Rss

  • youtube

Liberal defense of Islam

Posted by :admin On : January 30, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Islam, Worldview

[An abbreviated version of this article[1] appeared in the Tulsa World on January 22, 2015.]

Liberals and the governments and institutions they represent are having ever increasing difficulty in convincing their constituents that the atrocities of Islamic terrorists do not represent the supposedly peace-loving Islamic religion followed by moderate Muslims. The frequency, shrillness, and fervor with which liberals defend Islam grow proportionally with each announcement of a new Muslim terrorist attack regardless of its magnitude and vicious brutality.

Howard Dean is the former head of the Democratic National Committee and one-time candidate for the Democratic nomination for president. Following the murder of two policemen and ten employees of Charlie Hebdo, a satirical magazine that routinely criticized Islam’s Muhammad as well as many other non-Muslim religious and political leaders, Mr. Dean refused to label the perpetrators as Muslim terrorists in spite of the three gunmen shouting “Allahu Akbar” during the killing spree. Allahu Akbar translates as “Allah is the Greatest” and is the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer as prescribed by the Prophet Muhammad.

I stopped calling these people Muslim terrorists. They’re about as Muslim as I am. I mean, they have no respect for anybody else’s life, that’s not what the Koran says. Europe has an enormous radical problem. I think ISIS is a cult. Not an Islamic cult. I think it’s a cult.[2]

The Paris murderers shouted the same exaltations of Allah as Army Major and fellow Muslim Nadal Hasan did when he shot and killed fourteen and wounded thirty-two at Fort Hood, Texas in 2009. The American government conveniently ignored Hasan’s motives and obvious connections with Islamic jihad while euphemistically mislabeling the murders as workplace violence.

Following an attack on the Canadian Parliament by a thirty-two year old Muslim convert who shot and killed a guard during the attack, liberal leader Justin Trudeau quickly reassured his friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community that, “…Canadians know acts such as these committed in the name of Islam are an aberration of your faith. Continued mutual cooperation and respect will help prevent the influence of distorted ideological propaganda posing as religion. We will walk forward together, not apart.[3] [emphasis added]

In response to the Paris attack political columnist Michael Gerson wrote that the murders in Paris were, “…the exploitation of religious passions for political ends…It is important to separate this violent political ideology from the faith of Islam.”[4] Although many Muslims do not agree with and reject the violence occurring in the name of Islam, the separation of Islam from the violence prescribed by the Koran is impossible. These so-called moderate Muslims are Muslim in name only and have no standing in defense of the Muslim faith. They may be Muslims by birth, conversion, products of a predominately Muslim culture, and give lip-service to the Koran, but they are not representative of Muslims faithful to the teachings of the Koran. In fact, the Koran labels them infidels for not fully embracing the teachings of Muhammad and the Koran.

They but wish that ye should reject Faith, as they do, and thus be on the same footing (as they): but take not friends from their ranks until they flee in the way of Allah (from what is forbidden). But if they turn renegades, seize them and slay them wherever ye find them; and (in any case) take no friends or helpers from their ranks. [Surah 4:89. Quran][5]

The same analogy applies to Christians. True Christians accept Christ as their Savior and follow His teachings. Those that claim to be Christian by birth, upbringing, or culture or do not follow Christ’s teachings are Christian in name only and live without the Christian creed. But unlike the followers of Islam, Christians cannot compel conversion nor punish those who do not convert.

With the explosion of Muslim-inspired violence in the West as well as in Muslim-dominated countries, liberals refuse to acknowledge the elephant in the room—the obvious truth as to the nature of Islam. That truth which is being ignored and not addressed is that violent proponents of the Islamic religion are acting in accordance with the words and directives of the Koran to spread Islam through aggressive individual, military, and political threats, intimidation, and actions in order to achieve world domination.

One wonders why the humanists and their political operatives are so adamant in the defense of Islam, a most authoritarian religion, given the fact that humanism denies the existence of a supreme being and denigrates “…traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience…”[6] Two reasons are apparent for humanists’ defense of Islam. The first is that Christianity has so dominated the history and worldview of Western civilization that Western liberals demand not only equal time for opposing views but give preference to various anti-Christian religions and none more so than Islam. The second reason for humanism’s defense of Islam is adherence to two of its core beliefs—humanistically defined multiculturalism and tolerance.

Multiculturalism is one of the cardinal doctrines of humanism and has its roots in the denial of absolutes which translates into moral relativism. According to humanist dogma, such a values-free approach makes it impossible to judge one period or era in relation to another or to say that one culture’s ethic is superior to another. The end result of this philosophy is that all belief systems are equally valid. But if all belief systems are not equally valid (as demonstrated by the followers of Islam and the Qur’an), then the tenets of humanism including its humanistically defined concepts of equality, diversity, and multiculturalism are false and unsustainable. The liberal defense of Islam occurs not because they care for and respect the tenets of Islam. Rather, to reject Islam based on its history as a scourge to mankind is to admit that their humanistic conceptions of multiculturalism and tolerance are fundamentally flawed with regard to a mankind’s understanding of his nature and transcendent values.

There is a third reason for humanists’ defense of Islam. The words of the Apostle Paul give insight into the mindset of seemingly intelligent people who are so obviously in denial of the Islamic threat to Western civilization.

And even as they did not like to retain God in their knowledge, God gave them over to a reprobate mind, to do those things which are not convenient. [Romans 1:28. KJV] [emphasis added]

Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. [2 Timothy 3:8. KJV] [emphasis added]

They profess that they know God; but in works they deny him, being abominable, and disobedient, and unto every good work reprobate. [Titus 1:16. KJV] [emphasis added]

In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them. [2 Corinthians 4:4. KJV]

Reprobate is a very old-fashioned, King-James-style word little understood by moderns but well describes the humanist abandonment of rational thought regarding Islam. Although Christ loves the sinner, the Apostle Paul does not mince words as to the spiritual condition of a reprobate by which he means unworthy, corrupt, rejected, and condemned.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Larry G. Johnson, “Liberals won’t acknowledge nature of Islam,” Tulsa World, January 22, 2015, A-13.
[2] Daniel Greenfield, “Howard Dean: Muslim Terrorists are as Muslim as Me,” Frontpage Mag, January 7, 2015. http://www.frontpagemag.com/2015/dgreenfield/howard-dean-muslim- terrorists-are-as-muslim-as-me/ (accessed January 13, 2015).
[3] Erika Tucker, “Soldier killed in what Harper calls ‘terrorist attack’ in Ottawa,” Global News, October 22, 2014. http://globalnews.ca/news/1628313/shots-fired-at-war-memorial-in-ottawa-says-witness/ (accessed January 13, 2015).
[4] Michael Gerson, “The politics of homicide in France,” Tulsa World, January 10, 2015, A-16.
[5] The Meaning of The Illustrious Qur-an, (Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah), p. 49.
[6] Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifestos I and II, (Amherst, New York: Prometheus Books, 1973), pp.15-16.

Creative Evolution – Screwtape’s science for Christians – Part II

Posted by :admin On : January 23, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Truth

C. S. Lewis’s World War II radio broadcasts came almost immediately on the heels of the publication of The Screwtape Letters. When Lewis’s broadcasts were published as Mere Christianity, he added a footnote on creative evolution which he labeled the “In-between” view that attempts to navigate a path between the religious and the materialist views of creation.

But to be complete, I ought to mention the In-between view called Life-Force philosophy, or Creative Evolution, or Emergent Evolution…People who hold this view say that the small variations by which life on this planet “evolved” from the lowest forms to Man were not due to chance but to the “striving” or “purposiveness” of a Life-Force. When people say this we must ask them whether by Life-Force they mean something with a mind or not. If they do, then “a mind bringing life into existence and leading it to perfection” is really a God, and their view is thus identical with the Religious. If they do not, then what is the sense in saying that something without a mind “strives” or has “purpose”? This seems to me to be fatal to their view.[1]

In spite of Lewis’s assertions, BioLogos Foundation still attempts to plant one foot in each worldview—the religious and the materialist. BioLogos Foundation did not invent creative evolution as it has been around for over one hundred years. The Foundation merely took it off the shelf, dusted it, adjusted its mechanisms, painted a new face on it, and presented it as a culture-friendly version of creation to a wavering, powerless church struggling for survival in a post-Christian and post-modern world.

Origin of man according to the gospel of BioLogos

In an attempt to weave a path between Lewis’s stark take-it-or-leave-it choice between godless materialism and the young-earth implications of Genesis, the modern proponents of creative evolution introduced a series of options as to how God might have used evolution to create man.

The first option offered by creative evolutionists is to view the biblical Adam and Eve as archetypes of humanity, that is, historical figures chosen to represent mankind living about 10,000 years ago. A second option presents an allegorical Adam and Eve that merely symbolize a large group of man’s ancestors who lived 150,000 years ago. The third option is to treat Adam and Eve’s story as a parable of each person’s individual rejection of God. BioLogos does not bet the farm on any one view as being the correct model for man’s origin but simply “…encourages scholarly work on these questions.”[2] Irrespective of how God may have accomplished the creation of man, BioLogos firmly rejects Adam and Eve as the first man and woman created by God by reducing them to a mere symbol for a larger existing population of humans.

BioLogos staffers such as program director Kathryn Applegate believe that miracles did not play a role in the earth’s natural history but that the evolution process worked on its own without special intervention from God. “I don’t think there’s evidence from the science that He supernaturally zapped something into existence.”[3] But, in its statement of fundamental beliefs, evolution is “…a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes.”[4] Other words for providential are pre-ordained, God-given, and heaven-sent. On the one hand, BioLogosians deny God’s interference in the process of evolution. On the other hand, BioLogosians believe the evolution process was pre-ordained to produce a specific outcome. These assumptions raise additional questions for creative evolutionists. Did God just assemble the parts needed, give the universe a spin to jumpstart the process, and then leave it for evolution to work its magic? More specifically, was man created by chance through the highly improbable evolution process or did God somehow rig the system so that man as we know him had to be created in His image through evolution? BioLogosians appear to answer yes to both questions.

In the center of all the speculations of BioLogos, questions remain as to the appearance of three essential ingredients necessary to explain mankind: the divine imprint, freewill, and original sin. Were these ingredients implanted before, during, or after this multi-billion year evolution process? Whenever these essentials were imparted to man, seemingly insurmountable conflicts and problems arise for the purveyors of creative evolution as an explanation for the creation of mankind.

Origin of sin

When, why, and how did sin enter the supposed evolutionary chain of events in mankind’s development? Sinful man is a fact. The Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans states that, “For all have sinned and come short of the glory of God.” [Romans 3:23. KJV] For creative evolutionists, original sin refers to the current state of humanity. They agree that all men have sinned, but they cannot answer the question as to when the first sin occurred and permanently infected mankind’s gene pool. Although creative evolutionists claim the sciences of evolution and archeology can provide some insight, they conveniently punt the question of original sin into the theological arena which has many possible answers, some of which they claim correspond to scientific evidence currently available.[5]

Both creative evolutionists and their opponents must agree that man cannot have evolved as inherently sinful. Otherwise, we negate the fundamental belief that there was a point when man was sinless and then became sinful. The Apostle Paul agrees. “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” [Romans 5:12. KJV] [emphasis added] If Paul is correct, then BioLogosians must agree that man (and not pre-man) was fully evolved before he sinned. Otherwise, we must assume Paul meant well but got it wrong because he didn’t have benefit of the modern creative evolutionists’ correct understanding that Adam and Eve were only historical or allegorical placeholders to mark the group appearance of our first ancestors. But, if there was not an historical first couple through whom sin entered the world, what then?

Freewill

And what of the appearance of freewill in man, that sure-fire sin generator? Was man given freewill before, during, or after the evolution of man? Freewill can’t have arrived by chance for it is an essential ingredient in the grand meta-story of the creation, the fall, and redemption. Therefore, we must believe that freewill entered man after he was fully formed. If freewill entered mankind long before man was fully man, then so too would original sin have entered. As we have previously determined, that cannot be.

Whether by miracle or through the unaided evolution process, BioLogosians can do little more than say that, “God gave us our spiritual capacities and calls us to bear his image.”[6] It also appears that original sin and freewill must have entered mankind through God’s miraculous magic—or not.

It’s time we push speculation aside and read the words of Jack Collins who leads us back to sanity with regard to man’s origins.

The actual historicity of Adam and Eve is extremely important as a fundamental Christian doctrine…Christian doctrine is best understood as the true story of who we are and how we got to be where we are…It will come apart if we don’t tell the story with the proper beginning…The Bible leads us to expect a special creation of humankind…If we take the idea of a purely natural process from molecules to mankind, then I think that is very difficult to square with the Bible…It might even be impossible.[7]

Creative evolutionists offer only flawed science and no biblical validation for their theories. They must rely on man’s puny reason, speculations as to what the Genesis story really means, and their faith in the accepted fact of evolution. This is hardly the stuff to win over skeptical anti-God evolutionists let alone Christians.

The Apostle Paul wrote to the Romans of the deplorable condition of the Gentiles. Paul stated that even though the Gentiles did not have the revelation of the Hebrews, they were guilty of violation of God’s laws evident in His eternal power and deity as revealed in nature.

For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them. Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse; for although they knew God they did not honor him as God or give thanks to him, but they became futile in their thinking and their senseless minds were darkened. Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals, or reptiles. [Romans 1:19-23 RSV.]

Prior to the rise of humanism (aka naturalism or materialism), nature was viewed as an imperfect imitation of divine reality. However, modern man has been taught that he need only “…to reason correctly upon evidence from nature.”[8] But man’s effort to explain the nature of God through creative evolution is both unnecessary and impossible. It is unnecessary because God’s invisible nature is already plainly understood by man’s perception of the things He created. It is impossible because imperfect nature cannot add clarity to the picture of divine reality as revealed by the Bible. The biblical record brought clarity to nature, not the other way around. This is the fundamental error of BioLogos when it attempts to humanize religion by embracing creative evolution to give a better understanding of divine reality through the workings of imperfect nature.

As was the case in the early days of World War II, the fate of Western civilization in the twenty-first century hangs in the balance. And once again the outcome may be determined by how well we get it right with regard to what Christians believe.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 2007), p. 31.
[2] “Questions Categorized As “The First Humans,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/questions/category/the-first-humans (accessed December 17, 2014).
[3] Daniel James Devine, “Interpretive dance,” World, November 29, 2014, 38.
[4] “About the BioLogos Foundation,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/about (accessed December 16, 2014).
[5] “How does original sin fit with evolutionary history?” BioLogos. http://biologos.org/questions/original-sin (accessed December 17, 2014).
[6] “Questions Categorized As “The First Humans,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/questions/category/the-first-humans (accessed December 17, 2014).
[7] Devine, World, 39.
[8] Richard M. Weaver, Ideas Have Consequences, (Chicago, Illinois: The University of Chicago Press, 1948), pp. 5-6.

Creative Evolution – Screwtape’s science for Christians – Part I

Posted by :admin On : January 16, 2015
2

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism, Truth

In the early days of World War II the survival of Western civilization hung in the balance. With memories still fresh in their minds of the horrific carnage and sacrifice caused by the Great War that ended a mere twenty years earlier, the British people were in danger of being overwhelmed by a sense of foreboding and self-doubt as to the defense of their civilization and its values. James Welch, Director of Religious Broadcasting at the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), described the religious climate of Britain at the time. “Two-thirds of BBC listeners…were living without any reference to God. God was simply not a factor.” They were either unresponsive or openly hostile to Christianity.[1]

The British government saw the necessity of keeping their people from becoming demoralized amid the destruction of English cities by German bombs, massive loss of life, and threatened invasion by the German army. Welch believed the church acting through BBC broadcasts could be a major factor in giving the British people a reason for hope and answers to their questions of why this was happening and what they were fighting for.

In a time of uncertainty and questioning it is the responsibility of the Church – and of religious broadcasting as one of its most powerful voices – to declare the truth about God and His relation to men. It has to expound the Christian faith in terms that can be easily understood by ordinary men and women, and to examine the ways in which that faith can be applied to present-day society during these difficult times.[2] [emphasis added]

To accomplish this task, Welch called upon an Oxford don who was not only an academician and superb writer but also a Christian apologist who had the essential quality that Welch sought: a remarkable ability to explain profound truths of God and the universe to ordinary men and women seeking answers to the basic questions of life. C. S. Lewis’s series of war-time talks from 1941 through 1944 were eventually published as Mere Christianity. The major themes of Lewis’s talks were “Right and wrong as a clue to the meaning of the universe,” “What Christians believe,” “Christian behavior,” and “Beyond personality – The first steps in the doctrine of the Trinity.” In his talks on the BBC (and later in Mere Christianity), Lewis’s goal was to defend the beliefs that had been common to nearly all Christians for almost two thousand years.[3]

The reason for this rather lengthy back story to the subject of this article is to demonstrate the utmost importance of getting it right with regard to what Christians believe. Christians dare not experiment with new theories of divine truth, the biblical understanding of creation, and the origin of man by introducing extra-biblical philosophies that fuel speculations and suppositions which undermine faith in the commonly held beliefs of Christians since the time of Christ. More specifically, the church must not undermine and weaken an understanding of the truthfulness of the Christian message by incorporating into Christian theology the tenets of the false and anti-God philosophies of materialism (humanism) in hopes of opening the doors for dialogue and witness to non-Christians.

One of the most alarming examples of this mixing of Christian and anti-Christian beliefs is the re-emergence of creative evolution which has spread rapidly since 2007 and which is being given a measure of legitimacy and respect by the leadership of many Christian colleges, organizations, and churches. The driving force behind creative evolution is the nonprofit BioLogos Foundation which is promoting a significant and well-funded effort to “…change the way Christians understand Genesis and the origin of man.”[4] [emphasis added] Dr. Francis Collins, founder of BioLogos in 2007, was the former director of the Human Genome Project. In 2009, he was appointed by President Obama as director of the National Institutes of Health.[5]

When one begins to read the listing of beliefs of BioLogos, one may think he is reading the tenets of faith of the most conservative churches in America. Its beliefs are sprinkled with many phrases familiar to conservative Christians: “We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God…We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation…We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ…” So far, so good. But as the reader continues he arrives at the essence of BioLogos beliefs that create spiritual heartburn for most Christians.

We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. There, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.

We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.[6]

Three of the core commitments of BioLogos reveal its purposes which are to “…affirm evolutionary creation, recognizing God as Creator of all life over billions of years…seek truth, ever learning as we study the natural world and the Bible…strive for humility and gracious dialogue with those who hold other views.”[7]

From the language of these core commitments we see that BioLogos views creative evolution as an established or accepted fact (as we are frequently reminded by evolutionists of all stripes). For BioLogosians, all other truths and interpretations must bow to the absolute truth of creative evolution when studying the natural world and the Bible. In other words, if creative evolutionists deem truth to be one thing but the biblical beliefs that have been common to nearly all Christians for two thousand years deem truth to be something else (or the Bible is silent on the subject), then BioLogosians must choose the truth as dictated by creative evolution.

Proponents of creative evolution are devoted evangelists for their cause, and their technique for evangelism is dialogue as described on the BioLogos website. “Evolution and Christian Faith supports projects and network building among scholars, church leaders, and parachurch organizations to address theological and philosophical concerns commonly voiced by Christians about evolutionary creation.”[8] [emphasis added]

The bait of dialogue is particularly appealing to the academically inclined, seminarians, and many in church leadership. Following the obligatory disclaimers that the views of BioLogos do not necessarily represent the views of the participants (and likewise, the views of participants do not necessarily represent the views of the BioLogos), the BioLogos website lists a surprising array of respected and influential participants which include: Fuller Theological Seminary, Calvin College, Bethel University, Westmont College, Oxford University, Trinity Western University, Wheaton College, Northwest Nazarene University, Gordon College, and Oral Roberts University. The stated purpose of some of the BioLogos projects is “to engage in meaningful and productive dialogue to reduce tensions between mainstream science and the Christian faith.”[9] The John Templeton Foundation is the funding source for the missionaries of creative evolution and their willing participants. Dialogue takes the form of projects funded by Templeton grants ranging from $23,000 to $300,000. Thirty-seven projects have been funded to date.[10]

As the bait is consumed, many of the academicians, seminarians, and pastors carry the heresies back to their unsuspecting students and congregations. Even if the participants don’t buy into creative evolution, their joint-participation with BioLogos lends an air of creditability and respectability to creative evolution and its emissaries.

Written by Lewis in 1941, The Screwtape Letters brilliantly satirize the tactics of Satan used to undermine faith and biblical truth. In this fictional but all too true account, Screwtape is a senior demon that is mentoring his nephew Wormwood, a Junior Tempter. Screwtape offers detailed advice to his nephew with regard to various methods of undermining faith and promoting sin in a British man known as Patient. Let’s peek over the shoulder of Wormwood as he reads portions of the first of his uncle’s letters.

I note what you say about guiding your patient’s reading and taking care that he sees a good deal of his materialist friend. But are you not be a trifle naïve?…Your man has been accustomed, ever since he was a boy, to have a dozen incompatible philosophies dancing about together inside his head. He doesn’t think of doctrines as primarily “true” or “false”, but as “academic” or “practical”, “outworn” or “contemporary”, “conventional” or “ruthless”. Jargon, not argument, is our best ally in keeping him from the church. Don’t waste time trying to make him think that materialism is true! Make him think it is strong, or stark, or courageous—that it is the philosophy of the future. That’s the sort of thing he cares about…[11]

Through the enticement of dialogue creative evolutionists implant doubt about the common beliefs of Christians which have been sustained by the biblical narrative for almost two thousand years. When doubt has taken root in the heart of Christians, they are prepared to accept the lie. Heresies clothed in the soothing words of “meaningful and productive dialogue” and reduction of “tensions between mainstream science and the Christian faith” are still heresies.

Evolution may be considered by many as accepted fact and presented as the face of mainstream science, but it is still the creation story of the false philosophy of humanism (aka materialism or naturalism). Creative evolution stands firmly in the camp of this false philosophy and no amount of “meaningful and productive dialogue” can bridge the abyss that lies between Christianity and evolution.

In Part II we shall briefly examine the mechanics of creative evolution and how BioLogosians and many other Christians have succumbed to Satan’s tactics as they attempt to paint a Christian face on mainstream evolution.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Justin Phillips, C. S. Lewis in a Time of War, (New York: Harper San Francisco, 2002), pp. 38, 78.
[2] Ibid., p. 78.
[3] C. S. Lewis, Mere Christianity, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 2007), pp. 3-4, 6.
[4] Daniel James Devine, “Interpretive dance,” World, November 29, 2014, 35.
[5] “Our History: 2006 to Today,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/about/history (accessed December 16, 2014).
[6] “About the BioLogos Foundation,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/about (accessed December 16, 2014).
[7] Ibid.
[8] “Evolution & Christian Faith,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/ecf/overview (accessed December 17, 2014).
[9] “Meet the Grantees,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/ecf/grantees (accessed December 17, 2014).
[10] “Evolution & Christian Faith,” BioLogos. https://biologos.org/ecf/overview (accessed December 17, 2014).
[11] C. S. Lewis, The Screwtape Letters, The Complete C. S. Lewis Signature Classics, (New York: Harper One, 2007), pp. 185-187.

Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part IV

Posted by :admin On : January 9, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

The theme of this series has been that the modern American church has mistakenly sought to accomplish its mission through the attainment of cultural relevance by introduction of man’s ideas and methods and abandonment of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen. This abandonment is expressed in three forms within the modern church. The first expression of the quest for cultural relevance was discussed in Part II – Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word. The second method used to achieve cultural relevance was discussed in Part III – Mixing of the light with darkness. In Part IV we shall discuss the third and final method used by many in the modern church to achieve cultural relevance.

Nonjudgmental Love as a substitute for repentance and turning from sin

What is the nature of God’s love? We find the answer in the verse that is usually taught first to children in Sunday school. “For God so loved the world that he gave is only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.” [John 3:16. RSV] The “whoever” includes all men, women, boys, and girls. Belief in Christ means to accept Him as one’s Lord and Savior, that is, one returns that love by being a follower of Christ, and to follow Christ is to follow his commandments. However, if one expresses love for Christ in words only and does not follow his commandments, they are not followers of Christ and have no part of His kingdom.

Many churches are compromising the gospel message through incorporation of the world’s definitions of love and tolerance. The message of many churches is that God’s love is nonjudgmental and so vast that he will overlook sin if one will only acknowledge Him. In other words, love is all that matters. If this message is true, then sin is of no consequence in determining our eternal destination. And if sin is of no consequence to God, then He does not care about how we live our lives. Without sin, Christ’s death on the cross to purchase forgiveness for mankind’s sin becomes irrelevant. The new concepts of love and tolerance are expressed as unconditional acceptance which is presumed superior to the old-fashioned approach that requires repentance and turning from sin.

To become culturally accepted, the church has resorted to feel-good messages focused on fixing the self in the here-and-now as opposed to salvation and eternity. Bad Religion, a book by Ross Douthat (a Catholic writer), is about how America became a nation of heretics. Douthat made a stark and revealing comparison of the past ministry of Billy Graham and the vacuous sermons of non-judgmental love preached by Joel Osteen.

Like Graham, Osteen courts a worldwide audience: More than 200 million people around the globe…But there the similarities end. Graham’s persona was warm and inclusive, but theologically he preached a stark, stripped-down gospel—a series of altar calls, with eternity hanging in the balance and Christianity distilled to a yes or no for Christ. Osteen’s message is considerably more upbeat. His God gives without demanding, forgives without threatening to judge, and hands out His rewards in this life rather than in the next. (emphasis added) Where Graham was inclined to comments like “we’re all on death row…the only way out of death row is Jesus,” Osteen prefers cheerier formulations. “Too many times we get stuck in a rut, thinking we’ve reached our limits,” he writes in Your Best Life Now. “But God wants us to constantly be increasing, to be rising to new heights. He wants to increase you in his wisdom and help you make better decisions. God wants to increase you financially, by giving you promotions, fresh ideas, and creativity.”[1] [emphasis added]

There are many other religious leaders who are house-hold names in America that, like Joel Osteen, are popularizing the false and hollow gospel of the nonjudgmental love with little if any mention of sin or its eternal consequences (hell).

But the modern gospel of nonjudgmental love is not new. Dietrich Bonhoeffer was a brilliant German theologian who stood against the Nazi regime during the 1930s and 1940s until his death on a cold February day in 1945 when he was hanged on a Nazi gallows. His warnings with regards to nonjudgmental love have been quoted in a previous article but bear repeating.

Anyone who turns from his sinful way at the word of proclamation and repents, receives forgiveness. Anyone who perseveres in his sin receives judgment. The church cannot loose the penitent from sin without arresting and binding the impenitent in sin…For its own sake, for the sake of the sinner, and for the sake of the community, the Holy is to be protected from cheap surrender. The Gospel is protected by the preaching of repentance which calls sin sin and declares the sinner guilty…The preaching of grace can only be protected by the preaching of repentance.[2]

Cheap grace is the deadly enemy of our Church…In such a Church the world finds a cheap covering for its sins; no contrition is required, still less any real desire to be delivered from sin…Cheap grace means the justification of sin without the justification of the sinner…Cheap grace is grace without discipleship, grace without the cross, grace without Jesus Christ, living and incarnate.[3]

______

The reason for the decline of many churches in America is not that the rising tide of secularism and humanism are stronger than the transformational power of the gospel. Rather, in an attempt to continue as a moral force within the culture by becoming culturally relevant, many churches gradually, and for some almost unknowingly, have compromised the biblical message, mixed the light with darkness, and preached nonjudgmental love without the necessity of repentance and turning from sin. However, these compromises and non-biblical activities translate into spiritual weakness and generally start with the “what we do” (methods) part of the equation but soon extends to the “what we believe.” In nations with a strong Christian influence, Satan must resort to guerilla tactics against the church by chipping away at the edges of the gospel message through compromise as opposed to a classical frontal attack. But as many American churches embraced an anemic and powerless message in the post-Christian and post-modern era, the church has steadily grown weaker and has begun to experience a greater number frontal attacks by Satan’s guerillas (e.g., challenges to the legitimacy and influence of the church in the public square and all spheres of American life).

The Romans at the time of the early church saw value in all religions. Modern multiculturalists would call them “inclusive.” The Pantheon in Rome was built to honor all gods, and the Christian God was welcomed if only the Christians would make themselves culturally relevant by giving some tribute and deference to the Roman gods.[4] But those early Christians refused to compromise their beliefs and unequivocally held to God’s commandment, “You shall have no other gods before me.” [Exodus 20:3. RSV]

The American church must also reject the lure of cultural relevance in its efforts to make the church acceptable to a lost and dying world. The transformational power of the unadulterated Gospel is enough. So what if the church’s non-compromising message and methods are rejected by the culture? The great poet T. S. Eliot answers well. “For us, there is only the trying. The rest is not our business.”[5]

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Ross Douthat, Bad Religion, (New York: Free Press, 2012), p. 183.
[2] Eric Metaxas, Bonhoeffer, (Nashville, Tennessee: Thomas Nelson, 2010), pp. 292-293.
[3] Erwin W. Lutzer, When a Nation Forgets God, (Chicago, Illinois: Moody Publishers, 2010), pp. 117-118.
[4] Alvin J. Schmidt, How Christianity Changed the World, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2004), p. 25.
[5] T. S. Elliot quote, Wisdom Quotes. http://www.wisdomquotes.com/quote/t-s-eliot-6.html (accessed December 26, 2014).

Strange Fire – The Church’s quest for cultural relevance – Part III

Posted by :admin On : January 2, 2015
0

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

The theme of this series has been that the modern American church has mistakenly sought to accomplish its mission through the attainment of cultural relevance by introduction of man’s ideas and methods and abandonment of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen. This abandonment of biblical truth and authority takes three forms within the modern church. The first expression of the quest for cultural relevance was discussed in Part II – Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word. In Part III, we shall discuss the second method used by many in the church to achieve cultural relevance.

Mixing light with darkness

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]

Matthew Henry’s 300 year old commentary gives additional insight into the Apostle Paul’s words of cautioned to the Corinthians.

It is wrong for good people to join in affinity [kinship or relationship] with the wicked and profane. There is more danger that the bad will damage the good than hope that the good will benefit the bad. We should not yoke ourselves in friendship with wicked men and unbelievers. We should never choose them for our bosom-friends. Much less should we join in religious communion with them. It is a very great absurdity. Believers are made light in the Lord, but unbelievers are in darkness; and what comfortable communion cans these have together?[1]

There are numerous examples of churches that attempt to find common ground with anti-Christian secular organizations and false religions which contradict biblical commandments. When ministers, ministries, and churches mix the light with darkness, they effectively have disobeyed God’s word and bring reproach on their ministry and the gospel of Jesus Christ. Three examples are discussed below.

The Episcopal Church hosted a Muslim prayer service at the Washington National Cathedral in Washington, D. C on November 14, 2014. The Muslim’s Friday call to prayer (a “Jummah”) was hosted by the Rev. Canon Gina Campbell, pastor of the cathedral, and Ebrahim Rasool, a Muslim and the South African ambassador to the U.S., , in cooperation with various Muslim societies and organizations and The Nation’s Mosque. In response to widespread criticism of the event by many Christian leaders including Dr. Franklin Graham, Reverend Campbell stated the National Cathedral was a

…place of prayer for all people. Let us stretch our hearts and let us seek to deepen mercy for we worship the same God…We here at the cathedral have embraced a steep challenge to grow in our identity as a house for people. This prayer marks a historic moment. This prayer symbolizes a grand hope for our community. As we get to know each other, more bridges are built and there is less room for hate and prejudice to come between us.[2]

Campbell is profoundly wrong in three ways. First, Christians and Muslims do not worship the same God. Muslims deny the divinity of Jesus, but “Jesus said to him, ‘I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.’” [John 14:6. RSV] Second, the National Cathedral is not a house of prayer for all people but a building to house His people “…who are called by my name…” [2 Chronicles 7:14. RSV] Third, as Matthew Henry wrote, religious communion between the light and darkness is a great absurdity, not bridge building as Reverend Campbell would have us believe.

World Vision is one of America’s largest Christian charities. The organization’s president, Richard Stearns, said that change is a symbol of Christian ‘unity’ not ‘compromise.’ He was referring to the decision of World Vision’s American board that the organization would no longer require its more than 1,100 employees to restrict their sexual activity to marriage between one man and one woman. Stearns said that abstinence outside of marriage remains a rule, but a policy change announced March 24, 2014 permitted gay Christians in legal same-sex marriages to be employed at one of America’s largest Christian charities.[3] One wonders how Stearns’ erroneous assumption that practicing homosexuals can be Christian as long as the couple entered into a same-sex marriage can be made compatible with the Apostle Paul’s letter to the Romans in which he addressed the sin of homosexuality. [See: Romans 1:18, 24-27] The decision disturbed Christians everywhere, and such was the backlash that World Vision’s board reversed their decision two days later. But the damage was done. For many people it forever gave cultural legitimacy to same-sex marriage and homosexuality. The gospel message was compromised by linking darkness with the light.

Rick Warren is considered one of America’s leading pastors. His and his church’s outreach to the Islamic religion is another example of mixing light with darkness. On July 4, 2009, he spoke to a crowd of 8000 Muslims at the nation’s capitol during the annual convention of the Islamic Society of North America. His message was that Muslims and Christians can work together for the common good without compromising their respective convictions. He defended himself by saying, “I am not interested in interfaith dialogue but interfaith projects.”[4] In 2011 Warren invited Muslims to share Christmas dinner with the members of his church. At the dinner Warren and the leader of a Los Angeles mosque introduced King’s Way as “a path to end the 1,400 years of misunderstanding between Muslims and Christians.” The document outlined points of agreement between Christianity and Islam and was to be centered on friendship, peace, and shared social projects. The mosque’s leader of religious affairs stated that, “We agreed we wouldn’t try to evangelize each other. We’d witness to each other but it would be out of ‘Love Thy Neighbor,’ not focused on conversion.”[5]

But in light of the Apostle Paul’s words to the Corinthians with which we began this article, how can Christians find common ground with false religions and join in interfaith projects (especially with Islam in whose name hundreds of thousands of Christians have been and are being killed)? For those who would make a distinction between the so-called radical Muslims and moderate Muslims (as our government has repeatedly done), the differences at the most fundamental level are meaningless for they all read the same Quran and worship the same Allah.

In spite of his other worthy activities, Warren’s ministry has sent mixed signals as to its total fidelity to the biblical standard. He has mixed the light with darkness and brought great harm and disunity to the Christian church, weakened the authority of the Bible, and gave legitimacy to a false religion.

Here we must clarify the difference between being mismatched with unbelievers and Christ’s command to make disciples. Where possible, Christians and the church should reach out to individual non-believers with love and kindness in hopes of a sharing the truth of the message of Jesus Christ. Further, the Christian church is not prohibited from working with government and private non-Christian organizations in worthy causes, activities, and programs (e.g., foster care, disaster relief, adoption, provision for the poor). However, the church cannot join with other organizations and those parts of our government that actively promote goals, programs, and activities that stand in opposition to God’s word (e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage).

In Part IV, we shall examine a third expression of the American church’s quest for cultural relevance – nonjudgmental love as a substitute for repentance and tuning from sin.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), p. 1832.
[2] John Blosser, “Franklin Graham slams Muslim service at National Cathedral,” Newsmax, November 17, 2014.
http://www.newsmax.com/US/Franklin-Graham-Billy-Graham-Muslims-Washington-National-Cathedral/2014/11/17/id/607906/ (accessed December 25, 2014).
[3] Celeste Gracey and Jeremy Weber, “World Vision: Why We’re Hiring Gay Christians in Same-Sex Marriages,” Christianity Today, March 24, 2014. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2014/march-web-only/world-vision-why-hiring-gay-christians-same-sex-marriage.html?start=1(accessed December 5, 2014).
[4] Michelle A. Vu, “Rick Warren to Muslims: Talk is Cheap, Let’s Work Together,” The Christian Post, July 5, 2009. http://www.christianpost.com/news/rick-warren-to-muslims-talk-is-cheap-let-s-work-together-39543/ (accessed December 5, 2014).
[5] Jim Hinch, “Rick Warren builds bridge to Muslims,” Orange County Register, August 21, 2013. http://www.ocregister.com/articles/muslims-341669-warren-saddleback.html (accessed December 5, 2014).