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 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.

Much for which to be thankful!

Posted by :admin On : November 24, 2016
1

Category: America, Archives, Culture Wars

This has been a difficult year in America and for most of the world. In spite of all the bitter rhetoric on both sides, the 2016 presidential campaign was not so much about a choice between two candidates but was substantially about the fundamental differences in the worldviews of the voters they represented. Some (including myself) believed that the presidential election would determine the trajectory of the nation for decades to come. Given the outcome of the election, it appears that those identifying with the Judeo-Christian worldview have been given another chance to make the necessary course corrections to save the nation from cultural disintegration.

For many, the election is not over as can be seen on college campuses throughout America, in Hollywood, academia, establishment media, and the remainder of the self-anointed intelligentsia of America who try to guide the political, artistic, and social development of society. Most of the jabbering classes are either largely clueless about or remarkably disdainful of the nation’s original values, principles, and the Judeo-Christian worldview upon which it was founded. Much of their secular-humanistic chatter is nothing more than a lot of noise wrapped in false egalitarian definitions of multiculturalism, diversity, and inclusion. Their post-election sophistry has evolved into a mass tantrum orchestrated and paid for in part by their puppet masters including George Soros and Planned Parenthood. Instead of hot cocoa and grief counseling to mollify their loss of power in the White House and other government offices around the nation, they should be sent to time-out which would be the normal consequence for most three-year-olds that exhibited similar behaviors. The same should happen to the tiny fraction of society who celebrated the election by property destruction, racist rants, and hateful rhetoric because their actions are totally foreign to the substantive positions of the vast majority of those who voted against a humanistic and socialistic future for America.

In spite of all of this present foolishness, Americans have a multitude of reasons to be thankful for our heritage and blessings that surpass even the deep divisions and failings of American culture. If one doubts this, pick a spot on the globe that would be a better place to live than America…New Zealand perhaps?

During the special seasons of Thanksgiving and Christmas, I suggest that both sides of the culture wars take a break, chill out, unplug from the 24-7 news cycle, and reflect on what once made America great and what can do so again. I will be the first to set the example. There will be no more articles published on culturewarrior.net until January 2017. Come January 1, 2017, the engines of what passes for civil discourse can be fired up again. And if they behave during our self-imposed hiatus, perhaps we can release the mindless protesters and malicious celebrants from time-out.

Larry G. Johnson

Pacifist Christians in the Culture Wars – Part II

Posted by :admin On : June 24, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars

Two paradigms for cultural engagement: persuasion v. warfare

In his book Thriving in Babylon Larry Osborne describes two opposing paradigms of cultural engagement: persuasion and warfare. He has chosen Daniel of the Old Testament as the role-model for the persuasive, non-combative approach of Christians to a hostile culture. He describes those in the warfare paradigm as focusing on fighting the spread of sin on all fronts and who envision themselves as “frontline soldiers in a great spiritual battle between the forces of evil and those who uphold biblical values.”[1] Osborne believes that modern evangelicals who see the culture in terms of spiritual warfare have gotten it all wrong and should emulate Daniel.

When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, it’s always framed in the context of our personal spirituality. The warfare model focuses on the wrong enemy. Non-Christians are not the enemy. They’re the victims of the Enemy. Victims need to be rescued, not wiped out.”[2] [emphasis added]

Here we find the great error of Osborne and like-minded culturally pacifist Christians in engaging the culture. Spiritual warfare is not always framed in the context of personal spirituality. The Bible has a great deal to say about spiritual warfare, and Donald Stamps in “The Christian’s Relationship to the World” describes the cultural battlefield where this war is fought.

The term “world’ often refers to the vast system of this age which Satan promotes and exists independent of God…In this age Satan uses the world’s ideas, morality, philosophies, psychology, desires, governments, culture, education, science, art, medicine, music, economic systems, entertainment, mass media, religions, sports, agriculture, etc., to oppose God, His people, His word and His righteous standards… 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…In the world believers are strangers and pilgrims.[3]

The individual Christian and the Church (body of Christ) must stand in opposition to the world system. When the biblical authors speak of spiritual warfare, they refer not only to personal spiritual preparation but also to being prepared to wage spiritual warfare in the larger culture as described by Paul’s letter to the Ephesians.

Finally, be strong in the Lord and in the strength of his might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the schemes of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against the rulers, against the authorities, against the cosmic powers over this present darkness, against the spiritual forces of evil in the heavenly places. Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand firm. [Ephesians 6:10-14. KJV]

If not in the culture, where are Christian supposed to war against rulers, authorities, cosmic powers over the present darkness, against spiritual forces of evil in heavenly places? Christians are Christ’s voice and legs in the spiritual battle against a “world” system ruled by Satan. Christians must not see spiritual warfare only in the “context of our personal spirituality” as claimed by Osborne. It is in the culture that we must stand firm in the evil day. The Apostle Paul had much to say about spiritual warfare in the culture, and the following are just three of his admonitions.

For though we live in the world we are not carrying on a worldly war, for the weapons of our warfare are not worldly but have divine power to destroy strongholds. We destroy arguments and every proud obstacle to the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ. [2 Corinthians 10:3-5. RSV] [emphasis added]

Preach the word; be urgent in season and out of season; convince, rebuke and exhort, be unfailing in patience and teaching. [2 Timothy 4:2. RSV] [emphasis added]

Let no one deceive you with empty words, for it is because of these things that the wrath of God comes upon the sons of disobedience. Therefore do not associate with them…Take no part in the unfruitful works of darkness, but instead expose them. For it is a shame to even speak of the things that they do in secret; but when anything is exposed by the light it becomes visible. [Ephesians 5: 6-7,11-13. RSV] [emphasis added]

The face of spiritual warfare in German culture of the 1930s

Martin Niemöller was a captain of a German U-boat during World War I and was awarded the Iron Cross for Bravery. Although a distinguished pastor in the German Lutheran Church, Niemöller supported the Nazis’ early efforts at restoring Germany’s dignity, ridding the country of communists, and restoring moral order. In a private meeting with Hitler in 1932, Hitler promised Niemöller that he would not interfere with the German churches and would not institute pogroms (persecutions and exterminations) against the Jews.[4]

But as the Nazi regime consolidated its power in early 1933, Niemöller saw the underlying agenda of Hitler. A small minority of pastors, churches, and individual Christians in Germany began opposing Hitler and the apostate German church that had capitulated to his ideas and agenda. The resistance centered within the new “Confessing Church” led by Niemöller, Dietrich Bonhoeffer, and a few others. When Hitler heard of a potential church split because of objections to his policies, he summoned several dissenting church leaders including Niemöller to the Reich Chancellery. He lectured the assembled churchmen and said all he wanted was peace between Church and state and blamed them for obstructing his plans. Hitler warned them “…to confine yourself to the Church. I’ll take care of the German people.” Niemöller responded that the Church also had a responsibility toward the German people that was entrusted to them by God and that neither Hitler nor anyone else in the world had power to remove that responsibility. Hitler turned away without comment, but that same evening the Gestapo ransacked Niemöller’s rectory while searching for incriminating material. Within days a homemade bomb exploded in the hall of the rectory.[5]

As Nazi pressure was ratcheted up against the dissenting churchmen, Niemöller and Bonhoeffer were criticized by their fellow churchmen for opposing Hitler and his policies. Eventually over two thousand would choose the route of appeasement and safety and abandoned support of Bonhoeffer and Niemöller’s efforts in resisting the Nazis. “They believed that appeasement was the best strategy; they thought that if they remained silent they could live with Hitler’s intrusion into church affairs and his political policies.”[6] In the late summer of 1933, Niemöller wrote a letter to a friend about his opposition to Hitler.

Although I am working with all my might for the church opposition, it is perfectly clear to me that this opposition is only a very temporary transition to an opposition of a very different kind, and that very few of those engaged in this preliminary skirmish will be part of the next struggle. And I believe that the whole of Christendom should pray with us that it will be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.[7]

In early 1934 from the pulpit of his church in the Berlin suburb of Dahlem, Niemöller spoke of the coming trials that faced the German church.

We have all of us—the whole Church and the whole community—we’ve been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now become manifest whether we are wheat or chaff! Verily, a time of sifting has come upon us, and even the most indolent and peaceful person among us must see that the calm of a meditative Christianity is at an end…

It is now springtime for the hopeful and expectant Christian Church—it is testing time, and God is giving Satan a free hand, so he may shake us up and so that it may be seen what manner of men we are!…

Satan swings his sieve and Christianity is thrown hither and thither; and he who is not ready to suffer, he who called himself a Christian only because he thereby hoped to gain something good for his race and his nations is blown away like chaff by the wind of time.[8]

In 1937, Niemöller and more than eight hundred other churchmen were arrested and imprisoned for their opposition to the Nazis. Following release from prison after eight months, Niemöller was immediately arrested again as a “personal prisoner” of the Führer himself and spent the next seven years in Dachau, one the Nazis’ most infamous concentration camps. He was freed by the Allies in 1945.[9]

After the war, in his sorrow for not recognizing and speaking out in the early days of the Nazi rise to power, Niemöller penned this sorrowful message.

First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Socialist.

Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Trade Unionist.

Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—Because I was not a Jew.

Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.[10]

The face of spiritual warfare in American culture of the twenty-first century

The present course of American culture is much like that of Germany in the early 1930s. Although America’s Godly heritage and the protection of religious freedom built into the Constitution have been powerful deterrents to the agendas of humanism and pagan religions, those deterrents have been substantially weakened over the course of the last three generations as humanistic and pagan philosophies gained ascendance and critical mass in American society. But culturally pacifist Christians like Osborne tell us not to worry. We can thrive in Babylon if we will only have the right perspective and make friends with and serve the powers that be. However, that will require Christians to embrace new definitions of tolerance and perhaps compromise on some of the less important details of their faith.

But it is not a time for “chilling out” or attempting to “thrive” in an increasingly hostile culture. In his commentary on Ephesians 6:11, Donald Stamps paints a much different picture of the Christian’s calling and obligations of spiritual warfare in the culture.

In their warfare of faith, Christians are called upon to endure hardships as good soldiers of Christ, suffer for the gospel, fight the good fight of faith, wage war, be victorious, defend the gospel, strive for the faith, not be alarmed by opponents, put on the full armor of God, stand firm, destroy Satan’s strongholds, take captive every thought, become mighty in war, and contend for the faith.[11]

As it was in Germany of the early 1930s, the America church has been thrown into the Tempter’s sieve, and he is shaking and the wind is blowing, and it must now be revealed whether the church is wheat or chaff. As Niemöller admonished the German church to pray in the late summer of 1933, the American church should now pray that their resistance will also be a “resistance unto death,” and that the people will be found to suffer it.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 161.
[2] Ibid., pp.162-163.
[3] “The Christian’s Relationship to the World,” The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, Gen. Ed. Donald C. Stamps, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Bible Publishers, 1990, pp. 578-579.
[4] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), p. 177.
[5] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 19-20.
[6] Ibid., p. 21.
[7] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, p. 197.
[8] Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, p. 32-32.
[9] Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, pp. 293, 295.
[10] Ibid., p. 192.
[11]Stamps, Commentary on Ephesians 6:11, The Full Life Study Bible – King James Version – New Testament, p. 439.

Pacifist Christians in the Culture Wars – Part I

Posted by :admin On : June 17, 2016
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Culture Wars

“If you haven’t noticed, the culture wars are over. We lost.”[1] This was written by Larry Osborne, senior pastor of North Coast Church, a multi-campus megachurch of 11,000 members headquartered in Vista, a city in San Diego County, California. Osborne is one of a growing group of highly influential evangelical leaders and their followers who have abandoned the culture wars. Not only have these evangelical leaders and many of their followers abandoned the culture wars, many are trying to justify their actions by claiming overt resistance to an ungodly culture is non-biblical. Osborne’s book presents several ideas and arguments which ultimately become a pacifistic approach to cultural engagement by Christians. In Part I we shall examine four of these ideas and philosophies.

Some things aren’t worth dying for

Osborne titled Chapter 17 of Thriving in Babylon “Wisdom – Some Things Aren’t Worth Dying For.” In this chapter he states that lack of perspective is a sign of Christian immaturity.

Waiting is not an option. Compromise is a dirty word. Everything is equally important. There are no nuances. Everything is black and white. And immediate consequences are the only consequences that matter.[2]

Basically, Osborne is saying that immature Christians should “chill out” when it comes to many things in culture. Mature Christians must have perspective. To a limited degree Osborne is correct. Christians must pick their cultural battles wisely. They must know the difference between sin and things that are just personally offensive, and they must always keep the big picture in mind. This is good advice for the Christian culture warrior.

Osborne points to Daniel as a biblical example of someone with perspective. Unfortunately, Osborne doesn’t stop there. He called Daniel “a man of great forbearance” which he immediately defines at biblical tolerance. Using Osborne’s chain of reasoning, Christian maturity arises from having perspective which becomes tolerance in the “biblical sense of the word.” Osborne states that tolerance, rightly understood, is “allowing people the right to be wrong.” He also states that tolerance has wrongly come to mean that nobody is wrong.

Those who dare to claim that some behaviors are actually morally wrong are written off as intolerant bigots. And ironically, they become the one group nobody is tolerant of. While many bemoan the intolerance directed toward Bible-believing Christians, we have no one to blame but ourselves. Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas.[3]

Humanism’s definition of tolerance begins with the denial of absolutes because no man or group can claim ownership of truth which is often the product of the free give and take of conflicting opinions. The humanist stance towards toleration results in moral relativism which is the antithesis of Christian belief. But the practical outworking in culture of Osborne’s understanding of tolerance effectively silences the presentation of biblical truth by those holding the Christian worldview. The truth claims of pagan religions are left unanswered, and humanism is left unchallenged as the humanistic cultural tsunami spreads across the nation.

Osborne’s stance on tolerance leads to an equally faulty understanding of compromise which he believes isn’t necessarily a dirty word. As with tolerance, Osborne makes some good points with regard to compromise. Yet, he attempts to link compromise with things that have nothing to do with compromise. He states that the wise “know what battles they can win and what battles need to be fought later.”[4] Neither of these statements are indications of compromise. Knowing whether one can win a battle or not is not the deciding factor as to whether that battle ought to be fought. Delaying a battle is not compromise either. These decisions should be determined by prayer and the leading of the Holy Spirit.

Christians must remember that God is holy and will not tolerate sin. What passes for tolerance and compromise in many of today’s churches is nothing more than accommodation to the spirit of the world by churches and their leadership. A. W. Tozer described this tendency in Christianity more than sixty years ago.

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.[5] [emphasis added]

Christian resistance to worldly leaders – Attempting to impose their will on non-Christians

Osborne likens the evangelical efforts to resist worldly leaders and their humanistic and pagan cultural influences flooding America as imposing Christianity on non-Christians. “We’re no longer trying to impose our will on non-Christians. We’re trying to keep non-Christians from imposing their will on us—and our churches.”[6]

Daniel also had the wisdom to understand that godless people live godless lives. He never forced his righteous lifestyle on others even as he rose to positions of power, he didn’t try to impose his walk with God on those who didn’t know God.[7]

Back when Christianity was the dominant cultural religion, we often used our power to shut down those who advocated opposing agendas…We’d boycott non-Christian companies for making non-Christian decisions…I often wonder what would have happened if we’d had the wisdom of Daniel when we were in control…Whether Daniel was at the bottom of the food chain or near the top, he never tried to force his righteousness on others…and thus earned the right to be heard.[8]

It is apparent that Osborne is substantially ignorant of American history, the nation’s founding, and the role of Christianity in its culture until the mid-twentieth century. The Founders weren’t forcing anyone to accept a righteous lifestyle. The Constitution and laws of the land established boundaries and became a foundation for the nation’s central cultural vision.

From this misunderstanding of religion’s duties and rightful place in public square, Osborne and many other highly influential but pacifistic Christian leaders have generally withdrawn from any significant involvement in politics and government over the last three decades. To challenge this belief, Wayne Gruden published a pamphlet titled, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Gruden presents a strong biblical basis for Christian involvement to “significantly influence law, politics, and government …according to God’s moral standards and God’s purposes for government as revealed in the Bible.” At the same time Gruden cautions that Christians “…must simultaneously insist on maintaining freedom of religion for all citizens.”[9] How is this balance achieved?

…the overarching moral suasion (influence or persuasion) of Christian principles under which our nation was founded made possible religious freedom for all faiths. Such moral suasion of Christian principles is not coercive as humanists would have us believe. The moral suasion of Christian principles provided the nation with a central vision and resulted in stability and unity by working through the individual as he voluntarily chooses the manner in which he orders his soul.[10]

Engage the culture by winning friends and influencing people

Osborne attempts to repackage Daniel’s humble nature as “service” to his wicked captors and masters. Therefore, “service” becomes the essential ingredient in constructing the “persuasive” paradigm for engaging culture.

He served his captors and wicked masters so well and loyally that he kept getting promoted. And with every promotion, his influence in Babylon grew greater…Yet I’m afraid that a modern-day Daniel would be harshly criticized. Many Christians would see him as a spiritual compromiser…Instead of avoiding or attacking the godless leaders of our day, we’ll need to begin to engage them in the same way Daniel did, humbly serving whomever God chooses to temporarily place into positions of authority.[11]

Osborne erroneously attempts to define biblical humility as “…simply serving others by putting their needs and interest above our own. It’s treating others the same way we’d treat them if they were someone ‘important’.” But Osborne’s definition of humility is not to be found in the dictionary.

Noah Webster Dictionary of 1828: Humility: In ethics, freedom from pride and arrogance, humbleness of mind, a modest estimate of one’s own worth. In theology, a lowliness of mind, a deep sense of one’s own unworthiness in the sight of God. Self-abasement, penitence for sin, submission to the Divine will.[12]

Merriam-Webster Dictionary of 1963: Humility: Quality or state of being humble. Humble: Not proud or haughty. Spirit of deference, not arrogant or assertive, submission, ranking low in some hierarchy of scale.[13]

Osborne’s definition of biblical humility is manifestly false, but it appears to be the core of much of pacifist Christians’ reasons for avoiding the culture wars. It is the seeker-sensitive model of Church Growth designed to reach the lost but modified for the culture at large. However, the Bible commands Christians to speak truth (with love and true humility) into culture as opposed to attempting to influence it through a fawning ingratiation and toady servitude to gain favor with ungodly leaders in a wicked culture. Christians are supposed to be salt and light to a lost and dying world. Although we are required to show Christian love, charity, and bind up the wounds of the broken, such must not be a weak substitute for truth. Writing over sixty years ago, A. W. Tozer anticipated the end-product of modern but misguided pacifist Christian efforts at an ill-defined and misplaced humility.

The Christian faith, based upon the New Testament, teaches the complete antithesis between the Church and the world…It is no more than a religious platitude to say that the trouble with us today is that we have tried to bridge the gulf between two opposites, the world and the Church, and have performed an illicit marriage for which there is no biblical authority. Actually, there is no real union…When the Church joins up with the world it is the true Church no longer but only a pitiful hybrid thing, an object of smiling contempt to the world and an abomination to the Lord.[14]

The American church of the 1950s was not a “spiritual Camelot”

Osborne believes that much of the perceived cultural deterioration that supposedly motivates today’s Christian culture warriors is a result of their looking at the past through rose-colored glasses.

Consider how many Christians look back at the 1950s and the days of Leave It to Beaver as the golden era of family values and godly culture…While they were indeed good times if you were a white middle-class suburbanite, they were hardly the glory days of family values and godly culture if you were a black family living under the last vestiges of segregation and Jim Crow.[15]

For instance, the glory days of Father Knows Best, family values, and stay-at-home moms weren’t all they were cracked up to be…once again, as in Roman days, a powerful church is not always a faithful church. It draws people for the wrong reason.

Frankly, if those days were really a spiritual Camelot, someone needs to explain to me how they produced a generation of sex-crazed, free-love, dope-smoking hippies who grew up to be self-absorbed boomers.[16]

Much like the humanistic progressives of today, Osborne disparages the American church of the 1950s which he claims were not “the glory days of family values and godly culture.” Rather, he describes it as a powerful church but not a faithful church.

Here we have two classic examples of assumptive language in which it is taken for granted that the results are caused by what precedes the results. In the first example of assumptive language, Osborne claims that the glory days of family values and godly culture couldn’t have existed because there were other segments of society that were suffering. In the second example of Osborne’s assumptive language, the church was culturally powerful; therefore we must assume that it couldn’t have been spiritual. As evidence of the lack of spirituality of the 1950s church, Osborne’s assumptive language points to the rebellious Boomer generation as being caused by the 1950s church. But Osborne lost (or perhaps never had) his much coveted historical perspective as to the reasons for the rise of the Boomer generation.

The history of the 1950s church in America and the cause of the Boomer rebellion have been written about extensively. Those well-documented and authoritative histories emphatically do not support Osborne’s conclusions reflected by his assumptive statements.
______

In Part I we have examined four ideas and philosophies that foster Christian pacifism in the culture wars as championed by Osborne and others. In Part II, we shall glean the essences of the two opposing views of Christian cultural engagement and examine those in comparison to the role of the church in the German culture of the 1930s.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry Osborne, Thriving in Babylon – Why Hope, Humility, and Wisdom matter in a godless culture,” (Colorado Springs, Colorado: David C. Cook, 2015), p. 136.
[2] Ibid., p. 169.
[3] Ibid., pp. 174-175.
[4] Ibid., p. 185.
[5] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, (Camp Hill, Pennsylvania: WingSpread Publishers), p. 115.
[6] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 136.
[7] Ibid., p. 173.
[8] Ibid., pp. 175-176.
[9] Wayne Gruden, “Why Christians should seek to influence the government for good.” Booklet adapted from Wayne Gruden, Politics – According to the Bible – A Comprehensive Resource for Understanding Modern Political Issues in Light of Scripture, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2010).
[10] Larry G. Johnson, Ye shall be as gods – Humanism and Christianity – The Battle for Supremacy in the American Cultural Vision, (Owasso, Oklahoma: Anvil House Publishers, 2011), p. 224.
[11] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, pp. 150-151.
[12] “humility,” Noah Webster, American Dictionary of the English Language 1828, Facsimile Edition, (San Francisco, California: Foundation for American Christian Education, 1967, 1995 by Rosalie J. Slater), p. 12.
[13] “humble, humility,” Webster’s Seventh New Collegiate Dictionary, (Springfield, Massachusetts: G. & C. Merriam Company, Publishers, 1963), pp. 404-405.
[14] A. W. Tozer, God’s Pursuit of Man, pp. 115-116.
[15] Osborne, Thriving in Babylon, p. 36.
[16] Ibid., pp. 195-196.