Rss

  • youtube

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

Posted by :admin On : December 26, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

Charles Clayton Morrison acquired Christian Century in 1908 and over the span of a half century “…he wrote for and edited what became the most influential American Protestant journal of his era.”[1] It was the liberal voice of Christianity in which Morrison and his staff of writers promoted a new brand of Christianity in which

…a “progressive” bent was necessary because science required Christianity to renew, revive, and even rewrite itself to be intelligible to contemporary Christians. They asserted, “The religious discussions of the last century are meaningless today…Church rites, rituals, ordinances and orders are given a truer value as incidentals, not essentials of the religious life…What is the duty of the church in a changing world? Manifestly to accept the law of change as fundamental and inevitable; to adapt itself to the changes.”[2] [emphasis added]

The Christian Century’s editors and writers’ beliefs closely resembled many of the principles of humanism and its emphasis on change and progressivism. The essence of those beliefs championed in the pages of Christian Century is mirrored in the words of Earle Marion Todd.

Change, unceasing change, is the eternal law…Not only are things changing; they are growing. The world, the universe, is becoming more beautiful, more wonderful, more complex…[T]he church, like every other institution that is to continue to live and discharge a vital function, must adapt herself to the changed conditions. (Jan. 20, 1910).[3] [emphasis added]

These words describe the sentiments of liberal theology that captured mainline Protestantism in the early twentieth century. Todd’s admonition to the church of one hundred years ago continues to accurately reflect the modern church’s quest for cultural relevance from the mid-twentieth century to the present day through the introduction of man’s ideas and methods devoid of unchanging biblical truth and authority in order to make the church acceptable to a culture that no longer deems itself fallen.

The Catholic Church has been a stalwart ally of evangelical Protestants in defense of biblical principles such as the sanctity of life, traditional marriage, and opposition to homosexuality. Pope John Paul II and Pope Gregory XVI were staunch defenders of the faith and champions of biblical truth. However, it quickly became apparent after his election that Pope Francis was not of the same mindset as his predecessors. Strongly influenced by leftist liberation theology that invaded many countries in South America during the 1960s, Pope Francis has aggressively courted modern culture throughout the world in an effort to revitalize the Catholic Church. Many of his statements, proclamations, and actions are undeniably in conflict with and undermine biblical authority and scriptural commandments, but one of his statements stands out as it strikes at the heart of what it means to be a Christian.

The Lord has redeemed all of us, all of us, with the Blood of Christ — all of us, not just Catholics. Everyone. “Father, the atheists?” Even the atheists. Everyone. We must meet one another doing good. “But I don’t believe, Father, I am an atheist.” But do good: We will meet one another there.[4]

Similarly, Pope Francis has given a pass to heaven for Muslims, Buddhists, and anyone else who does not accept Christ as their savior but who “do good.” However, Pope Francis’s efforts at gaining cultural relevancy through promotion of a broad road-big tent religion are in direct conflict with the words of Jesus recorded in Matthew’s gospel. “Enter by the narrow gate; for the gate is wide and the way is easy, that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many.” [Matthew 7:13. RSV] In John’s gospel we find that Jesus’s words are also different from those of Pope Francis. “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]

Liberal Protestant churches in America (and now the Catholic Church under Pope Francis) continue to vigorously pursue efforts at cultural relevancy in their march to conform to a dominant humanistic culture, and now many evangelical churches are beginning to march to the beat of the same drummer. The American church’s quest for cultural relevance expresses itself in three forms.

Chasing the world by compromising the message of God’s Word

We have noted in Matthew 7:13 that the way of the Christian on this earth is narrow and that the broad way leads to destruction. The narrow way is bordered by two ditches. On the one side is the ditch of legalism in which the legalist tries to live by the law and disregards the heart of Christ’s message. On the other side is the ditch of worldliness. In the modern world the church has a far greater chance of getting stuck in the ditch of worldliness that that of legalism.

Oz Guinness identified four steps in the process of the world’s infiltration into the church which leads to compromise of the gospel of Jesus Christ. He describes it as a collapse into worldliness.

• Assumption – Some aspect of modern life or thought is assumed either to be significant, and therefore worth acknowledging, or superior to what Christians know or do, and therefore worth adopting. Soon the assumption in question becomes an integral part of Christian thought and practice.
• Abandonment – Truths or customs that do not fit in with the modern assumption are put up in the creedal attic to collect dust. They are of no more use. The modern assumptions are authoritative. Is the traditional idea unfashionable, superfluous, or just plain wrong? No matter. It doesn’t fit in, so it has to go.
• Adaptation – Something new is assumed, something old is abandoned; and everything else is adapted. In other words, what remains of traditional beliefs and practices is altered to fit with the new assumption.
• Assimilation – The outcome is that what remains is not only adapted but absorbed by the modern assumptions. It is assimilated without any decisive remainder. The result is worldliness, or Christian capitulation to some aspect of the culture of its day.[5]

Notice the progressive steps that lead to compromise: thought, action, change, and integration. Isn’t this the same scenario that Eve followed in her encounter with the serpent in the garden?

The biblical message of the church must always remain unchanged, but the church’s methods must adapt to the times. Unfortunately, many churches in adapting their methods have also gradually and subtly changed and softened its message as well in their scramble to survive in a rapidly changing culture. Over time the adulterated message of these churches becomes unrecognizable when compared with the teachings of the Bible, and without a foundation of biblical truth, they have become powerless.

In 2001, Jim Cymbala wrote that as the church confronts an antagonistic culture we need to take a look at what the church is doing. One of the things he observed was that the church is, “Letting the world ‘evangelize’ us without our realizing it.”[6]

Instead of being a holy, powerful remnant that is consecrated and available to God (in the New Testament sense of the words), the world’s value system has invaded the church so that there’s almost no distinction between the two.

Wouldn’t it be wise to ask ourselves what kind of teaching has brought about this sad state of affairs? What are we doing, or not doing, that causes such a breakdown in the spiritual fiber of professing Christians? We had better start asking some hard questions and be prepared to throw overboard whatever has made the church so weak and carnal.

Instead of that, a massive cover-up is going on. Rather than face the obvious facts around us, certain church leaders proclaim that everything is fine because they have a “new vision for the church.”[7]

The Bible is very explicit about what constitutes worldliness, and the Apostle Paul gives a very clear presentation of what it means to not be worldly. “For the grace of God has appeared for the salvation of all men, training us to renounce irreligion and worldly passions, and to live sober, upright, and godly lives in this world.” [Titus 2:11-12. RSV] Do not misunderstand, the church should reach out to the lost by being charitable, helpful, friendly, encouraging, and welcoming through our activities in the community. Churches can and should be involved in certain secular activities, but it is wrong to adopt methods that are by their very nature worldly to the point of impiety which brings reproach upon Christ’s church and the gospel message. The church must guard against a compromised message and methods that incorporate corrupting elements of worldliness that lead to impiety whose synonyms are sin, sinfulness, irreverence, transgression, immorality, and ungodliness.

Nadab and Abihu’s efforts to accomplish God’s work in direct disobedience to God’s commandments were described in Part I. Their efforts were called strange fire – “strange fire” because it was not holy fire from God but common fire of man’s creation. May we not also describe the modern church’s efforts to influence the culture by compromising His standards, adulterating His message, and substituting impious worldly methods to attract sinners as “strange fire”?

In Part III, we shall examine a second expression of the American church’s quest for cultural relevance – mixing light with darkness.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Keith Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, Ed., (Berkeley, California: University of California Press, 2003), pp. 269.
[2] Ibid., p. 279.
[3] Earle Marion Todd quoted by Meador, p. 279
[4] Cheryl K. Chumley, “Pope Francis suggests that atheists’ good deeds gets them to heaven,” Washington Times, May 24, 2013. http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2013/may/24/pope-francis-suggests-atheists-good-deeds-gets-the/ (accessed December 3, 2014).
[5] Shane Lems, “The church’s collapse into worldliness,” The Aquila Report, July 5, 2013.
http://theaquilareport.com/the-churchs-collapse-into-worldliness/ (accessed December 3, 2014).
[6] Jim Cymbala, Fresh Power, (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan, 2001), p. 22.
[7] Ibid., pp. 22-23.

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

Posted by :admin On : December 12, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Christianity, Humanism

A significant cause of the decline of the Western church is its fascination with and desire for cultural relevance. This persistent affliction of Western civilization is not of its own making but has been present since before the fall of man.

The business of Satan is to compromise the church. If he is successful, the message of the church will be adulterated and its continued existence imperiled. His favorite weapon is first to plant doubt. Doubt expressed and considered is then followed by the brazen lie. In Genesis 3, the serpent said to the woman, “…Did God say, ‘You shall not eat of any tree of the garden’?” Eve was not ignorant of God’s instruction and she gave the right response to the serpent, “…we may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden; but God said, ‘You shall not eat of the fruit of the tree which is in the midst of the garden, neither shall you touch it, lest you die’.” But the serpent challenged the truth spoken by Eve with the lie, “You will not die…” [Genesis 3:1-4 RSV] Although knowing the truth, Eve believed the lie and ate of that which was forbidden.

Thirty-five hundred years ago the story of Nadab and Abihu and their sudden and ignominious demise was recorded in Leviticus. This brief story has been a warning to God’s people down through the ages and continues to be applicable to the twenty-first century church. First, we must review a little of the back story preceding the disobedience of Aaron’s two sons, both highly regarded leaders of ancient Israel. Chapter 9 recounts Moses instruction to Aaron, his sons, and the elders of Israel to make a sin offering and burnt offering for the people. Having done so, “…the glory of the Lord appeared unto all the people. And there came a fire out from the Lord, and consumed upon the altar the burnt offering and the fat: when all the people saw, they shouted and fell on their faces.” [Leviticus 23b, 24. KJV] God accepted the atonement for the sins of the people, and they demonstrated their joy. “And Nadab and Abihu, the sons of Aaron, took either of them his censer, and put fire therein, and put incense thereon, and offered strange fire before the Lord, which he commanded them not. And there went out fire from the Lord, and devoured them, and they died before the Lord.” [Leviticus 10:1-2. KJV] The fire was strange [unholy] because it was not holy fire from God but common fire of man’s creation.

Matthew Henry wrote that the motivation for Nadab and Abihu’s disobedience arose from pride and presumption.[1] Like Eve, Nadab and Abihu were not ignorant of God’s instruction, and like Eve, their disobedience cost them their lives. When God’s commands are compromised by anyone in church leadership, the sins of pride, presumption, and disobedience must be properly addressed by the church or the entire church is endangered. [See: Leviticus 10: 4-7. RSV]

The greatest enemy of Christianity in its two thousand year history is humanism, and one of the reasons for its success is because humanism personifies Satan’s implantation of doubt followed by the big lie. One of the cornerstones of humanism is its rejection of absolute or objective truth. Without a belief in objective truth, all other human ideas of truth become debatable and therefore lend themselves to compromise. In humanism’s definition, truth is perceived as merely situational, of one’s own making, a product of the times and subject to change, a difference of opinion. And without the benchmark of objective truth as presented by God’s word, it is ever so much easier to embrace the lie even when one has known the source of unchangeable truth.

The modern humanistic surge began during the French Enlightenment of the eighteenth century. Throughout the nineteenth century, humanists’ corrupted use of scientific knowledge and advancement spread seeds of doubt as to the truth and authority of God and His Word. The nineteenth century’s icons of the humanistic faith included Charles Darwin and his Origin of Species in the biological sciences; Christopher Langdell, dean of Harvard Law School from 1870 to 1895 and Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. at the beginning of the twentieth century in the realm of law; John Dewey and the progressive education movement which began in the 1890s; and William James who divorced psychology and the study of human nature from the biblical worldview. In the early part of the twentieth century, many in leadership of the various spheres of American life were sufficiently conditioned to move from objective truth, to doubt, and then acceptance of the big lie: there is no God.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, many mainline churches felt the effects of a loss of cultural authority as secular humanism advanced. In order to retain a modicum of cultural authority in the face of humanism’s onslaught, Protestant leaders began embracing secular human sciences to lend credibility and cultural relevance to the tenets of their religion. One of the great Christian leaders of the era who embraced the secular human sciences was Charles Clayton Morrison, publisher of the influential journal Christian Century.

Morrison was the son of a Disciples of Christ minister and attended a Disciples of Christ College in preparation for ministry. He was heavily influenced by H. O. Breeden, another Disciples pastor that supported evolution and biblical criticism. Morrison continued graduate studies at the University of Chicago where he studied psychology and philosophy as opposed to theology. John Dewey and others in the functionalist [practical, utilitarian] school of psychology were his teachers. Any remnants of Morrison’s revivalist faith were completely abandoned. He wrote of this transformation.[2]

When I left [the University], I was thoroughly immunized against every form of rationalism, apriorism, or speculation of any kind based on dogmatic or authoritarian ideas. Ideas, I saw, arise in experience, they are conditioned by experience, they refer to experience…In a word, ideas are functional for experience.[3]

Founded in 1884, the Christian Oracle was the liberal voice of Disciples of Christ ministers and laity. The journal’s name was changed to the Christian Century in January 1900, but the journal continued to struggle with low readership amidst intermittent bouts of bankruptcy. Morrison acquired the journal at a sheriff’s sale following another bankruptcy in 1908. Under Morrison’s editorship, the Christian Century’s commitment to liberal theology was strengthened. Darwin was “hailed as the most important figure of the nineteenth century…and that evolution does not contradict but affirms the Christian account of creation.” Liberal Protestantism was profoundly affected by the promotion of psychology through Sunday school teachers training courses, promotion of books on psychology, pastoral care and counseling, seminary training, and Sunday school classes.[4]

By 1938, Morrison had been the editor of the Christian Century for thirty years. In that time the journal had attained great cultural prominence but at the loss of much of its Christian character. Although indistinguishable from many of its secular peers, the journal was recognized as the preeminent voice of mainstream American Protestantism. One year later, Morrison shockingly wrote “How My Mind Has Changed” in which he described the secularizing consequences of the publication on American Protestantism in which he and his staff “…introduced and popularized psychology with a language of instinct and personality, which displaced the Christian theological language of morality and grace.”[5]

I had baptized the whole Christian tradition in the waters of psychological empiricism, and was vaguely awakening to the fact that, after this procedure, what I had left was hardly more than a moralistic ghost of the distinctive Christian reality. It was as if the baptismal waters of the empirical stream had been mixed with some acid which ate away the historical significance, the objectivity and the particularity of the Christian revelation, and left me in complete subjectivity to work out my own salvation in terms of social service and an “integrated personality.”[6]

Morrison’s quest to make the church culturally relevant was in reality comparable to Nadab and Abihu’s strange fire—an introduction of man’s ideas and methods devoid of biblical authority and truth in order to make the church acceptable to a fallen culture. From such pride and presumption, great damage has been inflicted upon the church and its witness as to the unchangeable truth of God’s Word. Unfortunately, the American church’s quest for cultural relevancy is alive and vigorous in the twentieth-first century. In Part II, we shall examine Christianity’s modern expressions of its efforts at cultural relevancy which have completely captured the liberal church in America and is now invading many evangelical churches.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] Matthew Henry, Matthew Henry’s Commentary, Dr. Wilbur M. Smith, Ed., (Grand Rapids, Michigan: Zondervan Publishing House, 1961), pp. 122-123.
[2] Keith Meador, “My Own Salvation,” The Secular Revolution, Christian Smith, Ed., (Berkeley, California:
University of California Press, 2003), pp. 273, 277.
[3] Ibid., p. 277.
[4] Ibid., pp. 273-274, 278-292
[5] Ibid., p. 302.
[6] Ibid., p. 269.

“Workplace violence” comes to Canada

Posted by :admin On : November 21, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Government, Humanism, Islam, Worldview

The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) defines workplace violence as “…violence or the threat of violence against workers. It can occur at or outside the workplace and can range from threats and verbal abuse to physical assaults and homicide, one of the leading causes of job-related deaths. However it manifests itself, workplace violence is a growing concern for employers and employees nationwide.” The OSHA website also tells us that workplace violence can strike anywhere and anyone…people in homes, pizza delivery persons, gas meter readers, psychiatric evaluators…literally anywhere work is or can be done.[1] But OSHA’s definition is so broad that it is meaningless. Almost any violence can be classified as connected to the workplace however tenuous that connection might be. Not only does OSHA mask the real reasons for much of the violence, but it magnifies the level of workplace violence by equating minor non-violent and non-criminal occurrences with violent crimes such as physical assault and murder. Effectively, a large segment of general societal violence is jury-rigged to the workplace and made the responsibility of employers. The assumptive language of OSHA’s workplace violence regulations is that all such violence is workplace related.

OSHA’s workplace violence rules were written long before November 5, 2009, when Army Major Nidal Hasan shot to death thirteen people (fourteen including the unborn child of one of the victims) and wounded thirty-two others at Fort Hood, Texas. Major Hasan committed these crimes after years of open and verbal support of Islamic jihad while serving as an Army officer. Hasan is an American-born Muslim who had exchanged emails with a leading Al-Qaeda personage in which Hasan asked if those attacking fellow soldiers were considered martyrs.[2] Hasan fired over 200 rounds in the killing spree while shouting “Allahu Akbar,” which means “Allah is the Greatest” and is the opening declaration of every Islamic prayer as prescribed by the Prophet Muhammad.

Only four days after the shootings at Fort Hood, General George Casey, Chief of Staff of the Army, appeared on several Sunday news talk shows and expressed concern regarding the speculation as to the cause or motivation behind the shootings. “We have to be careful because we can’t jump to conclusions now based on little snippets of information that have come out. As great a tragedy as this was, it would be a shame if our diversity became a casualty as well.” (emphasis added) Not only was the general more concerned with protecting diversity than exposing the truth regarding the attack, he deliberately switched the focus of what happened when he said that he did not think there was currently discrimination against the estimated 3,000 Muslims who served in the Army at that time. Implicit in the General’s unwarranted statement was that if Hasan had acted because of his religious beliefs, it would have been because of discrimination against Muslims within the Army.[3]

Forty-six people were killed or wounded just three days earlier on an Army base whose supreme commander was General Casey. The perpetrator was a Muslim who shouted “Allahu Akbar” and had a well-known history among his military peers and superiors of being in sympathy with and vocally supporting Islamic jihad. However, the general’s greatest concern was for discrimination against Muslims in the military and not the families of the dead and those wounded by Hasan. It is incredibly naïve for anyone to believe the general did know the complete story of Nidal Hasan within hours of the killings and not just little snippets of information.

So the United States government saw to it that Hasan’s crimes were labeled “workplace violence” as opposed to what it really was…an act of terror whose motivation was to advance the beliefs and purposes of a false religion. Workplace violence may describe the location, but it does not reveal the cause or motivation of the violence. Government leadership committed to the philosophy of humanism must at all costs defend its humanistic concepts of diversity and multiculturalism in which moral relativism rules and all belief systems are coexisting and equally valid. Thus, we can all rest well tonight because diversity has been defended and OSHA is churning out even more rules and regulations to combat “workplace violence” such as committed by Major Hasan.

Recently, Michael Zehaf-Bibeau, a thirty-two year old Muslim convert, shot and killed a ceremonial guard on his way to attack the Canadian House of Commons and was subsequently killed by guards. Humanism in Canada is even more advanced than in the United States, but Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper had the courage to call the assault on the House of Commons a terrorist attack. However, true to liberalism’s humanistic roots, liberal leader Justin Trudeau quickly reassured the Muslim community.

And to our friends and fellow citizens in the Muslim community, 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.[4] (emphasis added)

According to Muslim tradition, the Quran was verbally spoken to Muhammad and is the mother document upon which Islam rests. One wonders how Zehaf-Bibeau’s actions are a deviation from the Islamic faith when the words of the Quran repeatedly justify his actions. Two examples of many similar verses that justify Zehaf-Bibeau’s attack are found in the Quran.

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.[5] [Surah 4:89. Quran]

Remember thy Lord inspired the angels (with the message): “I am with you, give firmness to the believers: I will instil [sic] terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their fingertips off them.[6] [Surah 8:12. Quran]

Are these verses, which are consistent with the actions of Zehaf-Bibeau, distorted ideological propaganda as Trudeau would have us believe? The Quran either does or does not define Islam and direct the actions of its followers? If they are reflective of the Quran’s instruction for conduct of the followers of Islam, the verses cannot be distorted ideological propaganda. If the verses are not reflective of proper conduct for the followers of Islam, how does a follower of Islam determine which verses of the Quran are to be followed and which must be considered distorted ideological propaganda?

The philosophy of humanism would have us believe that all belief systems are equally valid. If all belief systems are not equally valid, then the tenets of humanism are fundamentally flawed including humanistically defined concepts of diversity and multiculturalism which are embraced by General Casey and most of the leadership of the institutions of American life. When common sense and thousands of years of human experience expose the falsity of the humanistic worldview, its defenders use the power of office and meaningless language such as “workplace violence” and bogus definitions of diversity and multiculturalism to mask its failings.

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.[7]

…the humanist multicultural agenda reveals that multiculturalism is not intended to supplement but rather to supplant Western culture that is so steeped in Christianity. The attack on Western civilization comes through a dismissal of American religious values as they intersected with and made possible the rise of the American political system…The essence of multiculturalism has its roots in the denial of absolutes, one of the cardinal doctrines of humanism, which translates into a moral relativism. Such a values-free approach, according to the humanists, 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.[8]

The American experience since the first Europeans set foot on its eastern shores has been centered on a Christian understanding of the world. America became the greatest nation in the world because it was founded upon principles based upon that understanding.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] OSHA Fact Sheet, U.S. Department of Labor, Occupational Safety and Health Administration, 2002.
https://www.osha.gov/OshDoc/data_General_Facts/factsheet-workplace-violence .pdf (accessed November 5, 2014).
[2] Billy Kenber, “Nidal Hasan sentenced to death for Fort Hood shooting rampage,” Washington Post, August 28, 2013.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/national-security/nidal-hasan-sentenced-to-death-for-fort-hood-shooting-rampage/2013/08/28/aad28de2-0ffa-11e3-bdf6-e4fc677d94a1_story.html (accessed November 5, 2014).
[3] Lindy Kyzer, “Gen. Casey on the strength of our diversity,” Army Live, U.S. Army, November 8, 2009.
http://armylive.dodlive.mil/index.php/2009/11/gen-casey-on-the-strength-of-our-diversity/ (accessed November 5, 2014).
[4] 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 November 5, 2014).
[5] The Meaning of The Illustrious Qur-an, (Dar AHYA Us-Sunnah), p.49.
[6] Ibid., p. 98.
[7] 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 398.
[8] Ibid., pp. 189-190.

America’s malaise

Posted by :admin On : November 14, 2014
0

Category: America, Archives, Christianity, Government, Humanism, Worldview

Malaise seems an inadequate word to describe what’s happening in and to America. Synonyms for “malaise” are sickness, illness, disease, disorder, anxiety, depression, and discontent. It appears all are needed to describe America’s mood and condition. One magazine cover reads, “Is the world falling apart?” [1] Syndicated columnist Pat Buchanan laments the nation’s decline in a recent column titled “Things fall apart for many public institutions.” [2] He lists numerous examples of this brokenness in recent years including the Center for Disease Control’s fumbled response in protecting Americans from an Ebola epidemic; basic security breaches in protecting the president at and away from the White House; the invasion of the southern United States by 60,000 children and young people from Central America; the Obamacare rollout debacle; the federal and state response to Hurricane Katrina in which 30,000 New Orleans residents were stranded for days; the strategic blunders by the president and civilian policy makers in handling the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan; failing schools; skyrocketing national debt; deteriorating infrastructure; and political, racial, and cultural clashes. [3] And the list grows weekly.

Buchanan says that things were not always that way, and he raises the question: “What happened to us?” “Whatever happened to that can-do nation” that survived the Great Depression, armed itself and fought World War II over five years, and placed a man on the moon in ten years because we said we could do it? [4] Mr. Buchanan ends his column in dismay but offers no solutions. To Buchanan’s list we must also add the extreme societal devastation caused by the fracturing of the family structure which the late Senator Daniel Moynihan described as the he biggest change in the North Atlantic world that he observed in his forty years of government service and which happened in “an historical instant. Something that was not imaginable forty years ago had happened.” [5]

Something is profoundly wrong in America. The symptoms of the sickness are known and well-defined as shown above. The solutions put forth by politicians, bureaucrats, education professionals, scientists, sociologists and psychologists, economists and business professionals, and a host of others in the knowledge class generally treat only the symptoms with remedies that often seem to make matters worse while at the same time fail to diagnose the disease itself.

How do we determine what went wrong with America and why? To find the answer it makes sense to go back in history to a time when things were working, a time when America was unified and had confidence in the rightness of its central cultural vision? Once we find that point in time, we must ask ourselves what changed. A cursory examination of modern history in America quickly identifies that point in time as the 1960s and the emergence of the Boomer generation. What changed was a dramatic rejection by many in the Boomer generation of the values and central cultural vision of all preceding generations of Americans since their arrival as colonists in the early 1600s. A comparison of the Boomers and the Greatest Generation confirms the beginnings of America’s cultural divide.

Much has been written and said about the Greatest Generation, a term that has gained almost universal acceptance following Tom Brokaw’s book, The Greatest Generation. For it was this generation that grew up during the deprivations of the Great Depression, fought a world war, persisted in blocking Soviet threats and aggression in a prostrate post-war world, and built the world’s greatest peacetime economy. Following the Allied victory in 1945, the United States stood at the pinnacle of world power. But unlike any other time in history, that generation acted not as victors but as a good and honorable people who poured their resources and energies into helping devastated nations and their starving peoples around the world. And, they didn’t retreat in the face of new dictators and despots as they fought the hot war in Korea and the cold war in other parts of the world, primarily against the USSR and its satellites. Following World War II, they married; went to schools, colleges, and universities in record numbers; and birthed approximately eighty million children who became known as the Baby Boomers. [6]

And through all of these deprivations, challenges, and monumental efforts, “They stayed true to their values of personal responsibility, duty, honor, and faith.” [7] But, how do these values play out in twenty-first century America? Personal responsibility has been replaced by government responsibility for our health, wealth, happiness, and well-being. Duty is out of date and doesn’t resonate with the goal of self-actualization. It’s all about me, baby! Honor is no longer based on timeless standards and awarded on merit but is now a matter of personal opinion and popularity. And as to faith, the beliefs of the naïve and ignorant masses that still believe in the Christian God are tolerated as long as they do not share their faith in public nor practice that faith if it conflicts with the dictates of the state.

The challenge to the Judeo-Christian worldview by the Boomer elite is not a new occurrence. For hundreds of years a conflict has existed within Western civilization between those that believe in a transcendent God and those that do not. But, it was in the mid-twentieth century as each sphere of influence in American society began abandoning the Judeo-Christian central cultural vision under the onslaught of the purveyors of the humanistic worldview. The abandonment of the biblical foundations upon which the nation was built became evident as the leaders of the Boomer generation took the reins of leadership in the institutions of American life and imposed their humanistic values upon the policies, practices, and standards of those institutions. What are those humanistic values and beliefs held by many Boomers in leadership? There is no God and no life after death. Nature is all there is, and man is merely the evolutionary product of nature. Man can solve his own problems through science and reason. Freedom of expression and civil liberties are paramount in all areas of life. Happiness, freedom, and progress are the goals of mankind. The focus of life is on self and self-development. Society requires extensive social programs to achieve the goals of humanism. [8] It is obvious that these humanistic values have little in common with the Greatest Generation’s values of personal responsibility, duty, honor, and faith.

Arguing from the Judeo-Christian worldview held by Americans from the Founders through the Greatest Generation, Christopher Badeaux describes the provision of order supplied by that worldview and the consequences of its abandonment in favor of the humanistic worldview.

The Lord made the Universe according to a set of hidden but largely discernable rules, and those rules produce specific, predictable outcomes once the rules and variables are known. Furthermore, all things are made ordered—oriented if you prefer—to not only the Lord, but also to decent and right outcomes…Our consciences and our natural inclinations are manifestations of this intrinsic order; disregarding them gives rise to disorder. Indeed, even doing things that are right and good can be taken to extremes that place one outside of that natural order. When we step outside of that order, as anyone who has lived with someone suffering through, say, anorexia or alcohol addiction can tell you, the disorder radiates outward in a spiderweb-crack pattern of pain. [9]

The problem with the humanistic worldview is that its prescriptions fail the test of what is required for a culture to survive. First, cultural unity and cohesiveness necessary for any society to survive can never be achieved through a dictatorial center of authority required by humanism. Second, humanism is inherently a false worldview because it steps outside the order of the universe. Therefore, it cannot answer the basic questions of life by which all people seek to understand the meaning and purpose of life.

With the ascendance of the humanistic worldview in society, the spiderweb-crack pattern of disorder and dysfunction radiates through every institution of American life. This is the reason our public institutions and the institution of family is falling apart, and polls consistently show that Americans believe that society is truly disordered and falling apart. Mr. Buchanan asked what changed America. Without doubt, what changed America was the humanistic leadership of the institutions of American life that abandoned the central cultural vision of the Founding Americans and every generation up to and including the Greatest Generation. It is only when Americans return to that central cultural vision whose foundation is Christianity that disorder will become order and America will began working again.

Larry G. Johnson

Sources:

[1] “Is the World Falling Apart?” World, October 4, 2014, Cover.
[2] Patrick Buchanan, “Things fall apart for many public institutions,” Tulsa World, October 28, 2014, A-11; Pat Buchanan, “Things fall apart,”
Creators.com, October 14, 2014. http://www.creators.com/conservative/pat-buchanan/things-fall-apart.html (accessed October 29, 2014).
[3] Ibid.
[4] Ibid.
[5] William J. Bennett, The Broken Hearth, (New York: Doubleday, 2001), pp. 2, 85.
[6] 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. 9.
[7] Tom Brokaw, The Greatest Generation, (New York: Random House, 1998), p. xx.
[8] Corliss Lamont, The Philosophy of Humanism, Eighth Edition, (Amherst, New York: Humanist Press, 1997), pp. 13-15.
[9] Christopher Badeaux, “Faith, Fear and Cormac McCarthy,” The City, Vol. 1, Issue 3, (Winter 2008), 84-85.

Same-sex marriage will be a bust for civilization

Posted by :admin On : October 10, 2014
1

Category: Archives, Homosexuality, Humanism, Marriage

Lisa Bracken believes that legalization of same-sex marriage would be good for Oklahoma’s economy (“Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy”[1]). She is wrong on two counts.

In the short-term, the supposed economic gains will be enormously offset by costs associated with societal dysfunction caused by same-sex marriage. Even though the legitimization of same-sex marriage is relatively new, its devastating effects are already being felt in those countries that have allowed it. Documenting 10 years of same-sex marriage and civil unions in Denmark, Norway, and Sweden, Hoover Institution researcher Stanley Kurtz found that it has led to far fewer marriages and soaring illegitimacy in which “80 percent of firstborn children are born out of wedlock, and 60 percent of children born thereafter are born to unwed parents. This has a devastating impact on children since unmarried parents are much more likely to separate.” Kurtz wrote, “Marriage in Scandinavia is in deep decline, with children shouldering the burden of rising rates of family dissolution. And the mainspring of the decline—an increasingly sharp separation between marriage and parenthood—can be linked to gay marriage.”[2]

In the longer term, homosexuality and same-sex marriage undermines society. The central cultural vision upon on which the nation was founded was based on biblical Christianity and its understanding of the nature of man and his origins. The truth of the Christian worldview of marriage as being between a man and woman is supported by the fact that it is a cultural universal imprinted on human nature and common to all people groups, all cultures, and all ages in history. Heterosexual marriage is the well-spring of civilization, and its centrality in the human experience is indisputable. Humans have fashioned numerous methods by which to organize their societies, but the common link to all is the family unit—a father, a mother, and children living together in bonds of committed caring.

Supporters of homosexuality believe that they have the right to marry just as heterosexuals, and those rights are based on equality. However, homosexuality is a choice, and choice does not automatically equate with a “right to” nor mandate equal consideration. Many people may have a predilection to alcohol, criminality, or some other activity including homosexuality. But all are choices and with God’s help those tendencies can be conquered.

In his book Visions of Order-The Cultural Crisis of Our Time published 50 year ago, Richard Weaver states that when a culture “… by ignorant popular attitudes or by social derangements” imposes a political concept that creates a different principle of ordering society contrary to universal truths, dissatisfactions arise because society has tampered with the “nature of things.”[3] Homosexuality is a disorganizing concept with regard to human relationships and ultimately disorganizing in building stable, enduring societies. Where traditional marriage declines, so do those societies decline that allow it to occur.

Homosexuality and same-sex marriage are issues that must ultimately be dealt with in the arena of morality and cultural health. The economic considerations of Chamber of Commerce cheerleaders such as Ms. Bracken are both inappropriate and crass with regard to the debate about homosexuality and demands for its legitimization through same-sex marriage. But such dollars and cents concerns are to be expected from those with a humanistic view of life based on the material and denial of universal and timeless concepts of right and wrong.

Larry G. Johnson

[1] Lisa Bracken, “Same-sex marriage can be boon for economy,” Tulsa World, September 27, 2014, A-19.
[2] D. James Kennedy, Ph.D., “Five Good Reasons to Reject Same-Sex Marriage,” Coral Ridge Ministries – Crosswalk.com, July 7, 2004. http://www.crosswalk.com/1272492/ (accessed September 30, 2014).
[3] Richard M. Weaver, Visions of Order – The Cultural Crisis of Our Time, (Wilmington, Delaware: Intercollegiate Studies Institute, 1995, 2006), p. 22.