Archives for : Humanism

Helicopter government – Part IV – Overindulging

Posted by :webmaster On : June 19, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Government, Humanism, Socialism

This series of articles describes helicopter parenting and helicopter governing, the pathologies associated with each, and the impact on American culture. A helicopter government is one that exhibits characteristics similar to those of helicopter parenting which are expressed in four types of behavior: overprotection, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming. In Part IV we shall examine our helicopter government’s ruinous overindulgence and the pathologies and consequences thereof to individuals and culture at large.

Overindulging

Life is one of limitations. In every facet of life we face restrictions, either natural (e.g., gravity) or man-made (e.g., laws, codes of conduct, regulations, rules). Children must learn at an early age that those limitations include both actions and material things. A child who is always given whatever they want or allowed to do anything they want will have difficulty relating actions with consequences, developing a work ethic, understanding the relationship between effort and reward, and appreciating the concept of delayed gratification. Many parents have ignored these lessons when training their children, and their overindulged children have grown up to be overindulged adults with a sense of entitlement. Richard Weaver compared those with an entitlement mentality to a spoiled child. He wrote, “The spoiled child has not been made to see the relationship between effort and reward. He wants things, but regards payment as an imposition or as an expression of malice by those who withhold for it. His solution…is to abuse those who do not gratify him.”[1]

The Boomer generation (born between the end of World War II and the end of 1964) was the first to wear the badge of entitlement. Boomers grew up in an era of unbridled economic optimism, abundance, and prosperity which they assumed would last forever. In 1965, the first year after the Boomer generation officially ended, Charles Reich wrote, “Society today is built around entitlement.” In other words, there was a firm popular expectation that some specific or general outcome will occur, whether or not it is formally embodied in law. These expectations include professional licenses, executive contracts, stock options, social security pensions, and education, and most of the more important entitlements flow in some form or fashion from government. But, whether private or from government, “…to the recipients they (entitlements) are essentials, fully deserved, and in no sense a form of charity.”[2]

The growth of the Boomers’ embryonic entitlement mentality would be dramatically boosted during the last birth year of their generational cohort. In his 1964 State of the Union address, President Johnson proposed a massive legislative assault that would move an already “…rich society…upward to the Great Society.” This was the beginning of the war on poverty built on a massive array of new federal programs designed to aid the poor. However, over the next two decades, federal legislation and social policy engineers and architects would “…re-enslave many poor and minorities into a web of government dependency.” One of the most damaging programs was the Aid for Dependent Children whose qualifying requirements were changed to include any household with no male family head present, that is, it became more lucrative to not be married than to be married. The effects of these policies were devastating to the family and traditional marriage. In 1950, families comprising a husband and wife in a traditional marriage were represented by 88 percent of white families and 78 percent of black families. With the modification of AFDC guidelines by Johnson and Congress, the black family structure began a rapid decline in 1967. By the late 1970s, intact black families had declined to 59 percent compared to 85 percent for white families.[3]

The entitlement society is a derivative of humanism as can be seen in the Humanist Manifesto. If an individual cannot contribute to their own betterment, “…then society should provide means to satisfy their basic economic, health, and cultural needs, including whatever resources make possible, a minimum guaranteed annual income.”[4]

As the humanistic worldview has ascended in America, the nation has moved toward economic bondage in both government and private sectors as socialism and its entitlement mentality have become ingrained in the American consciousness.[5] An entitlement society ultimately fails because it is based on a false understanding of human nature. The fatal flaw of an entitlement society is utopianism, “…its presumption that we are inexorably on our way toward a perfect society.”[6] This is humanism’s faith in the utopian concept of human perfectibility known as progressivism which denies the fallen, corruptible nature of man.

It is right and proper to distinguish between what is government’s responsibility and what is private (individual or institution) responsibility. However in this division of responsibility, Americans have forgotten that they are the government and that the government has and always will have limited resources. The political system now dances to the music of the entitled who have the loudest and/or largest band. With an entitlement mentality, we attempt to fix unlimited numbers of problems with limited resources rather than reasonably allocate available resources to the most pressing problems while providing a safety net for the poor but not a chaise lounge.

In 2006 Leonard Steinhorn published The Greater Generation-In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy. He makes an exceptionally revealing statement about the general mindset and attitude of the Boomers—that of entitlement—which had become pervasive by the end of the twentieth century. He wrote, “The problem is that the reality of Greatest Generation America fell far short of the ideal—the America that Boomers beheld wasn’t even close to the America they were promised.”[7] (emphasis added) What generation was ever promised anything? Each generation receives the cultural heritage of all that have gone before. Each generation is given the opportunity to do great and good things, and they should do better for they stand on the shoulders of their ancestors. Each generation is given an opportunity, not a promise nor an entitlement.[8]

America has become the land of entitlements whose national anthem is now “We deserve”, and for three generations there has been little memory of the historical relationship between actions and consequences, effort and reward, a work ethic, and delayed gratification. Americans’ concept of the role of government has changed dramatically in the last eighty-five years. To illustrate the transition from an independent, self-reliant people to an overindulged entitlement generation, I retell the story of an incident my long-deceased grandmother told to me many years ago and about which I’ve written before.

My father’s family was considered poor even by the standards of the Great Depression. During that time, my father’s mother, my grandmother, cared for a sick husband and five children, cleaned people’s houses, and did laundry and sewing for others. When she was in her eighties, she told me of an incident that she experienced during the Depression. There was no food to feed her family. So she went to the back door of a little restaurant at closing time in the small rural town of Collinsville, Oklahoma, where they lived. She asked for any leftover soup. It was some fifty years later, but she still called it the worst day of her life. Her attitude may seem strange to a twenty-first century citizen with a typical entitlement mentality prevalent in United States today, but such were the people of the Greatest Generation and their ancestors.[9]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 113.
[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), p. 3. Quoted material from: Robert J. Samuelson, The Good Life and Its Discontents, (New York: Vintage Books, 1995, 1997), pp. 46-47.
[3] Larry Schweikart and Michael Allen, A Patriot’s History of the United States,” (New York: Sentinel, 2004), pp. 687-688.
[4] Paul Kurtz, ed., Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), p. 20.
[5] Johnson, p. 406.
[6] Samuelson, p. 218.
[7] Leonard Steinhorn, The Greater Generation – In Defense of the Baby Boom Legacy, (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2006), p. 69.
[8] Johnson, p. 41.
[9] Ibid., p. 3.

Helicopter government – Part III – Overpraising

Posted by :webmaster On : June 12, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Education, Government, Humanism

This series of articles describes helicopter parenting and helicopter governing, the pathologies associated with each, and the impact on American culture. A helicopter government is one that exhibits characteristics similar to those of helicopter parenting which are expressed in four types of behavior: overprotection, overpraising, overindulging, and overprogramming. In Part III we shall examine the consequences of a culture of overpraising encouraged by the indirect but pervasive influence of our helicopter government and the American educational system. The obsessive, destructive, and faulty efforts of the educational establishment to build child self-esteem at any cost has enabled a culture of overpraising resulting in pathologies and consequences harmful to children, adults, and the culture at large.

Overpraising

To understand the emphasis on self-esteem we must look at the development of a new view of self in America following World War II. Alan Petigny summarized the seismic change in the view of self as, “…a rejection of the belief in the innate depravity of mankind, the celebration of spontaneity, and a pronounced turn toward self-awareness…[This] gave rise—on an unprecedented scale—to a more secularized notion of the individual.” From this humanistic view of self came a belief in the basic goodness of man and a rejection of Original Sin; loosened behavioral codes that allowed one to get in touch with one’s true self rather than discover truth as defined by tradition, scripture, natural law, and other authoritarian sources; and a preference for self-expression as opposed to self-discipline. Rejecting the external, there was a decided inward turn to discover one’s guiding principles and the meaning of life. In the 1950s this process of getting in touch with one’s self was called self-actualization in which answers to the big questions of life come from within and can only be found by trusting one’s own reactions and doing “what feels right.”[1]

However, the self must not only be actualized but must be made to feel good about it. Dr. Robert Hudson believes that the whole “overprotection racket” with regard to children began with a popular fad of the 1980s in which a child’s self-esteem was built through giving them a multitude of choices.[2] Through the efforts of the American educational system and complicit parents, this process of self-actualization or getting in touch with one’s true self, co-joined with building self-esteem, begins in the earliest preschool years and continues through all primary and secondary levels and into adulthood at the university level. So many hours are spent by educators on building self-esteem that teaching skills and knowledge are neglected which is one of the major reasons for the dismal condition of American education, the most humanistically-indoctrinated institution in American life.

The problem of overpraising children and efforts to build high self-esteem are fundamentally linked to humanism’s false assumption of the basic goodness of man. The root of the problem of overpraising children lies in the mistaken belief that achievement follows self-esteem rather than self-esteem as a result of achievement.[3] Here we must distinguish between overpraising children and that of expressions of love and affirmation that all children need. Although we must not put love, affirmation, and encouragement of a child on a praise-as-you-achieve basis, we must be careful to not persistently build up within a child a false understanding of the source and value of his or her self-worth and abilities through overpraising. Overpraised children are being setup for disappointment and failure in their adult years because they were never taught how to cope with failure and disappointment in their formative years. And the consequences of those lessons denied in the childhood years are far more painful, longer-term, and costly in the adult years and radiate outward to family, friends, and society in general.

So what does all this overpraising of children have to do with a helicopter government? The emphasis on high self-esteem for children has effectively robbed them of those learning and coping experiences (especially bad experiences) in their growing up years. The effect for many is to Extend childhood forever.[4] These adults living in perpetual childhood often become wards of the state. And our helicopter government is always ready to swoop in and minister to the wounded self-esteem of those individuals or groups who feel themselves slighted, offended, insulted, or snubbed. In other words, the feelings of these pseudo-adults have been hurt, and the government must punish the perpetrators.

Professor John Portmann, professor of religious studies at the University of Virginia, believes that the quest for high esteem in children is damaging the whole fabric of society. Marano quotes Portmann who

…sees young people becoming weaker right before his eyes, more responsive to the herd, too eager to fit in—not just less assertive in the classroom, but unwilling to disagree with their peers, afraid to question authority, more willing to conform to the expectations of those on the next rung of power above them.[5]

Children raised on the pacifier of high self-esteem disconnected from reality become weakened adults living in an extended childhood. These overpraised, self-actualized adults continually in need of a self-esteem fix attempt to find their value and worth from within but are constantly demoralized by the external world’s failure to affirm their inner vision of themselves. Their dismay and distress is a result of the humanistic worldview’s false understanding of the source of a person’s value and leads to an attack on the biblical view of man which is really an attack on his true dignity and worth.

Richard M. Weaver has identified the steps in the progressive demotion of man in modern society while he unsuccessfully attempts at the same time to elevate himself through humanism’s false measures of self-worth.[6] The author has previously written of Weaver’s analysis of modern man’s confusion as he struggles to understand why humanistic concepts of his worth do not bring satisfaction.

First, astronomers in the last half millennium have discovered that the earth is but a mere speck on the fringes of a vast universe. Because the earth is physically “insignificant” in relation to the totality, it is implied that man is also insignificant. As reasoning goes, the creator must have little concern for insignificant man…

Darwin’s theory of the descent of man was the second means of depreciating the worth of man. No longer the center of creation, he was robbed of his special origins, the divine spark snuffed out, and was now counted among the animal kingdom sharing a common ancestry with other creatures that struggled out of the primeval ooze and late of the anthropoid clan…

The third assault on biblical individualism occurred when man was robbed of his freewill, and his actions are now explained by material causality. He is now brute beast, a slave to animal passions, and those actions can be predicted and explained (or will be at some future point after enough study) by materialistic determinism… [7]

Humanists speak eloquently of the individual, his dignity, his worth, and his freedom to choose. They promise a freedom from the mores, norms, tradition, and distant voices of the past by which humanity has achieved a measure of civilization. However, it is a false freedom that gives unbridled control to the self and senses and ultimately leads to bondage. For all of man’s time on this earth this personal license has been the path toward disaster. To believe that such personal freedom will lead to the greater good of mankind is folly for man is a fallen creature, and he cannot lift himself by pulling at his own bootstraps.[8] And no amount of societal or self-generated esteem will fix fallen and unregenerate man.

In the humanistic worldview, the praise of self is a relentless chorus and signals the retreat from relationship and unity. This humanistic emphases on self and its consequent conceits and egotism are systemic poisons leading to fragmentation of culture through redefinition and radicalization of various concepts such as egalitarianism, multiculturalism, tolerance, feminism, and diversity. Such fragmentation of culture leads to cultural decline and disintegration because of the loss of a unifying central cultural vision.

In the Christian worldview, value or worth of a person is not dependent on what that person or someone else thinks of him. Man’s worth has been pre-determined by our Creator, and that worth is inestimably great. God did not create man out of need. Rather, it was a will to love, an expression of the very character of God, to share the inner life of the Trinity. Being God, He knew the course and cost of His creation. Rejection was not a surprise to an omniscient God. Before creation, God knew the cost of the regeneration of man would be the death of His Son, and this is hinted at in Revelation 13:8, “…Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.” God’s infinite love exceeded the cost of that love at Calvary.[9] To compare the value humanism places on self-actualized and highly self-esteemed man with the value God places on His special creation is to compare ashes with gold dust.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Alan Petigny, The Permissive Society – America, 1941-1965, (Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press, 2009), pp. 226, 238-239.
[2] Jason Ashley Wright, “Nurturing in Excess,” Tulsa World, March 24, 2014, D1.
[3] Robert Bork, Slouching Towards Gomorrah, (New York: Regan Books, 1996), p. 243.
[4] Hara Estroff Marano, “A Nation of Wimps,” Psychology Today, November 1, 2004.
http://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200411/nation-wimps (accessed March 31, 2014);
Hara Estroff Marano, A Nation of Wimps, (New York: Broadway Books,2009), pp. 243-244.
[5] Marano, “A Nation of wimps,” Psychology Today.
[6] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 2006), pp. 136-145. Originally published by Louisiana State University, 1964.
[7] 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. 222-223.
[8] Ibid., pp. 220, 221-222.
[9] Ibid., p. 158.

The REAL separation of church and state – Part III

Posted by :webmaster On : March 6, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

We ended Part II with the thoughts of Thomas Jefferson and James Madison as to the importance of interpreting the Constitution according to its plain meaning and intent of the authors. George Washington also wrote of the importance of adhering to the prescribed methods for changing the Constitution.

If, in the opinion of the people…the constitutional powers be at any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; though this in one instance be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed.”[1] [emphasis added]

Joseph Story was the leading Constitutional scholar of the nineteenth century and in 1833 wrote in Commentaries on the Constitution that the Constitution “…was to be understood in terms of its plain, commonsense meaning” and must not be changed by the caprice of men.

The reader must not expect to find in these pages any novel construction of the Constitution. I have not the ambition to be the author of any new plan of interpreting the theory of the Constitution, or enlarging or narrowing its powers, by ingenious subtleties and learned doubts…”[2]

For 150 years original intent was the courts’ coin of the realm when interpreting the Constitution. But that dramatically changed in 1947. The beginning of that change occurred seventy-seven years earlier when Christopher Columbus Langdell became president of Harvard Law School in 1870 and developed the theory of legal positivism which was adopted and applied by other leading lawyers and jurists that followed him including Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes.[3] Since 1947, legal positivism has replaced original intent as the standard for interpreting the Constitution. The essence of the theory is summarized as follows:

1. There are no objective, God-given standards of law, or if there are, they are irrelevant to the modern legal system.

2. Since God is not the author of law, the author of law must be man; in other words, the law is law simply because the highest human authority, the state, has said it is law and is able to back it up by force.

3. Since man and society evolve, therefore law must evolve as well.

4. Judges, through their decisions, guide the evolution of law (Note again: Judges “make law).

5. To study law, get the original sources of law – the decision of judges; hence most law schools today use the “case law” method of teaching law.[4]

The Founding fathers including those who drafted the Constitution held a biblical worldview. In this worldview, eternal truths were revealed to man by God through his creation and His revelation to the ancient Hebrews and first century Christians. In the Christian worldview, the Supreme Being (God) created matter out of nothing and formed the universe. He impressed certain principles upon that matter, laws of nature from which it can never depart. However, man was His special creation and was allowed to choose to follow or depart from those principles as they relate to human nature. Those principles are truths that are intrinsic and timeless, and are essential elements needed to provide a coherent and rational way to live in the world. These truths are called by various names: permanent things, universals, first principles, eternal truths, and norms.[5]

These absolutes became the basis for American law and were expounded upon by men such as William Blackstone in his Commentaries on the Law of England. Blackstone wrote:

This law of nature…directed by God Himself…is binding in all the globe, in all countries, and at all times: no human laws are of any validity, if contrary to this; and such of them as are valid derive all their force and all their authority, mediately or immediately, from this original.[6] [emphasis added]

The American Constitution’s biblical origins and the Founders’ unbending devotion to original intent in its interpretation were hindrances to the proponents of legal positivism. In his book The New Freedom, Woodrow Wilson disparaged the Founders’ notions of original intent and argued that progressives should be allowed to apply the Darwinian principle in interpreting the Constitution.

And they [the authors of the Constitution] constructed a government…to display the laws of Nature…The government was to exist and move by virtue of the efficacy of “checks and balances.” The trouble with this theory is that government is not a machine, but a living thing. It falls not under the theory of the universe, but under the theory of organic life. It is accountable to Darwin…Government is not a body of blind forces; it is a body of men…Living political constitutions must be Darwinian in structure and in practice. Society is a living organism and must obey the laws of Life, not of mechanics, it must develop. All that progressives ask or desire is permission—in an era when “development,” “evolution,” “is the scientific word—to interpret the Constitution according to the Darwinian principle; all they ask is recognition of the fact that a nation is a living thing and not a machine.[7]

Wilson’s profoundly humanistic understanding of man jettison’s the Founders’ concern for the universal wickedness of fallen man and therefore dispenses with the need for those pesky “checks and balances” so important to the Founders. The Darwinian understanding of man is that he basically good and ever progressing. Therefore, as men and society evolve, so must their constitutions and laws.

Not content with a fluid interpretation of the Constitution to meet the needs of an evolving society, there is a new breed of activist judges that have gone beyond legal positivism to legal realism. Such realists are using the legal system to promote their own ends while using positivism as the “basis for denying divine law and/or natural law.” Judicial realism is another name for judicial usurpation of legislative power. Legal realists such as Charles Evans Hughes, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court during most of Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, believe that, “We are under a constitution, but the Constitution is what the judges say it is.”[8] Put another way, judges don’t just interpret the meaning of the Constitution; they decide what they believe the Constitution ought to say. They become social policy makers who craft decisions based on what they think as opposed the wishes of the people and their elected representatives. Prophetically, Thomas Jefferson warned of such an activist judiciary, “The Constitution… is a mere thing of wax in the hands of the judiciary which they may twist and shape into any form they please.”[9]

The basis for liberals’ plea for separation of church and state rest only on eight words taken out of context in 1947, but they are now used to blast any hint of America’s Godly heritage from every facet of American society. Theirs is not a true separation of church and state but creation of an invisible church subservient to the state. However, the history and importance of separation of church and state is far longer and greater than its misapplication to the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. The separation of the spiritual realm from the secular was instituted by Christ. The separate but complementary roles of church and state were designed and ordained by God. Therefore, the battle is not merely between church and state but just one battle on the far larger battleground of humanism versus Christianity. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, the renowned German theologian who was martyred for his stand against Nazism, called humanism “the most severe enemy” that Christianity ever had.[10]

The sad state of American jurisprudence with regard to a real separation of the dual realms of church and state occurred because of two major failures by the Christian church in America. We shall call the first failure an abandonment of the public arena which occurred in the late 1800s and early 1900s with the rise of the “social gospel.” The social gospel movement started within the church but was used by secularists for left-wing social reform. Fearing a gospel of “salvation by works,” many conservative and evangelical churches developed a “ghetto mentality,” backing away from society and burying themselves in prayer, Bible study, converting the lost, and personal morality and holiness.[11] But in doing so, they also became the silent church that also buried its responsibility to be salt and light to the government and culture at large. [See: Matthew 5:13]

The second failure of the church in maintaining the dual realms of church and state we shall label as acceptance. Contemporaneous with the abandonment of the public arena by conservative and evangelical churches in the late 1800s and early 1900s, many mainline churches felt the effects of a loss of cultural authority as secular humanism advanced on the coattails of science and rationalism. In order to retain a measure of cultural authority and acceptance in the face of humanism’s onslaught, mainline Protestant leaders began embracing secular human sciences to lend credibility and cultural relevance to the tenets of their religion.[12] But such acceptance brought compromise of its creedal doctrines which resulted in a profane and powerless church that had lost its saltiness, “…no longer good for anything except to be thrown out and trodden under foot by men.” [Matthew 5:13b. RSV] And because of the church’s abandonment of society or the compromise of its message, the humanistic worldview reigned supreme and subsequently spread into every facet of culture.

The leaders and many of their bureaucratic subordinates in the institutions of American life now present what appears to be the face of an almost invincible monolithic humanism. In the presence of such a daunting challenge, Christians and others in America may ask how society can return its laws and Constitution to reliance on the original intent of the Founders when the rules for interpreting and enforcing those laws and the Constitution are made up by judges as they see fit to protect and promote their humanistic worldview. Our first priority is to correctly identify our adversary. The Apostle Paul paints a vivid picture of the enemy and his lair. “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 heavenly places.” [Ephesians 6:12. RSV]

Even though it is a spiritual battle in this life and the heavenlies, we are not meant to be mere uninvolved spectators banished to the sidelines by a hostile society. In this earthly life, Christians are His “boots on the ground,” and our marching orders are to actively spread salt and light into all arenas habited by a lost and dying world.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] John Eidsmoe, Christianity and the Constitution-The Faith of Our Founding Fathers, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Baker Books, 1987), pp. 392-393.
[2] Ibid., p. 393.
[3] Ibid., p. 394
[4] Ibid.
[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, 2011), p. 392.
[6] William Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England, Vol. 1-Book I & II. (Philadelphia, Pennsylvania: J. B. Lippincott Company, 1910) p. 27.
[7] Eidsmoe, p. 390. Quoting: Woodrow Wilson, The New Freedom, (New York: 1914), pp. 44-48.
[8] Ibid., pp. 395-397.
[9] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 195.
[10] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 85.
[1] Eidsmoe, p. 407.
[12] Johnson, p. 252.

The REAL separation of church and state – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : February 27, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

1947 was a busy, exhilarating, and optimistic year in America. The final days of World War II ended sixteen months earlier with the defeat of the Japanese Empire. Miracle on 34th Street was playing in the movie houses across the nation, and a solid-state semi-conductor called a transistor was invented in the Bell Laboratories. An unknown object crashed in the desert near Roswell, New Mexico. Thousands of former soldiers and sailors were in their second year of a G.I. Bill-financed college education, and the first Boomer generation children were barely over a year old.

But in 1947, many Americans also sensed an increasing undercurrent of unease and foreboding. The post war euphoria was short-lived as 1947 was the beginning of the four-decade long Cold War with the Soviet Union. The two superpowers were now separated by the “Iron Curtain,” so labeled in March 1946 by Winston Churchill in his famous speech at Westminster College in Fulton, Missouri. The West was being challenged by an aggressive Soviet Union and a monolithic block of “satellite” states under soviet domination, eastern European countries formerly under the control of Nazi Germany. The House Un-American Activities Committee held nine days of hearings into alleged communist influence and propaganda within the Hollywood motion picture industry.

Amidst the tumultuous events of 1947 there was also one little-noticed occurrence—a seemingly insignificant ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court that would eventually have a monumental impact on the course of religious liberty and freedom of speech for almost seven decades lasting to the present day. Known as Everson v. Board of Education, the case revolved around the authorization by the Ewing Township School Board for reimbursement of parents for fares paid for the transportation by public carrier of children attending public and Catholic schools. The school board made the authorization pursuant to a New Jersey statute authorizing district boards of education to make rules and contracts for the transportation of children to and from schools other than private schools operated for profit. Therefore, parents of children attending not-for-profit Catholic schools qualified for reimbursement under the New Jersey statute.[1]

In a 5-4 opinion, Justice Hugo Black spoke for the majority of the Court in their finding that upheld the New Jersey Court of Errors and Appeals’ decision which struck down the New Jersey statute:

No tax in any amount, large or small, can be levied to support any religious activities or institutions, whatever they may be called, or whatever form they may adopt to teach or practice religion. Neither a state nor the Federal Government can, openly or secretly, participate in the affairs of any religious organizations or groups, and vice versa. In the words of Jefferson, the clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect “a wall of separation between church and State.” Reynolds v. United States, supra, at 98 U. S. 164.

… The First Amendment has erected a wall between church and state. That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach. New Jersey has not breached it here.[2] [emphasis added]

The particulars of the case were relatively unimportant except to Plaintiff Everson and the citizens of Ewing Township, New Jersey, but the larger ramifications of the decision would spread into almost every facet of American society by overturning one-hundred fifty years of legal precedent, legislative actions, and its citizens’ quiet enjoyment of their religious liberties. The Court’s decision was contrary to the intent of the Founders with regard to the Establishment Clause and the meaning of Jefferson’s metaphor in his January 1, 1802 letter to the Danbury Baptists.

The Establishment Clause derives its name from the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[3]

The First Amendment protections for religious liberty were extremely important to the citizens of the newly-formed nation. In England, the established state church had been an onerous foe of those whose religious beliefs differed. Facing religious oppression in Europe, the original colonies were primarily founded by those seeking religious liberty. By the 1760s, the colonists had experienced this freedom of religion for almost one-hundred fifty years, but in those final years before the Revolution, they received a rude reminder of former times of religious oppression by one denomination over another when King George III appointed an Anglican bishopric to oversee the religious affairs of Puritan New England—the very reason the Puritans had left their homeland.[4]

At the time of the writing of the Constitution in 1789, although the states encouraged Christianity, no state allowed an exclusive state-sponsored denomination. A dozen years after the drafting of the Bill of Rights which included the First Amendment, rumors still circulated that the new American government would designate a state-authorized denomination. These rumors were so prevalent that the Danbury Baptist Association wrote to President Jefferson about their concern that a particular denomination would be established as the official denomination. It was in this context that Jefferson wrote to the Baptists at Danbury, Connecticut, to assure them that the rumor had no basis in fact. In an attempt to assuage their fears, he said,

Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions—I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should “make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” thus building a wall of separation between church and State.[5] [emphasis added]

Jefferson’s belief that the First Amendment had been enacted only to prevent the federal government’s establishment of a national denomination is confirmed by his letter to Dr. Benjamin Rush, a fellow-signor of the Declaration of Independence.

[T]he clause of the Constitution which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion, had given the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States…especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes and they believe…any portion of power confided to me will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly.[6] [emphasis added]

Jefferson’s metaphor of “a wall of separation” meant only the establishment of one particular denomination as the state-authorized denomination. Also, Jefferson’s wall was intended to be a one-way wall to protect the church from the state and not the other way around. But modern court rulings have perverted the original intent of the Establishment Clause to allow, in their own words, the construction of a “high and impregnable” wall between church and state.

The Supreme Court’s Everson decision divorced the First Amendment from its original intent and “…reinterpreted it without regard to either historical context or previous judicial decisions.”[7] In effect, the Supreme Court took eight words from Jefferson’s letter to the Baptists out of context and used them without support of sound judicial precedent to dramatically diminish religious freedom in the United States. Subsequently, the ruling has been used for additional judicial chicanery by the proponents of a humanistic worldview to systematically and completely remove religion and especially Christianity from all spheres of American public life.

Jefferson would have strenuously objected to the 1947 Supreme Court’s departure from original intent with regard to the First Amendment as can be seen in his admonishment to Supreme Court Justice William Johnson.

On every question of construction, carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed.[8]

James Madison’s regard for the importance of original intent also mirrored Jefferson’s beliefs.

I entirely concur in the propriety of resorting to the sense in which the Constitution was accepted and ratified by the nation. In that sense alone it is the legitimate Constitution. And if that be not the guide in expounding it, there can be no security for a consistent and stable, more than for a faithful, exercise of its powers…What a metamorphosis would be produced in the code of law if all its ancient phraseology were to be taken in its modern sense.[9] [emphasis added]

In 1947, the Supreme Court produced Madison’s dreaded metamorphosis as original intent was dumped for modern invention. As the Establishment Clause has been reconstructed by the Court’s Constitutional revisionists, the illegitimate modern interpretation of Jefferson’s wall of separation produces the same consequences as Churchill’s infamous Iron Curtain—the suppression and ultimate destruction of religious liberty.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] The U.S. Supreme Court, Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 (1947). Everson v. Board of Education of Ewing Township, No. 52. Decided February 10, 1947.
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/330/1/case.html (accessed February 5, 2015).
[2] Ibid.
[3] The Constitution of the United States of America, (Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration).
[4] M. Stanton Evans, The Theme is Freedom, (Washington, D.C.: Regnery Publishing, Inc., 1994), p. 217.
[5] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), pp. 51-52.
[6] Ibid., p. 51.
[7] Ibid., p. 27.
[8] Ibid, p. 28.
[9] Ibid., p. 28.

The REAL separation of church and state – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : February 20, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, God's Law v. Man's Law, Government, Humanism, Progressivism

Ask the average American to define the meaning of the oft-repeated phrase of “separation of church and state” and usually you will receive a blank stare. Following a brief pause, they may start giving examples like: “It means we can’t have prayer in schools.” “The government can’t sponsor any event that is connected with a church.” or “The Founders wanted to keep church and faith out of government.” If one follows up with a question as to the origins of “separation of church,” answers will include: “It was invented by Thomas Jefferson.” “It is part of the Declaration of Independence.” “It was established by the Supreme Court.” And a few will identify its source as the U.S. Constitution.

Not only are most Americans substantially ignorant of our nation’s history, they are grossly uninformed about the form and operation of American government. What little understanding of government they have usually originates from listening to the nightly news, political pundits, Hollywood and media celebrities, Internet headlines and sound bites, and an educational system vehemently opposed to the central cultural vision of the Founders. Few concepts within American governance are so important and so misunderstood as that of separation of church and state.

The original Constitution was signed by Congress on September 17, 1787 and subsequently ratified by the states. The Bill of Rights was adopted by Congress on September 26, 1789 and became part of the Constitution when Virginia became the tenth state to ratify the Amendments on December 15, 1791.[1] The First Amendment reads as follows:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or of the right of people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.[2]

The Founders were strong proponents of separation of church and state. But the confusion as to its meaning over the last seventy years derives from the modern revisionists’ misrepresentation of the Establishment Clause as opposed to those who argue for the original intent of the Founders that had been observed by custom and the courts for over 150 years.

It is clear from the words and actions of the Founders that the intent of the Establishment Clause was to prohibit government from establishing one denomination as the official or preferred church. Modernists have reinterpreted the Establishment Clause to be a separation clause that effectively purges any hint of religious activity and influence in the public square which has come to mean any of the spheres of American life.

To understand the concept of separation of church and state and why the Founders so valued it, we must look back in history. The idea that a group of people bound by a religious allegiance with its own history, beliefs, and traditions could exist within a society but remain independent of the governing political entity was a concept unknown to the ancients. This radical concept that a distinction must be made between the roles of church and state arose from Christianity at its very birth.[3] It was evident in Christ’s challenged to the politically-connected religious leaders (Pharisees and Herodians) when they attempted to entrap Him with questions as to man’s loyalty to man or God. “Then he said unto them, ‘Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and to God the things that are God’s.’” [Matthew 22:21a. RSV]

For the next three hundred years the church fathers maintained this separation but endured severe persecution as a consequence. In 313 AD, Roman Emperor Constantine legalized Christianity, but he soon began intruding in church affairs. In 353-356, Hosius, bishop of Cordoba, Spain, reprimanded one of Constantine’s three sons (Emperor Constantius II) for intruding in church affairs by attempting to get Western bishops to oppose Athanasius of Alexandria for supporting those who rejected the Arian heresy. Hosius invoked Christ’s words in Matthew 22:21 which were preceded by a warning to the Emperor. “Intrude not yourself into ecclesiastical affairs…God has put into your hands the [secular] kingdom; to us [bishops] He has entrusted the affairs of His church.”[4]

Because of Constantine’s legalization of Christianity and in spite of the church’s early resistance to government interference, the church began a thousand year period in its history when church and state were intertwined to varying degrees. At the beginning of this period, government attempted to interfere with and bend the church to its will. However by the Middle Ages, it was the church who attempted to bend government to the will of the church. This was a corruption of God’s design for each realm.[5]

Out of the mixing of church and state came abuses such as the Crusades and the Inquisition. In spite of their motives to further His kingdom, the church had violated God’s plan because Christianity is not a religion that can coerce faith for it is a matter of the heart.[6] This intermingling of the spiritual and secular realms corrupted the roles of both church and state. A few men such as John Wycliffe and John Huss in the fourteenth and early fifteenth centuries recognized this corruption and called for changes in the church which was in dire need of fundamental reform. They also recognized that such reform would only occur with the recognition that the Bible was the final arbiter of faith and not the church.[7] These early stirrings of reformation exploded in the early sixteenth century when Martin Luther nailed his ninety five theses to the door of the Wittenberg church. The turmoil within the church produced one of the doctrinal pillars of Protestantism–the priesthood of the believer.

Alvin Schmidt presents an excellent summation of Martin Luther’s understanding of the distinct roles of the two realms in the early sixteenth century.

He [Luther] especially criticized the papacy’s role in secular government, seeing it as violating what he called the concept of the two kingdoms (realms). It was the church’s task solely to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ…the government’s task was to keep peace and order in society by restraining and punishing the unlawful. The secular government can only compel people to behave outwardly; it can never make a person’s heart spiritually righteous. Only the preaching of the Gospel (the spiritual realm) can do that. In the spiritual realm the Christian functions as a disciple of Christ; in the secular realm he functions as citizen. Although the two realms are separate, the faithful Christian is active in both because God is active in both. In the spiritual realm he is active in proclaiming the gospel, whereas in the secular kingdom he is active by means of the law and the sword, or government.[8]

The early colonists and their descendants still had fresh memories of the church-state conflagrations that swept Europe in the century prior to their first arrivals on the eastern shore of America. They well understood the need for separation of church and state, but that separation was a freedom of religion and not a freedom from religion as interpreted and imposed by modern Constitutional revisionists. For the colonists and Founders, separation of church and state was an institutional separation and not an influential separation. Institutional separation meant that government has certain roles and duties in which the church must not interfere (keeping peace and order in society by restraining and punishing the unlawful by means of the sword). Yet, the church has every right and duty to influence government. Likewise, the government does not have the right to interfere with the roles and duties of the church (teaching and preaching the gospel and influencing society).

There are numerous documents that attest to the Founders’ sentiments of the right of the church to influence society. Perhaps one of the best examples of the attitude of the Founders was expressed by Supreme Court Justice Joseph Story (appointed by James Madison, the fourth president and delegate to the Constitutional Convention which speaks volumes about Story’s understanding of the Founders’ meaning and intent with regard to the Constitution and its Amendments). Speaking specifically of the Establishment Clause, Story wrote:

…We are not to attribute this prohibition of a national religious establishment to an indifference to religion in general and especially to Christianity which none could hold in more reverence than the framers of the Constitution…Probably at the time of the adoption of the Constitution and of the Amendments to it, the general, if not universal, sentiment in America was that Christianity ought to receive encouragement from the State…An attempt to level all religions, and to make it a matter of state policy to hold all in utter indifference, would have created universal disapprobation (condemnation), if not universal indignation.[9]

To confirm the continuing existence of this strong religious sanction that still held sway over the nation forty years after the Constitutional Convention, we look to the words of Alexis De Tocqueville’s 1835 Democracy in America, one of the most influential political texts ever written about America.

Americans so completely identify the spirit of Christianity with freedom in their minds that it is almost impossible to get them to conceive the one without the other…

In France I had seen the spirit of religion moving in the opposite direction to that of the spirit of freedom. In America, I found them intimately linked together in joint reign over the same land.[10]

Tocqueville went on to say that the peaceful influence exercised by religion over the nation was due to separation of church and state.[11] Unlike the modernists’ separation of church and state, Tocqueville’s separation was a separation of the spheres of power and not a separation of government from ethics and moral guidance supplied by the moral suasion of Christianity and the church.

The Founders did not prohibit but encouraged the church’s influence upon government, and for one hundred fifty years the church played a vital role in helping the state be the state by continually asking if the state’s actions were justified as a legitimate fulfillment of its role. Since 1947, the courts have sided with the modern Constitutional revisionists who deny the church has a right to influence the state and society in the public square. This denial is the subject to be discussed in Part II.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Michael Kammen, ed., The Origins of the American Constitution – A Documentary History, (New York: Penguin Books, 1986), p. xxix.
[2] The Constitution of the United States of America, (Washington, D. C.: National Archives and Records Administration).
[3] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), pp. 265-266.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid., p. 266.
[6] David Barton, Original Intent – The Courts, the Constitution, & Religion, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 2008), p. 86.
[7] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Wm. B. Eerdmans Publishing Co., 1964), pp. 143-145.
[8] Schmidt, p. 266.
[9] David Barton, The Myth of Separation, (Aledo, Texas: Wallbuilder Press, 1989), p. 32.
[10] Alexis De Tocqueville, Democracy in America, Gerald E. Bevan, Trans., (London, England: Penguin Books, 2003), pp. 343, 345.
[11] Ibid, p. 345.

Liberal defense of Islam

Posted by :webmaster On : January 30, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Worldview

[An abbreviated version of this article[1] appeared in the Tulsa World on January 22, 2015.]

Liberals and the governments and institutions they represent are having ever increasing difficulty in convincing their constituents that the atrocities of Islamic terrorists do not represent the supposedly peace-loving Islamic religion followed by moderate Muslims. The frequency, shrillness, and fervor with which liberals defend Islam grow proportionally with each announcement of a new Muslim terrorist attack regardless of its magnitude and vicious brutality.

Howard Dean is the former head of the Democratic National Committee and one-time candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. Following the murder of two policemen and ten employees of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that routinely criticized Islam’s Muhammad as well as many other non-Muslim religious and political leaders, Mr. Dean refused to label the perpetrators as Muslim terrorists in spite of the three gunmen shouting “Allahu Akbar” during the killing spree. Allahu Akbar translates as “Allah is the Greatest” and is the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer as prescribed by the Prophet Muhammad.

I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They’re about as Muslim as I am. I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says. Europe has an enormous radical problem. I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.[2]

The Paris murderers shouted the same exaltations of Allah as Army Major and fellow Muslim Nadal Hasan did when he shot and killed fourteen and wounded thirty-two at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009. The American government conveniently ignored Hasan’s motives and obvious connections with Islamic jihad while euphemistically mislabeling the murders as workplace violence.

Following an attack on the Canadian Parliament by a thirty-two year old Muslim convert who shot and killed a guard during the attack, liberal leader Justin Trudeau quickly reassured his friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community that, “…Canadians know acts such as these committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of your faith. Continued mutual cooperation and respect will help prevent the influence of distorted ideological propaganda posing as religion. We will walk forward together, not apart.[3] [emphasis added]

In response to the Paris attack political columnist Michael Gerson wrote that the murders in Paris were, “…the exploitation of religious passions for political ends…It is important to separate this violent political ideology from the faith of Islam.”[4] Although many Muslims do not agree with and reject the violence occurring in the name of Islam, the separation of Islam from the violence prescribed by the Koran is impossible. These so-called moderate Muslims are Muslim in name only and have no standing in defense of the Muslim faith. They may be Muslims by birth, conversion, products of a predominately Muslim culture, and give lip-service to the Koran, but they are not representative of Muslims faithful to the teachings of the Koran. In fact, the Koran labels them infidels for not fully embracing the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. [Surah 4:89. Quran][5]

The same analogy applies to Christians. True Christians accept Christ as their Savior and follow His teachings. Those that claim to be Christian by birth, upbringing, or culture or do not follow Christ’s teachings are Christian in name only and live without the Christian creed. But unlike the followers of Islam, Christians cannot compel conversion nor punish those who do not convert.

With the explosion of Muslim-inspired violence in the West as well as in Muslim-dominated countries, liberals refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room—the obvious truth as to the nature of Islam. That truth which is being ignored and not addressed is that violent proponents of the Islamic religion are acting in accordance with the words and directives of the Koran to spread Islam through aggressive individual, military, and political threats, intimidation, and actions in order to achieve world domination.

One wonders why the humanists and their political operatives are so adamant in the defense of Islam, a most authoritarian religion, given the fact that humanism denies the existence of a supreme being and denigrates “…traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience…”[6] Two reasons are apparent for humanists’ defense of Islam. The first is that Christianity has so dominated the history and worldview of Western civilization that Western liberals demand not only equal time for opposing views but give preference to various anti-Christian religions and none more so than Islam. The second reason for humanism’s defense of Islam is adherence to two of its core beliefs—humanistically defined multiculturalism and tolerance.

Multiculturalism is one of the cardinal doctrines of humanism and has its roots in the denial of absolutes which translates into moral relativism. According to humanist dogma, such a values-free approach makes it impossible to judge one period or era in relation to another or to say that one culture’s ethic is superior to another. The end result of this philosophy is that all belief systems are equally valid. But if all belief systems are not equally valid (as demonstrated by the followers of Islam and the Qur’an), then the tenets of humanism including its humanistically defined concepts of equality, diversity, and multiculturalism are false and unsustainable. The liberal defense of Islam occurs not because they care for and respect the tenets of Islam. Rather, to reject Islam based on its history as a scourge to mankind is to admit that their humanistic conceptions of multiculturalism and tolerance are fundamentally flawed with regard to a mankind’s understanding of his nature and transcendent values.

There is a third reason for humanists’ defense of Islam. The words of the Apostle Paul give insight into the mindset of seemingly intelligent people who are so obviously in denial of the Islamic threat to Western civilization.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. [Romans 1:28. KJV] [emphasis added]

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. [2 Timothy 3:8. KJV] [emphasis added]

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. [Titus 1:16. KJV] [emphasis added]

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. [2 Corinthians 4:4. KJV]

Reprobate is a very old-fashioned, King-James-style word little understood by moderns but well describes the humanist abandonment of rational thought regarding Islam. Although Christ loves the sinner, the Apostle Paul does not mince words as to the spiritual condition of a reprobate by which he means unworthy, corrupt, rejected, and condemned.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry G. Johnson, “Liberals won’t acknowledge nature of Islam,” Tulsa World, January 22, 2015, A-13.
[2] Daniel Greenfield, “Howard Dean: Muslim Terrorists are as Muslim as Me,” Frontpage Mag, January 7, 2015. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/howard-dean-muslim- terrorists-are-as-muslim-as-me/ (accessed January 13, 2015).
[3] Erika Tucker, “Soldier killed in what Harper calls ‘terrorist attack’ in Ottawa,” Global News, October 22, 2014. http://globalnews.ca/news/1628313/shots-fired-at-war-memorial-in-ottawa-says-witness/ (accessed January 13, 2015).
[4] Michael Gerson, “The politics of homicide in France,” Tulsa World, January 10, 2015, A-16.
[5] The Meaning of The Illustrious Qur-an, (Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah), p. 49.
[6] Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp.15-16.

Creative Evolution – Screwtape’s science for Christians – Part II

Posted by :webmaster On : January 23, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Truth

C. S. Lewis’s World War II radio broadcasts came almost immediately on the heels of the publication of The Screwtape Letters. When Lewis’s broadcasts were published as Mere Christianity, he added a footnote on creative evolution which he labeled the “In-between” view that attempts to navigate a path between the religious and the materialist views of creation.

But to be complete, I ought to mention the In-between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution…People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet “evolved” from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the “striving” or “purposiveness” of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then “a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection” is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind “strives” or has “purpose”? This seems to me to be fatal to their view.[1]

In spite of Lewis’s assertions, BioLogos Foundation still attempts to plant one foot in each worldview—the religious and the materialist. BioLogos Foundation did not invent creative evolution as it has been around for over one hundred years. The Foundation merely took it off the shelf, dusted it, adjusted its mechanisms, painted a new face on it, and presented it as a culture-friendly version of creation to a wavering, powerless church struggling for survival in a post-Christian and post-modern world.

Origin of man according to the gospel of BioLogos

In an attempt to weave a path between Lewis’s stark take-it-or-leave-it choice between godless materialism and the young-earth implications of Genesis, the modern proponents of creative evolution introduced a series of options as to how God might have used evolution to create man.

The first option offered by creative evolutionists is to view the biblical Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity, that is, historical figures chosen to represent mankind living about 10,000 years ago. A second option presents an allegorical Adam and Eve that merely symbolize a large group of man’s ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago. The third option is to treat Adam and Eve’s story as a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God. BioLogos does not bet the farm on any one view as being the correct model for man’s origin but simply “…encourages scholarly work on these questions.”[2] Irrespective of how God may have accomplished the creation of man, BioLogos firmly rejects Adam and Eve as the first man and woman created by God by reducing them to a mere symbol for a larger existing population of humans.

BioLogos staffers such as program director Kathryn Applegate believe that miracles did not play a role in the earth’s natural history but that the evolution process worked on its own without special intervention from God. “I don’t think there’s evidence from the science that He supernaturally zapped something into existence.”[3] But, in its statement of fundamental beliefs, evolution is “…a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes.”[4] Other words for providential are pre-ordained, God-given, and heaven-sent. On the one hand, BioLogosians deny God’s interference in the process of evolution. On the other hand, BioLogosians believe the evolution process was pre-ordained to produce a specific outcome. These assumptions raise additional questions for creative evolutionists. Did God just assemble the parts needed, give the universe a spin to jumpstart the process, and then leave it for evolution to work its magic? More specifically, was man created by chance through the highly improbable evolution process or did God somehow rig the system so that man as we know him had to be created in His image through evolution? BioLogosians appear to answer yes to both questions.

In the center of all the speculations of BioLogos, questions remain as to the appearance of three essential ingredients necessary to explain mankind: the divine imprint, freewill, and original sin. Were these ingredients implanted before, during, or after this multi-billion year evolution process? Whenever these essentials were imparted to man, seemingly insurmountable conflicts and problems arise for the purveyors of creative evolution as an explanation for the creation of mankind.

Origin of sin

When, why, and how did sin enter the supposed evolutionary chain of events in mankind’s development? Sinful man is a fact. The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans states that, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” [Romans 3:23. KJV] For creative evolutionists, original sin refers to the current state of humanity. They agree that all men have sinned, but they cannot answer the question as to when the first sin occurred and permanently infected mankind’s gene pool. Although creative evolutionists claim the sciences of evolution and archeology can provide some insight, they conveniently punt the question of original sin into the theological arena which has many possible answers, some of which they claim correspond to scientific evidence currently available.[5]

Both creative evolutionists and their opponents must agree that man cannot have evolved as inherently sinful. Otherwise, we negate the fundamental belief that there was a point when man was sinless and then became sinful. The Apostle Paul agrees. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” [Romans 5:12. KJV] [emphasis added] If Paul is correct, then BioLogosians must agree that man (and not pre-man) was fully evolved before he sinned. Otherwise, we must assume Paul meant well but got it wrong because he didn’t have benefit of the modern creative evolutionists’ correct understanding that Adam and Eve were only historical or allegorical placeholders to mark the group appearance of our first ancestors. But, if there was not an historical first couple through whom sin entered the world, what then?

Freewill

And what of the appearance of freewill in man, that sure-fire sin generator? Was man given freewill before, during, or after the evolution of man? Freewill can’t have arrived by chance for it is an essential ingredient in the grand meta-story of the creation, the fall, and redemption. Therefore, we must believe that freewill entered man after he was fully formed. If freewill entered mankind long before man was fully man, then so too would original sin have entered. As we have previously determined, that cannot be.

Whether by miracle or through the unaided evolution process, BioLogosians can do little more than say that, “God gave us our spiritual capacities and calls us to bear his image.”[6] It also appears that original sin and freewill must have entered mankind through God’s miraculous magic—or not.

It’s time we push speculation aside and read the words of Jack Collins who leads us back to sanity with regard to man’s origins.

The actual historicity of Adam and Eve is extremely important as a fundamental Christian doctrine…Christian doctrine is best understood as the true story of who we are and how we got to be where we are…It will come apart if we don’t tell the story with the proper beginning…The Bible leads us to expect a special creation of humankind…If we take the idea of a purely natural process from molecules to mankind, then I think that is very difficult to square with the Bible…It might even be impossible.[7]

Creative evolutionists offer only flawed science and no biblical validation for their theories. They must rely on man’s puny reason, speculations as to what the Genesis story really means, and their faith in the accepted fact of evolution. This is hardly the stuff to win over skeptical anti-God evolutionists let alone Christians.

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans of the deplorable condition of the Gentiles. Paul stated that even though the Gentiles did not have the revelation of the Hebrews, they were guilty of violation of God’s laws evident in His eternal power and deity as revealed in nature.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals, or reptiles. [Romans 1:19-23 RSV.]

Prior to the rise of humanism (aka naturalism or materialism), nature was viewed as an imperfect imitation of divine reality. However, modern man has been taught that he need only “…to reason correctly upon evidence from nature.”[8] But man’s effort to explain the nature of God through creative evolution is both unnecessary and impossible. It is unnecessary because God’s invisible nature is already plainly understood by man’s perception of the things He created. It is impossible because imperfect nature cannot add clarity to the picture of divine reality as revealed by the Bible. The biblical record brought clarity to nature, not the other way around. This is the fundamental error of BioLogos when it attempts to humanize religion by embracing creative evolution to give a better understanding of divine reality through the workings of imperfect nature.

As was the case in the early days of World War II, the fate of Western civilization in the twenty-first century hangs in the balance. And once again the outcome may be determined by how well we get it right with regard to what Christians believe.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 2007), p. 31.
[2] “Questions Categorized As “The First Humans,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/questions/category/the-first-humans (accessed December 17, 2014).
[3] Daniel James Devine, “Interpretive dance,” World, November 29, 2014, 38.
[4] “About the BioLogos Foundation,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/about (accessed December 16, 2014).
[5] “How does original sin fit with evolutionary history?” BioLogos. http://biologos.org/questions/original-sin (accessed December 17, 2014).
[6] “Questions Categorized As “The First Humans,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/questions/category/the-first-humans (accessed December 17, 2014).
[7] Devine, World, 39.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 5-6.

Creative Evolution – Screwtape’s science for Christians – Part I

Posted by :webmaster On : January 16, 2015
2

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Truth

In the early days of World War II the survival of Western civilization hung in the balance. With memories still fresh in their minds of the horrific carnage and sacrifice caused by the Great War that ended a mere twenty years earlier, the British people were in danger of being overwhelmed by a sense of foreboding and self-doubt as to the defense of their civilization and its values. James Welch, Director of Religious Broadcasting at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), described the religious climate of Britain at the time. “Two-thirds of BBC listeners…were living without any reference to God. God was simply not a factor.” They were either unresponsive or openly hostile to Christianity.[1]

The British government saw the necessity of keeping their people from becoming demoralized amid the destruction of English cities by German bombs, massive loss of life, and threatened invasion by the German army. Welch believed the church acting through BBC broadcasts could be a major factor in giving the British people a reason for hope and answers to their questions of why this was happening and what they were fighting for.

In a time of uncertainty and questioning it is the responsibility of the Church – and of religious broadcasting as one of its most powerful voices – to declare the truth about God and His relation to men. It has to expound the Christian faith in terms that can be easily understood by ordinary men and women, and to examine the ways in which that faith can be applied to present-day society during these difficult times.[2] [emphasis added]

To accomplish this task, Welch called upon an Oxford don who was not only an academician and superb writer but also a Christian apologist who had the essential quality that Welch sought: a remarkable ability to explain profound truths of God and the universe to ordinary men and women seeking answers to the basic questions of life. C. S. Lewis’s series of war-time talks from 1941 through 1944 were eventually published as Mere Christianity. The major themes of Lewis’s talks were “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe,” “What Christians believe,” “Christian behavior,” and “Beyond personality – The first steps in the doctrine of the Trinity.” In his talks on the BBC (and later in Mere Christianity), Lewis’s goal was to defend the beliefs that had been common to nearly all Christians for almost two thousand years.[3]

The reason for this rather lengthy back story to the subject of this article is to demonstrate the utmost importance of getting it right with regard to what Christians believe. Christians dare not experiment with new theories of divine truth, the biblical understanding of creation, and the origin of man by introducing extra-biblical philosophies that fuel speculations and suppositions which undermine faith in the commonly held beliefs of Christians since the time of Christ. More specifically, the church must not undermine and weaken an understanding of the truthfulness of the Christian message by incorporating into Christian theology the tenets of the false and anti-God philosophies of materialism (humanism) in hopes of opening the doors for dialogue and witness to non-Christians.

One of the most alarming examples of this mixing of Christian and anti-Christian beliefs is the re-emergence of creative evolution which has spread rapidly since 2007 and which is being given a measure of legitimacy and respect by the leadership of many Christian colleges, organizations, and churches. The driving force behind creative evolution is the nonprofit BioLogos Foundation which is promoting a significant and well-funded effort to “…change the way Christians understand Genesis and the origin of man.”[4] [emphasis added] Dr. Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos in 2007, was the former director of the Human Genome Project. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as director of the National Institutes of Health.[5]

When one begins to read the listing of beliefs of BioLogos, one may think he is reading the tenets of faith of the most conservative churches in America. Its beliefs are sprinkled with many phrases familiar to conservative Christians: “We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God…We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation…We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ…” So far, so good. But as the reader continues he arrives at the essence of BioLogos beliefs that create spiritual heartburn for most Christians.

We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. There, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.

We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.[6]

Three of the core commitments of BioLogos reveal its purposes which are to “…affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years…seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible…strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.”[7]

From the language of these core commitments we see that BioLogos views creative evolution as an established or accepted fact (as we are frequently reminded by evolutionists of all stripes). For BioLogosians, all other truths and interpretations must bow to the absolute truth of creative evolution when studying the natural world and the Bible. In other words, if creative evolutionists deem truth to be one thing but the biblical beliefs that have been common to nearly all Christians for two thousand years deem truth to be something else (or the Bible is silent on the subject), then BioLogosians must choose the truth as dictated by creative evolution.

Proponents of creative evolution are devoted evangelists for their cause, and their technique for evangelism is dialogue as described on the BioLogos website. “Evolution and Christian Faith supports projects and network building among scholars, church leaders, and parachurch organizations to address theological and philosophical concerns commonly voiced by Christians about evolutionary creation.”[8] [emphasis added]

The bait of dialogue is particularly appealing to the academically inclined, seminarians, and many in church leadership. Following the obligatory disclaimers that the views of BioLogos do not necessarily represent the views of the participants (and likewise, the views of participants do not necessarily represent the views of the BioLogos), the BioLogos website lists a surprising array of respected and influential participants which include: Fuller Theological Seminary, Calvin College, Bethel University, Westmont College, Oxford University, Trinity Western University, Wheaton College, Northwest Nazarene University, Gordon College, and Oral Roberts University. The stated purpose of some of the BioLogos projects is “to engage in meaningful and productive dialogue to reduce tensions between mainstream science and the Christian faith.”[9] The John Templeton Foundation is the funding source for the missionaries of creative evolution and their willing participants. Dialogue takes the form of projects funded by Templeton grants ranging from $23,000 to $300,000. Thirty-seven projects have been funded to date.[10]

As the bait is consumed, many of the academicians, seminarians, and pastors carry the heresies back to their unsuspecting students and congregations. Even if the participants don’t buy into creative evolution, their joint-participation with BioLogos lends an air of creditability and respectability to creative evolution and its emissaries.

Written by Lewis in 1941, The Screwtape Letters brilliantly satirize the tactics of Satan used to undermine faith and biblical truth. In this fictional but all too true account, Screwtape is a senior demon that is mentoring his nephew Wormwood, a Junior Tempter. Screwtape offers detailed advice to his nephew with regard to various methods of undermining faith and promoting sin in a British man known as Patient. Let’s peek over the shoulder of Wormwood as he reads portions of the first of his uncle’s letters.

I note what you say about guiding your patient’s reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not be a trifle naïve?…Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false”, but as “academic” or “practical”, “outworn” or “contemporary”, “conventional” or “ruthless”. Jargon, not argument, is our best ally in keeping him from the church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about…[11]

Through the enticement of dialogue creative evolutionists implant doubt about the common beliefs of Christians which have been sustained by the biblical narrative for almost two thousand years. When doubt has taken root in the heart of Christians, they are prepared to accept the lie. Heresies clothed in the soothing words of “meaningful and productive dialogue” and reduction of “tensions between mainstream science and the Christian faith” are still heresies.

Evolution may be considered by many as accepted fact and presented as the face of mainstream science, but it is still the creation story of the false philosophy of humanism (aka materialism or naturalism). Creative evolution stands firmly in the camp of this false philosophy and no amount of “meaningful and productive dialogue” can bridge the abyss that lies between Christianity and evolution.

In Part II we shall briefly examine the mechanics of creative evolution and how BioLogosians and many other Christians have succumbed to Satan’s tactics as they attempt to paint a Christian face on mainstream evolution.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Justin Phillips, C. S. Lewis in a Time of War, (New York: Harper San Francisco, 2002), pp. 38, 78.
[2] Ibid., p. 78.
[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 2007), pp. 3-4, 6.
[4] Daniel James Devine, “Interpretive dance,” World, November 29, 2014, 35.
[5] “Our History: 2006 to Today,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/about/history (accessed December 16, 2014).
[6] “About the BioLogos Foundation,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/about (accessed December 16, 2014).
[7] Ibid.
[8] “Evolution & Christian Faith,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/ecf/overview (accessed December 17, 2014).
[9] “Meet the Grantees,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/ecf/grantees (accessed December 17, 2014).
[10] “Evolution & Christian Faith,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/ecf/overview (accessed December 17, 2014).
[11] C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 2007), pp. 185-187.

Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV

Posted by :webmaster On : January 9, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

The theme of this series has been that the modern American church has mistakenly sought to accomplish its mission through the attainment of cultural relevance by introduction of man’s ideas and methods and abandonment of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen. This abandonment is expressed in three forms within the modern church. The first expression of the quest for cultural relevance was discussed in Part II – Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word. The second method used to achieve cultural relevance was discussed in Part III – Mixing of the light with darkness. In Part IV we shall discuss the third and final method used by many in the modern church to achieve cultural relevance.

Nonjudgmental Love as a substitute for repentance and turning from sin

What is the nature of God’s love? We find the answer in the verse that is usually taught first to children in Sunday school. “For God so loved the world that he gave is only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16. RSV] The “whoever” includes all men, women, boys, and girls. Belief in Christ means to accept Him as one’s Lord and Savior, that is, one returns that love by being a follower of Christ, and to follow Christ is to follow his commandments. However, if one expresses love for Christ in words only and does not follow his commandments, they are not followers of Christ and have no part of His kingdom.

Many churches are compromising the gospel message through incorporation of the world’s definitions of love and tolerance. The message of many churches is that God’s love is nonjudgmental and so vast that he will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. In other words, love is all that matters. If this message is true, then sin is of no consequence in determining our eternal destination. And if sin is of no consequence to God, then He does not care about how we live our lives. Without sin, Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin becomes irrelevant. The new concepts of love and tolerance are expressed as unconditional acceptance which is presumed superior to the old-fashioned approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.

To become culturally accepted, the church has resorted to feel-good messages focused on fixing the self in the here-and-now as opposed to salvation and eternity. Bad Religion, a book by Ross Douthat (a Catholic writer), is about how America became a nation of heretics. Douthat made a stark and revealing comparison of the past ministry of Billy Graham and the vacuous sermons of non-judgmental love preached by Joel Osteen.

Like Graham, Osteen courts a worldwide audience: More than 200 million people around the globe…But there the similarities end. Graham’s persona was warm and inclusive, but theologically he preached a stark, stripped-down gospel—a series of altar calls, with eternity hanging in the balance and Christianity distilled to a yes or no for Christ. Osteen’s message is considerably more upbeat. His God gives without demanding, forgives without threatening to judge, and hands out His rewards in this life rather than in the next. (emphasis added) Where Graham was inclined to comments like “we’re all on death row…the only way out of death row is Jesus,” Osteen prefers cheerier formulations. “Too many times we get stuck in a rut, thinking we’ve reached our limits,” he writes in Your Best Life Now. “But God wants us to constantly be increasing, to be rising to new heights. He wants to increase you in his wisdom and help you make better decisions. God wants to increase you financially, by giving you promotions, fresh ideas, and creativity.”[1] [emphasis added]

There are many other religious leaders who are house-hold names in America that, like Joel Osteen, are popularizing the false and hollow gospel of the nonjudgmental love with little if any mention of sin or its eternal consequences (hell).

But the modern gospel of nonjudgmental love is not new. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a brilliant German theologian who stood against the Nazi regime during the 1930s and 1940s until his death on a cold February day in 1945 when he was hanged on a Nazi gallows. His warnings with regards to nonjudgmental love have been quoted in a previous article but bear repeating.

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…For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.[2]

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[3]

______

The reason for the decline of many churches in America is not that the rising tide of secularism and humanism are stronger than the transformational power of the gospel. Rather, in an attempt to continue as a moral force within the culture by becoming culturally relevant, many churches gradually, and for some almost unknowingly, have compromised the biblical message, mixed the light with darkness, and preached nonjudgmental love without the necessity of repentance and turning from sin. However, these compromises and non-biblical activities translate into spiritual weakness and generally start with the “what we do” (methods) part of the equation but soon extends to the “what we believe.” In nations with a strong Christian influence, Satan must resort to guerilla tactics against the church by chipping away at the edges of the gospel message through compromise as opposed to a classical frontal attack. But as many American churches embraced an anemic and powerless message in the post-Christian and post-modern era, the church has steadily grown weaker and has begun to experience a greater number frontal attacks by Satan’s guerillas (e.g., challenges to the legitimacy and influence of the church in the public square and all spheres of American life).

The Romans at the time of the early church saw value in all religions. Modern multiculturalists would call them “inclusive.” The Pantheon in Rome was built to honor all gods, and the Christian God was welcomed if only the Christians would make themselves culturally relevant by giving some tribute and deference to the Roman gods.[4] But those early Christians refused to compromise their beliefs and unequivocally held to God’s commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” [Exodus 20:3. RSV]

The American church must also reject the lure of cultural relevance in its efforts to make the church acceptable to a lost and dying world. The transformational power of the unadulterated Gospel is enough. So what if the church’s non-compromising message and methods are rejected by the culture? The great poet T. S. Eliot answers well. “For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”[5]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion, (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 183.
[2] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[3] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117-118.
[4] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), p. 25.
[5] T. S. Elliot quote, Wisdom Quotes. http://www.wisdomquotes.com/quote/t-s-eliot-6.html (accessed December 26, 2014).

Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part III

Posted by :webmaster On : January 2, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

The theme of this series has been that the modern American church has mistakenly sought to accomplish its mission through the attainment of cultural relevance by introduction of man’s ideas and methods and abandonment of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen. This abandonment of biblical truth and authority takes three forms within the modern church. The first expression of the quest for cultural relevance was discussed in Part II – Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word. In Part III, we shall discuss the second method used by many in the church to achieve cultural relevance.

Mixing light with darkness

Do not be mismatched with unbelievers. For what partnership have righteousness and iniquity? Or what fellowship has light with darkness? What accord has Christ with Belial? Or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? What agreement has the temple of God with idols? For we are the temple of the living God… [2 Corinthians 6:14-16a. RSV]

Matthew Henry’s 300 year old commentary gives additional insight into the Apostle Paul’s words of cautioned to the Corinthians.

It is wrong for good people to join in affinity [kinship or relationship] with the wicked and profane. There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad. We should not yoke ourselves in friendship with wicked men and unbelievers. We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them. It is a very great absurdity. Believers are made light in the Lord, but unbelievers are in darkness; and what comfortable communion cans these have together?[1]

There are numerous examples of churches that attempt to find common ground with anti-Christian secular organizations and false religions which contradict biblical commandments. When ministers, ministries, and churches mix the light with darkness, they effectively have disobeyed God’s word and bring reproach on their ministry and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Three examples are discussed below.

The Episcopal Church hosted a Muslim prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D. C on November 14, 2014. The Muslim’s Friday call to prayer (a “Jummah”) was hosted by the Rev. Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the cathedral, and Ebrahim Rasool, a Muslim and the South African ambassador to the U.S., , in cooperation with various Muslim societies and organizations and The Nation’s Mosque. In response to widespread criticism of the event by many Christian leaders including Dr. Franklin Graham, Reverend Campbell stated the National Cathedral was a

…place of prayer for all people. Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God…We here at the cathedral have embraced a steep challenge to grow in our identity as a house for people. This prayer marks a historic moment. This prayer symbolizes a grand hope for our community. As we get to know each other, more bridges are built and there is less room for hate and prejudice to come between us.[2]

Campbell is profoundly wrong in three ways. First, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus, but “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.’” [John 14:6. RSV] Second, the National Cathedral is not a house of prayer for all people but a building to house His people “…who are called by my name…” [2 Chronicles 7:14. RSV] Third, as Matthew Henry wrote, religious communion between the light and darkness is a great absurdity, not bridge building as Reverend Campbell would have us believe.

World Vision is one of America’s largest Christian charities. The organization’s president, Richard Stearns, said that change is a symbol of Christian ‘unity’ not ‘compromise.’ He was referring to the decision of World Vision’s American board that the organization would no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman. Stearns said that abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule, but a policy change announced March 24, 2014 permitted gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America’s largest Christian charities.[3] One wonders how Stearns’ erroneous assumption that practicing homosexuals can be Christian as long as the couple entered into a same-sex marriage can be made compatible with the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans in which he addressed the sin of homosexuality. [See: Romans 1:18, 24-27] The decision disturbed Christians everywhere, and such was the backlash that World Vision’s board reversed their decision two days later. But the damage was done. For many people it forever gave cultural legitimacy to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. The gospel message was compromised by linking darkness with the light.

Rick Warren is considered one of America’s leading pastors. His and his church’s outreach to the Islamic religion is another example of mixing light with darkness. On July 4, 2009, he spoke to a crowd of 8000 Muslims at the nation’s capitol during the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America. His message was that Muslims and Christians can work together for the common good without compromising their respective convictions. He defended himself by saying, “I am not interested in interfaith dialogue but interfaith projects.”[4] In 2011 Warren invited Muslims to share Christmas dinner with the members of his church. At the dinner Warren and the leader of a Los Angeles mosque introduced King’s Way as “a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians.” The document outlined points of agreement between Christianity and Islam and was to be centered on friendship, peace, and shared social projects. The mosque’s leader of religious affairs stated that, “We agreed we wouldn’t try to evangelize each other. We’d witness to each other but it would be out of ‘Love Thy Neighbor,’ not focused on conversion.”[5]

But in light of the Apostle Paul’s words to the Corinthians with which we began this article, how can Christians find common ground with false religions and join in interfaith projects (especially with Islam in whose name hundreds of thousands of Christians have been and are being killed)? For those who would make a distinction between the so-called radical Muslims and moderate Muslims (as our government has repeatedly done), the differences at the most fundamental level are meaningless for they all read the same Quran and worship the same Allah.

In spite of his other worthy activities, Warren’s ministry has sent mixed signals as to its total fidelity to the biblical standard. He has mixed the light with darkness and brought great harm and disunity to the Christian church, weakened the authority of the Bible, and gave legitimacy to a false religion.

Here we must clarify the difference between being mismatched with unbelievers and Christ’s command to make disciples. Where possible, Christians and the church should reach out to individual non-believers with love and kindness in hopes of a sharing the truth of the message of Jesus Christ. Further, the Christian church is not prohibited from working with government and private non-Christian organizations in worthy causes, activities, and programs (e.g., foster care, disaster relief, adoption, provision for the poor). However, the church cannot join with other organizations and those parts of our government that actively promote goals, programs, and activities that stand in opposition to God’s word (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage).

In Part IV, we shall examine a third expression of the American church’s quest for cultural relevance – nonjudgmental love as a substitute for repentance and tuning from sin.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[2] John Blosser, “Franklin Graham slams Muslim service at National Cathedral,” Newsmax, November 17, 2014.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Franklin-Graham-Billy-Graham-Muslims-Washington-National-Cathedral/2014/11/17/id/607906/ (accessed December 25, 2014).
[3] Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber, “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages,” Christianity Today, March 24, 2014. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html?start=1(accessed December 5, 2014).
[4] Michelle A. Vu, “Rick Warren to Muslims: Talk is Cheap, Let’s Work Together,” The Christian Post, July 5, 2009. http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-to-muslims-talk-is-cheap-let-s-work-together-39543/ (accessed December 5, 2014).
[5] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register, August 21, 2013. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/muslims-341669-warren-saddleback.html (accessed December 5, 2014).