The Death Of Christian Thought

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Will Russell Moore Become A Theological McLarenite?

It is often remarked that history appears cyclical in nature. By that, it is meant that, if one watches long enough, one can detect certain patterns that come back around from time to time. And with certain social currents seeming to speed by faster than ever before, often these “temporal ebbs” pour over a society or movement before those watching are even aware.

Today, Brian McLaren has branded himself as a Christian that advocates a number of positions that many other Christians would have a hard time accepting. For example, one can follow his spiritual path from a stance downplaying the relevance of the Afterlife such as the eternality of Hell and that the Kingdom of God is not so much about everlasting life in Heaven but rather about establishing utopia here on Earth to co-officiating at his son's gay wedding.

However, about 25 to 30 years ago, one would have probably have had to have been quite skilled at socio-theological forecasting to predict how far McLaren would have fallen off the deep end. For at around that time, McLaren was an academic with a specialty in literature laboring to establish a post-denominational church with the desire to get back to the simplicity of the Gospel truth all sincere Christians profess.

Those wanting to get in on what is near the ground level of a similar phenomena only need to watch Southern Baptist Commission On Ethics & Public Policy President Russell Moore. For while at the moment holding to a foundational theology sounder than Brian McLaren's, one can now hear Moore's articulation of a certain number of beliefs that is setting him down a path not all that markedly different than the one Brian McLaren has previously trodded.

This is evident in the column published by Russell Moore titled, “Why This Election Year Makes Me Hate The Word 'Evangelical'”. In those remarks, Dr. Moore announces that he no longer wants to be known as an “evangelical” because the connotations that have accrued surrounding the term subverts the cause of Jesus. Instead, Moore clarifies that he is a “Gospel Christian”.

As in regards to the other word games played by those in the arenas of public policy, who could possibly object to the term “Gospel Christian”? For such a phrase, much like the founding motivations of McLaren's Cedar Ridge Community Church, brings to mind the primary narrative of Scripture though which the remainder of divine revelation is understood and brought to life in the heart and soul of each professing believer.

But as in the case of other terms bandied about in the media such as “choice”, “equality”, and “tolerance”, those invoking the term “gospel” often do so for the purposes of imbuing it with meanings altered enough to undermine the traditional understanding as well as support for those one must view as one's opponents or adversaries.

Moore writes, “Part of the problem is that more secular people have for a long time misunderstood the meaning of 'evangelical', seeing us almost exclusively in terms of election-year voting blocs or our most buffoonish television personalities.” Moore is himself tottering close to becoming one of these if he is not careful.

What is so wrong if activist Evangelicals are seen primarily as a voting bloc and why is it the fault of the average Christian that realizes that now is the time for all good men to come to the aide of their country? For apparently Dr. Moore has no problem with reducing Evangelicalism or “Gospel Centered Christianity” to a set of platform positions when it apparently advances the agenda preferred by Russell Moore.

Moore continues, “The other problem is the behavior of some evangelical leaders. I have watched as some of those who gave stern and windy speeches about 'character' in office during the Clinton administration now minimizing the spewing of profanities, .... race-baitingm and courting white supremacists ... [and] debasing public morality and justice through the casino and pornography industries.”

Have not Moore and his closest associates not done the same thing? Donald Trump has verbalized gruff things that have gone over the line, particularly in reference to Megyn Kelly, Karli Fiorinia, and Heidi Cruz. However, at no time did Donald Trump “race bait”.

In regards to “race baiting”, all that Donald Trump did was call for the enforcement of U.S. immigration law and proffer as suggestions a number of proposals such as a wall that might protect the lives of Americans living in what has become a dangerous area. How is this any different than the policies implemented by the Jewish State of Israel which so many Evangelicals are so chummy with that they conveniently overlook the hostility of this competing world religion to Christianity's most fundamental tenet that Jesus is both Messiah and God?

If Russell Moore is going to stand rigorously by the principle that it is essentially sinful for ethnic groups or nationalities to advocate policies that are more favorable to the particular group in question, instead of sitting on the board of the National Hispanic Christian Leadership Conference, shouldn't he resign from that position and publicly repent of the organized ethnocentricism he goes out of his way to condemn when it is supposedly engaged in by White people? For in his column, Russell Moore condemns Donald Trump for courting White supremacists.

Mistaken as that pernicious ideology is on a number of points, perhaps disaffected Conservatives and even Evangelicals have decided to give that disreputable element a hearing because many average Americans that have never done a thing to injure a Black person or another minority are fed up with churches and denominational leaders that live higher up the socio-economic ladder beating the mere pewfillers over the head about how horrible Black folks and illegal aliens have it. That message is further compounded by the assumption promoted that somehow the average American is at fault for the misery allegedly endemic among these supposedly oppressed demographics when in reality such is often the result of many in these particular ethnicities failing to exercise self control and a little delayed gratification.

The sincere Christian is obligated to admit that Donald Trump is hardly a role model when it comes to important aspects of his individual character. However, it seems that bold “Gospel Christians” such as Dr. Moore are as guilty of the selective outrage that he has accused his coreligionists of when it comes to certain celebrities and public figures.

Some Christians might have gotten a little cozy with a candidate that wasn't quick enough to distance himself from those perceived as White supremacists (which in this era run amok in political correctness can be defined as little as failing to commence the automatic self-denunciation for simply being White as command of entrenched elites and social engineers). However, a number of Southern Baptists with whom Moore is closely associated are disturbingly reluctant to distance themselves from C.J. Mahaney.

To say that C.J. Mahaney is a controversial pastor would be an understatement. Not only under Mahaney's ecclesiastical leadership did child molesters get by relatively unscathed. He also ran the Covenant Life Church he pastored in Gaithersburg, Maryland along the lines of a cult.

For example, it was not enough for members to show up regularly for the Sunday morning and even the Sunday evening services. They were also expected to participate in a number of prisoner of war style encounter groups referred to as discipleship meetings where they were to spill their innermost secrets included as to how they kept their homes.

Moore writes, “We have been too willing to look the other way when the word 'evangelical' has been coopted by heretics and lunatics. This sort could deny creedal Christianity and gospel clarity with impunity, as long as they were on the right side of the culture war. Thankfully, this sort of evangelicalism is not the future.”

Perhaps Dr. Moore might prefer an Evangelicalism where believers are to overlook any number of abuses on the part of those that articulate not only the required doctrine but also a number of additional peculiarities to let it be known in the process how much they despise the traditional American way of life. Usually such statements take the form of detailing how horrible White people are and how the institutionalized church ought to exercise direct control over areas of your personal life over which God did not originally provide much detail other than a few broad principles He'd probably rather you figure out on your own how to implement.

Like Brian McLaren that went down this path before him, Russell Moore possess the ability to articulate his particular understanding of the Christian faith before a number of generational demographics. It is just unfortunate that each of these figures has grown increasingly liberal as this ability has earned each of them wider circles of acclaim.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Audio: Hipster Nazarene Insists Daily Bathing Perpetuates Western Imperialism

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Anti-American Rhetoric Pervades Even Conservative Denominations

On an episode of Issues Etc. examining pop culture apocalypticism, Lutheran Minister Jonathan Fiske admonished that believers need to get away from an American Republican view of Christianity that we are meant to live a good life here and now to a ripe old age after which we go on to our eternal reward in Heaven.

Interesting how the default term to denigrate these days out of the mouths of so many professional relgionists is “America”.

Furthermore, is his enunciation of the term “Republican” also invoked to besmirch the ideological proclivity of those assembling under the banner of the GOP to believe that the path towards the broadest swath of prosperity for the greatest number is to be found in individuals for the most part left alone to pursue their own well being, dreams and callings?

Does Rev. Fiske intend to cast as much aspersion upon an American Democratic view of Christianity that instead sees the path to a society approaching something akin to justice as one where the individual is nothing more than a cog in whatever group one happens to be a part of for the purposes of the government dispersing its largess to favored demographics and constituencies?

Furthermore, is the desire to maximize pleasure and evade misery necessarily a distinctively American characteristic?

Or is it that America through the blessings of the Almighty has been more successful than most regimes in achieving this most desirable yet elusive state of affairs?

For one will find that the average Third Worlder (unless brainwashed by the likes of fanatic Islam) is usually as averse to pain as most Westerners.

It is just that their respective society has not been as successful in alleviating these vicissitudes.

Often those given towards ostentatious verbalized declarations of their own piety articulate a willingness to welcome increased suffering.

However, was it not the God such souls claim as their primary loyalty the one that imbued part of His creation with that mysterious quality known as life along with a desire to see that distinct gift continued for as long as possible?

Though it may be ended as a result of a wide variety of intervening contingencies, if the believer strives to live by these principles God has established in the social sphere, won't the odds be in your favor for a life characterized by a bit less trouble?

After all, does not Scripture urge one to honor your mother and father so that your days upon the Earth might be long?

That text even admits it is a Scripture that dangles before the hearer a carrot in order to encourage compliance.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Intellectually Excavating Indiana Jones Unearths Epistemological Artifacts

As a discipline, archaeology examines the artistic and technological remains of various cultures in the attempt to learn more about them. Often from these objects, students learn about more than the subject's material nature but also insight into the beliefs and paradigms important to the human species at a particular time.

Probably the most prominent representative of the discipline in public culture is none other than Indiana Jones, with Stargate's Dr. Daniel Jackson coming in at second. As a narrative itself created at a particular point in time, the Indiana Jones movies themselves can be placed under investigation to unearth what our own culture has believed at various points in recent history as well as the ideas shaping those having such influence over our own society.

Through comparing "The Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" and the other films of the Indiana Jones saga, especially with "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade", one can detect the shifts taking place all around us as to what the broader popular culture perceives as foundational truth. For example, though the films should not be seen as a systematic theology upon which to base one's faith, "Raiders of the Lost Ark" and "Last Crusade" had at their base Judeo-Christian assumptions in that artifacts connected with this tradition, namely the Ark of the Covenant and the Holy Grail (the cup used by Jesus Christ at the Last Supper) were actual historic objects and, since these objects in legend exude a power that cannot be explained by conventional science, one assumes they are connected to the divine.

In the latest film of the series, "Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull", ultimate wisdom and power is not seen as originating in a traditional conception of God as in "Raiders Of The Lost Ark" or "Last Crusade" or even in spirits as in "Indiana Jones & The Temple Of Doom". Rather in the latest installment, the source of enlightenment happens to be those entities with the bulbous heads and lanky limbs we have come to know as extraterrestrials whose crystalline skulls in this story can serve as powerful tools through which to augur the future, communicate with these beings, and to gain control of the world. Though an entertaining story, it may have considerable basis in reality --- or at least in the worldviews of its high level producers.

For example, the opening scene with Indy trouncing through the military hanger is set in none other than Area 51 and the top secret project he alludes to working on 10 years prior to the events of the story is none other than the Roswell crash. Some might flippantly dismiss these as urban legends that have taken on lives of their own beyond the significance of any incidents that may have occurred in these locations that now fire the imagination. However, it is pretty hard to ignore the Nazca lines which were not discovered by modern man until the discovery of flight and the existence of a tribe of Indians that mutilated the shape of their skulls to make themselves appear as if they were from beyond this earth.

Even these can be dismissed as historical or anthropological curiosities as human beings have believed or done some rather bizarre things since nearly the dawn of time. The thing is that there are those among the influential who would imbue intelligences from beyond this earth with a metaphysical prominence going above that which you would bestow upon someone from another country as being different from but frankly no better ontologically than you ultimately.

While a highly creative individual, to Steven Spielberg, these creatures are much more than imaginative characters or plot elements. Rather, the acclaimed director has had an interest and belief in the paranormal throughout much of his life beyond that of a mere narrative device and he has been reported to have had a number of encounters with the unexplained.

In the movie, the quest was not so much to verify whether or not transterrestrial life simply existed as a biological fact but rather that enlightenment was somehow obtained from these beings and as such they were worthy of the adoration and devotion once reserved for God Himself. As the public comes to embrace this worldview more and more, we are beginning to see a shift from viewing beings like this in a solely naturalistic context of beings from another planet not all that unlike our own to, as in the case of “The Kingdom of The Crystal Skull” as coming from a realm transcendent to our own from what could be referred to as another dimension.

Thus, in essence, in terms of our paradigms, the Western mind has come full circle to an extent but on a less sure footing than when it set out on the quest to comprehend the cosmos in which we find ourselves. It use to be believed that nonhuman intelligences originated from another realm (initially Heaven but tossed out when they followed Lucifer/Satan into rebellion). Then as the West increasingly fell under the spell of what Francis Schaeffer termed “modern modern science” (meaning science opposed to the existence of the spiritual realm), such entities were believed to come from other planets

However, as the New Age movement has become so entrenched that it is no longer new anymore and prefers even fancier titles such as "cosmic spirituality", now it seems our alleged betters along the path of evolutionary consciousness take on the best and worst depending upon one’s perspective. For example, in the latest Indiana Jones adventure, no longer are the gods of the dawning order disembodied spirits we cannot see but rather they posses physical form we can relate to even if it differs vastly from our own. And yet even though they are like us, they also come from a place apart from and above our own so as to avoid banality by providing us with the hope of a somewhere possessing a transcendence we can still aspire to.

Those watching “Indiana Jones & The Kingdom Of The Crystal Skull” can feel free to do so with a clear conscience as it is primarily an entertaining adventure story. However, as with the protagonist of this series, viewers should take with them the assorted philosophical equipment necessary to avoid the pitfalls and traps they are likely to encounter as they undertake an expedition into this realm where imagination intersects belief.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Materialism (Part Three) Steven Yates

Author's note: these are the third and fourth parts of a four-part (plus postscript) essay that first appeared on the commentary site NewsWithViews.com. I have corrected a couple of typos and put in a few new links but otherwise kept substantive changes to an absolute minimum.

“Turn off your mind, relax and float downstream

It is not dying, it is not dying.

Lay down all thought, surrender to the void

It is shining, it is shining.

That you may see, the meaning of within

It is being, it is being.

That love is all, and love is everyone

It is knowing, it is knowing.” ~The Beatles, “Tomorrow Never Knows” (1966)

The upshot, so far, is that in our moral lives in a material world, everything is up for grabs.

Reactions to this varied. One was the turn to mind-altering drugs, led by such writers as Aldous Huxley (1894 – 1963) whose The Doors of Perception (1954) was the source of a different 1960s rock group’s name, and of course Timothy Leary (“Tune in, turn on, drop out”). Transcendent reality and values may not exist in the material world but can be found in your head! The 1960s hippies began to “drop acid” (LSD, lysergic acid diethylamide). Some would claim to “see God.” Acid rock was its musical expression, proclaiming mystical revelations of peace and love. Others, of course, experienced sometimes terrifying hallucinations caused by the drug’s radical altering of their perceptions. I recall from my graduate student days a past user telling me how he’d seen his stereo grow a mouth, as the music coming from his speakers took the form of two arms reaching his way as it tried to eat him. People with latent personality disorders, or just the anxiety-prone, were especially susceptible to bad experiences with LSD. Some users ended up with psychoses, or simply “burned out” from repeated usages with permanent brain damage: “acid casualties.” All of which makes the values-are-in-your-head route a risky one to travel down!

Many of that generation’s parents, however, had turned away from the problem, leaving them vulnerable to criticisms of them as morally shallow, having sold their souls to the corporate system. “If it feels good, do it” is a phrase associated with the hippies, but there was a sense in which the prevailing ethos was closer to this sort of phrase than their elders cared to admit. Convenience reigned. This was true in business, in government, in academia. If it’s convenient, do it. Consider abortion, which had become an issue well before Roe v. Wade (1973). Sexual license (also a problem in some communities before the liberation movements of the 1960s) led to unwanted pregnancies; simple as that. Despite the prattling about those cases when “the mother’s life is in danger,” over 99% of abortions are abortions of convenience. Abortion’s legal acceptability has led to the killing of over 50 million unborn babies and counting. I will not torture readers with the bizarre rationalizations feminist philosophy professors have produced (it is hard to call them philosophers with a straight face), except to note that the linguistic sleight of hand used has been intended to deprive the unborn and sometimes even the newly born of moral standing, and hence any claim on life that others are obligated to respect. The Nazis and other totalitarians did the same thing, removing those to be eliminated from the moral community.

But then again, if Benedict, Dewey, Rorty, and others are correct, then the only moral standing anyone has is what their society, or the state, gives them. What the state and social approval give, the state and social approval can take away, whether its targets are Jews, Gypsies, homosexuals, etc., under the Nazis; those who resisted collectivized farming under Stalin; or the unborn in our own culture. It is possible, by this reading, that a future Christian civilization might regard this last as one of the largest and most insidious holocausts of all.

The tendency, as we have seen, has been to evade the issues, or to simply stop thinking about them. Many theologians would succumb fully to the “death of God” by the 1960s, even as their children were “finding Him” in recreational chemistry. Secularization was one of the manifestations of materialism having captured Western culture. Harvey Cox (1929 – ), one of the leaders of the “death of God” movement, wrote in his The Secular City (1965) that secularization “bypasses and undercuts religion and goes on to other things…. The world looks less and less to religious rules and rituals for its morality or its meanings.”

I recently finished one of the most comprehensive accounts I have seen of the modern, secular attempt “to live after the death of God”: The Age of Atheists: How We Have Sought to Live since the Death of God (2014) by British intellectual historian Peter Watson (1943 – ). Watson’s account ranges across philosophy, art, poetry, literature, and science — or, more exactly, science-promotion, as he includes evangelical atheists such as Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett, and Sam Harris, which is materialism promotion in my sense of that term. Watson is a reasonably honest thinker, and those who maintain (as I do) that materialism has no hope of providing society with a sound moral foundation and direction will find support for their views in his work. So despite the title and themes (and tediousness at times), the book merits study. At the end, Watson does not endorse mere science-promotion but rather seeks to explain why many credible authors, writers, poets and artists have found the “scientific worldview” too narrow. His answer isn’t especially satisfying.

It comes down to the idea that, given God’s absence, the “central sane activity” (title of the book’s meandering closing chapter) is “sheer wondering inquiry,” and a grasping for those lonely moments of meaningfulness and life-affirmation. Different authors have given them different names. Abraham Maslow, for example, called them “peak experiences”; James Joyce spoke of “epiphanies”; Malroux, of “temporary refuges”; Yeats, of “brief moments of ecstatic affirmation”; Ibsen, of “flashes of spiritual value.” These moments, Watson insists, can be had in loving relationships, the satisfaction of various desires, the experience of hearing an especially moving piece of music or seeing a work of art or reading poetry, or in any number of other ways including just the mundane satisfaction of a job well done.

Even if you are a secularist, are you really satisfied with this?

Study them closely, and you see that these experiences, real though they may be, are private and personal; one comes away sensing the difficulty the writers have in communicating their content to others. They are more the stuff of poetry than philosophy. They are, however, pleasant — momentary “highs” — and we are inching our way back to the possibility that psychoactive drugs can be used to trigger such experiences artificially and expand them indefinitely if the results are satisfying enough to outweigh the dangers.

All this seems like denial to me. Of the obvious. By turning away from the larger picture, the one both Nietzsche and Russell were courageous enough to face, to focus on those nice little particulars we experience or arrange for ourselves, whether in our private lives or by using recreational chemicals, we evade the important consequence of materialism:

That once you’ve removed God and transcendence from your worldview, there are no binding moral values, binding in the sense of being definitive and authoritative, and suggesting a lasting, inescapable, personal penalty for their violation. There is only state authority, popularity, physical pleasure, and these ephemeral on-top-of-the-world moments — all of which end in death, which the materialist understands as the permanent extinction of consciousness and personality. You cease to exist as completely as the nonexistence that preceded your conception. Presumably after those final anxious moments before you wink out, you won’t be worried about it.

Watson correctly observes that many people in secular society seem to have no problem with this. They have either rejected “religion” without further thought, or simply grew up without it. He writes:

“We need to remind ourselves … that many people — and perhaps the quieter souls among us — see no problem in God being dead. For them his death is no source of anxiety or perplexity…. [S]uch individuals are not “metaphysical types” and seek no “deep” meaning in existence. They just get on with their lives, making ends meet, living from day to day and season to season, enjoying themselves where they can, untroubled by matters that so perplex their neighbors. They have no great expectations that the big questions will ever be settled, so devote no time to their elucidation. In some ways, they are the most secular people of all and perhaps the most content” (The Age of Atheists, pp. 532-33).

Such folks blend smoothly into the majority, the masses of humanity in advanced civilization, meeting its demands on them, and no more thinking independently today than the third or so who were content with British rule in the 1770s and another third who didn’t care so long as they had food on the table. If asked, they will say they have no time for such matters as these. They will vote for mainstream candidates without question, and only start asking questions when their supposed leaders send their kids off to die in foreign wars as cannon fodder, if even then. They are first veilers. While many are nice people and good at what they do, should we trust their collective judgment with matters as far from everyday experience, and as important, as whether or not one should believe in God as the source of moral valuation?
 

Materialism (Part Four) Steven Yates

“Jesus, help me find my proper place

Jesus, help me find my proper place

Help me in my weakness

Cause I'm falling out of grace.

Jesus. Jesus.” ~The Velvet Underground, “Jesus” (1968)

I confess I had a difficult time choosing an open song lyric for this final segment, if only because explicit Christian themes are rare in rock music (it does happen, however). Yet that world contains many artists who have engaged in intense self-exploration often reaching out to a spiritual reality even if by accident. Lou Reed (1942 – 2013), author of the above lyrics, is an example. He had clearly seen the seamy side of human existence including from the standpoint of a heroin addiction when he was in his early 20s. The song cited above sounds surprisingly like a prayer for someone who was not a Christian (I am assuming). Reed’s music has always struck me as that of an observer and seeker, someone commenting on the dark side of human life as if from a vantage point somewhere above.

According to materialists, there is no “vantage point somewhere above,” of course. There is just this world, and whatever neural synapses are firing in your brain. The New Atheism (Dawkins, et al) has reiterated Nietzsche’s “God is dead” by proclaiming the impending death of Christianity.

I wouldn’t hold my breath. The Soviets spent over 70 years trying to eradicate Christianity by force; the Maoists, in China, also tried to wipe it out. It is true that, e.g., church attendance is dropping on the part of millennials, a source of commentary on Christianity losing ground in the U.S. It is incompatible with the political correctness that dominates the mindset of millennial students, for sure. But Christianity is the fastest growing religion elsewhere in the world, such as (ironically) in Russia and China. Why would anyone think Christianity is going away voluntarily? What we should be thinking about is where the Christian worldview stands in the present, and what its future might be.

What is the Christian worldview? It stands, as I argue in Four Cardinal Errors, in sharp contrast to the materialist worldview. Here are some proposals.

(1) God exists, as a Being who transcends space, time, and causality. The things of God, including morality, transcend space, time, and causality. God created the world of space, time, and causality. Logos and Ethos (logicality and morality) are inseparable aspects of God’s eternal nature. God’s existence is a starting point, not a conclusion of our reasoning.

(2) There is therefore the world of space, time, and causality — the world of human experience and of science — and whatever noumenal realm exists “beyond” these, outside possible human experience. Neither reality nor God are limited to space, time, and causality. The philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein (1889 – 1951) would say we are pushing at the limits of language. In a sense, he was correct. But limits to human language and understanding do not limit reality. In the last analysis, God’s nature as both one God and as “three persons” (the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit) are mysteries, as is how Creation was accomplished, how our free will operates, and possibly how consciousness itself works. Positivism and scientism disliked and distrusted mysteries. Materialists believed they had explained them. Rorty, who also admired Wittgenstein, believed the problems were artifacts of our insistence on “mentalistic” language. But some recent philosophers of mind — Colin McGinn (1950 – ) is an example — now sound very Kantian in concluding that consciousness has remained fundamentally mysterious despite decades of hard, patient, sustained inquiry and analysis … because our reason just isn’t structured so as to fathom its mysteries. If materialism is false, the mysteriousness of consciousness makes perfect sense! It just can’t be forced-fitted into the materialist conceptual straitjacket!

(3) What science does it does reasonably well, when not corrupted by politics or other sources of dollars. Again, though, science is designed to answer questions and solve problems in this world. Again as Kant showed, it cannot address metaphysical problems, any more than can reason itself. Reason, though its starting point is Logos, is human, all too human, is finite therefore, and not designed to reach or grasp an eternal God. From what successes science has enjoyed it does not follow logically that this world, the world of space, time, and causality where science and technology operate, exhausts reality.

(4) According to Christianity human beings were created in God’s image. Hence the fundamental ontological and moral differences between us and the rest of the Creation. As St. Thomas Aquinas (1225 – 1274) put it, our reason is an imprint of God’s eternal nature within us. Thus we have the finite capacity to acquire knowledge of the Creation, whether through science or rational insight.

(5) The Christian worldview’s diagnosis of the human condition is not ignorance but sin: the fact that the first humans (whether we read Genesis literally or not) turned away from God. They believed they could do better on their own, autonomously. They were wrong. Sin corrupts everything, including the quest for truth. Most thinkers have sought to avoid any frank discussion of sin. The idea flies in the face of the idea of human perfectibility, or at least of indefinite improvability by our own efforts, legacies of the Enlightenment. But any honest, empirical look at ourselves ought to suggest that we cannot save ourselves, or improve ourselves wholesale as ethical beings. We can make small improvements here and there, akin to learning to bathe; most of us tend to behave better when we are comfortable and when our stomachs are full. But morality is simply not our “default setting”; it should be obvious that even children can be hideously cruel to classmates who do not “fit in.” While many of us adults doubtless mean well because we have internalized moral principles to some degree, others among us remain pretty much untouched by these niceties. We try to device systems of rules that operate under the assumption that the desire to do good should be a primary motivator, when it usually isn’t. Most of us have little interest in what does not affect us directly, or bring us benefits. All of us have our lapses, some of which are truly breathtaking! Secularists believe we can be autonomous, but absent an external moral compass, we often just act as destroyers, of others if not ourselves, whether on the grand scale of the wars of choice in the Middle East or the small but from the victim’s standpoint all-too-real one of the teenager who is bullied or cyberbullied until she commits suicide. Unless such things happen to one of our own, we drift with the herd, with the quiet secularists Peter Watson noted.

(6) Christian ethics are found in the Ten Commandments, the Sermon on the Mount, and elsewhere in the Old and New Testaments. Yes, there are often problems interpreting what we perceive God’s will to be, and religious communities are bound to disagree over specifics. But the problems understanding what Christianity requires of us surely pale next to the failure of secular ethical theories, and of secularism more broadly. One thing is crystal clear: Christian salvation is to be found in Jesus Christ who alone promises salvation from the consequences of sin (Romans 3:23; Romans 6:23; John 3:16; elsewhere), something we cannot do ourselves (Ephesians 2:8–9; elsewhere). Recognizing that if we try to start with ourselves we get nowhere, and that our ability to get nowhere on our own is entirely consistent with what we observe in history and society, are good places to begin one’s appreciation of Christian ethics, or of the Christian worldview generally.

Christians do not get everything right, of course. The Christian does not cease to sin nor even to suffer the consequences of sin; the most he can do is confess sins, and turn away gratefully acknowledging God’s forgiveness. What Christians get wrong could fill a separate article: failure in their families; failure to care for their neighbors and fellow citizens as God commands (Jesus did not say to treat the sick only if you can make a profit doing so); failure to care for the Creation itself, over which God gave humanity dominion, which means assuming moral responsibility, not destructive plundering; and more besides.

But these human failures do not give us an argument against Christianity and for materialism, which in the end gives us no basis for condemning any of these failures other than expedient ones.

What of other faiths? some might ask. I was born in the U.S. (grew up in Atlanta), and have been surrounded by Christians for much of my life (except for time spent in universities surrounded by materialists). Suppose I’d been born in, say Baghdad. Would I not be writing my condemnations of Western materialism as part of my submission to Allah, as a devout Muslim scholar (the word Islam means submission)? Would I not be a Hindu or possibly a Buddhist, had I been born in, say, India? Or a Confucian, had I been born in Tibet?

There are no easy answers to such questions. I do not know if Christians can have the best answers to them, as those answers (obviously) presuppose Christianity and to a logical mind, will sound circular. The fact that everyone considers his/her religion to be “the right one” is a given; no one would believe in his/her faith otherwise. Other faiths stand at the center of other worldviews, of course, non-Western ones in most cases. That means (by definition) they are not widely represented in those regions of the world identified as “the West.” High or low representation has no logical implications for truth or falsity, however.

Technology, a product of the West, has brought these different worldviews into the same meeting space as never before, however: cyberspace, which transcends the fact that some of us are able to travel anywhere and experience the cultural embodiments of other worldviews firsthand. The thing to do, it seems to me, is to encourage interfaith dialogue as never before, conducted respectfully and with an eye to seeing what is similar, and not being so eager to focus on what is different. And looking to the future rather than dwelling on the errors of the past. The world needs people both able and willing to communicate, especially with divisive and destructive personalities everywhere. We can then show how the world looks to Christians, and present what we believe is true in Christianity.

This, we must add, goes along with acting as Jesus Christ would have as act, in accordance with His words during the Sermon on the Mount and elsewhere: for example, working to ensure that impoverished peoples here and afar have food to eat, whatever their beliefs, and to help them learn those practices that will help them feed themselves. Words without deeds, after all, are idle chatter. Having attended to such matters, the most constructive thing we can do is to step aside and trust God to do His work.

Materialism, Parts One & Two

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Materialism (Part One) Steven Yates

Author's note: these are the first two parts of a four-part (plus postscript) essay that first appeared on the commentary site NewsWithViews.com. I have corrected a couple of typos and put in a few new links but otherwise kept substantive changes to an absolute minimum.

“ … we are living in a material world

And I am a material girl.

You know that we are living in a material world

And I am a material girl.” ~Madonna, “Material Girl” (1984).

Madonna’s first big hit defined, in part anyway, the mindset of a generation. What did this generation want? Material affluence, which became an ideal in the 1980s and beyond after its rejection two decades before. While that earlier era had its problems as we’ll see, the new materialism opened the door to the kind of business behavior which brought about the S&L crisis, a couple of decades later the Enron and Worldcom debacles, and then finally, the worst economic meltdown since the Great Depression. No, greed is not good! Greed does not work! But the story is longer and more complicated than this.

The word materialism has more than one meaning. It does not refer just to a preoccupation with material goods, affluence, or pleasures and excess, although those are legitimate uses of the term. As explained in my Four Cardinal Errors (2011) and in my ebook Philosophy Is Not Dead (2014), materialism also names a comprehensive philosophical worldview which began to replace Christianity as an intellectual and cultural force, first in Europe in the latter half of the 1700s and then more rapidly in the 1800s. In the 1830s, Auguste Comte (1798 – 1857) offered a philosophical ideology known as positivism, which would ensure that materialism became the dominant philosophy of science. Meanwhile, Karl Marx (1818 – 1883) developed his dialectical materialism underwriting a theory of historical progress resulting from material economic forces that would culminate in Communism. Charles Darwin (1809 – 1882) offered a materialist theory of the origins of species, including humanity, with his theory of evolution by natural selection which quickly became the mainstay of modern biology. Wilhelm Wundt (1832 – 1920) developed an experimental psychology suitable for studying human beings conceived as little bundles of responses to stimuli: material boys and girls. As some of his leading students were Americans (e.g., G. Stanley Hall of Johns Hopkins University), he became the intellectual godfather of behaviorism as well as educational psychology as materialism came to the U.S.

Philosophically, the replacement of Christianity with materialism culminated when Friedrich Nietzsche’s (1844 – 1900) Zarathustra proclaimed that “God is dead!” followed by Nietzsche’s own call for a “revaluation of all values.” Nietzsche was one of the most ruthlessly honest thinkers who ever lived. He realized that once God and transcendence vanished from your worldview, everything changed. Everything those notions made meaningful also vanished. The death of God meant the death of morality in any standard sense, and this could not be evaded forever. Bertrand Russell (1872 – 1970) penned “A Free Man’s Worship” (1903) and was more hopeful in finding ideals of peace and justice in the dead universe disclosed by materialist science. The impotence of these ideals was revealed in the disasters of future decades: the world wars, the brutal dictatorships, the casual genocides, the many hidden cruelties such as global sex trafficking (young girls kidnapped and forced into prostitution so sociopathic pimps could get rich), and finally the rising specter of scientific oligarchy by a technocratic elite.

Optimists insist that despite the carnage we have made incredible levels of technological progress thanks to scientific advances. This much is true. We have cured diseases, sent men into space and returned them safely, and now have the means to communicate with one another visually across oceans (e.g., with Skype). Violent crime in advanced nations has fallen consistently over time. Poverty has diminished. But we inhabit a world of dangerous imbalances. Viewed ethically, something is terribly wrong, and every thinking person knows this. Technology has also produced weapons capable of laying waste to continents. Some of its products threaten the food chain, the disruption of which would precipitate mass extinctions. Technologists splice genes, work on AI, and speak of “transhumanism.” I am reminded of one of the great movie lines of all time, from Jurassic Park: “Your scientists were so preoccupied with whether or not they could that they forgot to stop and ask if they should” (Dr. Ian Malcolm, played by Jeff Goldblum).

Materialism as trained philosophers use the term refers to a metaphysics, or theory of reality, a range of views we can summarize succinctly with the following:

(1) Reality means spatiotemporal reality, the physical universe. No sense is to be made of anything existing “outside of,” or “beyond” space and time, such as a God, or Heaven or Hell. Eternity and transcendence are meaningless concepts.

(2) What exists in spatiotemporal reality comes down to material things — physical entities (particles, forces, energy, however we cash out the specifics), which obey unyielding laws of physics and chemistry. Again, no sense is to be made of anything outside of these laws, such as God creating a world ex nihilo or performing miracles which would suspend or violate universal causality. The universe is self-existing and uncreated; it may have an origin and its present form an explanation, but these need not resort to any form of causality “beyond” physical or material nature. Naturalism, in other words, is the mandated methodology.

(3) Our only reliable means of knowing the world is naturalistic science, based on observation, hypothesis, experiment, data collection, theorizing, and replication. Natural science is just the use of the collective sense experience of trained and disciplined observers and experimenters in their various specialized domains. Science, unlike religion in this view, is not infallible but is self-correcting and progressive. Its authority, even if never settled, is decisive in what we can legitimately say we know about the universe. Outside of science, all is superstition, emotion, and unreason. Scientific methods have given rise to technological and economic progress, the world of relative comfort we now enjoy, and this is their primary validation.

(4) A human being is no less physical than anything else in nature. Our differences from other animals are differences in complexity, not in kind. Evolution did not “aim” to produce us. It had/has no “goals.” Our existence is a grand cosmic accident, as is life itself. The mind is just the brain (or, perhaps, the brain, senses, and central nervous system). Free will is an illusion created by ignorance of the actual causes of our behaviors. It makes no sense to say we can act outside the world’s causal structure.

(5) The diagnosis of the human predicament comes down to the prevalence of superstition, a lack of disciplined scientific reason, flawed institutions (governmental, commercial, educational); prejudice, hatred, and fear of what is different; and — in general — ignorance. The cure: knowledge, through universal education, leading to consciousness of public goods, more responsible governance, better use of science and technology. Thus we will find our way to our philosophical adulthood, giving up childish notions about a ghostly man in the sky and standing on our own feet.

(6) In term of ethics, if there is no God or transcendence, then as Russell observed, morality must be found in this world, or in ourselves. While Darwinians have had ideas about morality as an evolutionary adaptation, in the last analysis if materialism is true there is nothing standing over us, even figuratively, insisting that we “be moral” and threatening punishment us if we disobey — aside from social sanction and the state, of course. Morality is in this sense an invention of cultures (a cultural artifact, an anthropologist might say), not a discovery of something built into nature. Morality differs from place to place and from time to time, as anthropologist Ruth Benedict (1887 – 1948) spelled out in her magnum opus Patterns of Culture (1934): cultural relativism, in which cultures draw from the many possible patterns of human behaviors possible for them to approve. What is “immoral” is whatever set of patterns a culture refuses to use.

Philosophers have struggled since the late 1700s to find some basis for stable morality in a material world, a very practical endeavor, as it was clear even then: if the majority of people did not behave ethically at least most of the time in the sense of being honest in their dealings, respecting others, helping and not hurting them, taking responsibility for their mistakes, etc., very soon you did not have a society. You had breakdown and chaos. This, though, was compatible with the idea that all morality does is serve as a kind of glue that cements cultures together by supplying a basis for resolving disagreements and solving societal problems, without any transcendent grounding. The Darwinians would say it had survival value. Cultures not adopting such mores do not survive. Simple as that.

Is this the only reason we should be moral in the material world? What if I can get away with not being moral as my culture defines morality? Is there any reason I shouldn’t make the attempt?

Materialism (Part Two) Steven Yates

“Same old song, just a drop of water in an endless sea

All we do crumbles to the ground although we refuse to see.

Dust in the wind

All we are is dust in the wind.” ~Kansas, “Dust in the Wind” (1977)

I’ve always enjoyed progressive rock, even if it raises my Christian friends’ brows sometimes. Much of it is well done, and sounds like some thought went into it. As implied by my referencing Madonna at the outset, popular music is often a good guide to the zeitgeist of a culture. Many singers/songwriters are sensitive to this in ways academics are not. Our cultural worldview, as I’ve emphasized, is fundamentally materialist, and even those uninterested in the philosophical specifics laid out in Part One will find themselves immersed in its consequences, one of which is the exclusive preoccupation with material goods amidst ethical ambiguity. One of the questions underwriting this ambiguity was best put by one of the first philosophy professors I was a teaching assistant for, back in the early 1980s. Are there any absolute values? was the question she posed in class. Must we rest content with the relativism of the anthropologists?

The German philosopher Immanuel Kant (1724 – 1804) believed we could deduce absolute duties from Pure Reason, and they would apply to all rational beings. He called his main principle the categorical imperative: always act as if the maxim or principle guiding your action could apply to everyone (I am paraphrasing, of course). Always tell the truth out of respect for the truth and respect for others as moral agents. Always keep your promises out of the same respect. Honor contracts. What is morally wrong is making exceptions for oneself, or treating oneself as a special case. Morality is universal or it is useless. Kant had problems, however, when universal duties appeared to conflict, as they sometimes did.

Great Britain’s John Stuart Mill (1806 – 1873), a Utilitarian, argued that morality is a matter of following the greatest happiness principle: your action is ethical if it creates a greater balance of happiness over unhappiness in the world, where happiness tends to mean pleasures of various sorts (those of the mind, such as scientific knowledge or appreciation of the arts, take precedence over those of the body, involving sensuality and appetites). This kind of position logically permits the sacrifice of some if it brings about enough knowledge and social benefits for the rest to enjoy a greater balance of happiness. And by the way, these are not idle games played by intellectuals locked away in academic cubicles. Mill’s ideas were widely studied and absorbed into governing bodies throughout the English-speaking world. They came to affect policy decisions in a variety of arenas, and were furthered by people who barely even heard of Mill himself. The sacrifice of dozens of black men in Macon Co., Ala., during the Tuskegee syphilis experiment is consistent with utilitarian thought! The public health community got away with this for decades! Also compatible with utilitarianism is every decision to send the children of the masses to fight wars of choice!

So is it the case that, as Russian novelist Fyodor Dostoevsky’s (1821 – 1881) character Ivan Karamazov put it, “If God does not exist, then everything is permitted”? Twentieth century secular ethics has been a struggle against this wretched conclusion, as well as against the relativism of anthropologists such as Benedict. Thus far, the results are less than promising!

A few major thinkers of the later twentieth century weighed in with fresh proposals. Among the best known is John Rawls (1921 – 2002), who pursued a theory of social justice as fairness. He sought to identify rules that would be adopted by rational persons from behind a veil of ignorance: that is, from an ideal vantage point where the adopter does not know his race or class standing or other particulars. What principles would be most worth embracing by the rational and fair-minded? Rawls’s answer: every person should have basic liberties no government can take away, to the extent compatible with equal liberties for all (the liberty principle); “offices and positions” should be open to all persons regardless of race and sex (an equality of opportunity principle); inequalities, to be acceptable, must work to the advantage of the worst off (the difference principle).

Rawls’s critics noted that his original position (behind the veil of ignorance) works under the assumption that most people are risk averse. They would not want to risk the results of principles that left disadvantaged groups to fend for themselves, as they might be in one such group. Saying this is a bit strange, however, and others wondered if the thought experiment was realistic. Can anyone actually imagine themselves behind a “veil of ignorance”? It certainly doesn’t comport with the identity-politics that has come about since Rawls wrote his major work A Theory of Justice (1971). Rawls did not see any connection between morality and justice on the one hand and metaphysics or worldviews on the other. The idea that these areas can be divorced from one another is part of secular ethics in the material world.

One of Rawls’s Harvard colleagues, Robert Nozick (1938 – 2002), developed an individualist ethic, as have other notable libertarian philosophers such as Tibor R. Machan (1939 – 2016*), some influenced by Ayn Rand (1905 – 1982). They focused instead on negative rights of individuals, rights to be left alone in ways that imply no duties to others except to leave them alone. These they contrasted with supposed positive rights to specific goods someone is obligated to supply, which led to collectivism. Their view was that all individuals have the right to act freely, pursue their own goals, and keep the fruits of their labors (private property) so long as they do not interfere with the same negative rights of others. All should deal voluntarily with one another in the free market. According to the non-aggression principle, central in the libertarian ethos, what is forbidden is physical aggression or coercion against others.

This view appeals to defenders of freedom and Constitutionally limited government, obviously, since to the libertarian government is the primary aggressor against individuals’ rights, to be kept very small (minarchism, what Nozick called the night watchman state) or eliminated (anarchocapitalism), therefore. The downside is that individuals rendered helpless or infirm, e.g., by illness or infirmity late in life, would have no inherent right to care, as that would be a positive right. For libertarian purists, even social security is the collectivized and forcible taking from some and giving to others. Negative rights do not do you much good, however, if all they come down to is a “right” to starve, or to die helpless. Families are considered responsible for helping their own, but reality is that in industrial civilization family members have had to spread everywhere in search of work, often leaving elderly parents behind. Nothing in libertarianism forbids a person from acting on his own to help, e.g., Alzheimer’s patients who are alone. This is hardly reassuring, though. An ethic of purely negative rights seems neither realistic nor humane. Libertarians assumed, moreover, that free market dynamics plus what Nozick’s night watchman state would be sufficient to control corporate greed or prevent the dominance of the state by corporations acting in consort as they hungered after power. History suggests that this is wrong, that the locus of power is not government per se but networked corporate leviathans who can buy political loyalty. One need only read John Perkins’s (1945 – ) Confessions of an Economic Hit Man (2004) to see the role corporations have played in controlling governments and bringing about a wide variety of regime changes and cultural catastrophes against those who resisted.

While all these various notions have all received great discussion and debate, no one position has emerged as dominant. Richard Rorty (1931 – 2007), arguably the last major philosopher of the twentieth century (and possibly the last major philosopher the West will produce), put it like this in his Consequences of Pragmatism (1982): again to paraphrase, in the actual world, people have the rights and obligations society says they have, no more and no less. We are back to the anthropological view. Society, neither Rorty nor they quite tell us, devolves upon authority, especially those with the capacity to enforce their will on others, or to use language in ways ensuring psychological conditioning and de facto control. One of Rorty’s favorite philosophers was educationist John Dewey (1859 – 1952). Dewey, who had studied under Wundtian G. Stanley Hall whom we mentioned earlier, had also seen merit in behaviorism.

All of the philosophers we have considered were atheists except for Kant who believed society benefited from a general belief in God, although from a philosophical standpoint Kant decoupled God from morality. Later philosophers just built on this separation. Kant did not believe our reason was capable of solving the problem of whether or not God exists; its categories, Kant called them, limited its possibilities. But we cannot really evade the choice: believe in God and His commands, or not? To not choose is to be an operational atheist, acting as if God does not exist while going along with what is fashionable, ethically speaking.

Rorty’s implicit answer to Dostoevsky is: “If God doesn’t exist, then everything is permitted that your fellows allow, the state permits, or that you can get away with.” The infamous “eleventh commandment”: thou shalt not get caught. If your culture has not convinced you that you shouldn’t lie, cheat, steal, or go on stage and perform nearly naked (think Miley Cyrus!), then so much the worse for your culture! Any ethical objections to the idea that corporations may do as they please and call it “the free market at work” turn out to be toothless.

Parts Three and Four will appear next week.

*Sadly, Professor Machan passed away just since the first appearance of this essay.

Narcissism Or Aversion To Communalism?

The cover of the 5/20/2013 edition of Time Magazine reads, “Millennials are lazy, entitled narcissists who still live with their parents. Lazy and entitled narcissists might be reason for moral concern and reflection, but on what grounds is it the business of the wider society as to whether or not individuals live with their parents?

In regards to such an issue, Scripture is largely silent with individuals of regard and esteem living in a variety of ways in relation to their respective parents. It seems Isaac remained at home until his 40's. Some have speculated that the Virgin Mary might have been as young as 15 or 16 before having the Christ child and fully becoming the wife of Joseph

It might be that the demographic targeted by this intended smear might skew a little “too White” to be extended a number of the privileges other such categories.

When was the last time a major news weekly (if it hadn't already ceased print publication) published a cover story criticizing welfare recipients (especially minorities) for being “lazy and entitled narcissists”?

Yet many of those not only incessantly suckle off the public teat but also grumble indignantly nearly to the point of threatened uprising if what flows through the civic nipple grows increasingly sparse or diluted in their opinion.

Just what is being categorized as “entitled”?

Does this include things such as Obama phones and the cancellation of student loans after 20 years irrespective of whether or not those willingly assenting to such debt are anywhere near to fulfilling this financial obligation?

Is “entitled” apparently preferring to live in the comforts of the home they have known their entire lives rather than in cramped, roach-infested apartments filled interestingly with the kinds of “entitled” folks good liberals such as the editors of Time Magazine lack the spine to criticize?

Young adults born into American families (especially of a Caucasian phenotype) apparently deserve condemnation should they decide for whatever reason to stay with their parents beyond the time upheld as standard ironically by those the most insistent that standards do not exist.

Yet these very same radical relativists heaping condemnation upon typical American young adults living at home with their parents turn around saying how wonderfully family-oriented it is when nearly a dozen immigrants pack themselves into domiciles that begin to feel cramped with four people residing in them.

Granted, self-absorption can be taken to extremes. Lindsay Lohan, numerous members of the Kenendy clan, or the British royal family clearly attest to this truth.

However, given what is known about the kind of liberal mindset predominant at the highest echelons of American journalism as typified by Time Magazine, the discerning should probably read a little between the lines.

If an individual is residing with their parents, it can inoculate them to an extent against a number of social or mental pathologies that many liberals and secularists applaud as the “New Morality”, which isn't quite so new anymore. Such allegedly cutting edge ethical reflection is beginning to sag in many places like the aging hippies that thrust their decadence into the face of American popular culture and public awareness.

For example, sin can take root in any of our lives in the dark corners that we would least expect. However, the young adult living with parents that expect those living under their roof to abide by what would be considered a broadly traditional morality will probably have to work a lot harder at things such as boozing and generalized carousing if those are the deepest longings of one's heart beyond those brief temptations that plague us all in weak moments.

In the collectivist mindset serving as the foundation of contemporary liberalism, “narcissistic” does not necessarily mean a propensity to wallow in the lust of the flesh, the lust of the eyes, and the pride of life as warned in Scripture. To many of those that would like to see American society revolutionized away from an ethos of responsible individualism and single family orientation to something more group oriented, narcissistic can mean nothing more than tending primarily to the concerns of one's own household, looking to one's own abilities and resources to make it through the struggles of life, and expecting that all but the extremely disabled or the aged that have paid into the system ought to do the same for themselves

This is evidenced in the numerous graduation exhortations delivered on the part of the Obamas. In these orations, the President and his consort admonish the students not to pursue private sector careers marked primarily by what they consider the material comforts that accrue as a result of success and achievement in that particular sector of human endeavor. Instead, those persuaded to embrace President Obama's vision of the good life will give themselves over to what is considered the public sector such as government and forms of the nonprofit activism fomenting revolutionary upheaval such as community organizing.

However, it is through the overwhelming majority of businesses that exchange a good or a service for financial profit that most needs and desires are met. As John Stossel pointed out in a documentary on the subject, though her motivation may have been nobler, corporations such as Walmart and Microsoft have actually done more to elevate the material status and quality of life of a greater number than Mother Terresa ever did.

To those of the Obamaist mindset, the ideal place for young adults is not laboring to establish the foundations of their future by either getting their own place or by residing with their parents and saving for the day when they will be on their own by purchasing their own home or inheriting one upon the passing of their parents. Rather, the totalist progressive would like nothing more than to see these organic sociologically processes disrupted by altering whatever trajectory the productive young adult might find their life headed by conscripting them into some form of involuntary servitude.

The minds of most are set to a default to conceptualize of that as some form of military service. As such, many are programmed to respond, “And what is so wrong with that?”

Nothing in a time of actual declared war where the very survival of the nation is on the line. However, contrary to the hypothesis put forth by luminaries such as historian Stephen Ambrose and, to an extent, even William F. Buckley, the military during peace time does not exist to ensure that everyone sings from the same songbook.

During such periods in American history, the nation is better served by a force of volunteers that have decided to pursue military service as a life's calling or only for a short season. That way the number is sufficient so that the country is protected but not so large that the interests of the military threaten the well being of civilian institutions.

However, when liberals such as President Obama extol the glories of compulsory voluntary service, those tasks within the narrowly defined parameters of the military are the last such orators are calling for the completion of. What these elites have in mind are more akin to the police state functions undertaken by the infamous totalitarian regimes of the early decades of the twentieth century.

For example, as he was laying the groundwork for his regime, Barack Obama announced his vision for a civilian security force as large as the military and capable of intruding into areas of your life where the traditional military would never dream of intruding. Michelle Obama reiterated that, under Barack, we would not be allowed to return to our lives as we had previously known them.

Though abandoning or altering a number of fundamental worldview assumptions regarding the nature of work and the relationship of the individual to the overall economy, communalist elites are able to manipulate the unsuspecting into viewing the most basic and innocent of activities as acts surpassing the most vile acts of debauchery in terms of overall subsversion.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Canonizing the Blair Witch: Pagan Religion More Noble than Christian Belief in the Eyes of Some

Isaiah 5:20 reads, "Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!"

Many assume this warns that those who violate this holy decree will have the judgment of God heaped upon them. But while God is not slack in fulfilling His promises, the forthcoming retribution might not necessarily flow directly from His fingers in the manner we might expect. Often we end up being punished by the consequences of our own actions without God intervening as a primary cause.

In an article appearing in the January 18, 2001 edition of the Prince George’s Sentinel extolling the merits of Wiccan variety witchcraft, one discovers that in calling evil good and good evil that the very epistemological categories required for rational thought and communication begin to break down. Foremost among these is the idea of truth and its basis in objective factual knowledge.

The article begins its symphony of misinformation from almost the very first note. Sentinel staff writer Matt Carr boldly declares early in the piece, "Christianity has dwelled in the hands of war and genocide. Missionaries sent forth to deliver the teachings of God ... led to the torture of the Chinese and Japanese."

From this, one would conclude that fanaticism is only a Christian shortcoming. But excuse me, has anyone checked out much of Islam’s record lately? In Sudan, Christian children are sold into slavery and their legs mutilated so they can’t run away. Upon reaching adulthood, many will be executed so they won’t present a threat to their masters.

And speaking of Japan, did you know that the Christian church there was nearly wiped out by persecution after the death of Francis Xavier, the pioneering Jesuit missionary to the Orient? And the Red Chinese harassment of the modern Church is so well documented that I don’t even need to provide additional information to justify my claim.

So much for the wonders of multiculturalism.

Elsewhere, the Sentinel article plays so loose with the facts that it is doubtful if the statements made are worthy of classification as such. The article says of a local Wiccan, "[he] celebrates a religion of nature, much in the same way those burned at Salem did."

In all likelihood, with the exception of the local slave, probably not one resident of Salem, Massachusetts was a practitioner of the occultic sciences. Rather the modern equivalent of those persecuted at Salem can be found among those falsely accused of sexual harassment simply because they’ve rubbed someone the wrong way, figuratively of course, and their accusers had more in common with Anita Hill than today’s average Christian.

Furthermore, technically there were no Wiccans in Massachusetts at the time because, quite frankly, Wicca hadn’t been invented yet. According to an article in the Atlantic Monthly reviewed on Crosswalk.com, Professor of Religion Phillip Davis of the University of Prince Edward Island and Historian Ronald Hutton of the University of Bristol concur in their assessments that Wicca was concocted in 1950 by amateur anthropologist Gerald B. Gardner who was influenced by German romantics and various occultic practices.

Even though Wicca does not posses a clearly delineable historical pedigree, that does not mean its ideas aren’t drawn from some kind of background. It’s just not the one filled with unicorns and flower children its adherents would like many to believe. It may have more in common with the Wicked Witch of the West depicted in the Wizard of Oz.

For example, in Wiccan lore, practitioners of this form of spirituality trace their lineage back to the Druids. Did you know that the Druids practiced human sacrifice?

Closely related to the Wiccans are those today professing themselves to be pagans. Their rights to bad mouth Christianity’s historical shortcomings are also suspect given their own atrocities.

Leviticus 18:21 says, "Do not give any of your children to be sacrificed to Molech [a pagan deity] (New International Version)." Later on in the book of II Kings chapter 23, King Josiah destroys the altars upon which children were sacrificed to pagan gods. One might like to note that Wiccan feminists play a prominent role in the abortion movement.

No wonder Wiccans are quick to heave objective history out the window.

From the Prince George’s Sentinel article, one gets the impression that witches are the only mistreated religious group. The warlock interviewed for the article said, "I’m intimidated to put my beliefs on applications."

Join the club. Many Christians feel the same way about the retaliation they will receive for expressing their convictions to leftwing supervisors and coworkers. Frankly, very few employment applications ask for one’s religious beliefs being that to do so violates the law.

Yet the ironic thing is that these very same ones peeved at those apprehensive about suffering a witch among them, to use the King James English, find John Ashcroft an unfit nominee for the office of Attorney General simply because of the Christian beliefs he happens to live by.

As a nation built upon the freedom of religion, the Constitution guarantees the right of citizens to live free in their beliefs without government harassment and without actual forms of physical violence from those with whom they disagree. However, a society that extols witchcraft as virtuous and shuns Christianity as a shameful thing is further down the yellow-brick road of losing its freedom as a judgment permitted under God than most realize.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Hipster Nazarene Insists Daily Bathing Perpetuates Western Imperialism

In a sermon, a Nazarene pastor condemned everyone as an oppressor.

In a self-flagellating confession, the pastor admits he is guilty of this particular evil by taking showers everyday while the natives of an area of Africa to which he went on a short term missions expedition did not have the luxury of using water in such a carefree manner.

And how is that the pastor's fault?

Neither can the Africans probably afford airline travel halfway around the globe.

However, that apparently did not prevent the pastor from engaging in such extraneous travel.

More importantly, did this pastor ever stop and think that these Africans are probably being denied the benefits of modern utilities such as an advanced sewer system as a result of the environmentalist organizations that such self-aware hipsters usually support insisting that the bushmen are more adorable in a state of perpetual primitivism?

Furthermore, even if the White man was magnanimous enough to gift these savages with the latest water distribution technology, will these backward cultures be willing to maintain it or will they get too distracted by the overwhelming compulsion to slaughter the neighboring tribe?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

A Review Of Salvaging Civilization By H.G. Wells

To most Americans with a recollection of the Cold War, it was assumed the global superstate would be brought about through military conquest. However, in Salvaging Civilization, H.G. Wells suggests how this planetary political organization could be brought about through education and the management of public opinion.

According to Wells, the future of mankind is dependent upon the establishment of world unity in order to protect the human race from social disintegration and physical destruction. However, instead of blatantly imposing this new world order from without, Wells suggests conditioning the masses into accepting the world state through targeted forms of intellectual manipulation.

While Wells claims to have the best interests of man at heart, it is clear he does not think all that much of the common individual as in his view it is the place of such people to simply go along with the will of the elite. Wells writes, “It is often forgotten, in America, even more than in Europe, that education exists for the community, and only for the individual only so far that it makes him a sufficient member of the community. The chief end of education is to subjugate and sublimate for the collective purpose of our own kind the savage egoism we inherit (24-25).”

Thus, education in the proposed global society is not so much about empowering the individual to think for himself as it is to condition him to take his place as a docile member of the group. As such, the early stages of establishing a world government will not be as much about changing politics itself as it will be about influencing the minds of the young.

The freedom Wells grants with one hand by liberating the individual from traditional authorities he takes back with the other. Wells writes, “The world state must begin as a propagandist cult, to which men and women must give themselves and their energies regardless of the consequences (35).”

Furthermore, the future world state won’t simply be an institution in the background keeping the peace and making sure the trains run on time. Rather, it is to be in the forefront in molding what the good member of the community is to think and believe.

Foremost among the methods for keeping order in the New World Order will be what Wells calls ‘The Bible of Civilization”. However, this is not to be the famed Good Book that has guided mankind in religious and ethical matters century upon century. Rather, this new Bible is to consist of an anthology of the best in human literature and learning selected and periodically revised by “a few hundred resolute and capable people”.

But as a renowned atheist, what Wells failed to realize is that the thing that has granted the Bible such sway over the minds of men and cherished in their hearts is that it was handed down by the hand of God or at least that is that is believed by those that honor its precepts. All Wells leaves us is a committee working paper with the proviso that the documents findings are subject to change at a later date.

If God says something like thou shalt not murder, like it or not, I don’t have much room to argue about it. If some sanctimonious committee with no other authority than that which it has bestowed upon itself and duped the masses into abiding by for the time being makes grandiose pronouncements it claims we are obligated to obey , why should I have to comply with its dictates and decrees?

Despite claiming to stand for human freedom by abolishing traditional prohibitions on sex outside of marriage (no doubt in part because he was himself a profligate adulterer), Wells’ behavioral codes would be far more extensive and binding than anything elaborated upon in the pages of the Bible. Wells writes, “One of the first duties of a citizen is to keep himself in mental and bodily health in order to be fit for the rest of his duties.”

Thus, to translate Wells’ position into something we can understand, go out and have as many affairs as you want (no doubt to lessen the bonds to a particular spouse or family so that identity comes instead to be derived from the larger group). Just don’t get caught smoking a cigarette or enjoying fast foods since that might hinder the revolution and the glorious expansion of the motherworld.

To some viewing H.G. Wells as a figure prominent at the beginning of the previous century, he has little bearing on the world in which we live today. However, upon contemplating his proposals in The Salvaging Of Civilization such as the rule by elite committees, extensive control of education, and regulations that bear a frightening similarity to provisions against hate speech when he writes “We must put ourselves, and our rulers and our fellow men on trial. We must ask ‘What have you done to...help or hinder the peace of mankind?.’ A time will come when a politician who has...willfully promoted international dissension will be...much surer of the noose than a private homicide (40)” we are already too eerily close to living in a world of this author’s own making.

by Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Pastor Badgers Congregation To Boycott C.S. Lewis

In a series of sermons against C.S. Lewis posted at SermonAudio.com, Pastor Jason Cooley creates the impression that it is wrong to read that particular author's works because of areas in which the famed scholar's theology was deficient by the standard of Biblical orthodoxy.

So why is it not wrong for the pastor to have either read these works or to have familiarized himself with this material?

At one point in the sermon, Pastor Cooley shouts like a lunatic asking if anyone in the congregation still wants to read the disputed books or watch movies inspired by these particular texts.

And what if someone responded back “YES!”

In this series of sermons, Pastor Cooley insisted that the title alone of “The Lion, The Witch & The Wardrobe” ought to be enough to get the believing Christian to avoid the book.

So if witches are evil, what is wrong with casting one in the role of the villain?

Maybe that role should instead, as in the case of many of Stephen King's works of speculative literature, be reserved for ultralegalistic ministers attempting to assert too much control over their congregations and parishioners.

From the sermons, it becomes increasingly apparent that, while Pastor Cooley has a commendable grasp of these areas where caution regarding Lewis would be prudent, the minister does not have much appreciation for the techniques of the literary arts.

This is particularly evident in regards to the scenes Cooley analyzes of Lucy's encounter with the fawn Mr.Tumnus.

For example, Rev. Cooley insists that, since fawns are noted in mythology for their seductive powers, that what Lewis is advocating are indecent carnal relations between underage minors and demoniac spirit beings.

Instead, the greater truth Lewis could be attempting to convey might be for the need to be cautious of that which we might initially find appealing if we consider the literary motif associated with the fawn and how the narrative plays itself out with Mr. Tumnus wanting to capitalize on his initial encounter with Lucy by handing her over to the White Witch.

Sometimes these unsettling realities that we are reluctant to face can be easier to grapple with or stick in the brain in the form of an engaging story rather than be constantly hollered at alone.

However, apparently Pastor Cooley is not much of a proponent of the old adage about a spoonful of sugar getting the medicine to go down.

In his tirades against C.S. Lewis, Pastor Cooley remarked that science fiction is nothing but witchcraft.

As justification for such a claim, Pastor Cooley posits that witchcraft consists of any power that does not come from God.

Once again, what Pastor Cooley possesses in terms of a desire to preserve sound doctrine he sadly lacks in literary understanding.

Admittedly, magic is often an intrinsic component of many forms of fantasy.

However, though science fiction can contain certain mystical elements such as the Force in Star Wars, over all, the genre attempts to provide a technological basis for the impressive wonders described in these works of imagination.

As such, though science fiction can be utilized to promote questionable philosophies, science fiction is morally neutral like most other forms of technology.

As such, does Pastor Cooley condemn the use of electricity or the internal combustion engine?

For though these are based upon natural forces set into motion by God's sustaining power, as in the case of literary speculation in conjecture like science fiction, these are the result of the human mind reflecting upon a fact or a concept and extrapolating from these to configure them in such a way as to result in an until then unrealized application or insight.

Interestingly, developers of these technologies expressed affinities towards ideas and affiliations perhaps even more questionable than those to which C.S. Lewis was drawn.

Henry Ford disseminated “The Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion” to promote his particular brand of anti-Semiticism.

Thomas Edison wasn't just at one time a member of Theosophical Society; his research into electricity was intermingled with speculation regarding spiritualist phenomena and communication.

Therefore, does that mean that to remain consistent with Pastor Cooley's call for a radical degree of separation, that Pastor Cooley must repent of his electronic ministries and instead must in faith rely only on those methods utilized by the Apostles in the early days of the Church?

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Southern Baptist Defending Hunting Undermines Other Christian Liberties

It would be a proverbial understatement to say that the death of Cecil the Lion at the hands of hunters touched something in hearts and imaginations around the world. The mark of a skilled theologian or apologist is the ability to take nearly any subject and try to view the topic through the lens of a Christian perspective.

The Baptist Press of the Southern Baptist Convention attempted to do this in regards to Cecil the Lion in an article titled “Lion's Death Occasions Defense Of Legal Hunting” by that news service's chief correspondent David Roach. Overall the examination of the topic was quite balanced.

On the one hand, the article recognized that the Bible allows for hunting in that man in this dispensation has permission to use the animals with which we share the world for our benefit and enjoyment. However, the article also pointed out that this activity must be undertaken only with a sense of solemnity and responsibility.

The really discerning theologian goes beyond what is plainly said to shine light on that which might not be noticed so easily.

Accompanying the text is a photo of former Southern Baptist Convention president and president of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary Paige Patterson. The caption reads, “Paige Patterson and his son Armour killed a roam antelope during a hunt in Zambia.”

Patterson was interviewed to provide a great deal of the article's theological context. Of his analysis, one really can't find much fault.

However, it really should be pointed out that the variety of antelope depicted in the accompanying photograph aren't known for a territory that overlaps geographically with the ecclesiastical stronghold of the Southern Baptist Convention in, well, the American South. That would mean that, in order to get within rifle range of such a creature, Paige Patterson would be required to travel a considerable distance.

There is nothing inherently wrong or morally alarming about travel. It is, in fact, one of the great blessings of the contemporary era that people can travel in a matter of hours distances that in decades or centuries past would have taken days, weeks, or even months.

However, the question must be asked. With what funds did the Pattersons travel to Zambia where they recreationally killed one of God's creatures? Did these funds come out of their own pockets or were these collected under the banner of some grandiose missionary outreach effort for the purposes of reaching the lost in the forsaken corners of the Third World?

Concern over this is sparked in part over the way in which conservative Evangelicals such as Southern and Independent Fundamentalist Baptists raise funds to conduct missionary outreach. No longer is the spiel formulate, “Look at those poor savages languishing in squalor. If you could spare a little, we might be able to increase their quality of life and also try to convince them that they need Jesus rather than their heathen witchdoctor to keep them out of Hell.”

Now, the missionary bordering on the fanatical blows into your church and drums up support for their overseas expedition by laying a guilt trip on the pewfillers as to how wretched the American culture and way of life is because the Land of the Free is not characterized by these Third World deprivations. By the time that the presentation is concluded, the donations are not collected so much to better the lives of the less fortunate but rather as some kind of penance for you having committed the sin of having been born in the United States. It is almost as if you are expected to thank these foreigners for accepting your money rather than the foreigners thanking you for your willingness to give.

Even if Paige Patterson is as clean as the wind-driven snow in terms of how the funds were obtained to finance this hunting safari, the issue is not settled. For to Patterson the professional religionist, your money that you earn is not yours to do with as you please within the parameters of morality even after you tithe or slip a little into the collection plate.

Rather, much of what you have is to be at the ready disposal of your ecclesiastical betters. Patterson has insinuated as such in a number of epistolary appeals.

One of these letters is titled “Ten Things That We Owe Dr. David Platt.” These are essentially ten disturbingly cultish pledges Dr. Patterson believes Southern Baptists are obligated to undertake in relation to the denomination's International Missions Board President David Platt.

Propositions seven and eight are particularly relevant in regard to this issue at hand.

Number seven reads, “Willingness to do whatever Platt asks that is not contrary to our deeply held convictions and within our power.” Principle number eight spells this out in more detail as it reads, “Willingness to make sacrifices in order to extend the kingdom of our Lord...and if the gospel is to go to the people of the world, without question Southern Baptists who believe in the world mission enterprise must be prepared for even more sacrifices.”

So whereas you are expected to flagellate yourself over and over in your mind as to whether or not you really need that day trip to the beach this year, Paige Patterson and his son expended the resources necessary to fly themselves to Africa. For despite such near messianic fervor lavished upon David Platt, it is doubtful that even his most enthusiastic supporters are able to walk on water.

Those conditioned to blithely accept nearly anything done by those anointed to these ecclesiastical offices will respond that Patterson might have been among the deprived heathen as part of some grand missionary undertaking. Surely such a servant of God has earned the right to relax in a manner of his own choosing.

In an open letter addressed to Southern Baptists regarding this topic to which Patterson is a signatory, it is written, “Revivalist and church historian Lewis Drummond once asked whether we would be willing to see our country brought to its knees financially if that is what it takes for revival to come to America. This may be that day.”

What such religious leaders are saying is that they hope to see you starving in the streets in the hopes that such suffering will break your will and bring you into compliance with the ecclesiastical elites. Don't worry though. Such prominent fat cats will not only always eat well but will continue to enjoy the privileges you are obligated to deny yourself such as opulent vacations such as oh, I don't really know, perhaps HUNTING SAFARIS TO AFRICA.

It is doubtful anyone in the upper echelons of the Southern Baptist Convention eats from discount grocery chains. In fact, at one time Russell Moore penned an article sneering down his nose at those frequenting such retailers as a way to stretch their nutrition dollar. One must ask is he as critical of those that do not so much hunt as way to provide subsistence for their families but rather as an excuse trot halfway around the globe for mere pleasure?

Paige Patterson is to be commended for his balanced yet eloquent consideration of the moral complexities surrounding the hunting issue. Let us hope that the leaders of the Southern Baptist Convention would be less pushy in those areas of life where the explicit oracles of God do not necessarily say as much as these theologians would lead those under their teaching to believe.

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network

Welfare Witchdoctors: Health Program Used As Front For New Age Quackery

Americans engaged in the struggle for the soul of this country realize the dangers posed by both the New Age movement and certain kinds of government entitlement programs, usually though as independent phenomena. It now seems these two threats may be getting together to further erode the moral and spiritual foundations of this great nation.

Featured in the October 24th Washington Post health insert was a story detailing a government health program where the Department of Housing and Urban development paid $840,000 to the National Institute for Medical Options to promote techniques to reduce stress and illness among residents of public housing.

There was more to this program than teaching residents to take their vitamins, eat three square meals per day, and to get at least eight hours of sleep each night. As part of the program, participants were taught to burn incense, about the healing power of crystals, and how to chant "I am the perfect image of the Divine Creator". Somehow, I don’t think this was a Biblical reference to being made in the image of God because, in addition to the aforementioned practices, patients also learned what goddesses of the Greco-Roman pantheon best described their particular personality.

It is amazing with what one can get by with provided one’s goal is the erosion of the traditional American values. For example, Greek mythology is no longer deemed appropriate as part of a well-rounded education because of its despised Eurocentric origins even though, despite its shortcomings, it has been traditionally utilized as a literary device in transmitting the ethical heritage of Western civilization. However, when used to undermine traditional Judeo-Christian beliefs, the government gives it its imprimatur as a system by which to promote pagan practices. One can imagine the outrage that would erupt had personalities been classified according to what Biblical character they most resembled and prayer suggested as technique for controlling stress.

If Christian organizations and charities are to be excluded from alliances with the government designed to ameliorate human deprivation for fear of the harm the church might inflict upon the state rather than as a way to prevent the state from exerting undue control over the church, such cautions should be taken in avoiding entangling relationships with other religions that compromise the First Amendment as well. It cannot be denied that this so-called "wellness" program offered by the National Institute of Medical Options is fundamentally religious in nature backed by science so dubious in nature it would force Carl Sagan to side with Creation Science if he was forced to pick between the two.

The Washington Post article pointed out that the National Institute for Medical Options is administered by the same individual who pastors the Community Center for Wholistic Healing. Michelle Lusson, ordained by the Episcopal Church, who claims to be a "metaphysician who channels Cosmic Cycle Updates that provide valuable information on the spiritual awakening and transformation of the global world body and of the individual." I don’t know exactly what such nonsense means, but I can tell you it wreaks of the New Age movement.

Unfortunately, the questionable spirituality is not confined to the private-sector partner of this contractual relationship. The article revealed that these kinds of beliefs can be traced to the highest levels of public service.

These New Age therapies have been endorsed by HUD Deputy Assistant Secretary for Public and Assisted Housing Delivery Gloria J. Cousar. It was also mentioned she happens to be ordained by the International Metaphysical Ministry.

Cousar defended these kinds of programs by saying, "People become involved in drugs because they have given up.... This program helps empower people to act on healthier lifestyles."

So would handing out Bibles and inviting the downtrodden to Sunday School. However, the government would never do that and certain elites would probably like to forbid you as private citizens from doing that as well in light of the many agency regulations, municipal statutes and corporate policies radically curtailing religious speech and prosyletization efforts.

A number of Evangelical leaders have suggested that Christians should curtail the attention they pay to matters of politics and policy in order to concentrate on the loftier concerns of faith and belief confronting American society. Such a suggestion might prove inadequate when these arenas begin to merge as a single challenge as is the case of these New Age welfare programs.

(First published in the mid 1990’s)

By Frederick Meekins

There are answers if you know where to look for them JOIN the Faith in Jesus Network