Rss

  • youtube

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 Church triumphant – Part II

Posted by :admin On : November 11, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Humanism

[Part II was intentionally written before the results of the November 8, 2016 elections were known. It was released for posting on November 11, 2016.]

Will the church of Jesus Christ survive in Western civilization? If Christianity does not survive, then the church must also die, and there have been many predictions of the imminent death of both over the last three centuries.

The skeptics

Christianity will go. It will vanish and shrink. I needn’t argue about that; I’m right and I’ll be proved right. We’re more popular than Jesus now; I don’t know which will go first—rock n’ roll or Christianity.[1]

These are the words of John Lennon of Beatles fame who made these statements during an interview for a magazine article fifty years ago (1966). But Lennon won’t be the last and he certainly wasn’t the first to predict the demise of Christianity and the Church.

However mild and reasoned their protestations against God and His church are in the beginning, skeptics invariably end with the creature murdering his Creator. The anti-God philosopher Friedrich Nietzsche (1844-1900) thought this the most promising and glorious event in human history. He continued his vitriolic harangue about the death of God to the end of his life from a padded cell in a Venetian insane asylum.[2]

What if our modern skeptics could be transported back in time and allowed to stand at the back of the crowds and listen to and observe Jesus during His earthly ministry, eavesdrop on His private conversations as He taught His disciples, and follow Him as He trod down dusty paths and ministered to people along the way such as the Samaritan woman at the well. Would a seeing-is-believing moment change their opinion as to the longevity of the church of Jesus? No, they would have been like the pagan rulers and religious elite of Jesus’ day who most certainly believed that the itinerant preacher who claimed to be the Son of God and his little congregation of twelve were undoubtedly destined for failure, and sooner rather than later. They would call this little church anything except “The Church triumphant.”

They had multiple reasons for their skepticism. The church did not have the right venue to be successful. It was located in a troublesome little backwater country on the fringes of the Roman Empire. The preacher had little formal education and obviously was not born to wealth and privilege. He was the son of a carpenter and trained as a carpenter. Rumor was that the carpenter may not have been His real father. Even members of his own family thought him delusional. The members of His congregation were not found on the social registers of the day. Most of these men would be called blue-collar workers in today’s vernacular—fishermen and other low-ranking occupations and one hated tax collector. Above all, the preacher’s message was too demanding and short on benefits in this life. He called His followers to a life of surrender, sacrifice, and death to self. He told them that in this life they would be hated of men, persecuted, and that many would be killed for their faith. And He was always in trouble with the establishment—both political and religious.

After only three years of ministry, the preacher was executed on a Roman cross, and his little band of followers went into hiding. The skeptics must have felt assured that their original predictions of the demise of the little church had been justified. The skeptics stooped to etch an epitaph on the tombstone being prepared for the little church. It read, “The Church humiliated.” And the skeptics would have been correct except for one thing. The itinerant preacher really was the Son of God.

The Church triumphant

Why did Jesus’ followers believe He was the Son of God? Was it blind faith? Low intelligence? Lack of education? Hysteria? Wishful thinking? Delusion? Kevin Swanson gives us the correct answer. His followers knew Jesus had defeated death and that only God could do that.

It is an indisputable fact: the Lord Jesus Christ is risen from the dead, and He is reigning as sovereign Lord on the right hand of the Father, until all of His enemies are under His footstool. For the Christian this is the historical fact by which all other previous and future events are to be understood. It is the most important historical fact of all. Marx and Nietzsche hated this historical reality, and they fought it with all that they had within them…

However the future is viewed, there is no avoiding one stubborn, historical fact—Jesus Christ has risen from the dead, and His kingdom will never fail. Faithless men will put together eschatological scenarios that ignore this fact. Faithless men will minimize the antithesis or compromise with it. Faithless men will give too much credence to the antithesis and not enough to Christ. Contrary to John Lennon’s premature pronouncements, this is not the end of Christian influence in the world. It is only the beginning.[3] [emphasis in original]

The Church and the end of the age

In light of the seeming meltdown of Christianity in America and the Western world, many Christians are exceedingly distraught about the future. Although Christians should be greatly disturbed and dismayed at what is happening in America, they should never be fearful of the future and never believe that the church has been defeated. The words of Isaiah assure God’s people of His and their ultimate victory. “So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” [Isiah 59:19. KJV] Even when the ungodly rule the land, Daniel reminds us that God is in charge of the times and seasons and that He removes kings and sets up kings (See: Daniel 2:21). Thus we know that God is sovereign and that He orders the affairs of men in all ages.

As the last scenes of history play out, proud, boastful, and seemingly independent man is oblivious to the reality that he is being drawn as though by a hook in his nose to the prophetic conclusion of the age. Mankind is on its last downward slide and nears the end of the last days. The Bible’s itinerary for a sin-filled world cannot be ignored or changed as it nears its final destination. There is no escaping it. The only questions that remain are the final dispositions of the lives of men and women living at this defining moment in history. Nations are also being sifted, tested, and tried to determine the final outworking of events within each before His soon return.

The circumstances and events in the political, economic, and social arenas that Christians see as disastrous for the church are only passing scenes in the unfolding drama that God is directing as the end of the age approaches. Nations that turn their back on God and His laws are paying a high price for their disobedience. Although Christians are aliens in a foreign and hostile land, they are also citizens of these earthly regimes and will also suffer because of their nation’s descent into wickedness. Even now the body of Christ (the Church) in many nations is experiencing a measure of this suffering before the rapture. But the church must never forget that its real home is in the wonderful and eternal presence of God. His purposes in allowing these momentary afflictions are often beyond our ability to comprehend, but He has assured His followers that, “…all things work together for the good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” [Romans 8:28. KJV]

Becoming impossible people

Satan is attempting to destroy the church through the destruction of the Christian culture of America and all of Western civilization. He and his evil empire oppose righteousness, weaken the church through compromise, debauch the truth of God’s word in the minds of men, and pollute the land with a vile stream of wickedness that is flowing into every facet of life. Knowing this, Christians who in the world’s eyes are “impossible people” must have

…hearts that can melt with compassion, but with faces like flint and backbones of steel who are unmanipulable, unbribable, undeterrable and unclubbable (i.e., coercion through comfortable conformity), without ever losing the gentleness, the mercy, the grace and the compassion of our Lord.[4]

Perhaps the best advice for the church in this troublesome age comes from the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. First, he makes certain that we understand who the real enemy is that the church battles. Then, he tells it how to prepare for battle.

For we are not contending against flesh and blood, but against the principalities, against the powers, against the world rulers of this present darkness, against the spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places. Therefore take the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. [Ephesians 6:12-13. RSV]

In his commentary, Donald Stamps gives our modern minds insight into what Paul is saying.
Satan and a host of evil spirits are the spiritual rulers of the world. They empower ungodly men and women to oppose God’s will and attack believers. They form a “vast multitude and are organized into a highly systematized empire of evil…”[5]

The church must confront this empire of evil and does so by putting on the whole armor of God (see Ephesians 6:13-17). And when the battle is heated and defeat seems near at hand, having done all, the Church must continue to stand. It can do so because that itinerate preacher who trod the hills and valleys of ancient Palestine two thousand years ago really was the Son of God, and his kingdom will never fail.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who Destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 277.
[2] Malcolm Muggeridge, The End of Christendom, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 1980), p. 11.
[3] Swanson, pp. 289-290.
[4] Os Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2016), pp. 31-32.
[5] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p.439.

The Church triumphant – Part I

Posted by :admin On : November 4, 2016
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Humanism

Christians in the West are living in a grand clarifying moment. The gap between Christians and the wider culture is widening, and many formerly nominal Christians are becoming “religious nones”…

We face a solemn hour for humanity at large and a momentous showdown for the Western church. At stake is the attempted completion of the centuries-long assault on the Jewish and Christian faiths and their replacement by progressive secularism as the defining faith of the West and the ideology said to be the best suited to the conditions of advanced modernity. The gathering crisis is therefore about nothing less than a struggle for the soul of the West…[1]

So wrote Os Guinness wrote in Impossible People. One aspect of this grand clarifying moment for Christians will occur as Americans go to the polls in in the November elections. The results will be more than a minor historical footnote and promises to be a pivotal event in deciding the direction of the nation and ultimately Western civilization. Many Christians are shaking their heads in disbelief. They ponder how America could have arrived at such a low point. But the assault on Christianity is not of recent origin for Satan’s war against God predates the Garden. However, God’s special creation gave Satan a new target for striking at the Creator.

After two centuries of growth, anti-Christian progressive secularism in America has recently achieved critical mass and now boldly attacks Christians and Christianity in every sector of American society. We must ask how the church arrived at this sorry state of powerlessness in defending the faith and influencing American culture. When we speak of a powerful church, that does not mean the church should wield power to dominant the state but to change men’s lives who subsequently may exert a Godly influence on society and its institutions.

The large and momentous showdown between the Western church and humanistic progressive secularism is also occurring during the time of the great apostasy within the church—a confluence of events in which Christianity is caught in the perfect storm. Paul spoke of the end of the last days in which much of the church would become apostate, that is, falling away from or departure from the faith. “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition…” [2 Thessalonians 2:1-3. KJV] [emphasis added]

Is the Christian West in that day spoken of by Paul? Considering what has happened over the last two hundred years in Europe and America, Kevin Swanson called this period “the most significant Christian apostasy of all time. As measured by sheer numbers, there is no other apostasy so extensive in recorded history.” [2] Without doubt, the church is in the time of great apostasy.

An apostate church is a powerless church because it has fallen away from or rejected the truth of God’s word. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with the inerrant teachings of the Bible, and without a firm foundation of biblical truth, they become powerless.

The powerless condition of the church in America is not unlike the German church following World War I. The German church was weak in both the war and the peace that followed, but it had not yet allied itself with evil. The weakened German evangelical church was filled with terror as its political power and influence declined during the 1920s. Frail and fearful, the church became territorial and defensive, and some looked to a rising political leader as the savior of the church. This eventually led to an unholy alliance between the German church and one of history’s greatest incarnations of evil—Adolf Hitler and the Nazi regime. Whatever their private thoughts, both the Protestant and Catholic churches capitulated to Hitler’s demands and domination upon his rise to power. Hitler’s program for the church was deliberately ambiguous. He placated fearful church leaders with these words, “We demand freedom for all religious denominations in the state so far as they are not a danger to it and do not militate against the customs and morality of the German race.”[3] Do we not hear similar words from our secular leaders today? They assure us that there is freedom for all religions so long as they do not stand at cross purposes with the state.

While the German Lutheran Church was a principal pillar of the Reformation during the sixteenth century and a subsequent forthright defender of the faith, the depths of apostasy to which the vast majority of German church leaders had sunk during the 1930s is incomprehensible. Some sought to obliterate the Jewish background of Christianity. Others proclaimed Hitler as “the redeemer in the history of the Germans…the window through which light fell on the history of Christianity.” Still others welcomed barbarous uniformed Nazi units into their churches and supplied them with chaplains. Both the German Protestant churches and the German Catholic Church gave huge support to the Nazi regime during its rise to power and throughout World War II.[4]

Hitler was not a Christian and most of the members of the Nazi elite were openly and vigorously anti-Christian. Hitler never officially left the church into which he was born, and for political reasons he occasionally attended church during his early years in power. But Hitler hated Christians and Christianity. Soon after assuming power he vowed that he would stamp out Christianity in Germany.[5]

One is either a Christian or a German. You can’t be both…Do you really believe the masses will ever be Christian again? Nonsense. Never again. The tale is finished…but we can hasten matters. The parsons will be made to dig their own graves. They will betray their God to us… [6]

The stated goal of Hitler with regard to Christianity aligns substantially with the goal of most of the humanistic-progressive-secularist ruling elites in all spheres of modern American society Many Christians unintentionally or unknowingly support that goal through their ignorance, apathy, or lethargy. That goal is to stamp out Christianity altogether or so constrain it that it will die of its own accord within a generation or two, and the church has been complicit in its own demise.

Satan subverts the church by injecting into it the very thing in which it is in a struggle to the death—a simpering humanistic worldview that caters to self. Guinness wrote that these church leaders are “courting spiritual and institutional suicide” for themselves and for those they are leading astray.

…[They] are reaping what others sowed with such fanfare a generation ago. For were we not solemnly sold a barrel of nonsense in the form of maxims that all good seeker-sensitive and audience-driven churches were to pursue? Here is one example from a well-known Christian marketing consultant: “It is also critical that we keep in mind a fundamental principle of Christian communication: the audience, not the message, is sovereign.”

The audience is sovereign? No! Let it be repeated a thousand times, no! When reaching out as the church of Jesus, the message of the gospel and Jesus the Lord of the message is alone sovereign—and never, never, never the audience…[7] [emphasis in original]

Audience-driven Church Growth leaders of seeker-sensitive churches justify their methods by pointing to Paul’s admonition to the Corinthians in winning the lost (See: 1 Corinthians 9-19-23). Here Paul renounces his rights in sympathetic consideration of the sinner. However, Paul does not mean that he was willing to compromise his Christian principles or sought to please others for the purpose of winning their esteem. Rather, Paul was willing to conform to the standards and convictions of the lost as long as it did not violate his Christian principles.”[8] Church Growth leaders cry foul and say that they are only changing their methods and not their doctrine. But their methods are in truth filled with the humanistic spirit of the age that undermines or ignores doctrinal truths and are leading millions to an eternity in hell.

Seeker-sensitive churches in their quest to please the seeker have compromised the gospel and allowed the world to change the church instead of the church changing the world. Over the course of the last fifty years, not only has the church failed to defend the faith in the public square and failed to transmit its values to its children, many modern church leaders have also drunk deeply from the well of doctrinal apostasy and have allowed the marginalization of Christianity in the larger culture. The evidence is abundant and undeniable. Many have embraced humanism’s themes of abortion, homosexuality, relativism, higher criticism of the Bible, evolution, progressivism, multiculturalism, diversity, religious universalism, promotion of socialist-Marxist concepts of organizing society, heretical concepts of salvation, and such like. They are digging their own graves and have betrayed their God.

Hosea’s description of Israel’s sinful state is a harbinger of what awaits the Western church without repentance and turning back to God.

For they sow the wind, and they shall reap the whirlwind. The standing grain has no heads, it shall yield no meal; if it were to yield, aliens would devour it. [Hosea 8:7. RSV]

Much of the modern church has foolishly sown to the wind and is reaping a whirlwind. Hosea’s prophesy revealed sin and pronounced judgements on a people that would not be reformed and had become apostatized over several generations.[9] Our modern crisis of the soul in Western civilization has arisen because the majority of the Western Christian church is powerless to defend the faith let alone win the lost. There is little truth, little harvest, and what little harvest occurs is devoured by a cunning and rapacious humanistic secularism driven by Satanic forces.

Does this mean an end to Christianity? Never! Whirlwinds need not be followed by obituaries. God is ready to redeem returning sinners (both individuals and nations) and restore a right relationship with Him. The true Church lives and will always remain triumphant.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Os Guinness, Impossible People – Christian Courage and the Struggle for the Soul of Civilization, (Downers Grove, Illinois: IVP Books, 2016), p. 22.
[2] Kevin Swanson, Apostate – The Men who destroyed the Christian West, (Parker, Colorado: Generations with Vision, 2013), p. 19.
[3] Paul Johnson, A History of Christianity, (New York: Touchstone Book, 1976), pp. 479, 483, 485.
[4] Ibid., pp. 484, 488.
[5] Ibid., p. 485.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Guinness, pp. 72-73.
[8] Donald C. Stamps, Gen. Ed., Commentary, The Full Life Study Bible, The New Testament, King James Version, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 366.
[9] Matthew Henry, Commentary on the Whole Bible, ed. Rev. Leslie F. Church, Ph.D., (Grand Rapids, Michigan, Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1105.

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part V

Posted by :admin On : October 7, 2016
0

Category: Abortion, Archives, Christianity

The apostasy of the liberal Protestant churches in the early part of the twentieth century has now entered much of the evangelical church. The fundamentalist churches of that era that stayed true to the fundamentals of New Testament Christianity were demeaned and marginalized in a society that was becoming increasingly secular and humanistic. By the 1940s the fundamentalists emerged as neo-evangelicals and once again engaged the culture with the inerrant truth of God’s word. But as America progressed through the remainder of the century and into the twenty-first century, a large portion of the evangelical church had succumbed to the spirit of the age and slid into apostasy.

The apostasy of Pope Francis described in Parts II through IV of this series centered on the great flashpoints of conflict between the Christian and humanist worldviews. In Part II, the Pope presented salvation as a matter of works, something to be achieved by man on terms that are acceptable to him, be he a Christian or atheist. In Part III, the Pope stated that Christians and Muslims essentially worshipped the same God. In Part IV we saw that the Pope’s words contradict the Bible and the church’s traditional stance that homosexuality was a sin. The extent to which this escalating apostasy has grown is evident in many quarters of the modern evangelical church, and much of this apostasy centers on the teachings of the Church Growth movement and its evangelization through preaching a new cross.

The cross upon which the Son of God was crucified stands at the crossroads of history and the story of mankind. Its stark and demanding message is an irritant in the soul of sinful man. For many its message is too confrontational, an agitant, inconvenient, an offense, something to be mocked or shunned. In modern times the way in which the cross is perceived by many who profess allegiance to Christ has also changed. The message of the cross has been muted if not altogether silenced to minimize its offensiveness in churches filled with people trying to decide if Christianity is right for them. Others have rewritten its message to smooth its abrasiveness and soften its demands by making it a thing of comfort and beauty instead of and instrument of death to self and hope of life eternal. The old message, having been modernized and adapted, seamlessly blends with the world’s fascination with humanistic concepts of self-esteem instead of the reality of the fallen nature of man. The new cross at its core rests on ego and selfishness and is the great enemy of the old cross of Christ.[1]

But preaching a new cross and trying to fit into an increasingly hostile world can make for strange bedfellows. On August 11-12, 2016, the Global Leadership Summit was broadcast by live telecast around the world. Advertisements in print and on the Internet invited people to “join an expected 305,000 leaders from 126 countries who are committed to transforming their communities.” The Global Leadership Summit is an annual event sponsored by the Willow Creek Association (WCA) founded in 1992 by Bill Hybels and Willow Creek Church with the stated goal of serving “…pioneering pastors and leaders through world-class leadership experiences and resources” so that Christian leaders can be inspired, encouraged, and equipped [to] create thriving local churches that redeem their communities for Christ.[2] WCA’s website explains how this is to be accomplished.

WCA’s passion is to help leaders worldwide—men and women—realize God’s vision for their lives, churches and communities. We share ideas and build partnerships. Through The Global Leadership Summit (TGLS), Partners, and WCA Membership we deliver vision and inspiration to resourced regions; and we bring training and opportunity to under-resourced areas.[3]

In addition to the two-day live telecast, other Summit events are to take place throughout the fall at an additional 675+ sites in 125 countries and 59 languages.[4]

From these brief statements about the WCA’s mission and stated goals in conducting the Global Leadership Summit, there appears to be nothing of concern that would cause alarm among Christians. To the contrary, on the surface it appears to support training of Christians for the work of the Great Commission as commanded by Christ in Matthew 28:19-20. But as one digs a little deeper and learns who some of the headline speakers were at the summit, there is great cause for concern. The Global Leadership Summit for 2016 listed thirteen faculty speakers. The first four shown on the website were as follows:

Bill Hybels – Founder and Senior Pastor, Willow Creek Community Church
Melinda Gates – Co-Chair, Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Alan Mulally – President and Chief Executive Officer, The Ford Motor Company (2006-2014)
Bishop T. D. Jakes – Founder and Senior Pastor, The Potter’s House

The remaining nine speakers included one other pastor and several authors, professors, business leaders, and consultants. Some of the speakers may be Christians while others may not profess Christ at all. This lineup of speakers was widely advertised on the Summit website and in hundreds of newspaper throughout America and around the world.[5]

But for Christians, the most disturbing member of the faculty was Melinda Gates whose photograph was in the number two position immediately to the right of Bill Hybels. The website biography of Gates reads as follows:

As co-chair of the foundation [the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation], Melinda Gates shapes and approves strategies, reviews results and sets the overall direction of the organization. Her work has led her to focus on empowering women and girls to bring transformational improvements in the health and prosperity of families, communities and societies. After joining Microsoft Corp. in 1987, she helped develop many of the company’s multimedia products. In 1996, Melinda left Microsoft to focus on her philanthropic work and family.[6]

The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation endowment is $40.2 billion and provides grants for family planning throughout the United States and in over one hundred countries around the world. From prior to 2009 through 2013, the foundation gave $71 million in grants to the International Planned Parenthood Federation, Planned Parenthood Federation of America, and numerous other state and local Planned Parenthood organizations.[7] In December 2014, Gates attempted to distance her foundation from abortion by saying that it will now only fund the contraception element of Planned Parenthood. But this is the equivalent of filling the contraception pocket of the abortion provider while her friends fill the abortion pocket. This duplicity is exposed through her foundation’s relationship with Warren Buffett. Through the Sarah Thompson Buffett Foundation named after his late wife, Buffett funneled $231 million to Planned Parenthood between 2010 and 2013. Should it come as a surprise that Buffett is also a Gates Foundation trustee, and “helps ‘shape and develop strategies’ for the Foundation. Buffett is also a large contributor to the Gates Foundation.”[8]

Should Melinda Gates activities, friends, and associates have been of concern to Bill Hybels when he invited her to speak at his leadership conference conducted under the banner of his Christian organization? To say other than a resounding “yes” is to ignore his credulity and lack of common sense. “Love not the world, neither the things that are in the world. If any man love the world, the love of the Father is not in him.” [1 John 2:15. KJV]

The “world” is a term that is a frequent reference to the vast system of the age. The term refers to many things. It is not limited to the evil, immoral, and sinful pleasures of the world. The “world” also refers to a rebellious spirit that wars against God and His Word. This spirit exists in all human enterprises and activities. Satan opposes God and His people by using the world’s ideas, morality, and philosophies in all spheres of life including government, culture, education, science, art, medicine, music, economic systems, entertainment, mass media, and religion.[9] The words from Donald Stamps’ Bible commentary leave the discerning Christian little doubt as to the meaning of the world system.

Believers must be aware that behind all human enterprises there is a spirit, force, or power that moves against God and His Word, some to a lesser degree, some to a greater degree. Finally, the “world” also includes all man-made religious systems and all unbiblical, worldly, or lukewarm “Christian” organizations and churches.

Satan has organized the world into political, cultural, economic, and religious systems that are innately hostile toward God and His people…

Loving the world defiles our fellowship with God and leads to spiritual destruction…To love the world means being in intimate fellowship with and devotion to its values, interest, ways, and pleasures…Believers must have no close or intimate fellowship with those who participate in the world’s evil system, must openly condemn their sin, must be salt and light to them, must love them, and must attempt to win them to Christ.[10]

A key phrase in Global Leadership Summit’s promotional materials is, “We share ideas and build partnerships.” The larger problem is that many in the church are looking to the world for ideas and answers which contain the spirit of the world. Why must many Christian leaders rely on the wisdom of the world when they have access to the wisdom of the ages through the Holy Spirit? The Apostle Paul warned about seeking wisdom from the unchurched.

Let no one deceive himself. If any one among you thinks he is wise in this age, let him become a fool that he may become wise. For the wisdom of this world is folly with God. For it is written, “He catches the wise in their craftiness,” and again, “The Lord knows the thoughts of the wise are futile.” So let no one boast of men. For all things are yours, whether Paul or Apollos or Cephas or the world or life or death or the present or the future, all are yours; and ye are Christ’s; and Christ is God’s. [1 Corinthians 3:18-23. RSV]

This does not mean that Christians are opposed to education and self-improvement. Rather, the opposite is true, but we should remember that the foundational source of our knowledge is not worldly wisdom. Rather, the world’s wisdom must always be sifted and judged in light of the biblical revelation, prayer, and the leading of the Holy Spirit. And the Christian’s quest for wisdom and accomplishment of the Great Commission certainly does not include partnering with the world. The Apostle Paul’s letter of instruction to the Corinthians is very clear on this matter.

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

One wonders how many Christians among the 305,000 participants at the various Global Leadership Summit locations around the world departed confused or dismayed at the absurdity of having a speaker attempt to teach leadership skills to Christians so they may better do the works commanded by Christ but who personally has funded the deaths of millions of unborn babies.
______

In this series we have looked at specific instances of religious compromisers and false prophets that have risen to leadership within the church during these last days at the end of the age. There are many other instances of apostasy in the modern evangelical church that could be discussed, but time, space, and the reader’s endurance will not permit such discussion. For readers who wish to examine other articles in this website that deal with apostasy, a few of those are listed at the end of this article.

One must ask the question as to why so many evangelical churches have lost their courageous, countercultural, prophetic voice and are no longer confronting a deteriorating culture. Writing almost three quarters of a century ago, the words of A. W. Tozer rightly diagnosed the reasons for the apostate condition of much of American evangelicalism then and now.

Christianity is so entangled with the spirit of the world that millions never guess how radically they have missed the New Testament pattern. Compromise is everywhere. The world is whitewashed just enough to pass inspection by blind men posing as believers, and those same believers are everlastingly seeking to gain acceptance with the world. By mutual concessions men who call themselves Christians manage to get on with men who have for the things of God nothing but contempt.[11]

Larry G. Johnson

Additional articles on apostasy at culturewarrior.net:

Seduction of the American church
Strange Fire – The church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part I,
Strange Fire – The church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part II
Strange Fire – The churches quest for cultural relevance – Part III
Strange Fire – The churches quest for cultural relevance – Part IV
The Separated Church – Part I
The Separated Church – Part II
The Separated Church – Part III
The Separated Church – Part IV
Growing apostasy in the last days – Part I
Growing apostasy in the last days – Part II
Growing Apostasy in the last days – Part III
Growing Apostasy in the last days – Part IV
Pacifist Christians in the culture wars – Part I
Pacifist Christians in the culture wars – Part II

Sources:

[1] Larry G. Johnson, Evangelical Winter – Restoring New Testament Christianity, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2016), p. 274.
[2] “About WCA,” Willow Creek Association, https://www.willowcreek.com/about/ (accessed September 16, 2016).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] “Faculty,” The Global Leadership Summit, https://www.willowcreek.com/events/leadership/#about (accessed September 16, 2016).
[6] Ibid.
[7] Susan Berry, “Bill and Melinda Gates Foundations says it will no longer fund abortion,” Brietbart, June 12, 2014. http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2014/06/12/bill-and-melinda-gates-foundation-says-it-will-no-longer-fund-abortion/ (accessed September 16, 2016).
[8]Alatheia Nielsen, “Planned Parenthood’s Biggest Donors Gave $374 Million in Four Years,” mrcNewsBusters, July 31, 2015. http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/alatheia-larsen/2015/07/31/planned-parenthoods-biggest-donors-gave-374-million-four-years (accessed September 16, 2016).
[9] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), p. 578.
[10] Ibid., pp. 578-579.
[11] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers), p. 116.

Take heed that no man deceive you – Part IV

Posted by :admin On : September 30, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Homosexuality

This series of articles deals with the great apostasy in the church during the end of the last days as described by Christ in Matthew 24. Perhaps there is no man alive that has accelerated the church’s descent into apostasy more than Pope Francis. He is aggressively pursuing a progressive, liberal agenda in an attempt to fundamentally change the face of the Catholic Church and its doctrines and teachings, and two recent initiatives reflect his agenda. The first was dealt with in Part III and concerned heretical views of Islam and its relationship with Christianity. This article deals with the actions of the Pope which have dramatically accelerated the ascendancy of the homosexual agenda in both the culture and the church.

Homosexuality

On July 28, 2013, Pope Francis was on a return flight on the papal plane following the XXVII World Youth Day held in Rio de Janeiro. Accompanying the pope were members of the press who were allowed to ask questions during a lengthy press conference during the flight. The final question asked by one of the participants concerned the worldwide news coverage of Monsignor Batista Ricci who had been recently picked to head the troubled Vatican bank. Ricci had been widely accused of homosexual activity during his management of the Pope’s diplomatic office in Uruguay during 1999-2001.[1]

Ricci purportedly had been sexually involved with a man whom Ricci demanded be given a job and room at the Uruguayan papal diplomatic mission. Ricci’s alleged homosexual activities had been widely reported in both Uruguayan and Italian newspapers. The accusations appear to have been well supported by many credible sources (Uruguayan bishops, priests, and laymen) and exhaustive documentation which was made available to Vatican authorities.[2]

The Pope stated that a preliminary investigation had found no wrongdoing by Father Ricci.[3] The Pope attempted to downplay the importance and power of the gay lobby within the Vatican when he said, “There’s a lot of talk about the gay lobby, but I’ve never seen it on the Vatican ID card!”[4] However, the Pope took the opportunity to expand his comments to include his view of homosexuality.

When I meet a gay person, I have to distinguish between their being gay and being part of a lobby. If they accept the Lord and have goodwill, who am I to judge them? They shouldn’t be marginalized. The tendency (to homosexuality) is not the problem … they’re our brothers.[5] [emphasis added]

The Pope’s now famous (for many, “infamous”) statement that he will not judge gays and lesbians including gay priests in the church appears to challenge the Catholic Church’s foundational doctrines and orthodoxy and stands in stark opposition to a document signed by Pope Benedict XVI in 2005 that said men with deep-rooted homosexual tendencies should not be priests.[6] Pope Francis’ position is also in opposition to the teachings of the Catholic Catechism which is a document of Catholic religious instruction that explains the beliefs of the church.

2357 Homosexuality refers to relations between men or between women who experience an exclusive or predominant sexual attraction toward persons of the same sex. It has taken a great variety of forms through the centuries and in different cultures. Its psychological genesis remains largely unexplained. Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity, tradition has always declared that “homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered.” They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.

2359 Homosexual persons are called to chastity. By the virtues of self-mastery that teach them inner freedom, at times by the support of disinterested friendship, by prayer and sacramental grace, they can and should gradually and resolutely approach Christian perfection.[7]

The Pope and the gay lobby within the Vatican conveniently fail to separate the sin of from the person. They also attempt to blur the lines between the tendency toward homosexuality and the sin of homosexual practices. Some Christians have a tendency toward homosexuality but valiantly fight that tendency and adhere to biblical standards of morality regarding sexual activity. The sin of practicing homosexuals separates them from God, and therefore they cannot be brothers or sisters in Christ except through repentance (not merely goodwill) and abstinence.

The meaning of “Judge not, that ye be not judged”

A thoughtful reading of Sermon on the Mount reveals that Jesus condemns the habit of criticizing others while ignoring one’s own faults and brings clarity to the meaning of His words, “judge not, that ye be not judged.”

Judge not, that you be not judged. For with the judgment you pronounce you will be judged, and the measure you give will be the measure you get. Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye? Or how can you say to your brother, ‘Let me take the speck out of your eye,’ when there is the log in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother’s eye. [Matthew 7:1-5. RSV]

Jesus is not saying that we are to ignore the sins of others as Pope Francis’ laconic “Who am I to judge?” suggests. In rendering judgement, we must first make a distinction between judging fellow believers and sinners.

Bringing correction to fellow Christians

A Christian is not prohibited from influencing the behavior of other Christians who are in error or sin (v.3: the speck in our brother’s eye). However, the Christian must first submit himself to God’s righteous standard (v. 3: consider the log that is in our own eye). Also, such hoped-for influence must always be done with the goal of seeing the offender return to God and His righteous pathways. However, the great majority of people (both in and out of the church) fail to see that these verses do not prohibit judgement and correction which is a matter of church discipline and necessary to protect God’s reputation, maintain moral purity, insure doctrinal integrity, and to make possible the restoration of the wayward Christian’s soul and Christlikeness.[8]

Christians and the judgment of sinners

When a Christian attempts to influence the behavior of sinners, the gospel must be lovingly and graciously presented. The Christian’s judgment of the sinner’s condition is not based on the Christian’s opinion or theories but on what the Bible says about man’s sinful condition. Christians are called upon to judge between right and wrong based on morality and truth as revealed in God’s word, but again such judgement must be done in a spirit of love, kindness, and concern for the sinner, not in a spirit of condemnation.

Much of the world and the church have adopted the humanistic definitions of love and tolerance in which God’s love is so vast that he will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. God’s nonjudgmental love is presumed to be so great that sin will be tolerated. In other words, love and doing good is all that matters to a tolerant nonjudgmental God. But this is a false message that is causing millions to miss an eternity in heaven with Jesus and will result in an eternity in hell.

Pope Francis’ “Who am I to Judge?” effectively implies that the unrepentant, practicing homosexual can have communion and on-going fellowship as a member of the Catholic Church if they “accept the Lord and have goodwill.” But the Bible says that a person will receive forgiveness if they repent and accept Jesus as their Savior and Lord. This means that goodwill is not a substitute for turning from sin because anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. Therefore, the church cannot teach that a penitent may find Jesus as their Savior but not the Lord of their lives. The presence of sin is ruinous of man’s relationship with God, and the only alternative requires repentance and turning from sin.

It is without a doubt that the Pope knew his comments on homosexuality would generate an avalanche of worldwide media attention and change the landscape with regard to the biblical understanding of homosexuality in both the church and culture at large. A recent example is Democratic vice presidential nominee Tim Kaine’s use of Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?” to support his view that practicing homosexuals were not in sinful relationships. He went on to say that the first chapter of Genesis supported his view of homosexuality.

I think it’s [the Catholic Church] going to change because my church also teaches me about a creator who, in the first chapter of Genesis, surveyed the entire world, including mankind and said, “It is very good.” Who am I to challenge God for the beautiful diversity of the human family? I think we’re supposed to celebrate it, not challenge it.[9]

The Pope’s “Who am I to judge?” was just another humanistic, progressivist brick tossed through the windows of the church to weaken the authority of the Bible in matters of truth, doctrine, and morality in order to make the church more inclusive and accommodating to the spirit of the world.
______

In Parts II, III, and IV we have shown the specifics of Pope Francis’ apostasy: promotion of socialistic-Marxist systems of economy and governance centered on humanism and branded as “a new humanity”; advancement of universalism in which all roads lead to heaven if paved with good works; promotion of heretical concepts of salvation devoid of repentance and acceptance of Jesus as one’s Lord and Savior; calls for merging Christianity with false religions in the name of peace and unity; and the acceptance and toleration of sin within the church such as legitimization of the sin of homosexuality.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “The Pope says he will not judge priest for being gay,” The Guardian, July 29, 2013.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/jul/29/pope-francis-gay-priests (accessed September 10, 2016).
[2] Matthew Hoffman, “Uruguayan newspaper confirms accusations of homosexual conduct by Vatican bank appointee,” LifeSiteNews.com, July 23, 2013. https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/uruguayan-newspaper-confirms-accusations-of-homosexual-conduct-by-vatican-b (accessed September 15, 2016).
[3] “The Pope says he will not judge priest for being gay,” The Guardian, July 29, 2013.
[4] John L. Allen, Jr. and Hada Messia, “Pope Francis on gays: ‘Who am I to Judge?’” CNN, July 29, 2013. http://religion.blogs.cnn.com/2013/07/29/pope-francis-on-gays-who-am-i-to-judge/ (accessed September 20, 2016).
[5] Ibid.
[6] Steve Jalsevac, “Evidence of a trail of wreckage from Pope Francis’ “Who am I to judge?’” LifeSiteNews.com, June 23, 2016. https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/evidence-of-a-trail-of-wreckage-from-pope-francis-who-am-i-to-judge (accessed September 10, 2016).
[7] “Chastity and Homosexuality,” The Catechism of the Catholic Church. http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/_INDEX.HTM (accessed September 15, 2016).
[8] Donald C. Stamps, Study Notes and Articles, The Full Life Study Bible – New Testament, King James Version, gen. ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990), pp. 16, 43.
[9] Michael Brown, “Why Tim Kaine Is Wrong About Genesis Endorsing Homosexual Acts,” The Christian Post, September 12, 2016. http://www.christianpost.com/news/why-tim-kaine-is-wrong-about-genesis-endorsing-homosexual-acts-169462/ (accessed September 23, 2016).