Rss

  • youtube

Humanism’s equality handcuffs freedom and violates the Constitution

Posted by :admin On : February 6, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Constitution, Equality, Homosexuality

Until recently most Americans had never heard of the highly respected Atlanta Fire Chief Kelvin Cochran. That changed dramatically when Atlanta Mayor Kasim Reed fired Cochran because of his religious beliefs. The facts behind the firing are straightforward. Cochran self-published a book in 2013 titled Who Told You That You Were Naked? One paragraph in the book labeled homosexuality as “a perversion.” After the mayor learned of the book, he initially placed Cochran on a thirty-day suspension beginning November 24, 2014.[1] The mayor denied knowing that Cochran had written a book prior to his suspension. However, Cochran stated that he had given the mayor a copy of the book in January 2014, and that the mayor promised to read it on an upcoming trip. Cochran also said the director of Atlanta’s ethics office had given him permission to write the book and to mention in his biography that he was the city’s fire chief.[2]

Following the one-month suspension, the mayor fired Cochran just as he was preparing to return as head of the fire department. Defending his decision to fire Cochran the mayor stated, “This is not about religious freedom. This is not about free speech. Judgment is the basis of the problem.” Prior to Cochran’s firing, the mayor publicly condemned the fire chief on his official Facebook page. “I profoundly disagree with and am deeply disturbed by the sentiments expressed in the paperback regarding the LGBT community. I will not tolerate discrimination of any kind within my administration.” Georgia Equality Executive Director Jeff Graham stated that Cochran’s “anti-gay” views could result in a hostile work environment.[3]

Cochran said that the comments regarding homosexuality were contained in less than one-half page of a 160 page book he wrote for a men’s Bible study group at his Baptist church. He stated that the reference to homosexuality was made in the larger context that sexual activity was designed to be between a man and a woman in holy matrimony. Outside of that, any other sexual activity including homosexuality is sin.[4] Further, Cochran defended his beliefs and his right to express himself.

The LGBT members of our community have a right to be able to express their views and convictions about sexuality and deserve to be respected for their position without hate or discrimination. But Christians also have a right to express our belief regarding our faith and be respected for our position without hate and without discrimination. In the United States, no one should be vilified, hated or discriminated against for expressing their beliefs.[5]

In an Opinion Page piece by The New York Times, it was not a surprise to find that the newspaper supported Cochran’s firing. The Times Editorial Board stated that Cochran’s claim of religious discrimination had it backwards.

It is, as Mr. Reed said at a news conference, about ‘making sure that we have an environment in government where everyone, no matter who they love, can come to work from 8 to 5:30 and do their job and then go home without fear of being discriminated against…It should not matter that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. The First Amendment already protects religious freedom…Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe. If he wants to work as a public official, however, he may not foist his religious views on other city employees who have the right to a boss who does not speak of them as second-class citizens.[6] [emphasis added]

It appears that the Times Editorial Board subordinates religious freedom and the practice thereof to the whims of a hypersensitive workplace environment and totally extinguishes freedom of religion and speech for high-level public servants and governmental officials.

Should the Times Editorial Board have been present with the patriots at Valley Forge on March 10, 1778, their radical egalitarian sensibilities would have experienced great shock perhaps resulting in terminal apoplexy because of a high governmental official’s supposed flagrant discrimination against one Lieutenant Enslin as a result of his attempt at homosexual actions.

Lieutt. Enslin of Colo. Malcom’s Regiment tried for attempting to commit sodomy, with John Monhort a soldier; Secondly, For Perjury in swearing to false Accounts, found guilty of the charges exhibited against him, being breaches of 5th Article 18th Section of the Articles of War and do sentence him to be dismiss’d the service with Infamy. His Excellency the Commander in Chief [George Washington] approves the sentence and with Abhorrence and Detestation of such Infamous Crimes orders Lieutt. Enslin to be drummed out of Camp tomorrow morning by all the Drummers and Fifers in the Army never to return; The Drummers and Fifers to attend on the Grand parade at Guard mounting for that Purpose.[7]

Should the Editorial Board still be in doubt as to Washington’s Christian beliefs, less than two months after Lieutenant Enslin’s disgrace Washington issued these orders to his troops at Valley Forge.

While we are zealously performing the duties of good citizens and soldiers, we certainly ought not to be inattentive to the higher duties of religion. To the distinguished character of Patriot, it should be our highest Glory to laud the more distinguished Character of Christian.[8]

How did America arrive at such a state of affairs that the extreme egalitarian views of humanistic governmental officials equate one’s Christian beliefs and the sharing of those beliefs with the creation of a hostile work environment? Even though the fire chief was not found guilty of mistreatment of homosexuals in or out of government, Cochran was deemed guilty because of his status as a public official who expressed religious beliefs that were contrary to the beliefs of the homosexual community. It is ludicrous for The New York Times to label Cochran’s firing as anything other than a blatant violation of Cochran’s First Amendment rights which apply to every American including public servants and officials of whatever rank or station.

Equality, rightly applied, is equality before God and the law. However, the humanist understanding of equality is synonymous with a rapacious egalitarianism that imposes regimentation and leveling. This twisted understanding of human equality places special emphasis on social, political, and economic rights and privileges and focuses on the removal of any imagined or invented inequalities among humankind. This focus results in a forced leveling of society which leads to socialism and ultimately loss of freedom.

Driving religious beliefs from the public square does not enhance but destroys religious freedom in order to attain the egalitarian ideal. Because of a growing humanistic worldview among the leadership of the institutions of American life, the nation’s central cultural vision is under assault from humanists’ surgically precise efforts to separate church and state and to sweep away all evidence of our Christian cultural heritage. Even our constitutionally guaranteed freedoms of religion and speech are no longer sacrosanct from such assaults. For humanists, religious freedom means only freedom to spread the humanist orthodoxy and worship their god of equality.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Atlanta Fire Chief fired over controversial statements,” myfoxatlanta.com, January 6, 2015. http://www.myfoxatlanta.com/story/27772986/mayor-holds-news-conference-on-fire-chiefs-future (accessed January 21, 2015).
[2] Todd Starnes, “Atlanta Fire Chief: I was fired because of my Christian faith,” Fox News, January 7, 2015.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/01/07/atlanta-fire-chief-was-fired-because-my-christian-faith/ (accessed
January 21, 2015).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] Ibid.
[6] The Editorial Board, “God, Gays, and the Atlanta Fire Department,” The New York Times, January 13, 2015.
[7] William J. Federer, America’s God and Country, (Coppell, Texas: FAME Publishing, Inc., 1996), p. 642.
[8] Ibid., pp. 642-643.

Liberal defense of Islam

Posted by :admin 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 :admin 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 :admin 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 :admin 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).