education? Hysteria? Wishful thinking? Delusion? Kevin Swanson gives us the correct answer. His followers knew Jesus had defeated death and that only God could do that.

It is an indisputable fact: the Lord Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, and He is reigning as sovereign Lord on the right hand of the Father, until all of His enemies are under His footstool. For the Christian this is the historical fact by which all other previous and future events are to be understood. It is the most important historical fact of all. Marx and Nietzsche hated this historical reality, and they fought it with all that they had within them…

However the future is viewed, there is no avoiding one stubborn, historical fact—Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, and His kingdom will never fail. Faithless men will put together eschatological scenarios that ignore this fact. Faithless men will minimize the antithesis or compromise with it. Faithless men will give too much credence to the antithesis and not enough to Christ. Contrary to John Lennon’s premature pronouncements, this is not the end of Christian influence in the world. It is only the beginning.[3] [emphasis in original]

The Church and the end of the age

In light of the seeming meltdown of Christianity in America and the Western world, many Christians are exceedingly distraught about the future. Although Christians should be greatly disturbed and dismayed at what is happening in America, they should never be fearful of the future and never believe that the church has been defeated. The words of Isaiah assure God’s people of His and their ultimate victory. “So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” [Isiah 59:19. KJV] Even when the ungodly rule the land, Daniel reminds us that God is in charge of the times and seasons and that He removes kings and sets up kings (See: Daniel 2:21). Thus we know that God is sovereign and that He orders the affairs of men in all ages.

As the last scenes of history play out, proud, boastful, and seemingly independent man is oblivious to the reality that he is being drawn as though by a hook in his nose to the prophetic conclusion of the age. Mankind is on its last downward slide and nears the end of the last days. The Bible’s itinerary for a sin-filled world cannot be ignored or changed as it nears its final destination. There is no escaping it. The only questions that remain are the final dispositions of the lives of men and women living at this defining moment in history. Nations are also being sifted, tested, and tried to determine the final outworking of events within each before His soon return.

The circumstances and events in the political, economic, and social arenas that Christians see as disastrous for the church are only passing scenes in the unfolding drama that God is directing as the end of the age approaches. Nations that turn their back on God and His laws are paying a high price for their disobedience. Although Christians are aliens in a foreign and hostile land, they are also citizens of these earthly regimes and will also suffer because of their nation’s descent into wickedness. Even now the body of Christ (the Church) in many nations is experiencing a measure of this suffering before the rapture. But the church must never forget that its real home is in the wonderful and eternal presence of God. His purposes in allowing these momentary afflictions are often beyond our ability to comprehend, but He has assured His followers that, “…all things work together for the good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” [Romans 8:28. KJV]

Becoming impossible people

Satan is attempting to destroy the church through the destruction of the Christian culture of America and all of Western civilization. He and his evil empire oppose righteousness, weaken the church through compromise, debauch the truth of God’s word in the minds of men, and pollute the land with a vile stream of wickedness that is flowing into every facet of life. Knowing this, Christians who in the world’s eyes are “impossible people” must have

…hearts that can melt with compassion, but with faces like flint and backbones of steel who are unmanipulable, unbribable, undeterrable and unclubbable (i.e., coercion through comfortable conformity), without ever losing the gentleness, the mercy, the grace and the compassion of our Lord.[4]

Perhaps the best advice for the church in this troublesome age comes from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. First, he makes certain that we understand who the real enemy is that the church battles. Then, he tells it how to prepare for battle.

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [Ephesians 6:12-13. RSV]

In his commentary, Donald Stamps gives our modern minds insight into what Paul is saying.
Satan and a host of evil spirits are the spiritual rulers of the world. They empower ungodly men and women to oppose God’s will and attack believers. They form a “vast multitude and are organized into a highly systematized empire of evil…”[5]

The church must confront this empire of evil and does so by putting on the whole armor of God (see Ephesians 6:13-17). And when the battle is heated and defeat seems near at hand, having done all, the Church must continue to stand. It can do so because that itinerate preacher who trod the hills and valleys of ancient Palestine two thousand years ago really was the Son of God, and his kingdom will never fail.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 277.
[2] Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), p. 11.
[3] Swanson, pp. 289-290.
[4] Os Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2016), pp. 31-32.
[5] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p.439.

The Church triumphant – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : November 4, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Humanism

Christians in the West are living in a grand clarifying moment. The gap between Christians and the wider culture is widening, and many formerly nominal Christians are becoming “religious nones”…

We face a solemn hour for humanity at large and a momentous showdown for the Western church. At stake is the attempted completion of the centuries-long assault on the Jewish and Christian faiths and their replacement by progressive secularism as the defining faith of the West and the ideology said to be the best suited to the conditions of advanced modernity. The gathering crisis is therefore about nothing less than a struggle for the soul of the West…[1]

So wrote Os Guinness wrote in Impossible People. One aspect of this grand clarifying moment for Christians will occur as Americans go to the polls in in the November elections. The results will be more than a minor historical footnote and promises to be a pivotal event in deciding the direction of the nation and ultimately Western civilization. Many Christians are shaking their heads in disbelief. They ponder how America could have arrived at such a low point. But the assault on Christianity is not of recent origin for Satan’s war against God predates the Garden. However, God’s special creation gave Satan a new target for striking at the Creator.

After two centuries of growth, anti-Christian progressive secularism in America has recently achieved critical mass and now boldly attacks Christians and Christianity in every sector of American society. We must ask how the church arrived at this sorry state of powerlessness in defending the faith and influencing American culture. When we speak of a powerful church, that does not mean the church should wield power to dominant the state but to change men’s lives who subsequently may exert a Godly influence on society and its institutions.

The large and momentous showdown between the Western church and humanistic progressive secularism is also occurring during the time of the great apostasy within the church—a confluence of events in which Christianity is caught in the perfect storm. Paul spoke of the end of the last days in which much of the church would become apostate, that is, falling away from or departure from the faith. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…” [2 Thessalonians 2:1-3. KJV] [emphasis added]

Is the Christian West in that day spoken of by Paul? Considering what has happened over the last two hundred years in Europe and America, Kevin Swanson called this period “the most significant Christian apostasy of all time. As measured by sheer numbers, there is no other apostasy so extensive in recorded history.” [2] Without doubt, the church is in the time of great apostasy.

An apostate church is a powerless church because it has fallen away from or rejected the truth of God’s word. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with the inerrant teachings of the Bible, and without a firm foundation of biblical truth, they become powerless.

The powerless condition of the church in America is not unlike the German church following World War I. The German church was weak in both the war and the peace that followed, but it had not yet allied itself with evil. The weakened German evangelical church was filled with terror as its political power and influence declined during the 1920s. Frail and fearful, the church became territorial and defensive, and some looked to a rising political leader as the savior of the church. This eventually led to an unholy alliance between the German church and one of history’s greatest incarnations of evil—Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. Whatever their private thoughts, both the Protestant and Catholic churches capitulated to Hitler’s demands and domination upon his rise to power. Hitler’s program for the church was deliberately ambiguous. He placated fearful church leaders with these words, “We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the state so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the customs and morality of the German race.”[3] Do we not hear similar words from our secular leaders today? They assure us that there is freedom for all religions so long as they do not stand at cross purposes with the state.

While the German Lutheran Church was a principal pillar of the Reformation during the sixteenth century and a subsequent forthright defender of the faith, the depths of apostasy to which the vast majority of German church leaders had sunk during the 1930s is incomprehensible. Some sought to obliterate the Jewish background of Christianity. Others proclaimed Hitler as “the redeemer in the history of the Germans…the window through which light fell on the history of Christianity.” Still others welcomed barbarous uniformed Nazi units into their churches and supplied them with chaplains. Both the German Protestant churches and the German Catholic Church gave huge support to the Nazi regime during its rise to power and throughout World War II.[4]

Hitler was not a Christian and most of the members of the Nazi elite were openly and vigorously anti-Christian. Hitler never officially left the church into which he was born, and for political reasons he occasionally attended church during his early years in power. But Hitler hated Christians and Christianity. Soon after assuming power he vowed that he would stamp out Christianity in Germany.[5]

One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both…Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense. Never again. The tale is finished…but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us… [6]

The stated goal of Hitler with regard to Christianity aligns substantially with the goal of most of the humanistic-progressive-secularist ruling elites in all spheres of modern American society Many Christians unintentionally or unknowingly support that goal through their ignorance, apathy, or lethargy. That goal is to stamp out Christianity altogether or so constrain it that it will die of its own accord within a generation or two, and the church has been complicit in its own demise.

Satan subverts the church by injecting into it the very thing in which it is in a struggle to the death—a simpering humanistic worldview that caters to self. Guinness wrote that these church leaders are “courting spiritual and institutional suicide” for themselves and for those they are leading astray.

…[They] are reaping what others sowed with such fanfare a generation ago. For were we not solemnly sold a barrel of nonsense in the form of maxims that all good seeker-sensitive and audience-driven churches were to pursue? Here is one example from a well-known Christian marketing consultant: “It is also critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of Christian communication: the audience, not the message, is sovereign.”

The audience is sovereign? No! Let it be repeated a thousand times, no! When reaching out as the church of Jesus, the message of the gospel and Jesus the Lord of the message is alone sovereign—and never, never, never the audience…[7] [emphasis in original]

Audience-driven Church Growth leaders of seeker-sensitive churches justify their methods by pointing to Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians in winning the lost (See: 1 Corinthians 9-19-23). Here Paul renounces his rights in sympathetic consideration of the sinner. However, Paul does not mean that he was willing to compromise his Christian principles or sought to please others for the purpose of winning their esteem. Rather, Paul was willing to conform to the standards and convictions of the lost as long as it did not violate his Christian principles.”[8] Church Growth leaders cry foul and say that they are only changing their methods and not their doctrine. But their methods are in truth filled with the humanistic spirit of the age that undermines or ignores doctrinal truths and are leading millions to an eternity in hell.

Seeker-sensitive churches in their quest to please the seeker have compromised the gospel and allowed the world to change the church instead of the church changing the world. Over the course of the last fifty years, not only has the church failed to defend the faith in the public square and failed to transmit its values to its children, many modern church leaders have also drunk deeply from the well of doctrinal apostasy and have allowed the marginalization of Christianity in the larger culture. The evidence is abundant and undeniable. Many have embraced humanism’s themes of abortion, homosexuality, relativism, higher criticism of the Bible, evolution, progressivism, multiculturalism, diversity, religious universalism, promotion of socialist-Marxist concepts of organizing society, heretical concepts of salvation, and such like. They are digging their own graves and have betrayed their God.

Hosea’s description of Israel’s sinful state is a harbinger of what awaits the Western church without repentance and turning back to God.

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, aliens would devour it. [Hosea 8:7. RSV]

Much of the modern church has foolishly sown to the wind and is reaping a whirlwind. Hosea’s prophesy revealed sin and pronounced judgements on a people that would not be reformed and had become apostatized over several generations.[9] Our modern crisis of the soul in Western civilization has arisen because the majority of the Western Christian church is powerless to defend the faith let alone win the lost. There is little truth, little harvest, and what little harvest occurs is devoured by a cunning and rapacious humanistic secularism driven by Satanic forces.

Does this mean an end to Christianity? Never! Whirlwinds need not be followed by obituaries. God is ready to redeem returning sinners (both individuals and nations) and restore a right relationship with Him. The true Church lives and will always remain triumphant.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2016), p. 22.
[2] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 19.
[3] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: Touchstone Book, 1976), pp. 479, 483, 485.
[4] Ibid., pp. 484, 488.
[5] Ibid., p. 485.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Guinness, pp. 72-73.
[8] Donald C. Stamps, Gen. Ed., Commentary, The Full Life Study Bible, The New Testament, King James Version, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 366.
[9] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1105.

The meaning of Brexit

Posted by :webmaster On : October 14, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Government, Humanism

Brexit is the shorthand phrase for the British exit of the European Union. On June 23, 2016, the British people voted on a referendum that asked: “Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” The pro-Brexit forces argued that Britain should leave the European Union in order to restore and protect the nation’s culture, independence, and identity in the world. In addition to a loss of national freedom to a super state, one of the contributing factors was the unsettling massive influx of immigrants spreading across Europe and Great Britain. The principal argument of the anti-Brexit forces was that the economic benefits were far better for Britain as a member of the EU and that leaving would cause severe immediate and long-term damage to the British economy.[1]

Many of those favoring Brexit were generally from the lower classes and the poor who felt forsaken by the country’s political and cultural leadership. Many believed that their lives were controlled by “gray-suited Brussels bureaucrats” at the EU’s headquarters.[2]

Brian Klaas of the London School of Economics said that many Britons felt that they were losing their cultural and national identity. That belief was clearly revealed by a 2013 survey that found that three-fourths of Britons wanted a reduction in immigration numbers including fifty-six percent who said that the reduction should be substantial even though Britain’s immigration levels were lower than other European countries.[3]

Approximately 33.6 million Britons representing seventy-two percent of the UK electorate voted on the referendum, and the results shocked many British and Western leaders. The combined vote throughout the United Kingdom favored exiting the EU 51.9% to 48.1%. The results by its individual members were as follows:

England voted to exit the EU 53.4% to 46.6% (28,455,000 total votes).
Wales voted to exit the EU 52.5% to 47.5% (1,627,000 total votes).
Northern Ireland voted to stay in the EU 55.8% to 44.2% (790,000 total votes).
Scotland voted to stay in the EU 62.0% to 38.0% (2,680,000 total votes).
Other UK members voted to stay in the EU 81.1% to 18.9% (55,000 total votes).[4]

Prime Minister David Cameron, leader of the Conservative government, announced his resignation following the Brexit vote. He had campaigned hard to defeat the resolution. Jeremy Corbyn, leader of the opposition Labor Party, received a no-confidence vote from the members of his party but vowed not to resign. Corbyn was accused of conducting a weak campaign against the referendum.[5]

Opponents of Brexit predicted dire economic consequences for the UK should it vote to exit the EU. Opposition to Britain’s separation from the UK was almost universal among the leadership of Western nations including President Obama. Because of the overwhelming predictions of economic disaster should the UK exit the EU, many predicted that the referendum would fail. But one French op-ed writer cut to the heart of the matter in his explanation of why the majority of the British people voted to exit the EU in spite of such dire economic predictions.

The decision that the people of Britain have just made was indeed an act of courage — the courage of a people who embrace their freedom.

Brexit won out, defeating all forecasts. Britain decided to cast off from the European Union and reclaim its independence among the world’s nations. It had been said that the election would hinge solely on economic matters; the British, however, were more insightful in understanding the real issue than commentators like to admit.

British voters understood that behind prognostications about the pound’s exchange rate and behind the debates of financial experts, only one question, at once simple and fundamental, was being asked: Do we want an undemocratic authority ruling our lives, or would we rather regain control over our destiny? Brexit is, above all, a political issue. It’s about the free choice of a people deciding to govern itself. Even when it is touted by all the propaganda in the world, a cage remains a cage, and a cage is unbearable to a human being in love with freedom.

The European Union has become a prison of peoples. Each of the 28 countries that constitute it has slowly lost its democratic prerogatives to commissions and councils with no popular mandate. Every nation in the union has had to apply laws it did not want for itself. Member nations no longer determine their own budgets. They are called upon to open their borders against their will…

And what about the European Parliament? It’s democratic in appearance only, because it’s based on a lie: the pretense that there is a homogeneous European people, and that a Polish member of the European Parliament has the legitimacy to make law for the Spanish. We have tried to deny the existence of sovereign nations. It’s only natural that they would not allow being denied.[6]

The European Union is the poster child for cultural failure. It is by nature syncretistic (the combination of different forms of belief or practice). And under the syncretistic banner of multiculturalism and diversity, the EU promotes the false worldview of humanism whose tenets lack the necessary elements for cultures to survive. Richard Weaver described the true nature of culture and the elements necessary for its survival.

It is the essence of culture to feel its own imperative and to believe in the uniqueness of its worth…Syncretistic cultures like syncretistic religions have always proved relatively powerless to create and to influence; there is no weight or authentic history behind them. Culture derives its very desire to continue from its unitariness…There is at the heart of every culture a center of authority from which there proceed subtle and pervasive pressures upon us to conform and to repel the unlike as disruptive…it must insist on a pattern of inclusion and exclusion…[It is] inward facing toward some high representation…Culture is by nature aristocratic, for it is a means of discriminating between what counts for much and what counts for little…For this reason it is the very nature of culture to be exclusive…There can be no such thing as a “democratic” culture in the sense of one open to everybody at all times on equal terms…For once the inward-looking vision and the impulse to resist the alien are lost, disruption must ensue.”[7]

The two essentials that any culture must have and without which it disintegrates over time are unity and truth. A society’s central cultural vision must command unity, and such unity must filter up from individuals, not be coerced or forced down on society by its elites. Also, a culture’s central cultural vision must be based on truth with regard to the nature of man, creation, and God. Without a central cultural vision that commands unity and is based on truth, there can be no order to the soul or society, and without order in both, society deteriorates over time and eventually disintegrates.

Where does a society get its central cultural vision (the “collective consciousness of the group”)? In a free society it is the collective worldviews of its people which flow upward and give direction to its leaders. In a socialistic society it is the worldviews and philosophies of the ruling elites which flow downward and are imposed on each sphere of society.

But even when the collective consciousness of the group is in unity, it will not survive if it is not based on truth. Germany in the 1930s met the first essential of unity. Although Germany’s central cultural vision flowed downward from the Nazi elites, it was embraced by the majority of the German population which was unified around certain patterns of inclusion and exclusion, what counted for much and what counted for little. Although unified, its central cultural vision was based on a faulty humanistic understanding of the world. As a result German culture died in literal ruins at the end of World War II.

When one examines the European Union’s organization, treaties, laws, and regulations and compares those with the following excerpts from Humanist Manifesto II, the goals of the two are strikingly similar.

We deplore the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds. We have reached a turning point in human history where the best option is to transcend the limits of national sovereignty and to move toward the building of a world community in which all sectors of the human family can participate. Thus we look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based upon transnational federal government. This would appreciate cultural pluralism and diversity…Travel restrictions must cease…What more daring a goal for humankind than for each person to become, in ideal as well as practice, a citizen of a world community.[8]

The similarities were not lost on the British people. Brexit was the reaction of a majority of the British people to the progressive imposition of the tenets of humanism promoted by the elected and unelected cultural elites found principally in Europe and North America. These tenets stand in opposition to the nature of man and are destructive to the Christian foundations upon which Western civilization was built.

Humanism is a divisive and flawed view of the world that is the enemy of freedom, contrary to what it means to be human, a hopeless narrative built on a false view of man’s nature and the world, and the principal weapon of Satan that is responsible for the vast majority of misery in the human soul, cultures, and nations.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Amanda Taub, “Brexit, explained: 7 Questions About What It Means and Why It Matters,” The New York Times, June 23, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/06/21/world/europe/brexit-britain-eu-explained.html?_r=0 (accessed October 5, 2016).
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] “EU Referendum Results,” BBC News. http://www.bbc.com/news/politics/eu_referendum/results (accessed October 5, 2016).
[5] “Brexit fallout: Labor Party leader Jeremy Corbyn says he won’t resign after no-confidence vote,” Fox News World, June 28, 2016. http://www.foxnews.com/world/2016/06/28/brexit-fallout-embattled-labor-party-leader-jeremy-corbyn-loses-confidence-vote.html (accessed October 10, 2016).
[6] Marine Le Pen, “Marine Le Pen: After Brexit, the People’s Spring Is Inevitable,” The New York Times, June 28, 2016. www.nytimes.com/2016/06/28/opinion/marine-le-pen-after-brexit-the-peoples-spring-is-inevitable.html (accessed October 5, 2016).
[7] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1964), pp. 10-12.
[8] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp. 21-23.

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : September 16, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

The leaders of the great apostasy are popular and well-respected by the majority of the church. Their defenders are legion, but as we examine the leaders of the great apostasy, it is well to remember the words of Christ. “And many false prophets shall rise, and shall deceive many.” [Matthew 24:11. KJV] Here Christ is speaking of the end of the last days before the rapture of the church. At that time a large portion of the Christian church will be in an apostate condition. Loyalty to God’s house, commitment to the truth of God’s word, and biblical righteousness (virtue, morality, justice, and decency) will be in a minority amongst those who profess to follow Christ. Apostate leaders will preach “new revelations” which will lead to distortion of the gospel message. These new revelations stand in opposition to biblical truth and will lead many Christians astray. Those leaders who preach the distorted gospel will achieve great power and influence over vast segments of Christianity because of their exalted positions of in denominations and universities.[1]

These apostate leaders in the church will seek common ground with the leaders of the world system and false religions. They will be acclaimed for their détente with the secular world and their unifying efforts through accommodation of the humanistic spirit of the world. There is no greater example of this apostasy than Pope Francis, the leader of 1.1 billion Roman Catholics throughout the world, and there is no man alive that has more sway over the direction of Christianity than does the Pope. His words and actions will be examined in Parts II through IV of this series.

Pope Francis’ call for “a new humanity”

Pope Francis recently spoke several times during the week which culminated with the annual World Youth Day in Krakow, Poland. Speaking to 1.5 million people at the closing Mass, Pope Francis said that God

…demands of us real courage, the courage to be more powerful than evil, by loving everyone, even our enemies…People may judge you to be dreamers, because you believe in a new humanity, one that rejects hatred between peoples, one that refuses to see borders as barriers and can cherish its own traditions without being self-centered or small-minded.[2]

One of the most effective of Satan’s weapons used to deceive man is to sprinkle truth with the lie, and Pope Francis has done a masterful job of linking the truth of Bible that one should love their enemies while at the same time proclaiming his new revelation that young people should believe “in a new humanity.” As individual Christians we are commanded by Christ to love our enemies, but Pope Francis is calling on individuals and nations to believe in a new humanity. Yet, the Bible does not promise a new humanity this side of heaven in which nations will reject hatred and achieve peace. Although Christians must reject hatred and love their enemies, achieving the dream of a new humanity through man’s efforts is not on the agenda for the Christian at the end of the last days. The Apostle Paul paints an altogether different picture of this period of time, the coming apostasy, and a Christian’s duty.

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of stress. For men will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, inhuman, implacable, slanderers, profligates, fierce, haters of good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, holding the form of religion but denying the power of it. Avoid such people…Indeed all who desire to live a godly life in Christ Jesus will be persecuted, while evil men and impostors will go on from bad to worse, deceivers and deceived. But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings which are able to instruct you for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. [2 Timothy 3:1-5, 12-15. RSV]

The second element of the Pope’s new humanity is refusing to see borders as barriers. This is a reference to the Pope’s dismay that many countries are not welcoming enough to refugees fleeing poverty in the countries from which they have escaped. These political sympathies arise from the Pope’s leftist university education and his early days as a priest in the South American Catholic Church which was strongly influenced by the Marxist-oriented liberation theology of the late 1960s and early 1970s. This rebellious sociology developed rapidly in Latin America and regarded the underdevelopment of the continent as a consequence of the capitalist market system. As a result, undeveloped countries were exhorted to reject the capitalist market system in favor of a socialist economy. As this new sociology was absorbed by the church, liberation theology emerged from its wake.

Although Pope Francis states that he does not adhere to nor promote the Marxist variant of liberation theology, nevertheless, his beliefs have been heavily influenced by and are a product of the highly socialistic orientation of most liberation theologies prevalent in South America. The extent of Pope Francis’ socialistic orientation becomes abundantly clear when reading his 224 page Evangelii Gadium (Joy of the Gospel) that attacked capitalism as a form of tyranny and called on church and political leaders to address the needs of the poor through demands for income equality (see particularly sections 53, 54, and 56).[3]

Pope Francis describes the third element of a new humanity that “can cherish its own traditions without being self-centered or small-minded.” Here Pope Francis flirts with universalism which teaches that all persons will ultimately be saved. But as we shall see later in this article the Pope does far more than flirt with universalism.

Pope Francis’ message that encourages young people to believe in a new humanity is not the message of Christ. To understand the extent to which Pope Francis has departed from the gospel message, we compare his hoped for new humanity with the goals and proclamations of humanism, the greatest enemy of Christianity in history.

The parallels between the outworking of Pope Francis’ new humanity and humanism as described in the Humanist Manifestos I and II are frightening to discerning Christians. The Pope’s “new humanity” becomes the humanists’ new world order in which man is not fallen but perfectible. “Elimination of borders and barriers” echoes humanists’ demands that “travel restrictions must cease”; the elimination of “the division of humankind on nationalistic grounds”; and “the building of a world community in which all men can participate”. This new borderless humanity is in effect a new world order built on socialism, the only means possible for governing mankind in a humanistic society. The Pope’s “Cherishing one’s own traditions without being self-centered or small-minded” borders on universalism and somewhat parallels the humanist call for rejection of “all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, [and] dehumanize personality.”[4] In other words, all roads lead to God whether it is humanism’s Nature, a host of pantheistic Gods, Allah of the Koran, or the Christian God of the Bible.

Pope Francis’ universalism

One of the most horrific heresies voiced by Pope Francis is the disastrous deception of people with regard to how a person attains salvation and an eternity with Christ. In May 2013, the Pope stated that all people who do good works, including atheists, are going to heaven.

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ: all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone! ‘Father, the atheists?’ Even the atheists. Everyone! And this Blood makes us children of God of the first class! We are created children in the likeness of God and the Blood of Christ has redeemed us all! And we all have a duty to do good. And this commandment for everyone to do good, I think, is a beautiful path towards peace. If we, each doing our own part, if we do good to others, if we meet there, doing good, and we go slowly, gently, little by little, we will make that culture of encounter: we need that so much. We must meet one another doing good. ‘But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist!’ But do good: we will meet one another there.[5] [emphasis added]

When the Pope speaks of meeting one another “there,” he is not speaking of meeting in the culture of encounter. The context of his words makes it plain that he meant meeting atheists in heaven. The entry ticket for this meeting is to do good because Christ’s blood “makes us children of God of the first class!” In spite of the Vatican’s attempts to clarify the Pope’s statement, this is how the world understood the meaning of his remarks.

Pope Francis pronouncement is blatantly false because he ignores two foundations of Christianity: acceptance of Christ as Lord and Savior and a turning from a life of sin. John 14:6 states, “Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh to the Father, but by me.” We come to Jesus by belief in Him as the Son of God, “…whosoever believeth in him (Jesus) should not perish, but have everlasting life.” [John 3:16b. KJV] John 3:18 portrays the course of those who do not believe that Jesus is the Son of God, “He that believeth on him is not condemned: but he that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten son of God.”

John’s words stand in stark contrast to Pope Francis words which state that the only requirement for all people to meet in heaven is good works: “But do good: we will meet one another there.” The Bible plainly addresses the issue of salvation through works. “For by grace are ye saved through faith; and not of yourselves, it is the gift of God: Not of works, lest any man should boast.” [Ephesians 2:8-9. KJV]

One additional clarification is needed regarding a distinction between a sinful life and the resulting separation from God and a Christian’s practice of righteousness. In his first book, John says, “Little children, let no man deceive you: he that doeth righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. [1 Johns 3:7. KJV] Do John’s words not support Pope Francis’ contention that doing good will get one to heaven because one becomes righteous by doing righteous (good) things? They do not for we must read verse 7 in conjunction with verses 8 and 9.

He that committeth sin is of the devil; for the devil sinneth from the beginning. For this purpose that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whosoever is born of God doth not commit sin; for his seed remaineth in him: and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. [1 John 3:8-9. KJV]

Many may misinterpret verse 7 as dealing with good works without reading and understanding the meaning of verses 7 through 9 are really dealing with sin. When John says one who is born of God does not commit sin, he means that the person born of God does not “continue in sin, practices sin, or keeps on sinning.” As Donald Stamps wrote in his commentary, “John emphasizes that one truly born of God cannot make sin his way of life because the life of God cannot exist in one who practices sin.” Put another way, one cannot have a saving relationship with God and continually go on sinning. A believer may occasionally sin but he will repent and not continue in his sin.[6] It is the matter of sin that separates one from God and not a lack of good works. These verses from the Bible present an unquestionable rejection of Pope Francis’ heretical belief that through a person’s good works, whether a professed believer or an atheist, he will go to heaven.

In Part II we have dealt with Pope Francis’ apostasy with regard to his departure from biblical truth through his anti-biblical message of seeking a new humanity but which cannot be achieved without an accommodation of the humanistic spirit of the world within the church. The Pope has also preached a heretical message that has a significant kinship with universalism that is a stark departure from the biblical plan of salvation.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 54.
[2] Francis D’Emilio, Associated Press, “Pope to young on Poland trip: Believe ‘in a new humanity’.” Tulsa World, August 1, 2016. A-10.
[3] Pope Francis, Evangelii Gadium (Joy of the Gospel), November 24, 2013.
http://www.vatican.va/holy_father/francesco/apost_exhortations/documents/papa-francesco_esortazione-ap_20131124_evangelii-gaudium_en.html#Some_cultural_challenges (accessed February 5, 2014).
[4] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp. 18, 21-22.
[5] “Pope at Mass: Culture of encounter is the foundation of peace,” Vatican Radio, May 22, 2013. http://en.radiovaticana.va/storico/2013/05/22/pope_at_mass_culture_of_encounter _is_the_foundation_of_peace/en1-694445 (accessed September 14, 2016).
[6] Stamps, p. 581.

The insidious nature of humanism

Posted by :webmaster On : September 2, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Homosexuality, Humanism

The great majority of people who understand humanism and embrace its philosophies and worldview are atheists or at best non-theistic agnostics. They must be so for the Humanist Manifestos I and II state that they “…can discover no divine purpose or providence for the human species…the human species is an emergence from natural evolutionary forces.”[1] Yet, over the last several decades millions of people who believe in the Christian God and the biblical creation have quietly and unknowingly incorporated many of the tenets of humanism into their worldviews. This number includes a large number of evangelical leaders and church members in America who have accepted these tenants because of the insidious nature of humanism. It is a sinister, treacherous, and deceptive philosophy whose followers have risen to leadership levels in all spheres of American life. That is not to say that all leaders are humanistic in their worldviews. Also, many who have incorporated elements of the humanistic philosophy are not card-carrying advocates of the humanistic philosophy but have been deceived.

Humanism is the arch-enemy of Christianity, but few Christians understand humanism or its system of beliefs. Therefore, they blindly accept many cultural ideas, initiatives, and innovations because they have been saturated by decades of indoctrination in the humanistic philosophy. Many are ignorant of humanism’s ultimate goals and ignorant of their own Christian faith that stands in opposition to those goals.

Perhaps there is no greater issue that separates the two belief systems than their respective concepts of truth. Christians believe in objective, final, unchangeable truth as found in the Bible. The humanist conceptions of truth are as follows:

The humanistic worldview regarding truth is one of cultural relativism which requires a suspension of judgment since all belief systems contain some truth within while no one belief system has all truth. For humanists, all social constructions are culturally relative as they are shaped by class, gender, and ethnicity. Thus, there can be no universal truths because all viewpoints, lifestyles, and beliefs are equally valid. As a result, no man or group can claim to be infallible with regard to truth and virtue. Rather, truth is produced by the free give and take of competing claims and opinions, that is, truth can be manufactured.[2]

But how do Christians separate truth from the lie and respond accordingly when constantly bombarded by humanistic concepts and ideas that have saturated every sphere of American life for several decades (including many churches and denominations)?

Separating the Christian and Humanistic worldviews?

First, the Christian must understand that Christ does not call His followers to win the war against Satan and his forces but to be faithful in fighting the battles he or she encounters in the everyday business of living life. To be an effective soldier in this battle, the average Christian does not have to have a degree in theology, be an articulate orator, or occupy an exalted position in society to defend one’s faith, family, and culture.

A Christian must listen and understand the beliefs, proposals, and concepts put forth by the various spheres of life in America. Although it is helpful to have knowledge of the general concepts and goals of humanism, it is more important that the Christian know what he or she believes, that is, one must know what the Bible says and why he or she believes it. It is only then that the Christian can know truth and respond appropriately. In summary, (1) listen to the beliefs, concepts, arguments, arguments, and proposals put forth, (2) restate them so you understand what is really being said, (3) rely on the Bible for guidance and direction in finding the truth, and (4) seek the Holy Spirit’s help in responding with authority and in a loving manner. As an example, let’s use this procedure in responding to a recent editorial in the Tulsa World.

In the Tulsa World Sunday edition (July 17, 2016), Associate Editor Mike Jones wrote an editorial on homosexuality titled “Love and hate.”[3] Jones states that the phrase “Love the sinner, hate the sin” is of recent origin and now used almost exclusively by those who disapprove of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender community. In this editorial Jones attempts to defend homosexuality by challenging the Christian’s interpretation of the meaning of the Bible as well as challenging the truth of the Bible itself with regard to homosexuality.

The complete truthfulness of the Bible is challenged

“Love the sinner, hate the sin” never appears in the New Testament. There are verses that can be applied or construed to prove that God or Jesus disapproved of homosexuality. Ignoring Leviticus, Romans 1:26-27 can be read to address men cavorting with men and women with women. But also, that chapter along with at least seven others, and arguably more, in the New Testament were written by Paul, and we can argue all day about whether Jesus told him what to write.[4] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? He is saying that: (1) All scripture is not the inspired word of God. (2) Those portions of the scripture condemning homosexuality aren’t applicable because Jesus did not explicitly condemn homosexuality.

There is no question that the Apostle Paul condemned homosexuality in a very forthright and plain manner (Romans 1: 18, 24-27), and Jones does not dispute that Paul held this view of homosexuality. What Jones is challenging is the truthfulness or validity of portions of the Bible when he says that we can argue all day about whether Jesus told Paul what to write. By using Jones’ line of reasoning, we must ignore the divine inspiration of much if not all of scripture. Consequently, the Bible is not objective truth, contains errors, and is effectively reduced to a book of suggestions of mortal men except perhaps for the red letters depicting Christ’s words in the New Testament. However, Jones ignores the fact that the Bible itself speaks of its supreme authority in all matters of truth. Also, most Christians believe that Paul’s admonishment that homosexuality is a sin is part of the inspired word of God and is no less inspired than the writings of those who recorded the words of Christ in the gospels.

Homosexuality is not a sin

… many more passages can be found in the New Testament where Jesus was reported to have urged his followers to love everyone. Opting for the “sin” phrase is basically telling a gay man that he is a sinner. Of course, that also implies that their sexual preference is a chosen lifestyle. So, simply put, you are condemning to hell that person you say you really want to love.[5] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? (1) He makes no distinction between the person and their sin. (2) We must love the homosexual and ignore their lifestyle.

Jones argues that there are many more passages in the New Testament where Jesus urges his followers to love everyone. He says that opting for the sin portion of “love the sinner, hate the sin” phrase is “basically telling a gay man that he is a sinner.” But that is exactly what Paul is saying. Homosexuality is a sin along with other sins such as evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, and foolishness.

Homosexuality is not destructive to marriages, families, and to society in general

I will never understand why people are so afraid. I’ve heard their reasons: “Homosexuality destroys families!” “Homosexuality destroys marriage!” “We have to save these sinners from AIDS!” “It’s an abomination unto God!”

No one has ever explained to me how families or marriages are destroyed. There are far too many happy, solid families comprised of gay couples. And I think the straight community is doing a good enough job on its own in the destroying marriage and families department.

The claim of saving them from AIDS is another smokescreen. Gay men know how to save themselves from AIDS. We’ve learned a lot about that disease — one being it’s not a curse from God.[6]

What is Jones really saying: There is no evidence of the damage done by homosexuality to families, marriages, and the larger society.

However, there is abundant evidence throughout history that homosexuality does destroy marriages, families, and nations. Many current studies and statistics support this contention. Even without scientific studies and a truthful examination of history, we can know that homosexuality is undeniably damaging to individuals, families, and society in general. How do we know this? God deems homosexuality as a sin, and “The wages of sin is death…” (Romans 6:23). Biblical truth is non-negotiable, and no amount of conversation, argument, debate, and reasoning among men, however sincere and well-meaning, will change this.

Homosexuals were born that way and therefore cannot be morally condemned

Telling a gay couple that they are committing a sin is like telling a blue-eyed kid that he needs to change the color of his eyes because God hates blue-eyed people and having blue eyes is a sin. Of course you wouldn’t say such an outrageous and hurtful thing to a child or anyone. After all, they were born with blue eyes. Either genetics put them there or God did. That can’t be changed.[7]

What is Jones really saying? Homosexuality cannot be morally condemned because homosexuals were born that way.

Defenders of homosexuality argue that moral distinctions between homosexuality and heterosexuality are invalid because homosexuals were born that way. Christians can point out that sound scientific studies have not proven that homosexuality has a genetic basis (either causal or predispositional). Recent support for the Christian position came from one of the most unlikely sources. The New Atlantis is a journal of technology and society dedicated to the LGBT community. It published a newly released report co-authored by two psychiatric experts affiliated with Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine. The report is titled “Sexuality and Gender: Findings from the Biological, Psychological and Social Sciences,” and states that “Born that way” is a myth.

The understanding of sexual orientation as an innate, biological fixed property of human beings—the idea that people are “born that “—is not supported by scientific evidence… Genes constitute only one of the many key influences on behavior in addition to environmental influences, personal choices, and interpersonal experiences.[8] [emphasis added]

However, the Christian must never accept or surrender his biblical beliefs about homosexuality based on the findings of scientists. But for the sake of argument, let’s assume that homosexuality was not a choice but a genetic predisposition or even genetically caused. The Christian can show that humans are born with many scientifically determined predispositions or genetic factors that result in culturally unacceptable behavior such as alcoholism. One study established a genetic link to criminal behavior. But such scientific evidence of genetic links does not justify immoral behavior whether it is alcoholism, criminal activity, or homosexual practices.

Condemning homosexuality as a sin is the same as hating the homosexual

Finding someone you love and wanting to spend the rest of your life (or at least a good portion of it) with them is certainly not sinful. They aren’t wrecking families, killing the institution of marriage and they are not ruining kids’ lives.

Adopting and defending the word “hate” certainly does not follow the teachings of Jesus.

You want to put someone’s life on your version of the straight and narrow, go find someone in your congregation and tell them to quit drinking so much or that dancing might place them on the road to degradation.

I think I know what the answer will be: Mind you own business.

Good advice.[9] [emphasis added]

What is Jones really saying? He is saying that hating the sin of homosexuality does not follow the teachings of Jesus. However, humanists who claim love is all that is necessary to merit the grace of God either ignore or dismiss the centrality of the cross in the great meta-narrative of the Bible with regard to creation, the fall, and man’s need for redemption. Christ died for the sins of the world to make possible God’s forgiveness of sinful man, and every man has a choice as to whether or not he will accept that forgiveness and follow Christ. To follow Christ is to follow the Bible’s commandments. But, if love is all that is necessary, then Christ’s death on the cross becomes irrelevant because God’s holiness must then coexist with sin. Therefore, how men live their lives has no bearing on their eternal destination.

Jones is also saying that Christians should continue to do good works, that condemnation of homosexuality as a sin is the same as hating the homosexual as a person, that the Bible is wrong where is says that homosexuality is a sin, and that Christians should ignore homosexuality and focus on “real” sins. In essence, Jones is saying to the Christian, “Shut up and mind your own business!” Thus, Christianity and Christian beliefs are banned from influence in the public square. That is the recurrent message of humanism.

How is the Christian to respond? This writer has often quoted the Dietrich Bonhoeffer’s words to his fellow pastors who were being arrested and sent to Nazi concentration camps in the late 1930s. As they faced persecution, imprisonment, and even death, he cautioned them to retain the biblical understanding of sin, repentance, and forgiveness.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…Grace cannot be proclaimed to anyone who does not recognize or distinguish or desire it…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.”[10]

______

There are millions of people in America like Mike Jones who champion the humanist worldview, twist the words and meaning of the Bible, and in the end challenge the truth of the Bible in order to advance the humanist agenda. Many of them are unaware of what they are doing or the consequences thereof. Yet, Christians must be alert, faithful, and persistent in presenting the truth of God’s word and defending their Christian faith. Because America is no longer a Christian-friendly nation, Christians must expect that their opposition to the humanist philosophy and agenda will subject them and their families to marginalization, ridicule, harassment, loss of educational and job opportunities, financial loss, imprisonment, and possibly even more severe forms of persecution. However, the Christian’s consolation is found in the New Testament book of James.

Count it all joy, my brethren, when you meet various trials, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking nothing. [James 1:2-4. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp. 16-17.
[2] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), pp. 392-393.
[3] Mike Jones, “Love and hate,” Tulsa World, July 17, 2016, G1.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Mary Rice Hasson and Theresa Farnon, “Report Debunks ‘Born That Way’ Narrative And ‘Transgender’ Label For Kids,” The Federalist, August 23, 2016.
http://thefederalist.com/2016/08/23/report-debunks-born-that-way-narrative-and-transgender-label-for-kids/ (accessed September 1, 2016).
[9] Jones, “Love and hate,” G-1.
[10] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.

How much is your child worth?

Posted by :webmaster On : June 10, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Humanism

You’ve probably heard or read about Harambe of the Cincinnati Zoo. He was the 420 pound silverback gorilla that was shot and killed on May 28th by zoo officials to protect the life of a 3-year old child that managed to slip into Harambe’s domain. Such is the outrage at the killing by many in our humanistic society that the story has spun across several 24-hour news cycles as well as exploded in the internet and print media.

The preschooler managed to wiggle into zoo’s Gorilla World enclosure, walk through some bushes, and then fell down the 15 wall into a moat that separated the gorilla from onlookers. The gorilla went to the child and was reported to have been “violently dragging and throwing the child.” Within ten minutes zoo officials had been notified and responded. Zoo officials determined that it was too dangerous to attempt to use a tranquillizer gun because it might enrage the gorilla during the time it takes for the tranquilizing drug to take effect. Instead they made the decision to shoot and kill the gorilla.[1] Jack Hanna, the respected and renowned American zookeeper, fully agreed with the decision. Hanna said he saw video of the gorilla jerking the boy through the water and knew what would happen if the animal wasn’t killed. “I’ll bet my life on this, that child would not be here today.”[2]

It takes 5 to 10 minutes for a gorilla to lay down and go to sleep, so what’s that male going to do if all the sudden, “pow” he feels this thing hit him? He’s going to go back there, what is this thing? pull it out, and he’s got a child in his hand … We’re going to have a disaster. Within one split second. You wouldn’t even want to witness it.[3]

Rather than rejoice with saving the life of a 3-year old child, it seems that there are thousands if not millions in America culture that have made the killing of Harambe the center of the story. Jane Goodall, the world-renowned British primatologist and conservationist, sent an email to Cincinnati Zoo executive Thane Maynard. She expressed her sorrow for Maynard for “having to try to defend something which you may well disapprove of.”[4]

I tried to see exactly what was happening – it looked as though the gorilla was putting an arm round the child – like the female who rescued and returned the child from the Chicago exhibit…Anyway, whatever, it is a devastating loss to the zoo, and to the gorillas. How did the others react? Are they allowed to see, and express grief, which seems to be so important? Feeling for you.[5]

By “others,” Goodall appears to mean that the other gorillas at the zoo should be allowed to see and express grief at what had happened to Harambe.

One Cincinnati animal rights activist helped organize a vigil just outside the zoo gates “to honor Harambe who turned 17 the day before he was shot.[6] Another expression of this collective moral outrage was the initiation of a petition to hold the parents accountable for negligence and lack of supervision.

A sad incident at the Cincinnati Zoo has prompted this petition. On May 28, 2016 an unattended four-year-old boy [as originally reported] was able to crawl through a series of barriers at the Gorilla World enclosure. The child fell an estimated 10 to 12 feet into the moat surrounding the habitat. The 17 year-old male Western Lowland Gorilla named Harambe then got a hold of the boy. The gorilla was perceived as dragging and throwing the boy. The zoo made the last-resort decision to shoot Harambe because of the increased risk of aggression if a tranquilizer was used in such close proximity to a human. This heartbreaking decision was made in the best interests of keeping the child and the public safe. This beautiful gorilla lost his life because the boy’s parents did not keep a closer watch on the child. We the undersigned believe that the child would not have been able to enter the enclosure under proper parental supervision. Witnesses claim that they heard the child state that he wished to go into the enclosure and was actively trying to breach the barriers. This should have prompted the parents to immediately remove the child from the vicinity. It is believed that the situation was caused by parental negligence and the zoo is not responsible for the child’s injuries and possible trauma. We the undersigned want the parents to be held accountable for the lack of supervision and negligence that caused Harambe to lose his life. We the undersigned feel the child’s safety is paramount in this situation. We believe that this negligence may be reflective of the child’s home situation. We the undersigned actively encourage an investigation of the child’s home environment in the interests of protecting the child and his siblings from further incidents of parental negligence that may result in serious bodily harm or even death.[7] [emphasis added]

As of June 7th the petition had received over one-half million signers.[8] The petitioners have already judged the parents guilty of neglect and lack of supervision. Why? Because something bad happened to a child. No one can deny that there are occasions of neglect or lack of supervision by parents or caregivers. But in the normal course of life bad things will happen to even the children of the most caring, attentive, and protective parents. But humanists must not bother with such distinctions in their rush to judgement and condemnation when bad things happen. One is guilty until they have proven their innocence.

This is one of the hallmarks of the modern humanistic society. Something bad happens. Therefore, someone was victimized and someone must be held accountable. For these cultural vigilantes, one is either a victim or a victimizer. There is no middle ground, and it is up to the powers of NGO activists (non-governmental organizations) and socialistically-minded governments to assess the situation, parcel out the requisite penalties, and dump another load of meaningless rules and regulations on Americans in a futile attempt to assure that nothing bad will ever happen again. No element of life is so small or insignificant into which they will not stick their long bureaucratic noses, be it sugary soft drinks, genderless bathroom facilities, or other such examples of demagoguery.

It is difficult to imagine that the signers of the change.org petition who had raised children of their own would never have had moments of inattention or distraction which may have resulted in a bad outcome for their child such as failing to prevent their child from falling from a bicycle, preventing a child from slipping out of a yard whose gate was left unlocked, becoming separated at a park or zoo, or allowing a child to jerk his hand from his parent’s hand and dash into traffic.

The social engineers of the humanistic world which they have created will argue that education is the key. Education leads to appropriate behavior modification in both children and parents which will minimize such unfavorable outcomes in life. However, there is a disconnection between humanism’s belief in the perfectibility of man and their means of achieving that perfection. For most of a century American children and their parents have been immersed in John Dewey’s democratized education model in which the teacher is merely the facilitator and must not impose fixed values or notions of right or wrong. Children are presumed to be inherently good and must be allowed to explore and develop their own relativistic versions of truth. But in the real world, bad actions and bad behavior have consequences that demand rigorous adherence to fixed standards of behavior. In other words children are taught to think one way but must act another way when they become adults. This is just one of the basic fallacies of the humanistic understanding of the world. It ignores the innate fallen nature of mankind but demands perfection without the fixed values and timeless objective truths of the God who created the universe and mankind. Such disconnection is one of the principal causes of the rapidly deteriorating social fabric at all levels of America life—government, marriage, family, economy, education, arts, and culture in general.
______

The massive moral outrage and hand-wringing at the unfortunate death of a single silverback gorilla is astonishing. Where is the moral outrage when approximately 3000 unborn babies are aborted each day of the year in America? Where is the moral outrage when in slightly less than two months the number of babies aborted in America equals the entire population of 175,000 silverback gorillas remaining in the world? What is the value of a child compared to a silverback gorilla? In the humanistic view of the world, it appears to be very little.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Alex Abad Santos, “Harambe, the zoo killing that’s set the internet on fire, explained,” Vox culture, June 1, 2016. http://www.vox.com/2016/5/31/11813640/harambe-gorilla-cincinnati-zoo-killed (accessed June 7, 2016).
[2] Dan Sewell, “Correction: Zoo gorilla-child hurt story,” Associated Press, May 30, 2016. https://www.yahoo.com/news/vigil-planned-cincinnati-zoo-tribute-143125063.html?ref=gs (accessed June 7, 2016).
[3] Santos, “Harambe, the zoo killing that’s set the internet on fire, explained,” Vox culture.
[4] Patrick Brennan, “Jane Goodall to Cincy zoo director: I’m so sorry’,” cincinnati.com, June 2, 2016. http://www.cincinnati.com/story/news/2016/06/02/jane-goodall-cincy-zoo-director-feel-so-sorry/85285432/ (accessed June 7, 2016).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Sewell, “Correction: Zoo gorilla-child hurt story,” Associated Press.
[7] Sheila Hunt, “Justice for Harambe,” change.org. https://www.change.org/p/cincinnati-zoo-justice-for-harambe (accessed June 7, 2016).
[8] Ibid.