Rss

  • youtube

The quest for equality and the loss of respect – Part I

Posted by :admin On : September 26, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Equality

Loss of respect for authority and time-honored institutions, customs, and traditions is one of the major casualties in the quest for equality in all facets of American life. Here we do not mean the equality spoken of by John Adams who defined equality as—a moral and political equality only—by which is meant equality before God and before the law. The humanist understanding of equality is synonymous with egalitarianism: a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic rights and privileges. Basically, it is a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among men.[1] When we speak of equality in this article and the one to follow, it is meant to describe the humanists’ definition of equality. To properly understand the corrosive nature of the quest for equality on human beings and culture in general, one must understand humanism.

Humanism is focused on the individual and self as opposed to relationships. The humanistic philosophy proposes that nature is all there is and exists independently of any outside consciousness (God). Man is an evolutionary product of nature and his values and morals arise from his experiences and relationships on this earth alone. Truth is relative and discovered through advances in science and reason through which man will achieve his purpose—happiness, freedom, and unending progress—on this earth for there is no life after death.[2] Equality as a tool to level society is a product of humanism, and the tenets of humanism and its consequences to society must be understood before we can understand the role of equality in loss of respect. The antithesis of humanism is the biblical Christianity, and the two are the principle combatants in the raging culture wars.

It is from these two worldviews that we examine respect for people and their institutions, customs, and traditions. One sees loss of respect in every facet of society: personal conduct, marriage, family, the workplace, dress, law, government, education, and manners to name just a few. Before we examine the link between society’s quest for quality and loss of respect, we must first examine and understand the consequences of a loss of respect. In other words, the symptoms that lead to diagnosis of the disorder and its prescriptive remedy.

Examples of loss of respect abound in most Western cultures, and they are rooted in rebellion and disrespect for authority. One British study by Dr. Aric Sigman, psychologist and fellow of the Royal Society of Medicine, reports that “…nursery-age children are becoming increasingly violent and disrespectful towards their teachers, ‘parent battering’ is on the rise, and the number of policemen attacked by children is soaring.” Dr. Sigman stated that the parents of these children have raised a “spoilt generation” with an inflated view of their own self-importance, and these “little emperors” are used to having their demands met by their parents. Such a combination hardly prepares the child for adult life. The consequences of this widespread lack of discipline among children have led to Britain having “…the highest rates of child depression, child-on-child murder, underage pregnancy, obesity, violent and antisocial behavior, and pre-teen alcoholism since records began.” The authority of teachers and parents has been enormously weakened legally, professionally, and culturally which has led to a rise in violence in the home, at school, and society in general. Dr. Sigman believes that respect for authority is a basic health requirement for children.[3]

The two people with the greatest impact on shaping the behaviors of American children in the twentieth century were John Dewey, architect of the American educational system, and Benjamin Spock, child psychologist and author of the most influential book on child-rearing in the twentieth century. Their humanistic child development and education theories, centered on the empowerment of children and coupled with a lack of discipline in the home and classroom, are primarily responsible for a loss of respect for authority throughout the Western world.

The premier generation birthed and baptized in the humanistic worldview was the Boomers born immediately after World War II to the end of 1964. J. Walker Smith and Ann Clurman wrote Generation Ageless, a book describing the general mindset of Boomers.

The economy, not protests, is the central dynamic shaping the shared generational character of Baby Boomers…Boomers didn’t have to aspire to the American Dream; they felt they were born into it…they championed a new notion: that of an unfettered, indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self.[4] [emphasis added]

It is the Boomers’ indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self that is the defining characteristic of humanistic worldview. In conjunction with focus on self, the Boomers embraced humanism’s “unending questioning of basic assumptions and convictions.”[5] This caustic combination of self and a relentless questioning attitude is the vaccine with which many Boomers were inoculated against respect for authority, tradition, custom, and heritage.

If self is the defining characteristic of humanism, its polar opposite is the overarching importance of relationships (man to God and man to man) that is the keystone of the Christian worldview. The central theme of the Bible is found in the crucifixion of Jesus Christ on the cross and whose story speaks overwhelmingly of the inestimable value that God placed on His relationship with man. The necessity of the cross was not an unforeseen accident, Plan B, or a last minute making the best of a bad situation because God foreknew the cost of His creation. The knowledge of that cost was over-ridden by God’s will to love, an expression of His very character, to share the inner life of the Trinity with His special creation. Being created in the image of God, man’s nature was also transfused with the importance of relationship with God and earthly relationships with man.

A picture of the importance of relationships as opposed to self is expressed throughout the Bible. It is interesting to note that nine of the Ten Commandments speak directly or indirectly with regard to relationships. Three speak directly of relationships. “I am the Lord your God…” is a direct ordering of the relationship between God and man, and “You shall have no other God before me…” gives clarity to that relationship. The third speaks directly to the relationship between child and parent: “Honor your father and your mother…” Six others prohibit actions which would be injurious to relationships: misuse of the name of the Lord, worship of false gods, murder, adultery, theft, and coveting a neighbor’s possessions, wife, or servants. Only the prohibition of labor on the Sabbath may be considered as dealing most closely with man’s self.[6]

Additionally, the biblical view of self is far different view from the unfettered, indulgent, absorbed, celebratory self of humanism.

As to the unfettered freedom of self promised by humanism, the biblical answer is found in Paul’s letter to the Colossians. “Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: fornication, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness which is idolatry…But now put them all away; anger, wrath, malice, slander, and foul talk from your mouth.” [Colossians 3: 5,8. RSV]

Jesus condemned humanism’s indulgent, pleasure-seeking intemperance in the parable of the rich man who took his ease, ate, drank, made merry, and was consumed with his own plans. But Jesus called him a fool whose unprepared soul was required of him that night. [Luke 12:16-20]

Jesus dealt with the self-absorbed in the parable of the Good Samaritan when he answered the question of one of his disciples, “And who is my neighbor?” Jesus exposes the heartless self-centeredness of the Pharisee and Levite and elevates the importance of relationship among all of mankind regardless of pedigree, purse, nation, or religion.

Matthew’s gospel makes plain Jesus’ attitude toward those with a celebratory self. “He who is greatest among you shall be your servant; whoever exalts himself will be humbled, and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.” [Matthew 23:11-12. RSV]

The foundation has been laid for an examination of the role of humanism’s quest for equality in the general loss of respect in society. This foundation has included an examination of humanism and Christianity’s differing conceptions of self and relationships and the consequences thereof. In Part II we shall examine how the humanistic exaltation of self as opposed to the biblical focus on relationships has undeniably linked the quest for equality with a loss of respect for authority and time-honored institutions, customs, and traditions.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] “egalitarian,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), p. 264.
[2] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, Eighth Edition, Revised (Amherst, New York: The Humanist Press, 1992), pp.35-37.
[3] Fiona MacRae and Paul Sims, “The Spoilt Generation: Parents who fail to exercise authority breeding youngsters with no respect for anyone,” Mail Online News, September 14, 2009. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1213236/The-spoilt-generation-Youngsters-lack-respect-authority-attacking-parents-police-teachers.html (accessed September 11, 2014).
[4] J. Walker Smith and Ann Clurman, Generation Ageless, (New York: Collins, 2007), pp. xii, xiv.
[5] Lamont, p. 15.
[6] Exodus 20:3-17. RSV]

Quran verses taken out of context? Thousands of Christian deaths say “No.”

Posted by :admin On : September 19, 2014
3

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Islam

Rep. John Bennett, R-Sallisaw said: “The Quran clearly states that non-Muslims should be killed. Arab is the ethnicity, not Muslim or Islam. Be wary of the individuals who claim to be ‘Muslim-American.’ Be especially wary if you are a Christian.” Mike Jones’ in his editorial[1] (“Out of Line-Bennett’s Muslim-bashing goes too far.”) accused Bennett of cherry-picking verses from the Quran and using them out of context. However, Jones is either naive or woefully uninformed with regard to the Quran and Muslim persecution of Christians around the world in the name of Islam. There are 109 verses in the Quran that call Muslims to war with nonbelievers for the sake of Islamic rule. Unlike practically all of the Old Testament verses of violence which are limited by the historical context in which they are presented, those in the Quran are mostly open-ended and not constrained by time or context in its call for war on non-believers.[2] For many countries dominated by an emboldened Muslim faith, the rallying cry has become “convert to Islam or die.”

Open Doors ministry reported that of the fifty countries with the worst persecution, forty-one are Muslim.[3] Exhortations to violence and persecution against infidels (any who do not believe in Allah or his messenger Mohammed) are found in the particulars of the Quran and are practiced by many of its followers, especially in countries dominated by Islam. Both the Vatican and the Center for Study of Global Christianity reported that 100,000 Christians died in 2012 because they were Christian—devout, nominal, or cultural. Christians were killed for their beliefs or ethnicity, killed while worshiping in a church, murdered because they were children of Christians, or killed because of their Christian witness.[4] Most of the deaths were at the hands Muslims and committed in the name of Islam as dictated by the Quran.

Bennett’s charges that the Council on American-Islamic Relations has ties to terrorist organizations are called unfair by Jones. However, CAIR’s founders had direct ties with known terrorist organizations, and its continuing ties to terrorist organizations are extensive and well-documented. In defense of CAIR, Jones notes CAIR’s condemnation of ISIS’ actions including its recent highly publicized beheadings. For CAIR and other Muslim organizations, ISIS has become a Muslim-Islam public relations nightmare. But in truth, ISIS’ actions reveal what a world dominated by an unrestrained Islam may look like. Such world domination by Islam is the unifying call of almost every Muslim-dominated nation and Muslim terrorist organization. CAIR’s condemnation of ISIS is about PR, not revulsion at their deeds. Otherwise, CAIR condemns the Quran which says, “[Remember] when your Lord inspired to the angels, ‘I am with you, so strengthen those who have believed. I will cast terror into the hearts of those who disbelieved, so strike [them] upon the necks and strike from them every fingertip.’” [Quran, Sura 8:12]

The tenets of Christianity speak of God’s creation of all peoples with one blood and mandate that we treat each person we meet with kindness, patience, and dignity. It is those biblical principles of Christianity and its predecessor upon which the nation was founded and made it possible for all faiths including Muslims to live and practice their religions in freedom. America’s story is not one of perfection but an example of what can be. But the reality is that Christians are being persecuted by the millions and killed by the tens of thousands throughout much of the Islamic world. A second reality is that that same Islamic world threatens America. And whether they are Christians or Muslims who reject the Islamic jihadist mentality promoted by the Quran, Americans must recognize the growing Islamic threat to their safety and religious freedom. This vigilance is not born of fear as Mr. Jones believes but a somber recognition of what’s happening everyday all over the globe.

If Jones really wants to understand the real meaning of fear, he should visit Christians in Mosul, Iraq’s second largest city, or dozens of other cities in northern Iraq. He will be able to easily find Christians because many of their homes and businesses have been marked with the Arabic symbol for N. N stands for Nazarenes by which is meant Christians. Such markings effectively give license to steal from, maim, rape, and kill the inhabitants. The Nazis used the same tactic to mark the homes and businesses of Jews with the Star of David which also marked the beginning of the genocide.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Mike Jones, “Out of Line – Bennett’s Muslim-bashing goes too far,” Tulsa World, September 14, 2014, G1.
[2] “What does the Religion of Peace Teach About…Violence?” TheReligionofPeace.com Guide to Understanding Islam. http://www.thereligionofpeace.com/quran/023-violence.htm (accessed September 15, 2014).
[3] “World Watch List Countries,” Open Doors. http://www.worldwatchlist.us/ (accessed September 15, 2014).
[4] Sarah Eekhoff Zylstra, “Counting the Cost (Accurately),” Christianity Today, August 21, 2013. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2013/september/counting-cost-accurately.html (accessed September 16, 2013).

Statistics: Facts often used to replace truth.

Posted by :admin On : September 12, 2014
2

Category: Archives, Government, Truth

Leonard Pitts’ recent syndicated column was provocatively titled “If GOP is so right, why are red states so far behind?” Pitts raised the question because of the results of a recent study by two Princeton economists that found the economy has grown faster under Democratic presidents. From President Kennedy to and including President Obama the economy grew at 4.35 percent as compared to 2.54 percent growth under Republican presidents during the same period. He also pointed to a statistic supplied by Occupy Democrats, a left-wing advocacy group, that of the ten poorest states, nine are red states and of the poorest 100 counties, ninety seven are in red states. Based on the report’s statistical revelations, Pitts asked several questions, “If Republican fiscal policies really are the key to prosperity, if the GOP formula of low taxes and little regulation really does unleash economic growth, then why has the country fared better under Democratic presidents than Republican ones and why are red states the poorest states in the country?”[1]

To be fair, Mr. Pitts does note that the ability of presidents to influence the economy is “vastly overstated.” He even cites the Princeton researchers who stated that their study does not support the idea that Democratic policies are responsible for greater economic performance under Democratic presidents. Further, he concedes that red states and counties tend to be more rural and likely to have modest incomes while at the same time may enjoy greater spending power than wealthier states and counties. Yet, Mr. Pitts can’t resist the assumption that the fiscal economic policies of the Republicans are inferior to those of the Democrats. He states that, “…the starkness and sheer preponderance of the numbers are hard to ignore.” After comparing the true blue state of Connecticut’s first place in per capita income of $56,000 with red-state Mississippi’s last place at $32,000, Pitts says that, “At the very least, stats like these ought to call into question GOP claims of superior economic policy…”[2]

“There are three kinds of lies: lies, d**n lies, and statistics.” Mark Twain popularized this quote in America but attributed it to former British Prime Minister Benjamin Disraeli. How does one lie with statistics? One way is to erroneously assume a correlation between two variables and simply imply that one causes the other. Although Mr. Pitts agrees that the study’s findings do not support the idea that there is a correlation between the economic policies of Democratic presidents and the above-mentioned superior economic statistics, that is, one does not cause the other, he does believe that, given the sheer magnitude of the numbers, we must assume there is some correlation between the economic policies of Republican presidents and the lesser economic growth experience thereunder.[3]

Mr. Pitts has not lied (in a manner suggested by Twain), but he has been seduced by the power of statistical “facts” and as a consequence has “…drawn a mathematically precise line from an unwarranted assumption to a foregone conclusion.”[4] To summarize, Mr. Pitts’ conclusion is that, although the statistics provide no correlation between superior economic performance and the economic policies of Democrat presidents, the statistics must almost certainly provide correlation between the Republicans’ lesser economic results and their economic policies. Therefore, Republican economic policies are linked in some unexplained manner with the poorer results and consequently must undermine Republican claims of superior economic policies. Calling the Republican claims of superior economic policies as “overblown, at best,” Mr. Pitts ends his column with a challenge. “If that’s not the case, I would appreciate it if some Republican would explain why.”

If Mr. Pitts had done his homework, he would have found the explanation given by another nationally syndicated columnist less than ten days earlier. Robert Samuelson has written about business and economic issues since 1977. He is the author of three books on the American economy, a columnist for the Washington Post, and formerly was a columnist for Newsweek magazine for twenty-five years. Like Pitts, Samuelson also wrote a column about the Princeton study which he titled “Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.”[5]

Samuelson’s interpretation of the results of the Princeton study was very different than that of Pitts. Samuelson stated that “Democrats would no doubt like to attribute the large…growth gap to macroeconomic policy choices, but the data do not support such a claim.” Samuelson called about half of the gap that favored Democrats attributable to their “good luck” with regard to outside events or trends beyond their control. Three of those events and trends that dominated (and whose timing favored Democrats) were the global oil shocks that hurt Republicans more than Democrats, productivity gains, and military buildups that boosted economic growth.[6]

To the Princeton researchers the cause of the remaining half of the gap favoring the Democrats is a mystery. But for Samuelson the reasons were obvious and contrary to what the study’s statistics seem to suggest. He explained that, “Democrats focus more on jobs; Republicans more on inflation. What resulted was a cycle in which Democratic presidents tended to preside over expansions (usually worsening inflation) and Republicans suffered recessions (usually dampening inflation).” Without thoughtful interpretation, the surface implications of the Princeton study suggest that the “…economy’s performance during a president’s tenure in office is a good test of the soundness of policies.” Samuelson disagreed and explained that there is a long lag between the adoption of policies under a current administration and their true effects over time (usually after the administration has left office). He points out that expansive policies that feed an economic boom spawn hurtful consequences (e.g., inflation and overconfidence resulting in financial crises) that must be addressed with more painful policies, usually during the next administration. However, those painful policies can (and generally do) result in long-term dividends.[7]

Samuelson’s diagnosis of America’s economic roller coaster is somewhat akin to the analogy of visits of grandchildren to permissive, over-indulgent grandparents. It’s party time for the grandkids. High sugar diets, new toys, fun and games, few rules, and a good time is had by all. However, when mom and dad pick up the kids, they have to deal with the belly aches, renew and enforce rules and restraints, and re-establish the connections between work-reward and rebellion-consequences. In other words, the kids must return to the real world under mom and dad’s rule. For close to six decades Americans have ridden the economic roller coaster, alternately driven by Democratic children and their Republican parents. Hopefully, the American electorate will eventually understand the cause of much of America’s economic ups and downs. If so, there is hope for Republican economic prescriptions.

In the information age, facts have grown exponentially. We have become a fact driven society. Richard M. Weaver wrote, “One notes that in everyday speech the word fact has taken the place of truth…And the public is being taught systematically to make this fatal confusion of factual particulars with wisdom…The acquisition of unrelated details becomes an end in itself and takes the place of the true ideal of education.”[8] The myopic acquisition of unrelated details by a society results in fragmentation through loss of wisdom. Such societies retreat from the glorious heights from which one can clearly see truth and descend into a forest of facts—minutiae that hide truth and ultimately destroy in men’s minds that even the concept of truth exists.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Leonard Pitts, “If GOP is so right, why are red states so far behind?” Tulsa World, September 4, 2014, A-13.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] Leonard Louis Levinson, The Left Handed Dictionary, (New York: Collier Books, 1963), p. 218.
[5] Robert J. Samuelson, “Do Dems run the economy better? Nope.” The Washington Post, August 24, 2014. http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/robert-samuelson-do-democrats-run-the-economy-better-nope/2014/08/24/1e3d847c-2a0c-11e4-86ca-6f03cbd15c1a_story.html (accessed September 5, 2014).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 58.

Seduction of the American Church

Posted by :admin On : September 5, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Truth

This article should be of interest to Christians and those who may not be Christians by confession and lifestyle but who believe in the importance of maintaining a biblical Christian worldview in America. Christians are the church. The church is not the buildings or organizations that serve the church body. So when we speak of the seduction of the church, we are speaking of the seduction of individual Christians and particularly the leadership of churches and other Christian organizations.

To seduce means to lead away, to persuade to disobedience or disloyalty, or to lead astray. Only one of its definitions refers to the enticement into unchastity.[1] Seduction was Satan’s original weapon used to attack God by separating man from Him. At his first encounter with Eve in the Garden, Satan’s seductive words led Eve into disobedience and disloyalty to God. Seduction worked well because God gave man a free will. Man can choose to obey or not. To love God is to obey Him, but to disobey is sin which results in separation from God. That is Satan’s purpose, to separate man from God.

However, man was not created stupid. He soon reasoned that separation from God led to pain, misery, emptiness of soul, loneliness, and death without God. Therefore, Satan created a new god for fallen man to worship and obey—the god of self. Self would be deified and worshiped in the temple of humanism. Man would be liberated from the need to obey anyone but the new god of self. However, man found that liberation of self merely anesthetized the symptoms of disobedience and separation from God. Soon the morphia of power, wealth, and pleasure wears off and the suffering and loneliness return along with the reappearance of the hideous specter of death apart from God.

The greatest threat to Satan’s seduction of mankind is the empowered and obedient church of Jesus Christ. Frontal attacks against the church are of no avail. Therefore, Satan again resorts to seduction, his most trusted and lethal weapon. Satan’s strategy is to defeat the church by subtly injecting the god of self into the church body. It is the little foxes that destroy the vine. At first he encourages a little compromise here and there. Mix in bit of disunity. Allude to the harshness and inflexibility of the Bible. Question the relevancy of the Bible and the church in light of modern problems. Concentrate the churches’ focus and efforts substantially if not exclusively on the temporal problems and injustices in the world. Attempt to discredit the truth of the Bible through science and psychology. Finally, the church elevates self above God. The new church is now consumer-oriented, and its patrons are clients to be pampered. The gospel is softened so as not to offend. Therapy replaces salvation in dealing with sin. Worship becomes entertainment. Commitment becomes optional as church attendance for many is limited to an hour or two on Sunday mornings a couple of times a month. The gospel of self-improvement is preached instead of the word of God found in the Bible.

David Wilkerson (1931-2011) was the author of the best-selling The Cross and Switchblade and was the founder of Teen Challenge addiction recovery program with centers found in many countries of the world. The recovery rate for its residents exceeds 80%, one of the highest among similar organization. Formerly the pastor of Times Square Church in New York City, Wilkerson preached a sermon in 1998 titled “The Dangers of the Gospel of Accommodation” in which he described the seduction of the modern church in the United States.

A gospel of accommodation is creeping into the United States. It’s an American cultural invention to appease the lifestyle of luxury and pleasure. Primarily a Caucasian, suburban gospel, it’s also in our major cities and is sweeping the nation, influencing ministers of every denomination, and giving birth to megachurches with thousands who come to hear a non-confronting message. It’s an adaptable gospel that is spoon-fed through humorous skits, drama, and short, nonabrasive sermonettes on how to cope—called a seeker-friendly or sinner-friendly or sinner-friendly gospel…The gospel of Jesus Christ has always been confronting—there is no such thing as a friendly gospel but a friendly grace. [emphasis added]

If you are a young man and have certain skills, you find those skills and a part of the city that would best suit you. You move into that area, poll it, and find out what the nonchurchgoers want. “You don’t like choirs. Well, would you go to a church that didn’t have a choir? Yes. You don’t like to wear suits. Would you go where it’s informal? Yes.” Then you go to your computer and design a gospel that will not confront but will shoot out the desires and the needs of the people…then you design your message to help people cope with their needs. The program you design is intended to make the church comfortable and friendly for all sinners who wish to attend.[2]

Wilkerson spoke of three things that identify the heart of the gospel of accommodation:

The accommodation of man’s love for pleasure – “This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers…of pleasures more that lovers of God.” [2 Timothy 3:1-4. KJV].

The accommodation of all man’s aversion to self-denial – Jesus said, “If any man will come after me, let him deny himself, take up his cross, and follow me.” [Matthew 16:24. KJV]

The accommodation to man’s offense to the gospel – An accommodating gospel is the way of cheap grace. As Wilkerson described it, “It’s cruel, pastor, to lead sinners to the Cross, tell them they are forgiven by faith, and then allow them to go back to their habits and lusts of the flesh, unchanged and still in the devil’s shackles.”[3]

A recent variant of the accommodating church is the multisite electronic church. One such church has multiple campuses in the metro area, others around the state, and is establishing new churches out of state. The total combined attendance on a recent Sunday morning was reported to be 79,000. Each site may have as many as eight one-hour services on any given Sunday; each tightly packed with rock-concert style worship, simultaneous water baptisms, and a video message from the senior pastor. The founder and senior pastor explained that “…the service is designed to appeal to unchurched people, with casual dress, refreshments in the sanctuary, and a concert-like atmosphere. We’ve found that a lot of unchurched people love to go to concerts, and so our worship experience is very concert-like. There’s intelligent lighting, great sound systems…We’re not doing church for church people…” The pastor defends the accommodating nature of the church services by explaining that every service ends with an invitation to make a commitment to Christ.[4] One wonders if those making the commitments understand that a genuine commitment to Christ leads to the cross and ultimately death to self. Paul’s letter to the Galatians makes this clear. “I have been crucified with Christ; it is no longer I who live, but Christ who lives in me; and the life I now live in the flesh, I live by faith in the Son of God, wo loved me and gave himself for me.” [Galatians 2:20. RSV]

Often the gospel preached by the accommodating church tends to perversion or denial of biblical truth over time. A recent example has been a significant topic of discussion in the church world with regards to comments to the congregants by the wife of a pastor of a large Texas megachurch. With her nearby pastor-husband’s nodding approval, she said,

I just want to encourage every one of us to realize when we obey God, we’re not doing it for God—I mean, that’s one way to look at it—we’re doing it for ourselves, because God takes pleasure when we’re happy. That’s the thing that gives Him the greatest joy…So, I want you to know this morning: Just do good for your own self. Do good because God wants you to be happy. When you come to church, when you worship Him, you’re not doing it for God really. You’re doing it for yourself, because that’s what makes God happy. Amen?[5]

This particular ministry had a Godly Christian heritage and history. But the siren song of power, popularity, and success has seduced the new generation to bow to the god of self. Paul in his first letter to Timothy warned of the days in which some of the American church presently finds themselves. “Now the spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by giving heed to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, through the pretensions of liars whose consciences are seared…” [1 Timothy 4:1-2. RSV] Many leaders and congregants in the American church have been seduced by Satan and are following the path described by Paul which results in a powerlessness and apostate church destined for judgment and eternal damnation.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] “seduce,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, 1963), p. 781.
[2] David Wilkerson, “The Dangers of the Gospel of Accommodation,” Assemblies of God Enrichment Journal, http://enrichmentjournal.ag.org/199901/078_accommodation.cfm (accessed September 2, 2014).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Bill Sherman, “Growing in faith,” Tulsa World, August 17, 2014, A-1.
[5] Heather Clark, “‘Do good for yourself’ Osteen Says. Obedience, worship ‘Not for God’.” Christian News Network, August 28, 2014. http://christiannews.net/2014/08/28/do-good-for-your-own-self-osteen-says-obedience-worship-not-for-god-video/ (accessed September 2, 2014).