Rss

  • youtube

Acts of God or Acts of Man?

Posted by :admin On : August 8, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Worldview

The phrase “an act of God” is typically associated with destruction, loss, pain, and suffering beyond the control of man. Many property and casualty insurance policies contain exclusions of coverage on losses attributed to “acts of God” because certain massive acts of nature can’t be controlled such as earthquakes, floods, and hurricanes. However, other less pervasive natural and therefore insurable occurrences such as tornadoes, hail, storms, high winds, and ice may be covered. War, although man-made, is often included in these exclusions. Then there are other uninsurable catastrophes such as famine, pandemic disease, and pestilence that kill millions each year. For many, the biblical God of love has a lot to answer for if these actions are truly His responsibility.

It seems that God gets blamed for most if not all of the evil in the world. If He is not blamed for causing it, then He is blamed for not preventing it. For several well-known individuals, a good God cannot exist if He allows such pain and suffering. The last vestiges of Charles Darwin’s Christian faith evaporated upon his daughter’s painful death. Likewise, billionaire Ted Turner became an outspoken unbeliever upon his sister’s death from a painful disease. “I was taught that God was love and God was powerful, and I couldn’t understand how someone so innocent should be made or allowed to suffer so.” Former well-known evangelist Charles Templeton wrote Farewell to God in 1996. The reason for his rejection of belief in God is revealed by his question, “How could a loving and omnipotent God create such horrors as we have been contemplating?”[1]

So how could a good God allow a world full of pain and suffering to exist? It is a legitimate question, especially for those who deny the existence of God or who reject the biblical answer for mankind’s pain and suffering.

Before we require God to explain the reasons for the existence of pain and suffering in the world, we ought to be in agreement as to the definition and meaning of two words necessary to understand God’s answer: love and freedom. When we speak of love, we refer here to interpersonal relationships (as opposed to the impersonal “I love pizza!”). Our friend Webster describes love as “affection,” “devotion,” “warm attachment,” and “adoration.”[2] But love can one directional and rejected by the intended recipient. Love cannot be commanded, only accepted and returned or rejected. Here we see that love is a matter of choice. One is free to accept or reject love. The popular mantra that “love is all that is necessary” is wrong. We may love the terrorist, but that won’t stop him from maiming and killing innocent people. Even if the terrorist is won over by our love and renounces his terrorist activities, the pain and suffering caused by mindless natural forces can’t be stopped. So, we must agree that love requires freedom for both the giver and recipient.

With this understanding of love and freedom, we are able to comprehend God’s answer for the existence of pain and suffering in the world. To do so we must step back and take in the entire breadth and height of the biblical meta-story of creation including man who was God’s special creation.

God existed before the universe was created, and then God created the universe and all that is within it including the laws that govern that creation. Unlike all of the other elements of his creation, man was created with a free will. This part of the Christian worldview is called Creation. Mankind’s free will allowed man to think and act in ways that were contrary to God’s plan and will for His creation. When man acted in ways contrary to God’s laws (truths), such disobedience to God’s laws was called sin, and as a result decay and death entered into God’s creation. This is called the Fall, and it affected not only man but all of God’s creation. But as God is a loving God, he created a way through His son, Jesus Christ, which allows man to bring order to the chaos he created. This is called the Restoration. There you have the basic elements of the Christian worldview: the Creation, the Fall, and the Restoration. No other worldview recognizes the true nature of the human condition and provides a means whereby man can return to a proper orientation to God’s laws and plan. It answers the questions of where we came from and who we are, what went wrong, and how we get out of the chaos and restore order to our souls.[3]

God’s creation of man with a free will meant the possibility of rejection of God and His love. In other words free will and the potential for rejection of God was the penalty for the possibility of love. So it is on the earthly plane, to risk love is to risk rejection.[4] Pain and suffering entered the world through man’s rejection of God. But man was not the only victim of his rebellion.

Even natural evil—involving earthquakes, tornadoes, floods, and the like—is rooted in our wrong use of free choice. We must not forget that we are living in a fallen world, and because of this, we are subject to disasters in the world of nature that would not have occurred had man not rebelled against God in the beginning. (see Romans 8:20-22)[5]

Humanism is the great competing meta-story and stands in stark contrast on every major point to that of Christianity with regard to man’s creation, purpose, and destiny. The humanistic philosophy denies the existence of all forms of the supernatural, proposes that nature is the totality of being and exists independently of any mind or consciousness. Man is the evolutionary product of Nature, and man has no conscious survival after death due to the unity of body and personality. Humans are masters of their own destiny, and human values are grounded in this-earthly experiences and relationships.[6]

Humanism presents the problem of suffering as the greatest objection to the existence of God. But humanism stands convicted by its own arguments in its denial of the existence of a supernatural God. If there is no supernatural God, and if humans are masters of their own destinies, what is the source of evil that has led to universal pain and suffering in the world? Its worldview has no logical, realistic, or compelling answers. Christian apologist William Craig Lane expresses the humanist’s dilemma.

Paradoxically, then, even though the problem of suffering is the greatest objection to the existence of God, at the end of the day God is the only solution to the problem of suffering. If God does not exist, then we are locked without hope in a world filled with pointless and unredeemed suffering. God is the final answer to the problem of suffering, for He redeems us from evil and takes us into the everlasting joy of an incommensurable good: fellowship with Himself.[7]

As the world is increasingly awash in unfathomable sorrow, pain, and suffering, those who are redeemed by God through the sacrifice of His Son Jesus Christ can take comfort in the words of Christ to His disciples just before His betrayal and death on the cross. “These things I have said to you, that in me you may have peace. In the world you have tribulation; but be of good cheer, I have overcome the world.” [John 16:33. RSV]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ken Ham and Dr. Jonathan Sarfati, “Why is there death and suffering?” Creation Ministries International,
http://creation.com/why-is-there-death-and-suffering#_ret4 (accessed August 8, 2014).
[2] “love,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company,
Publishers, 1963), p. 501.
[3] 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. 86
[4] Ibid., p. 158.
[5] Ronald Rhodes, “Tough Questions About Evil,” Who Made God? Eds. Ravi Zacharias and Norman Geisler,
(Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2003), p. 37.
[6] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, Eighth Edition, Revised, (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press,
1997), pp. 13-14.
[7] William Lane Craig, On Guard, (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2010), p. 173.

Shake and Bake History – Engineering the future while forgetting the past

Posted by :admin On : August 1, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Education, Progressivism, Worldview

Two recent syndicated newspaper columns contained two views of history that frame the two worldviews contending for dominance in the nation’s central cultural vision—humanism and Christianity. The first was written by David Turnoy, a retired elementary teacher and author.[1] Mr. Turnoy is a proponent of ‘honest” history of the warts and all variety with a strong emphasis on the warts. Turnoy’s article is peppered with numerous phrases descriptive of the humanistic worldview, and some of his quotes will help understand that worldview.

For any progressive student or observer of history, it is well-known that the United States has a mixed record in its treatment of Native Americans, African Americans, women and other groups, including some especially cruel treatment…So what information should be taught? Should it be the traditional bland summary showing America as always in the right, led by truly admirable heroes who bring about change while leaving out any negative actions, which leads to disinterested, unquestioning citizens who allow government and other elites to do as they like? Or should it be a more balanced, honest approach?…If we want a better country with more equality and justice, this is where it starts.[2] (emphasis added)

To summarize, it appears that Turnoy believes that traditional history lessons will be bland summaries if not focused on the negatives and therefore produce disinterested and unquestioning citizens who are unconcerned about equality and justice. Turnoy assumes his approach is more balanced and honest. We will examine how Turnoy’s “honest and balanced” approach really plays out in the American education system dominated by a humanistic worldview.

A contrary view is held by Daniel Burnett who believes that there has been a “…growing trend in historical illiteracy for years, and the culprit is our nation’s education system…it fails to prepare students with the knowledge they’ll need for informed citizenship.” Quoting various research studies on knowledge of history in America, Burnett reported that only five percent of the top fifty public universities in the U.S. required even one survey course on American history. Most college and university curricula require only niche courses to take the place of American history courses. He cites several examples: “Foundations of Rock,” “Human Sexuality,” “History of Avant-Garde Film,” and “America Through Baseball.” Burnett believes that the American education system has produced a population of illiterates and amnesiacs as it relates to the nation’s history.[3]

One must ask why there is such an aversion to teaching American history in primary and secondary schools and at colleges and universities. Turnoy argues that history teachers are not honest with regard to America’s failures. Burnett cites the educational system’s focus on niche courses and a failure to teach a comprehensive history of the nation. Both points of view are a result of the educational system’s dominant humanistic worldview and its aversion to the lessons of the past.

American education’s humanistic worldview

The American education system is extremely humanistic in its worldview, teaching, policies, practices, and course content. The great architect of engineering the future through education without a historical foundation was John Dewey. Dewey was “…recognized as the leader of the ‘progressive movement’ in education.”[4] (emphasis added) His educational philosophy, writings, and twenty-five years at Columbia University dramatically shaped the educational system in the U.S. from the early years of the twentieth century until the present day. His philosophy was centered on humanistic concepts of man with regard to his origins, purpose, and future. Dewey had a substantial disdain for historical influence, tradition, patrimony, and religion (particularly the Christian worldview), all of which were noticeably absent in his development of American education’s modern paradigm.[5] The progressive movement in education resulted in faculty hostility to the courses and fields of study that examine the traditional roots of Western civilization and American institutions. Turnoy’s sought after “honest and balanced” presentation of history has been cast aside in favor of indoctrinating American students with a humanistic worldview.

Humanism’s aversion to history

In the humanist worldview history is excess baggage that must be tossed to make way for new, bold, and progressive ideas. Therefore, humanists subscribe to the Whig theory of history which states that the most advanced point in time is the point of its highest development. This fits nicely with humanists’ progressivism whose foundation is the Enlightenment belief of the perfectibility of man, a “…belief that critical and autonomous human reason held the power to discover the truth about life and the world, and to progressively liberate humanity from the ignorance and injustices of the past.”[6] Those holding the humanistic worldview eliminate the traditional historical narrative of America unless that narrative can be sifted and parsed to present selected evidence of America’s supposed widespread historical inequality and injustice.

Rob Koons, a philosophy professor at the University of Texas, has called the modern American university’s array of unconnected courses the Uncurriculum. Koons describes the Uncurriculum as a smorgasbord approach to curriculum offerings whose design usually exhibits a general lack of required courses, structure, and systematic order in meeting core course requirements for liberal arts studies.[7] From such comes a citizenry that is profoundly illiterate with regard to America’s story and the reasons for its preeminence among the past and present nations of the world.

The story of America

America cannot be understood without a comprehensive historical narrative. Such a narrative reveals that America’s founding originated from a biblical worldview that runs through the history of Western civilization since its inception. One cannot understand America by substituting a shake and bake curriculum that substitutes courses such as “America Through Baseball” or “History of Avant-Garde Film” for traditional comprehensive history courses that present the matchless story of America.

Russell Kirk expressed the true ideal of education.

True education is meant to develop the individual human being, the person, rather than to serve the state. In all our talk about “serving national goals” and “citizenship education”—phrases that originated with John Dewey and his disciples—we tend to ignore the fact that schooling was not originated by the modern nation-state. Formal schooling actually commenced as an endeavor to acquaint the rising generation with religious knowledge: with awareness of the transcendent and with moral truths…to teach what it is to be a true human being.[8]

Writing of the humanistic view of education, Richard Weaver’s words capture the goal of such education. “The student is to be prepared not to save his soul, or to inherit the wisdom and usages of past civilizations, or even to get ahead in life, but to become a member of a utopia resting on a false view of both nature and man.”[9]

It is safe to say that the great majority of modern Americans do not understand the true story of America and its institutions. Turnoy and Barnett’s prescriptions to achieve an informed citizenry with regard to American history follow starkly different avenues. Turnoy’s humanistic education model has ruled for the better part of a century and has utterly failed. Barnett offers hope that a return to telling the comprehensive though politically incorrect story of America will result in an informed and politically adept citizenry.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] David Turnoy, “When can we introduce children to honest history?” Tulsa World, June 8, 2014, A14.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Daniel Burnett, “Historical amnesia: Let us never forget D-Day,” Tulsa World, June 6, 2014, A14.
[4] Robert B. Talisse, On Dewey, (Belmont, California: Wadsworth/Thompson Learning, 2000), pp. ix, 1, 4.
[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), pp. 23-25.
[6] Christian Smith, The Secular Revolution, (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), p. 54.
[7] Johnson, p. 300.
[8] Russell Kirk, The Essential Russell Kirk, ed. George A. Panichas, (Wilmington, Delaware: ISI Books, 2007), p. 400.
[9] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), p. 117.

Did father really know best?

Posted by :admin On : July 25, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Marriage

Father Knows Best was a late 1950s television program that depicted an idealized typical middle class family composed of a wise and loving father Jim Anderson, housewife and mother Margaret who was a voice of reason and patience, and three good kids (two teenagers and one pre-teen) whose comedic trials and troubles while growing up provided the basis for most of the weekly plotlines. In the end, Jim with Margaret’s help, would provide the needed sage advice and words of encouragement to whichever of his three children needed it.

Over a half century later, the iconic Anderson family portrayed a different time in America and is considered quaint if not laughable by a modern culture overwhelmed by a humanistic interpretation of the world as it should be. Now, the entertainment media consistently portrays the father figure as an inept buffoon of marginal importance if not irrelevant to the family. In spite of the modern belief in the fiction of the typical 1950s Anderson-type family, it is the humanistic view that is an anomaly, abnormality, or even a perversion that is a stain on the pages of the history of marriage and family.

Stephanie Coontz wrote in her book Marriage, a History, that the male breadwinner/full-time housewife marriages that were the standard in America and Western Europe of the 1950s and 1960s were not a brief historical oddity. Coontz argues that such male-female role characterization was the culmination of a trend that had been growing since the late eighteenth century. For over 150 years there had been continuous movement toward and development of the once radical concept that love should be the basis for marriage and that the marital decision process should be controlled by the couple considering marriage.[1] These dramatic changes began in the eighteenth century and were embraced by both the humanistic and Christian worldviews. However, the meaning and implementation of these changes would become a battleground in the war between the humanistic and Christian worldviews.[2]

The roles of men and women throughout history remainded relatively unchanged. Generally, men in all cultures and times have been the defenders of and providers for the family whereas women have been the nurturers and care givers for husband and children. Whether civilizations are modern or ancient, advanced or primitive, the complementary roles of husbands and wives along the lines just described will be present. Although those roles may or may not have finite and sharp distinctions (depending on the culture and time in history), the basic defender-provider/nurturer-care giver dichotomy remains a constant.[3]

The disappearance of the roles of men and women

The roles of men and women were defined and enhanced by the marriage relationship and made possible the enduring nuclear family unit. During the age of the Enlightenment and in particular the eighteenth century, advances toward the modern nuclear family would also bring dangers that would threaten its survival. These dangers included a more secular view of marriage and sexual relationships propagated by the tide of humanist thought and influence that swept through the nineteenth century.[4] By the 1960s and for the first time in history, the ideal of marriage came under direct attack by social engineers who “…believe a lifelong vow of fidelity is unrealistic or oppressive, especially to women…[and] marriage and family ties were…potential threats to individual fulfillment as a man or woman. The highest forms of human needs, contended proponents of the new psychologies, were autonomy, independence, growth, and creativity,” and marriage was considered a hindrance to fulfilling these human needs.[5]

In 1963 Betty Friedan wrote The Feminine Mystique whose theme centered on the supposed alienation and meaninglessness experienced by the typical housewife.[6] Friedan’s shot across the bow of traditional marriage and family eventually led to the establishment of the National Organization of Women three years later. NOW’s 1966 Statement of Purpose was clear in its efforts to redesign the role of women in American society (and by implication the roles of men and children).

NOW is dedicated to the proposition that women…must have the chance to develop their fullest human potential…it is no longer either necessary or possible for women to devote the greater part of their lives to child-rearing…True equality of opportunity and freedom of choice for women requires such practical, and possible innovations as a nationwide network of child care centers, which will make it unnecessary for women to retire completely from society until their children are grown…We reject the assumptions that a man must carry the sole burden of supporting himself, his wife, and family, and that a woman is automatically entitled to lifelong support by a man upon her marriage, or that marriage, home and family are primarily woman’s world and responsibility—hers, to dominate—his to support…We will seek to open a reexamination of laws and mores governing marriage and divorce…We are similarly opposed to all policies and practices—in church, state, college, factory, or office—which, in the guise of protectiveness, not only deny opportunities but also foster in women self-denigration, dependence, and evasion of responsibility, undermine their confidence in their own abilities and foster contempt for women.[7] (emphasis added)

At its core, the feminist view of the roles of men and women in marriage and family is essentially humanistic which differs markedly from the Christian worldview.

Humanistic worldview

The humanistic worldview and its values focus on the individual person and his/her independence, freedom, self- actualization, autonomy, growth, and creativity. Hence, marriage becomes secondary to the individual and is at best a contractual arrangement devoid of the requirements of covenantal “self-giving” as it interferes with humanistic values…Further, marriage is only one of several relational choices open to the individual. Marriage is not central or necessary for nurturing and the transmission of moral and cultural values to children. The pair-bonding elements of monogamy and permanency are individual decisions and not cultural universals.

Christian worldview

The supreme reflection of God’s image in humankind is in the marriage relationship followed by family. The roles of husband and wife and father and mother (monogamous married couple living with their children) are not societal constructs. The surface patterns and functioning of family may vary markedly in various cultures and societies down through the ages. However, the divinely ordered family structure is intrinsically a part of the fundamental identity of the family in every society and for all time. It is one of those universals or permanent things that are imbedded in the foundation of creation.[8] (emphasis in original)

Essentially, feminists view marriage as a zero-sum game in which gain by one person or side results in a loss by another person or side. In life there are only winners and losers—takers or givers. This is the humanistic worldview in which self is exalted at the expense of relationship. But life is not a zero-sum game. The ordered marital and family structure as reflected in the Christian worldview is a universal which focuses on giving, other-directedness, and relationship.

Not only is life not a humanist zero-sum game, playing the game leads to loss for the whole of society. When humanists and their feminist followers attempt to change the roles of men and women through a change of rules and mores regarding marriage, they discover the inflexibility of the marriage universal. Such changes have led to illegitimacy, cohabitation, divorce, fatherlessness, single-family households, and poverty in which the children face a rootless quest for meaning in life.

Did Jim Anderson always know best? No. But together Jim and Margaret Anderson usually got it right when it came to marriage, family, and life in general. In the Christian worldview, the complementariness of the roles of men and women in the marriage relationship is based on differences. Just as the differences make sexual union possible, the emotional and psychological differences of the marriage partners complement and complete each other, and the union becomes stronger than its parts. It is when the humanists attempt to erase the complementary and unique roles of men and women that marriage, family, and society suffer.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Coontz, Stephanie, Marriage, a History, (New York: Penguin Group, 2005), pp. 4-5.
[2] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods-Humanism and Christianity-The Battle for the Central Cultural Vision in America, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 323.
[3] Ibid., p. 323.
[4] Ibid., p. 325.
[5] Linda J. Waite and Maggie Gallagher, The Case for Marriage, (New York: Doubleday, 2000), p. 1.
[6] “The Founding of NOW,” National Organization of Women website,
http://www.now.org/history/the_founding.html (accessed July 16, 2014).
[7] “The National Organization for Women’s 1966 Statement of Purpose,” National Organization of Women, http://now.org/about/history/statement-of-purpose/ (accessed July 16, 2014).
[8] Johnson, p. 391.

Mainstream Environmentalism – The Dark Side – Part II

Posted by :admin On : July 18, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Worldview

The unifying element between mainstream and radical environmentalism is the status or position of human beings in nature’s hierarchy. In Part I we noted that this unifying belief is sometimes called “deep ecology” by which is meant “a movement or a body of concepts that considers humans no more important than other species and that advocates a corresponding radical readjustment of the relationships between humans and nature.”[1] This false concept of the value of human beings has its roots in humanism, one of two worldviews contending for dominance in Western civilization and particularly America, the other worldview being Christianity.

Modern environmentalism and its humanistic worldview

This humanistic worldview offers two pillars upon which environmentalists rest their efforts. First, life is the product of a long evolutionary process of nature. Corliss Lamont was one of the twentieth century’s leading humanists and author of The Philosophy of Humanism. Lamont brings together all of the variations and branches of humanist thought under the title of naturalism.

Naturalism considers that human beings, the earth, and the unending universe of space and time are all parts of one great Nature. The whole of existence is equivalent to Nature and outside of Nature nothing exists. This metaphysics has no place for the supernatural, no room for superphysical beings or a supermaterial God, whether Christian or non-Christian in character, from whom we can obtain favors through prayer or guidance through revelation. But the adherents of Naturalism recognize and indeed rejoice in our affinity with the mighty Nature that brought us forth…[2]

It is from naturalism that springs forth the environmental movement’s current adulation of “…mighty Nature that brought us forth…” and in which we “…are all parts of one great nature.” But such beliefs require that we jettison belief in the supernatural and the specialness of man’s creation. In other words, humans are no more important than other species which requires a new view of the relationship between humans and nature which is articulated in the numerous environmental laws, regulations, and restrictions to enforce the ordinariness of humans.

The second pillar of environmentalism is that man has the ability to solve his problems through science and reason and without help from God. Modern concepts of humanism emerged from eighteenth century Enlightenment which “…promoted the belief that critical and autonomous human reason held the power to discover the truth about life and the world, and to progressively liberate humanity from the ignorance and injustices of the past.”[3] But Charles Colson has identified the singular riff in the humanist reverence for both progressivism and naturalism and has labeled them the optimistic and pessimistic sides of the same coin. With the rise of science and technology during the Industrial Revolution of the nineteenth century, humanist philosophy optimistically exalted the ability of humans to solve their problems without God. Human reason allowed man to control his own destiny.[4] However, any student of world history over the last two hundred years will agree that man’s ability to solve his problems without God has failed miserably.

So what is the humanist to do? As humanist optimism fades to pessimism that man can fix his own problems through evolutionary progressivism, the humanist overlords intercede to save man and nature from man himself. Environmentalism is once again man’s attempt to control all the variables without God or even knowing what the variables are or the impact of the unintended consequences resulting from their efforts. Man’s solutions for the environment almost invariably come at great cost of time, money, and freedom to humankind and often at great cost to the ecosystem they propose to protect. “In today’s clash between two forms of humanism, Christianity can offer a balanced alternative.[5]

Tactics of environmentalism’s activists

The early history of the Sierra Club illustrates the tension between the worldviews of biblical Christianity and humanism with regard to nature and the environment. In 1864, Abraham Lincoln had originally set aside a portion of the Sierra Nevada mountain range in northern California in a public trust under the jurisdiction of that state. Efforts by naturalist John Muir to restrain local interests and curb development of areas in and around the Yosemite Valley led to a shift of control of the area to the federal government and the establishment of Yosemite National Park. Muir’s successful efforts to bring the area under federal jurisdiction led directly to the founding of the Sierra Club in May 1892 with the expressed purpose to protect the new park. From the very beginning of the club there was a tension between utilitarian conservation as directed by Gilford Pinchot, the first director of the U.S. Forest Service, and the aesthetic preservation of Muir and the Sierra Club. This tension between the two dissimilar environmental philosophies and tactics would continue for decades.[6]

As Muir and the Sierra Club began promoting its philosophies and exerting its influence, the club’s leaders learned two important lessons for successful environmental activism: first, the need to build a broad base of membership through the establishment of chapters far from local and even state boundaries, and second, “the need to elevate local or regional preservation issues to the national agenda to overcome the entrenched political power of local interests.”[7] Over one hundred years later, we see the success of these tactics as the environmental movement has indoctrinated the federal government, academia, and science with its humanistic approach to the environment and has influenced the enactment of environmental policies and practices that fit its humanistic worldview.

Be it Smokey the Bear and fire prevention, recycling campaigns, or cleaning up trash at a local park, few elementary school rooms in America are devoid of worthwhile and reasonable instruction with regard to conserving and protecting the environment. These efforts are in agreement with the Christian worldview that we are stewards and conservators of the earth and its environment. However, these early efforts at stewardship and conservation are used by environmental activists to condition children to accept the larger and more radical message and agenda of environmental activists and their humanistic worldview. This normalization or reasonableness of what was once thought radical is a standard practice in the humanistic attack on the larger culture (e.g., acceptance of homosexuality, abortion, gay marriage, and co-habitation). This was a favorite tactic used by David Brower, the reputed father of the modern environmental movement. Brower described the increasingly radical direction of his environmental activism throughout his life.

The Sierra Club made the Nature Conservancy look reasonable. I founded Friends of the Earth to make the Sierra Club look reasonable. Then I founded Earth Island Institute to make Friends of the Earth look reasonable. Earth First! now makes us look reasonable. We’re still waiting for someone else to come along and make Earth First! look reasonable.[8]

However, when one removes the façades of many of these seemingly reasonable environmental organizations, the deep ecology dark side is revealed. And however successful the environmental movement is in promoting the supposed reasonableness of its philosophy, its deep ecology dark side remains immersed in a false and destructive worldview, and its efforts will continue to fail as it has over the last one hundred years.

Charles Colson succinctly captures the dilemma of humanists and their environmental activist cohorts as well as the solution.

The lesson is clear: Humanism in any form is not only arrogant but mistaken. We are not God and we cannot control the variables—or even foresee them. The solution to our environmental problems must be found elsewhere: in the biblical teaching that God made human beings to be stewards over creation. That means that God intended us to develop the potential in creation through industry and technology. But it also means creation is not ours to misuse for our own purposes. We are responsible to someone higher than ourselves for how we treat creation.[9]

From Colson’s observations we see the fundamental difference between the biblical prescription of stewardship and conservation and the hammer of humanistic environmentalism that devalues and controls man through worship of the creation instead of the creator.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1]“deep ecology,” Merriam-Webster. http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep%20ecology (accessed July 7, 2014).
[2] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, 8th Edition, (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press, 1997), p. 35.
[3]Christian Smith, ed., The Secular Revolution, (Berkley, California: University of California Press, 2003), p. 54.
[4]Charles Colson with Nancy R. Pearcey, A Dance with Deception, (Dallas, Texas: Word Publishing, 1993) pp. 223-224.
[5] Ibid., p. 224.
[6] Christopher J. Bosso, Environment, Inc., (Lawrence, Kansas: University Press of Kansas, 2005), pp. 23-24.
[7] Ibid., p. 24.

Mainstream Environmentalism – The Dark Side – Part I

Posted by :admin On : July 11, 2014
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Worldview

According to his website, Finland’s Pentti Linkola is “…an ecological activist of the most serious kind: those who believe humans must set aside individual desires in order to preserve nature.”[1] The 82 year old Mr. Linkola’s eco-fascism includes extreme population control measures. His objectives and methods become clear when we read his thoughts on protecting the environment.

What to do, when a ship carrying a hundred passengers suddenly capsizes and there is only one lifeboat? When the lifeboat is full, those who hate life will try to load it with more people and sink the lot. Those who love and respect life will take the ship’s axe and sever the extra hands that cling to the sides. (emphasis added)

If the present amount of Earth’s population is preserved and is reduced only by the means of birth control, then…birth giving must be licensed. To enhance population quality, genetically or socially unfit homes will be denied offspring, so that several birth licenses can be allowed to families of quality.

In this time and this part of the world we are heedlessly hanging on democracy and parliamentary system, even though these are the most mindless and desperate experiments of the mankind…In democratic countries the destruction of nature and sum of ecological disasters has accumulated most…Our only hope lies in strong central government and uncompromising control of the individual citizen.[2]

David Brower (1914-2000) is considered as the father of the modern environmental movement and whose message has helped recruit generations of environmental activists. He was the executive director of the Sierra Club from 1952 to 1969 and whose membership increased from 7,000 to 70,000 during his tenure. Later he founded Friends of the Earth and Earth Island Institute. A three-time nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, his accomplishments are listed as fighting dams in the Grand Canyon and Dinosaur National Park, campaigns to establish ten new national parks and seashores, and significant work in passing the Wilderness Act of 1964 which restricted usage of millions of acres of public lands.[3]

Many may object to linking Brower’s environmentalism with Linkola’s brand of eco-fascism; however, most American’s would be shocked that Brower’s beliefs are remarkably similar to Linkola’s in the callous disregard for the human element in environmentalists’ efforts to advance their ecological agenda.

While the death of young men in war is unfortunate, it is no more serious than the touching of mountains and wilderness areas by humankind.

Childbearing [should be] a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license…All potential parents [should be] required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.

Loggers losing their jobs because of Spotted Owl legislation is, in my eyes, no different than people being out of work after the furnaces of Dachau shut down.[4]

In Mr. Brower’s world, war casualties, freedom to bear children, and loggers are the equivalent of touching mountains and wilderness areas, unlicensed childbirth, and death camp executioners. It is these statements we see the similar worldviews of Brower’s mainstream and Linkola’s radical environmentalism.

Based on Linkola and Bower’s similarity of views as to the value of human beings in relation to nature, it becomes very difficult if impossible to distinguish between mainstream environmentalism depicted by Smokey the Bear and lovable dolphins as opposed to radical environmentalism. The foundation of both rests on a philosophy often called “deep ecology” which is “a movement or a body of concepts that considers humans no more important than other species and that advocates a corresponding radical readjustment of the relationships between humans and nature.”[5] In reality, the kid-friendly icons and school programs offered by the environmental movement are mere cover for the real agenda of indoctrination of children into a worldview that leads to the enslavement of humanity to the god of nature and its humanistic enforcers.

One example of environmental activists’ deep ecology that elevates nature over man is their efforts to have the federal government declare the greater sage grouse as an endangered species. The obscure chicken-sized bird is known for its mating dance. The government’s proposal will have the effect of limiting hunting, energy exploration, and ranching on 165 million acres of the bird’s habitat spread over eleven western states. This acreage is in addition to 400,000 acres that the federal government has already declared off-limits for development to protect the bird. Opponents state that the federal limits will cost between 5,000 and 31,000 jobs, but local and state efforts to protect the bird’s habitat will avoid most of the job losses. Hinting at a much wider agenda, several environmental groups say the bird is a merely a stand-in as a means of preserving a vanishing Western ecosystem.[6]

The environmental movement’s legal and regulatory demagoguery not only costs thousands of jobs but is so uncompromising in its eco-theology that it willingly sacrifices millions of taxpayer dollars to enforce its will even when their actions damage the very environment they profess to protect. One recent example is the Department of Defense and the Environmental Protection Agency agreement to end the Federal Excess Personal Property and Firefighter Property program which provides excess DOD vehicles to rural fire districts. Under the twenty-five year old program, 8,812 vehicles and pieces of equipment valued in excess of $150 million have been remanufactured and transferred to rural fire departments for use in wilderness areas. The U.S. Army stopped providing the vehicles in order to comply with a previously unenforced twenty-five year old agreement with the DOD and EPA originally aimed at the reduction of emissions for vehicles not meeting EPA standards. Rather than giving these to rural fire departments, these vehicles, ten years old or newer with fewer than 20,000 miles, will be destroyed. A spokesman for the Oklahoma Forestry services said the decision will expose those communities to increased risk of loss of life and property, and “The greenhouse gas emissions associated with the vehicles are marginal at best compared to emissions of an uncontrolled wildfire.” [7]

These are just two recent examples of a vast array of laws, regulations, and restrictions generated over decades by activist environmental movements in which American citizens are being subjugated to the whims and beliefs of radical environmentalists and their humanistic worldview. They have captured much of the nation’s political and regulatory machinery and insulated it from the will and wishes of the people.

The beliefs of environmental activists and the agendas of the organizations that support them have their roots in the humanism. In Part II, the foundational beliefs and tactics of the environmental movement will be examined in some detail.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Pentti Linkola,” penttilinkola.com, http://www.penttilinkola.com (accessed July 5, 2014).
[2] Ibid.
[3] “Who was David Brower?” David Brower Center. http://www.browercenter.org/about/who-was-david-brower (accessed July 5, 2014).
[4] “David Brower,” Activist Facts, https://www.activistfacts.com/person/3507-david-brower/ (accessed July 7, 2014).
[5] “deep ecology,” Merriam-Webster.com http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/deep%20ecology (accessed July 7, 2014).
[6] Nicholas Riccardi, “Bird known for mating dance may decide Senate fate,” Associated Press, July 5, 2014. http://news.yahoo.com/bird-known-mating-dance-may-decide-senate-fate-124650685–election.html (accessed July 7, 2014).
[7] Rhett Morgan, “Federal deal may hit rural fire departments hard,” Tulsa World, July 5, 2014, A11.