Rss

  • youtube

Ecumenicalism – The Evangelical Church’s misguided group hug – Part I

Posted by :admin On : February 17, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Christianity

Most modern American evangelicals have never heard of Iain H. Murray. And if by chance they had heard of him, it is just as doubtful that they will have read any of this Scottish pastor’s writings. But they should. Murray’s writings provide valuable insights into both theological reasons and historical events of the last half of the twentieth century that account for the abysmal conditions in the evangelical church in both America and the United Kingdom.

Murray was born in Lancashire, England, in 1931 and educated at King William’s College in the Isle of Mann. He later read Philosophy and History at the University of Durham in preparation for ministry in the Presbyterian Church. Following a year of private study, he became an assistant to Sidney Norton at St John’s Free Church, Oxford in 1955–56. While at Oxford, Murray established The Banner of Truth magazine and became its first editor. During the years 1956-1959, Murray became the assistant to Dr. Martyn Lloyd-Jones who pastored Westminster Chapel in London for thirty years. While at Westminster Chapel, Murray and the late Jack Cullum founded the Banner of Truth Trust in 1957. Like Dr. Lloyd-Jones, Murray was strongly opposed to liberal Christianity. During his career, Murray pastored churches in England and Australia as well as managing the worldwide ministry of the Banner of Truth Trust.[1]

In 2000, Murray published Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the years 1950 to 2000. In his book Murray explores the reasons why Christian unity has become such a divisive topic in church of Jesus Christ. Over the course of events in the last half of the twentieth century, Murray chronicles the decline of evangelicalism during its long flirtation with ecumenism. [Ecumenicalism and ecumenism are generally considered as having the same meaning and are used interchangeably in this article.]

In the 1950s two movements – evangelicalism and ecumenism – offered differing paths to unity in the church. But as the decades have passed, the influence of ecumenism has exposed a fault line in evangelicalism. Questions of critical importance have been brought to the surface: Is the gospel broader than evangelicals have historically insisted? Can there be unity with non-evangelicals in evangelism and church leadership? Does the gospel have priority over denominational loyalty?[2]

We begin by defining ecumenicalism and identifying the prominent players in the struggle for church unity. Ecumenical is defined as being “…of, relating to, or representing the whole of a body of churches. Promoting or tending toward worldwide Christian unity or cooperation.”[3] The difficulty in achieving ecumenicalism is found in the differences between the fundamental beliefs of the evangelical and liberal wings of the Protestant churches that have sought to achieve unity within and between their churches. Liberal churches generally embrace many if not all of the following beliefs:

• The Bible has errors.
• The virgin birth of Christ is myth.
• Jesus did not rise again in bodily form after his crucifixion.
• Although Jesus was a good moral teacher, the gospels do not accurately depict his life on the earth (such as miracles he was supposed to have performed).
• Most of the authors of the Old and New Testaments are not who they are presented to be because the events written about in the Bible were written many years after the generation present during the events described.
• Hell is a myth.
• Man is not fallen and does not need redemption. Therefore, Christ’s death on the cross was not needed to provide redemption for mankind. Love is all that is needed.
• Liberals reject the doctrine of premillennialism – second coming of Christ that will take place before the establishment upon earth of Christ’s thousand year reign (the millennium).

These liberal beliefs had been growing for centuries and had been aided by the Renaissance (1300s-1500s) and Enlightenment philosophies (late 1600s and all of the 1700s). During the nineteenth century, a significant number in the church abandoned many long held doctrinal understandings of the Bible because of the growth of higher criticism (the Bible is flawed) and the rise of a humanistic worldview propelled by the writings of Charles Darwin, Karl Marx, John Dewey, and others.

The evangelical arm of the church had its beginnings in the late 1600s and early 1700s. The beliefs of evangelicals held since their beginnings were published in 1910 during the early turmoil between the liberal and conservative camps within the various Protestant denominations. These essential doctrines were published in twelve small volumes titled The Fundamentals: A Testimony to the Truth. The books listed the five fundamental doctrines that were vital to being an evangelical:

• The Bible is free from error in every respect.
• The virgin birth of Christ.
• The substitutionary work of Christ on the cross (Christ suffered and died as a substitute for man to satisfy God’s wrath against sin).
• The physical resurrection of Christ following His crucifixion.
• The physical second coming of Christ.

By 1916, the publication and circulation of 2.5 million copies of The Fundamentals had led to sharp controversies between the modernists and the evangelicals in many mainline churches.[4]

Ecumenical movement to 1950

The movement toward worldwide unity among the Christian churches in modern times had its beginnings in the latter part of the nineteenth century. For the first time in four hundred years since the Protestant Reformation and its separation from the Roman Catholic Church that began in 1517, there was talk of a “reunion of Christendom.”[5]

A second push toward unity and cooperation was also occurring within the Protestant realm in latter part of the nineteenth century. This was brought on by the substantial widening of the gap between the theological liberalism of those dominating the mainline churches and the more conservative elements who still wanted to stay in their denominations. Leaders on both sides of the riff sought to preserve denominational unity. The more conservative evangelicals saw this as being possible if there was agreement that the formal constitutions of their respective churches were not changed.[6] Therefore, unity was very much on the minds of the Protestants, perhaps more so than their Catholic counterparts.

The World Missionary Conference at Edinburgh, Scotland, held in 1910 is thought to be the beginning of the ecumenical movement. But from the very beginning, the price of admission to this supposedly wonderful world of Christian unity and cooperation was the abandonment of separate church structures and doctrinal distinctives. For evangelicals, this was a monumental problem, the insoluble Gordian knot that could not be untied through the give and take of conversation and negotiation. It must be cut, and the cutting would require loss of doctrinal purity that made them evangelical.

In 1948, the World Council of Churches was formed, and at its first assembly the WCC invited into membership all “churches which accept our Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour.”[7] In 1962, the WCC amended its constitution to describe their organization as “…a fellowship of churches which confess the Lord Jesus Christ as God and Saviour according to the scriptures, and therefore seek to fulfill together their common calling to the glory of the one God, Father, Son and Holy Spirit.” The WCC goes on to say that, “Since the WCC is not itself a church, it passes no judgment upon the sincerity or firmness with which member churches accept the basis or upon the seriousness with which they take their membership.”[8] Verbal acceptance was all that was necessary, and there was to be no judgement or creedal test to determine what the applicant organization meant by acceptance of Jesus as God and Savior. In effect, what the denominational leaders of member churches in the WCC are declaring is that they want to be part of an organization whose members’ beliefs do not matter so long they affirm Jesus as God and Savior regardless of what that means.

But Murray states that this departure from fidelity to the Bible and long-held doctrinal understandings is not of recent origin but has direct links with the dogmas from the age of unbelief, better known as the Enlightenment. As an example, Murray points to Friedrich Schleiermacher (1768-1834), the son of a German Reformed Church minister. Schleiermacher studied at the Moravian centers where piety, faith in the Bible, and its divine revelation were taught. However, Schleiermacher eventually abandoned the Moravians’ teachings and adopted the rationalism of Enlightenment philosophers. Eventually, he came to believe that religion is primarily a matter of feeling, intuition, and experience rather than doctrine.[9]

Summarizing the beginning of Schleiermacher’s first book, Murray wrote that “…true religion belongs essentially to the realm of experience—religion is a matter of a well-disposed heart and devout feelings…It matters not what we believe so long as our hearts our right…”[10] [emphasis added]

Murray stated that this teaching that unbelief does not exclude anyone from heaven was welcome news in a country where the great men of culture had no pretense of being orthodox.[11] This same attitude that beliefs are not vital to a relationship with God had become pandemic in Protestant evangelical churches during the course of the last half of the twentieth century. Many leaders of these Protestant churches will deny this and self-righteously point to their doctrinal statements. But again, it is not what they say or what their doctrinal statements proclaim, it is the outworking of this attitude that dictates what actually is occurring within those churches.

In the modern evangelical world this attitude that one’s doctrinal beliefs are not vital to a relationship with God fits extremely well with the prevailing humanistic relativism of the culture and the Church Growth movement’s seeker-sensitive prescriptions for doing church in which the most important aspect of one’s Christianity is to have a “well-disposed heart and devout feelings.”

As the church lost cultural power and authority during the six decades of 1870 to 1930, the growth and eventual dominance of its liberal beliefs led to a corresponding loss of fidelity to the Bible and long-held doctrinal beliefs of the church. Because of the liberal church’s indifference to doctrine, opposition to the unity movement became less difficult which allowed it to gain momentum. In Part II we shall examine the history of the ecumenical movement between 1950 and 2000 and the consequences of the evangelical church’s devastating loss of faithfulness to the Bible and its doctrines.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Iain H. Murray, Banner of Truth, https://banneroftruth.org/us/about/banner-authors/iain-h-murray/ (accessed February 3, 2017).
[2] Iain H. Murray, Evangelicalism Divided – A Record of Crucial Change in the Years 1950-2000, (Edinburgh, Scotland, UK: The Banner of Truth Trust, 2000), Book Jacket.
[3] “ecumenical,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), p. 263.
[4] B. K. Kuiper, The Church in History, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: CSI Publications, 1951, 1964), p. 388.
[5] Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, p. 2.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Ibid, p. 3.
[8] “The basis of the WCC,” World Council of Churches, https://www.oikoumene.org/en/about-us/self-understanding-vision/basis (accessed February 3, 2017).
[9] Murray, Evangelicalism Divided, pp. 3-5.
[10] Ibid., p. 7.
[11] Ibid., p. 9.

St. Valentine

Posted by :admin On : February 10, 2017
1

Category: America, Archives, Christianity

The origins of Valentine’s Day appear to go back to at least three Christian martyrs named Valentine. One legend states that a Roman priest in the Christian church was the namesake for our modern Valentine’s Day. Valentine lived during the rule of Claudius II (Claudius the Cruel) in the third century. Emperor Claudius involved Rome in many unpopular and bloody campaigns but had difficulty maintaining a strong army. He believed the problem arose because many Roman men refused to join his armies for fear of what would happen to their wives and families if they died in battle. Claudius’ solution to the problem was to ban all marriages and engagements in Rome. For Valentine and the Christians, this was a violation of biblical commandments with regard to marriage and sexual relations between men and women. Valentine ignored Claudius’ decree and continued to perform marriages for young lovers in secret. Valentine’s actions were discovered, and he was sentence to death in 269 A.D. Claudius ordered that Valentine be put to death by having his head cut off after being beaten with clubs. The sentence was supposedly carried out on February 14, 270 or very near that time.[1]

But there’s more to Valentine’s story. While imprisoned in Rome, Valentine’s jailer knew of his Christian beliefs and asked if he could heal his daughter Julia’s blindness which had afflicted her from birth. Although Valentine didn’t promise that Julia would be healed, he agreed to teach the girl. As Julia listened to Valentine’s account of Rome’s history, his descriptions of the world of nature, his instruction in arithmetic, and his stories about God, Julia’s new found knowledge led her to a greater understanding of the world beyond her blind eyes and greater comfort and peace from her faith in God.[2]

The night before Valentine’s execution, he asked the jailer for a piece of paper, pen, and ink. He wrote a farewell note and gave it to give to the jailer for delivery to Julia. In the note he encouraged her to continue to follow God. He ended by signing the note “…From Your Valentine…” When the jailer went home, he gave the note to his daughter. She opened the note and found a yellow crocus inside. Gazing at what she held in her hand, she saw the brilliant colors of the flower. Her eyesight had been restored.[3]

Another legend amends the story by replacing the jailer with Asterius, one of the men who judged and condemned Valentine according to Roman law of that time. After Valentine prayed for the judge’s daughter, her sight was restored. Such was the effect on Asterius that he became a Christian. And similar to the story about the jailer, Valentine was said to have written a note to Asterius’ daughter just before his execution which was also signed “from your Valentine.”[4]

The significance of February 14th as the date of Valentine’s Day is said to have been linked to a Roman holiday which celebrated the Roman Goddess Juno who was the Queen of the Roman Gods and Goddesses including the Goddess of women and marriage. The day following the celebration of the Goddess Juno began the Feast of Lupercalia. During the evening of February 15th, the names of Roman girls were written on slips of paper and placed in jars. From these jars young Roman man would draw a name and the girl selected would be his partner for the remainder of the celebration.[5] In 496 AD, Pope Gelasius put an end to the pagan Feast of Lupercalia by declaring that henceforth St. Valentine’s Day would be celebrated February 14th.[6]

Whatever the origins of Valentine’s Day, it is a major if not official holiday in much of the Western world. It has become a huge festival of romantic love symbolized by billions of dollars spent on the giving of cards, letters, flowers, chocolate, jewelry, dinners, and assorted other tokens of love.

According to a recent article in Time magazine’s Money website, only 55% of Americans celebrate Valentine’s Day, but those that do spend an average of $146.84 (I know I’m hopelessly “old school,” but that’s hard to believe.). In 2015, total spending for celebration of Valentine’s Day was estimated to be $19.7 billion. That’s billion with a capital “B.” Of that number, Americans spent $4.5 billion on romantic dinners and tickets to various attractions including movies and shows and $1.7 billion on candy and other sweet treats. Valentine’s Day expenditures are not only for the romantics. For those Americans that celebrate Valentine’s Day, they spend an average of $28 on cards, gifts, and other items for kids, parents, and other family members; nearly $7 on their child’s teachers and classmates; and almost $6 for coworkers.[7]

There are certain facts that any male over the age of 16 should already know, but as men generally have short memories, these facts bear repeating. Don’t always believe it when she says, “Don’t bother with a gift on Valentine’s Day. It’s not necessary. Just being with you is enough.” The insincerity of her words was confirmed by a credit card company’s survey which found that only 25% really meant it. The other 75% of those who said not to bother buying a gift were lying! Of that 75%, one-third said they really didn’t mean it, and the other two-thirds said that the giver should go ahead and buy a gift anyway.[8] So fellows, when she tells you that you don’t need to buy a gift, you have only a one-in-four chance of staying out of the dog’s house if you forego the gift.

One final word, especially for you younger guys. “Gift” does not mean a new mixer for the kitchen, a set of new snow tires for her car, or lawn furniture. And above all, don’t make it a “joint” gift that you “both can enjoy”! You may be able to get away with that at Christmas or possibly on mother’s day, but never try it on Valentine’s Day or her birthday.

Happy Valentine’s Day!

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] David Kithcart, “St. Valentine – the Real Story,” CBN. http://www1.cbn.com/st-valentine-real-story (accessed January 4, 2017).
[2] “The Irish Valentine,” Roaringwater Journal, February 8, 2015. https://roaringwaterjournal.com/tag/claudius-the-cruel/ (accessed January 4, 2017).
[3] Ibid.
[4] “St. Valentine beheaded,” History. http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/st-valentine-beheaded (accessed January 4, 2017).
[5] “The Irish Valentine,” Roaringwater Journal.
[6] “St. Valentine beheaded,” History.
[7] Martha White, “The Truth About Valentine’s Day Spending,” Money, February 10, 2016.
http://time.com/money/4213074/valentines-day-spending/ (accessed January 4, 2017).
[8] Ibid.

Follow your heart?

Posted by :admin On : February 3, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Christianity

Down through the ages these words have been the almost universal advice given to those attempting to make decisions and find direction for one’s life. Borrowing from the ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, William Shakespeare wrote, “This above all, to thine own self be true.”[1] More recently Steve Jobs wrote, “Don’t let the noise of others’ opinions drown out your own inner voice. And most important, have the courage to follow your heart and intuition.”[2]

Follow your dream, listen to your inner voice, get in touch with your inner self, and follow your intuition or hunches are various ways of expressing the more universal exhortation to “follow your heart.” The reason for the attractiveness and eager acceptance of this phrase is that it is an appeal to self. After all is said and done, following one’s heart is really doing what one really loves and wants to do anyway. This sentiment is expressed by the words of Jalaluddin Rumi, a 13th-century Persian poet, jurist, Islamic scholar, theologian, and Sufi mystic, “Let yourself be silently drawn by the strange pull of what you really love. It will not lead you astray.”[3] But will following your heart lead you in to making right decisions in life? In other words, can we trust the pull and direction to which our heart leads when seeking the best answers and direction for our lives?

The prophet Jeremiah writing in the sixth century B.C. condemned the nation of Israel for its extreme wickedness because their hearts were turned away from God.

This is what the Lord says, “Cursed is the one who trusts in man, who depends on flesh for his strength and whose heart turns away from the Lord…The heart is deceitful above all things and beyond cure. Who can understand it?” Jeremiah 17: 5, 9. KJV]

Jeremiah is telling us that the self-centered wisdom of man often fails because of his unregenerate heart which is deceitful above all things and can’t be fixed apart from God. What is this heart of which Jeremiah speaks?

The heart

The heart contains one’s desires, feelings, and thoughts which are a person’s inner being, but let’s be more specific in our examination of the three parts of man’s heart. The intellect (thoughts) involves the mind. Emotions (feelings) are expressed in a wide range from feelings of love, anger, anguish, delight, grief, humility, excitement, and passion to name just a few. The third compartment of the heart is the human will (desires) which contains a person’s motivation, purpose, and determination, all operating at the command of man’s freewill (his ability to choose which was implanted by God at the time of man’s creation).[4]

Alien philosophies and worldviews are contrary to biblical truth and the nature and character of God in whose image man was created. These false worldviews and philosophies appeal to the sinful, selfish nature of man through his heart (i.e., desires, feelings, and thoughts).[5] Therefore, the unregenerate heart of man is corrupt and cannot give truthful answers to life’s fundamental questions. If a person’s heart is corrupted which means that it is not rightly ordered or oriented toward God, how can that heart provide guidance and direction in obtaining truthful answers to all other questions in his or her life? It cannot.

The heart of man is the battleground for the ages-old conflict between the God of Creation and Satan and his followers. Every man is born with a corrupt heart and wears the sin-stained badge of Satan’s dominion. Man’s allegiance to Satan determines the condition of his heart and all that flows from it. Mark’s gospel describes contents of the hearts of men because of the inheritance of sin from their original ancestor.

And he said, “What comes out of a man is what defiles a man. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, fornication, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, licentiousness, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a man.” [Mark 7:20-23. RSV]

Said another way, the heart of a defiled man continually spews forth corrupted thoughts, feelings, and desires. Can we trust and follow such a heart to guide us through life? If not, where do we find guidance?

The Bible, God’s revealed word, provides the prescription for the redeeming the unregenerate heart. Regeneration occurs when man truly repents, turns to God, and accepts Jesus Christ as his Lord and Savior. They are spiritually born again and in the process receive a new spiritual heart which comes with a desire to love and obey God. Spiritual rebirth results in a complete transition from the old sinful life in which man rebels again God and goes his own way to a new life evidenced by love and obedience to Jesus Christ. Attitudes and lifestyles are changed because man has been freed from the bondage of sin which allows him to fulfill God’s purposes for his life. Love replaces the vile things that once flowed out of an unregenerate heart.[6]

A purified heart allows man to come into an eternal relationship with his Creator. Because of the spiritual rebirth, man is empowered to pursue God’s purposes through the power and guidance of the Holy Spirit. Donald Stamps gives an excellent insight to one facet of the role and work of the Holy Spirit in a Christian’s life.

When Jesus gave the Holy Spirit to his disciples on the day he rose from the dead, he was not “baptizing” them in the Spirit as they would later experience at Pentecost (Acts 1:5; 2-4). Rather, it was the first time the disciples actually received the spiritually renewing presence of the Holy Spirit…The Spirit now lived within them. The inner presence of the Holy Spirit is part of the new life that all Christ’s followers now receive at the time they accept Christ’s forgiveness and surrender their lives to him…This “receiving” of new life from the Spirit was a prerequisite to their receiving the authority of Jesus and their baptism in the Holy Spirit on the day of Pentecost…All believers receive the Holy Spirit at the time of their spiritual birth…when they first accept God’s gift of forgiveness and eternal life through faith in Christ. After this, they can and should experience the baptism in the Holy Spirit for supernatural power to be Jesus’ witnesses and to spread his message.[7] [emphasis added]

Can a Christian follow his heart?

To answer this question we must examine how God directs and guides His followers. First, it must be said that God’s speaks to and guides all of His followers through His revealed word (the Bible) and the inner-workings of the Holy Spirit. When a Christian willfully or in a moment’s weakness disobeys God (sin), it is the power of God’s word and the convicting power of the Holy Spirit that speaks to the Christian by convicting him of sin through his conscience (i.e., man’s innate sense of right and wrong which exposes sin and calls for repentance and correction). If this convicting power is not heeded and repentance made, at some point the Christian returns to a life of sin and is once again separated from God.

God has a unique purpose and plan for every believer’s life. However, only His followers can fully achieve those plans and purposes which have their wellspring in a right relationship with the Creator. But there are many questions, decisions, and uncertainties in the lives of individual Christians which are not matters of overt sin or disobedience and which are not specifically addressed by God’s word. Here we turn again to the third member of the Trinity – The Holy Spirit.

Many excellent books have been written to explain and give understanding to the work and character of the Holy Spirit. But they reveal only a fleeting glimpse of the vastness of His divine nature and character. But for our purposes, we can turn to the Bible to glean an understanding of the many roles assigned to the Holy Spirit at the time of Christ’s resurrection. The Holy Spirit indwells the believer at the time of his spiritual renewal and sanctifies him. When the Holy Spirit sanctifies a believer, it is meant that He blesses, consecrates, purifies, approves, dedicates, and makes him holy. Although sanctification is immediate, it is also an ongoing work of the Holy Spirit in the life of the believer as he lives and grows in his Christian walk. In summary, the Holy Spirit cleanses, helps, leads, guides, and motivates the believer to a holy life; delivers him from the bondage of sin; teaches and guides him to all truth; and gives him comfort, joy, and help in all matters.[8]
______

We now return to our question, “Can a Christian follow his heart?” The answer must contain an “if-then” clause. If a man is born again, obeys God’s Word, lives a Godly life, and seeks guidance through prayer, God will speak to and direct that man through all three chambers of his regenerate heart – his mind, emotions, and will. Then, and only then, may a Christian trust and follow his heart.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “To thine own self be true,” eNotes. https://www.enotes.com/shakespeare-quotes/thine-own-self-true (accessed January 9, 2017).
[2] Steve Jobs, “Quotation #38353- Quotation Details,” The Quotation Page. http://www.quotationspage.com/quote/38353.html”Steve Jobs (accessed January 9, 2017).
[3] Jalaluddin Rumi “Quotes about follow your heart,” Goodreads. http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/follow-your-heart (accessed January9, 2017).
[4] Donald Stamps, Commentary-Jeremiah 17:9, Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, New International Version, Gen. Ed. Donald Stamps, (Published by Hendrickson Publishers Marketing, LLC, Peabody, Massachusetts; Copyright 2009 by Life Publishers International, Springfield, Missouri), pp. 1062-1063.
[5] Stamps, Commentary-Jeremiah 17:9, Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 1306-1307. pp. 1306-1307.
[6] Stamps, Study Notes -“Regeneration: Spiritual Birth and Renewal,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 1915-1916.
[7] Stamps, Study Notes-“The Spiritual Rebirth of the Disciples,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 1966-1967.
[8] Stamps, Study Notes-“The Doctrine of the Holy Spirit,” Fire Bible: Global Study Edition, pp. 210-212.

Talk, trust, and truth – Polarization of American society

Posted by :admin On : January 27, 2017
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars, Humanism

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

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

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

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

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

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

The networked society

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

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

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

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

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

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

Clash of Worldviews

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requirements for cultures to survive: Unity and Truth

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

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

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

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

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

The failure of Western liberal ideology

Posted by :admin On : January 20, 2017
0

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

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

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

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

Progressivist tolerance

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

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

Progressivist multiculturalism

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

Progressivist diversity

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

The meaning and defense of culture

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

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

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

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

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

Failure of Western liberal ideology

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

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

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

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

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

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