The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner

The Loneliness of the Long Distance Runner is the title of an Alan Sillitoe short story, published in 1959 and later adapted into a motion picture of the same name (pictured left). Much like its American counterpart Catcher in the Rye, this tale of nonconformity often finds itself on the reading lists of university professors. The story's humanist credentials notwithstanding, the words of the title form an evocative metaphor for Christian living.

Many a sermon have touched upon the Apostle Paul's use of racing metaphor to illustrate God's purpose in his life and in the lives of believers. In Acts 20:24, he told the Ephesian elders, "I consider my life worth nothing to me, if only I may finish the race and complete the task the Lord Jesus has given me — the task of testifying to the gospel of God's grace."

To stress the importance of Christian maturity and perseverance to overcoming life's difficulties and temptations, Paul invoked the training and discipline required of an athlete: "Everyone who competes in the games goes into strict training. They do it to get a crown that will not last; but we do it to get a crown that will last forever. Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air." (1 Corinthians 9:25-26)

The 1981 film "Chariots of Fire," which chronicled the true story of Scots Olympian-turned-Christian missionary Eric Liddell, famously employed Paul's metaphor for dramatic effect. In the movie, Liddell says to a group of people, "One day, like the Apostle Paul, I pray I will be able to say, 'I have fought the good fight. I have finished the race. I have kept the faith.' May that victory be yours as well."

In real life, Liddell revealed a deeper understanding of Scripture and Godly purpose when he wrote:

My whole life had been one of keeping out of public duties, but the leading of Christ seemed now to be in the opposite direction, and I shrank from going forward. At this time I finally decided to put it all on Christ. After all, if He called me to do it, then he would have to supply the necessary power.

In going forward, the power was given me. Since then, the consciousness of being an active member of the Kingdom of Heaven has been very real. New experiences of the grace of God, sense of sin, wonders of the Bible have come from time to time. All these fresh experiences have given me fresh visions of our Lord.

Born-again Christians feel a keen sense of isolation, for no longer are they enslaved to the spirit of this world. The world cannot understand a believer's struggle between the carnal and the spiritual — a struggle which Paul so eloquently summarizes in 2 Corinthians 12:10: "For when I am weak, then I am strong." The world may comprehend the Law and the breaking of the Law, but it does not comprehend the Holy Spirit and the grieving of the Holy Spirit.

A.W. Tozer perceived the profound loneliness that born-again believers can feel, even in the company of nominal Christians:

The loneliness of the Christian results from his walk with God in an ungodly world, a walk that must often take him away from the fellowship of good Christians as well as from that of the unregenerate world. His God-given instincts cry out for companionship with others of his kind, others who can understand his longings, his aspirations, his absorption in the love of Christ; and because within his circle of friends there are so few who share his inner experiences he is forced to walk alone. The unsatisfied longings of the prophets for human understanding caused them to cry out in their complaint, and even our Lord Himself suffered in the same way....

In 1492, Columbus Sailed the Ocean Blue...

Come the second Monday in October, the United States still celebrates — albeit nominally — Christopher Columbus. The iconic explorer from Genoa has become something like the eccentric relative no one talks to at family gatherings. This is a great success for secularists who view Columbus as the point man for European conquest and disease, Manifest Destiny, and worst of all, the spread of Christianity.

More accurately, the conquistadors who followed Columbus brought Catholicism to the New World. (Credit the English Puritans for bringing Biblical Christianity to America.) The marriage of Catholicism with the indigenous religions of Central and South America continues to hold an entire region in spiritual bondage.

Secular historians do not condemn Columbus solely because he ushered in large-scale bloodshed and military and religious oppression — both sides were guilty of that. Besides, the European colonizers actually failed to sever the spiritual bonds of the native heathen religions. No, they hate Columbus for what he represents: Christianity's predominance in the Western hemisphere and the ephemeral nature of man's civilizations.

Academics rue the fall of the Aztec and Inca civilizations to the European invaders. But the Bible presents lost civilizations — from Egypt to Judah to Babylon — as examples of man's innate waywardness and the workings of Divine Judgment. The Tower of Babel (Genesis 11) is the primary example of man's misguided attempt to substitute worldly accomplishment for God. The facts of history fly in the face of the modernists' progressive theory of man. Secular historians ignore the inherent shelf life of sinful human societies and blame other factors such as Christianity ("superstition" they call it).

The last thing secularists want to blame for the downfall of a pagan society is paganism itself. The ancient Egyptians, Greeks, Romans, Aztecs, Incas...the list goes on. The practice of human sacrifice and the worship of idols and demons sealed the fate of many of these grand ancient cultures. Sounds not unlike a certain powerful nation of today, doesn't it?

America the Beautiful? Part 4

The passage of time usually provides us a clearer perspective on tragic events, great and small. For now, though, the white-hot immediacy of Hurricane Katrina's devastating effects on the Gulf Coast of the U.S. has stirred people's emotions to levels not seen since September 2001. The trend of bitter political finger-pointing continues four years later as the stakes have gotten bigger — future attacks and disasters hang over the collective consciousness like the mythical sword of Damocles.

It's that palpable sense of unease that signifies, more than anything else at the moment, the pre-tribulation birthing pangs. Jesus addressed this anxiety in Matthew 24:6 when he said, "See to it that you are not alarmed. Such things must happen, but the end is still to come."

The atmosphere of unhinged accusations and recriminations dominating the media coverage of Katrina is evidence of America's progressive drift towards secularism and godlessness. Dan S. wrote about this in his With Christ web log last week:

Natural disasters have always occurred, but today's widespread expectations of what government should do or should have done to mitigate these disasters is incredible. This has come about due to the humanistic societal expectations (collectivist impulse) combined with the tenet that mankind (government) is God and thus is responsible to entirely offset the effects of the Fall.

When a hurricane destroyed Galveston, Texas, on September 8th, 1900, claiming upwards of 10,000 lives, there was no FEMA, no Department of Homeland Security, no celebrity class. Yet within three weeks of the disaster, "Houston relief groups went home, the saloons reopened, the electric trolleys began operating and freight began moving through the harbor," according to historian David G. McComb in his book "Galveston: A History." The point here is not to ignore the obvious differences or reduce the complexities of New Orleans' current calamity but simply to show how much more the America of 2005 depends on socialism and a centralized state structure — neither of which has been friendly to believers.

The strain of poverty does not fully explain the violent, lawless behavior witnessed in New Orleans in the immediate aftermath of the storm. The standard of living, even for the poorest American, is much, much higher than it was back in 1900. What the television cameras captured was just a sliver of the spiritual hopelessness that has permeated America. Many Katrina observers could not believe that the America they knew could be producing such macabre images and reports. The reporters who spoke breathlessly of "Third World conditions" in New Orleans were referring to the poverty and despair; unknowingly they picked up on another association: spiritual darkness.

For some perspective, deadly monsoon rains hit Mumbai (Bombay) just a month before Katrina, causing comparable damage. Such disasters are a regular occurrence in India. But secularists, spoiled by America's prosperity, are shocked to find out that even the most powerful social and economic systems fail to measure up to forces outside man's control. They will endlessly beseech the government for answers. (To be fair, this vanity is hardly exclusive to secularism.) For example, filmmaker Michael Moore insisted that the tragic devastation of New Orleans was "caused not by a hurricane but by the very specific decisions made by the Bush administration in the past four and a half years."

When individuals are conditioned to view their government or social structure as omnipotent, the inevitable disappointment is cataclysmic. Naturally, humanists wouldn't characterize it in such black-and-white terms, although the deified state is the logical byproduct of their philosophy. The rise in stature of the executive and judicial branches of the U.S. government over the past century is evidence of such shifting philosophy. With a few notable exceptions, the Presidents of the Nineteenth Century are anonymous for a reason. It is alarming to see how much today's political discourse attributes so much, good and ill, to a President, as though he were elevated to the status of godhead (malignant or benign). The destruction wrought by Katrina only amplified the secular media's obsession with the current U.S. President.

Even some of the humanitarian support directed at Louisiana and Mississippi has seen its share of self-righteous propaganda. Upon visiting hurricane evacuees at Houston's Astrodome, television talk show host Oprah Winfrey lamented, "I think we all — this country owes these people an apology." In keeping with the secular media's bias for statism, her comments were aimed at the current administration's response to the disaster. But if apologies are due, what about the millions of poor and homeless throughout the U.S.? A very rich few (of which the celebrity class are included) have profited from a rapidly shrinking middle class. What about the thousands of now-homeless Jewish settlers forced out of Gaza? America supported and encouraged their withdrawal. And what about the tens of millions babies legally aborted in the U.S. since 1973? Aren't they owed an apology?

Tisha B'Av

While many churches have directed a lot of attention to such hot-button moral issues as abortion, homosexual marriage, and euthanasia, they have been mostly silent on issues requiring a uniquely Biblical perspective. For instance, Catholicism and Mormonism differ little from Bible-based Christianity on the basis of morality alone.

Consequently, the Laodicean church treads very dangerous waters. Humanism and ecumenicalism continue to erode the church's position on Israel. Christian dialogue today accommodates the growing secularist bias against the Jewish state. While this pattern has seen its ebbs and flows during the course of history, it's clear that anti-Israel sentiment is currently creeping through the churches. And it has crept in under the guise of pro-Palestinian independence/anti-Israeli government arguments.

Church apathy regarding Israel's withdrawal from the Gaza Strip — and U.S. President Bush's support for it — is just one example of increasing international prejudice towards Jewish sovereignty.

The forced evacuation of Jewish settlers in Gaza and the northern West Bank began today. The formal deadline given for leaving the settlements fell on the 14th of August, which this year was also the Ninth Day of the Jewish calendar month of Av (Tisha B'Av in Hebrew).

Tisha B'Av occurs at the end of a three-week mourning period which commemorates the destruction of the first Temple (built by King Solomon) in Jerusalem in 586 B.C. and the second Temple in 70 A.D. Both events took place on the Ninth of Av.

Two writers with Biblical worldviews have posted superb analyses of the Gaza pullout. While each focuses on two very different aspects of the situation, they both believe the move will bring further instability to the region.

Joel Rosenberg is a Jewish believer and popular writer of Christian fiction. In a recent piece for the National Review Online, Rosenberg breaks down the political consequences:

Almost nobody in Israel wants to keep Gaza or govern the daily lives of over one million Palestinian souls crammed into the tiny sliver of seaside real estate. But the current so-called “unilateral withdrawal” is unilateral surrender. Israel will give away long-fought-over territory without requiring the Palestinian Authority to wage a real war against Hamas and other terror groups and without requiring the PA to pursue real internal democratic reforms to give pro-peace Palestinian moderates the freedom to speak their mind in public and in the media without fear of reprisals.

As such, Sharon’s gamble is bad for Israel. It is bad for the U.S. and our war on terror....

In his weekly commentary for the online site Apostasy Watch!, Steve Lumbley offers a tremendous spiritual insight into the controversy :

Many in Israel today vilify the settlers because they have the nerve to actually believe the promises of God. They are seen as obstacles to peace and religious zealots. They are blamed for the violence and terrorism being perpetrated against all Israel.

There is coming a time very soon when true Christians will face the same anger and resentment right here in the U.S.A. And just like in Israel our greatest opposition will come not from atheists and unbelievers but from those who call themselves Christians.

Please read his full article, titled "A Day of Mourning," here.

The Name Game

Over the past year, the Washington, D.C.-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) has mounted a public relations campaign, called "Not in the Name of Islam," which repudiates Islamic terrorism. Part of their petition drive states, "We refuse to allow our faith to be held hostage by the criminal actions of a tiny minority acting outside the teachings of both the Quran and the Prophet Muhammad." Last week, the Fiqh Council of North America issued a fatwa (religious ruling) against terrorism, which was endorsed by numerous American Islamic organizations, including CAIR.

This growing struggle within Islam, most notably in America and Europe, is about religious proprietary rights. Who can lay claim to the name of Islam, the "moderates" or the "radicals"? Such divisions should be familiar in the West, where Christians have long fought over whose version of Christianity is the correct one — to the delight of the secular media and intelligentsia. For decades, the consensus Western view of religion, especially when it comes to Christianity and Islam, is that two basic sides exist: the mainstream, or moderate, position and the fundamentalist, or extremist, position. Consequently, the favorable (i.e. mainstream) aspects of incompatible belief systems are conflated, unfavorable (i.e. fundamentalist) aspects are excised, and syncretized "faith" becomes the standard. Faith-based humanism, under its various aliases, is now the de facto religion of the West.

The real tragedy for Bible-believing Christians is the erosion of Scriptural truth. From U.S. President George W. Bush's oft-quoted declaration that "Islam is a religion of peace" to British PM Tony Blair's vague condemnations of the "ideology of hatred," the true nature of anything is distorted through the lens of a pluralistic, humanistic worldview. To Bible prophecy watchers, today's "fluid" definitions of Christianity and Islam are part of the inexorable push towards the one world religion (the Great Harlot) of Revelation 17. The Western penchant for religious pluralism has meant the ascendancy of inherently arbitrary relationship and/or experiential-based theology over textual orthodoxy. Relativism's effects are felt upon not only Christianity but gradually the religions that are brought over by immigrants to the West.

Cultural (or nominal) Islam in the Arab world is nowhere near as entrenched as cultural Christianity is in the Americas and Europe. However, the second- and third-generation children of Muslim immigrants to the West have begun to assimilate secularism, democracy, and other Western concepts into their worldview. The London transit terrorists constitute a minority. The majority of Westernized Muslims are more likely to be joining hands with the interfaith crowd and winning converts or sympathizers in that manner, just as the "purpose-driven" Christian church does as it brings in droves to its mega-churches. CAIR's petition against terrorism illustrates this trend toward the so-called mainstream. The Los Angeles-based Muslim Public Affairs Council and the Islamic Society of North America represent further examples of a new breed of Western-influenced Islam which, similar to humanist Christianity, touts morals and works while glossing over deeper doctrinal matters. Jihad may, in fact, be as foreign a concept to many Westernized Muslims as fornication is to their cultural Christian counterparts. Theological disconnect doesn't change the facts of history, however; Islam was born out of bloody conquests in the 7th century which continue to this day in the form of Islamic terrorism.

Postmodern relativism and pluralism can be found in today's Western Islamic thinkers. Salman Rushdie is perhaps the most celebrated (or notorious). Another example is Irshad Manji, the Canadian-born author of "The Trouble with Islam Today." She is adored by bastions of liberal humanism like the New York Times and decried by Islamic leaders. In a recent Los Angeles Times opinion piece, she wrote: "Why do we Muslims hang on to the mantra that the Koran — and Islam — are pristine? God may very well be perfect, but God transcends a book, a prophet and a belief system." Manji's words share the same perspective Christian humanists have on the Bible, a fact which she implicitly acknowledges when she continues with, "How about joining with the moderates of Judaism and Christianity in confessing some 'sins of Scripture,' as Episcopal Bishop John Shelby Spong has said of the Bible?" Manji cites Bishop Spong here as inspiration, as if her advocacy for faith-based humanism weren't clear enough already.

A recent survey conducted by the Daily Telegraph found that one out of four Muslims in the U.K. sympathized with the motives of the London terror bombers. Newspaper polls like these are intended to generate news rather than uncover hard facts. No doubt such support among Western Muslim communities exists, but the reasons can be multifarious. For Muslims living in Europe and the U.S., lingering resentment of Western hegemony may fuel the sympathy more than theological orthodoxy or religious fervor. There may also be the sneaking suspicion on the part of Westernized Muslims (as with nominal Christians) that their fundamentalist brethren are the true torch bearers of their faith; in other words, there exists a love-hate relationship to which they won't readily admit.*

So where is this all going? Contemporary "faith" is often a guise for humanism, owing more to Nimrod than Abraham (of the Bible, that is). Man in his natural state gravitates towards the worship of mankind or a god defined on his terms. Humanistic Christianity and Islam will have more cachet in terms of a one world religion. Faith-based humanists like Manji, Spong, or the interfaith advocates at Fuller Seminary see no real distinction between foundational texts, at least in a modern context, or don't really care. For them, the Bible and the Qur'an are open to interpretation, represent neither absolute truth nor absolute falsehood, and are bridges to a broader universal understanding. The humanist credo is best summed up by "follow your bliss," (Hinduism through the filter of the atheist Joseph Campbell) which applies to its secular and religious varieties. Because humanism comes in so many forms, names and labels like "Muslim" and "Christian" have less meaning, which of course is one of its goals.

Jesus said in Matthew Chapter 7 (KJV):

²¹ Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven.
²² Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works?
²³ And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

Islamic terrorism truly poses a grave danger to Israel, the U.S., Europe, and elsewhere. But the greater danger to Christianity is humanism, whose guises are many and whose master masquerades as an angel of light and despises most of all Jesus' victory on the Cross of Calvary.

*Comparisons between cultural Christianity and Westernized Islam can only go so far. While moderate rank-and-file Muslims might be confused or in a state of denial, their leaders have not accounted for their religion's intense antagonism toward Jews and Christians. Bruce Thornton has written an in-depth article on the subject.

Appeasement Today and Yesterday

The July 7th terror bombings may not have surprised security-conscious Londoners, but the calculated brutality of the attacks remind us in the West that strife and human suffering are far from eradicated in the 21st century. While humanism has effectively sanitized the Judeo-Christian foundations in Europe and the U.S., it has largely been rebuffed in the Islamic world. The punditry and rhetoric among policy-makers and the media in the wake of these latest heinous acts reflect secularists' expected failure to grasp the spiritual motivations of Islamic terrorism, or jihad. Humanism's shades of gray only appease evil. Conservative commentator Victor Hanson writes, "[The West] has lost confidence in its old commitment to rationalism, free speech and empiricism, and now embraces the deductive near-religious doctrines of moral equivalence and utopian pacifism." (See here for more of Hanson's article.)

Over the past few days, observers have made allusions to that much-maligned figure of appeasement, Neville Chamberlain. As the U.K.'s Prime Minister in the late 1930s, Chamberlain is known for essentially handing Adolf Hitler the keys to Europe. After signing the Munich Agreement in 1938, Chamberlain famously declared, "My good friends, for the second time in our history, a British Prime Minister has returned from Germany bringing peace with honor. I believe it is peace for our time." Securing peace, however ephemeral, was more important than recognizing evil for what it was — a political reality that is not dissimilar to the one that exists today, especially when it comes to European leaders' handling of Islamic terrorism (see Spain, Italy).

In remarks following the Thursday morning blasts, British Prime Minister Tony Blair sounded almost apologetic for any implied saber-rattling:

In addition, I welcome the statement that has been put out by the Muslim Council of Great Britain. We know that [the terrorists] act in the name of Islam, but we also know that the vast and overwhelming majority of Muslims, here and abroad, are decent and law-abiding people who abhor this act of terrorism every bit as much as we do.

Britain has, for years, granted asylum to and harbored militant Islamists. Among diplomats (including the French) and Middle East observers, London is dubiously known as "Londonistan." Curiously, Camille Tawil, the terrorism expert at the London-based Arabic newspaper Al-Hayat, told the New Statesman in a December 2002 story that, "the Islamists use Britain as a propaganda base but wouldn't do anything to a country that harbors them and gives them freedom of speech."

Secular and religious humanists claim that Arab terrorism is born out of poverty, lack of education, and the West's foreign policy, particularly regarding the Israeli-Palistinean conflict. The Islamic world often echoes these sentiments while tacitly supporting the ideology of the terrorists. Last month, Abdullah Ahmad Badawi, the Prime Minister of predominantly Muslim Malaysia, said that "we can address the problem of extremism and terrorism by delivering better and more widespread [economic] development" in the Muslim nations. However, Abdullah's revered predecessor, Mahathir Mohamad, also known as the "father" of modern Malaysia, recently told the Guardian newspaper that the Bush administration is a "rogue regime" and that "Israel and other Jews control the most powerful nation in the world."

Cultural Christianity in the West may take little stock in doctrinal orthodoxy, but Dr. Ergun Caner, a Turkish Muslim-turned-Christian apologetic and author of "Unveiling Islam," says that is not the case for Islam in the Arab world. In an interview with CBN, Dr. Caner said, "Islam has never known culture to be casual, even in my country, Turkey.... You do not call yourself a Muslim in public if you're not practicing."

Well-intentioned religionists and secularists blame the corrosiveness of the West's cultural exports (i.e. Hollywood) and the war in Iraq for stirring diabolical "extremism." Their theology/philosophy of guilt does not, however, take into account the bloody origins of Islam or that eradication of Judeo-Christian civilization is fulfillment of Quranic prophecy. A passage (Surah 9:5) from the Qur'an states:

And when the sacred months are passed, kill those who join other gods with God wherever ye shall find them; and seize them, besiege them, and lay wait for them with every kind of ambush: but if they shall convert, and observe prayer, and pay the obligatory alms, then let them go their way, for God is gracious, merciful.

The Christian humanists at Fuller Theological Seminary in Pasadena, California, may believe that Christians and Muslims worship the same god and that a million-dollar program can take the place of sound doctrine, but consider these words from the British Islamist Sheikh Omar Bakri Muhammad in an interview with Al-Hayat:

Allah willing, we will transform the West into Dar Al-Islam [i.e. a region under Islamic rule] by means of invasion from without. If an Islamic state arises and invades [the West] we will be its army and its soldiers from within. If not, [we will change the West] through ideological invasion from here, without war and killing.

Many political leaders and humanist academics in Europe and the U.S. believe that Palestinian independence is the panacea for Middle East terrorism. Back at the 1938 Munich Agreement, Chamberlain believed that annexing Sudetenland to Germany would stem the tide of Nazi aggression. The Islamists' ultimate goal is not an independent Palestine but the annihilation of the Jewish state. Steven Plaut, a professor at the University of Haifa (Israel), wrote in the Middle East Quarterly: "'Palestinian self-determination' serves as the banner for Arab aggression against Israel."

In an op-ed piece (subscription req'd) for the July 10th edition of the Los Angeles Times, Jewish radio talk show host Dennis Prager wrote:

If the west understood the meaning of the Muslim terrorism against Israel and of contemporary Muslim anti-Semitism, it would be far better prepared to fight the sort of terrorism that struck London last week.... The Muslim world is obsessed with the Jews and with annihilating the one Jewish state, an obsession analogous to that of the Nazis.

It is essential for Jews and Christians, at the very least, to understand the true motives of the Islamic terrorists and the governments that support them. The ancient Roman empire was itself crippled by appeasement in the third, fourth, and fifth centuries as its decadent society was unable to stand up to the Germanic barbarians. A lack of clear Biblical thinking in America and Europe is pushing the West in a similar direction. Dissension from within and enemies from without are a deadly combination.

The Old Testament depicts appeasement in ancient Israel. The prophet Jeremiah witnessed the disintegration of Judah in the 6th century B.C. as its people turned from God and its leaders ignored the (prophesied) threat of the Babylonians. Referring to the religious and political leaders of Judah, God spoke to Jeremiah in Jeremiah Chapter 6:

¹⁴ "They dress the wound of my people as though it were not serious. 'Peace, peace,' they say, when there is no peace.
¹⁵ Are they ashamed of their loathsome conduct? No, they have no shame at all; they do not even know how to blush. So they will fall among the fallen; they will be brought down when I punish them."

The Truth is Not Popular

A new editorial in Christianity Today entitled "We're Prime Time, Baby" (July 2005) touts the growing acceptance of evangelicals by the American mainstream media. As if the self-congratulatory tone of the piece isn't enough, its words reveal a real keenness for worldly approbation.

We've been mainstreamed....We really can't play the persecution card anymore. As "players," we will be criticized sharply still, but that's just part of life in America.

The unctuous use of the word "players" — in or out of quotes — reeks of entitlement, implying that Christians have grown up enough to sit at the big table with the adults. The editorial suggests that Christians are now ready to transition from their ugly duckling stage (i.e. too much negativity), as if they were preparing to go to one of those coming-out balls from a Jane Austen novel. As such, Christians must play some kind of game (cultural/social) in order for the Gospel to have maximum impact. This line of thinking is less concerned about Biblical truth and more concerned about the appearances of truth as standardized by worldly men and women. It is fertile soil for ecumenical, interfaith nonsense.

The apostle John wrote in 1 John Chapter 2:

¹⁵ Do not love the world or anything in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
¹⁶ For everything in the world—the cravings of sinful man, the lust of his eyes and the boasting of what he has and does—comes not from the Father but from the world.
¹⁷ The world and its desires pass away, but the man who does the will of God lives forever.

The gist of the editorial is also a not-so-subtle dig at Christians who can't or won't be "players," that is, the ones still stuck playing the "persecution card" and who apparently didn't get the purpose-driven memo. While a persecution complex can indeed be self-fulfilling prophecy, the inference here is that persecution for Christians is more perception than reality. Yet in many of the less developed nations around the world, Christians are violently persecuted. This simplified and provincial assessment of Christianity's advances doesn't give the whole picture.

The Christianity Today piece concludes with words reminiscent of a political rally:

Let's remember that how we got here is how we will stay here: Careful scholarship. Measured proclamations. Majoring on the majors. Grassroots organizing. Patience. Prayer.

There is a certain plain honesty to CT's editorial — they are promoting not so much Christianity but rather a movement. Evangelicalism is a movement in the same way as feminism, socialism, and other -isms. Movements are man's province. God needs no movements, for His Word still has the power to change people's hearts. For the Gospel to be popular, it must cease to be the Truth. We naturally desire reassurance of our own goodness, but the Gospel does the opposite.

Popularity is an idol of the human heart. The pressure on Christians today to conform to the world is very strong — so strong that it is an incipient form of persecution. And that pressure to conform may just come most strenuously from those who call themselves Christians.

Jesus said of the last days in Matthew Chapter 10:

²¹ Brother will betray brother to death, and a father his child; children will rebel against their parents and have them put to death.
²² All men will hate you because of me, but he who stands firm to the end will be saved.