Pop Theology

This past week, millions of moviegoers around the world flocked to cineplexes to see "Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith," the final installment of George Lucas's science fiction film saga. As one of the cinema's most enduring series, "Star Wars" has attained the status of modern mythology or even global meta-narrative — a mythology which also demonstrates the growing influence of popular culture (over the last several decades) on the beliefs and worldview of people today. The intense media frenzy anticipating the movie's opening says a lot more about our culture than the cinematic merits (or lack thereof) of "Revenge of the Sith." That is, society is far more passionate about fantasy than God's truth.

In the nearly three decades since the original film's release, Christians have debated amongst themselves the hermeneutics of "Star Wars" in relation to Biblical truth and Christian living. A great deal of Christian ambivalence towards "Star Wars" can be attributed to the series' pantheistic mix of Eastern monism and Judeo-Christian allegory, i.e. themes of redemption and good versus evil.*

Some believe, however, that "Star Wars" movies should remain immune to Christian criticism because they're so-called family-friendly entertainment, that they are just make-believe. Indeed it is rare when a pop culture product these days isn't a soul-destroying enterprise. But the "Star Wars" series have attained a prominence reaching far beyond the world of cinema. In Western society where Bible-based Christianity has largely been abandoned, shallow and transient worldviews, such as those promoted in the very popular "Star Wars" films, rush in to fill the void. "Star Wars" has cultural resonance not so much for its intrinsic truth, but because of the lack of truth in contemporary society.

The apostle Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians Chapter Five (KJV):

⁶ Know ye not that a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump?

Secularism's modern preeminence has caused a lot of churches to panic, and as a result Christians are desperately trying to re-identify with the world. Often this entails swallowing a toxic chunk of the prevailing culture to get a microscopic grain of Biblical truth. Dissonance between worldly patterns of thinking and God's ways is largely ignored. Because it is natural for people to seek the approval of their peers, believers are tempted to give spiritual poison an entrance to their souls.

Take, for example, the recently published book titled Christian Wisdom of the Jedi Masters. Written by Dick Staub, director of the Center for Faith and Culture in Seattle, Washington, this book follows in a long tradition of preaching the Gospel by appealing to worldliness. Some modern Christians fear cultural irrelevance so greatly, they bend over backwards to accommodate the latest trends. Such books are intended as a bridge to non-believers. However, Christians end up championing them, and non-believers simply ignore them as banal.

"Star Wars" is not a gateway to the Christian faith. Those who are already Christians may identify with the central themes of the series, and such identification can be positive. Christian allegory in art can have an enriching influence on society if that society values, at the very least, some kind of absolute truth. Works like Dante's Divine Comedy and Dickens' A Tale of Two Cities may win Christians to classic literature, but they won't win literate non-believers to Christ. Only the Gospel of Jesus Christ has the power to change the hearts of men.

Christianity is not the enemy of art and entertainment. But for believers, art functions best as a tool of resistance to the encroaching shadows of a sin-darkened world. When art functions as the lamp stand, it gradually becomes an idol that gives man a false assurance in his inherent goodness. Lucas's space saga doesn't resist the world because, philosophically, "Star Wars" embraces it. The central theme of good versus evil isn't an effective evangelizing tool when most of the world's religions also share this dualistic worldview. In an interview some years ago, George Lucas admitted his own universalist inclinations:

The conclusion I've come to is that all of the religions are true, they all just see a different part of the elephant. Religion is basically a container for faith. Faith is the glue that holds our society together; faith in our...culture, in our world...whatever it is that we're trying to hang onto. Faith is a very important part of our attempt to remain stable...to remain balanced.

Postmodern relativism has played an important role in the shaping of the "Star Wars" mythos. Lawrence Kasdan, the talented screenwriter of Lucas's second "Star Wars" movie "The Empire Strikes Back" (1980), analyzed the Force, the film series' theological leitmotif:

One of the longest conversations that George [Lucas] and I had in our first story conference was on the philosophical background of the "Empire" story and on the meaning of the Force. Basically, George is for good and against evil, but everyone has his own interpretation of what that means. In my opinion, what emerges about the Force are its similarities to Zen and to basic Christian thought.

In her review of "Revenge of the Sith," Annabelle Robertson, the entertainment writer for the Christian website Crosswalk, challenged the film's underlying resistance to absolute truth:

Rather than any form of true faith, therefore, “Star Wars” instead embraces a radical, New Age style individualism – something that cannot help but lead to conflict and disharmony, the very thing it purports to seek.

Although Christian radio talk show host Paul McGuire praised "Sith" as cinema, he, too, found something wanting in Lucas's worldview:

Lucas is using Judeo-Christian imagery and themes, even though he disavows absolutes....As philosopher or theologian his world view is weak. He has not properly thought out his position like Tolkien did in the Lord of the Rings.

In "Revenge of the Sith" a character describes the antagonists by saying, "Only the Sith deal in absolutes." This line suggests that Lucas is now less than convinced by his own dualistic Wagnerian melodrama. Yet Christians, taking a page from postmodern criticism, have decided to mostly ignore the authorial intent of "Star Wars" for experiential interpretations. But it's clear that Lucas sees himself as an artist with a specific story to tell and a specific message to promote. To Lucas, Christians finding meaning in his films is evidence that the stories tap into broader universal truths. In other words, based on the theology he has espoused publicly, Christianity is only part of a larger truth, not the whole truth.

Allegorical art need not be utilitarian, literalist, or facile, and it can be very effective in revealing a part or parts of truth through detail and specificity. Great works have often been deemed great because they express the spirit of God's truth without explicitly calling attention to it. But this argument does not adequately defend "Star Wars." At its best, the series is ad hoc Christian allegory; at worst, it is a shallow and confused blend of "truths" purposefully designed to form some kind of metatruth. The message of "Star Wars" then is that man can find his own truth, and by extension, truth is protean and relative.

Yet, for all that, the real fault of "Star Wars" is extrinsic. Lucas is a filmmaker; he makes movies. He is not a theologian, nor does he need to be. And while "Star Wars" has had a long life as a pop culture phenomenon, it will be replaced by something else sooner rather than later. Much of contemporary society, however, has chosen to exchange the enduring truth of God's Word for ephemeral lies. The hypnotic hold which "Star Wars" possesses over its legions of fans is just more evidence that the things of today's world are the gods of the modern age. Can Christians lead the way by rejecting even the comfortable, PG-rated idols that the world offers, or will they continue to be lulled to sleep by pleasing half-truths? In 2 Corinthians 6:14, the apostle Paul asks, "What fellowship can light have with darkness?"

* Berit Kjos recently posted a valuable article on the theology behind "Revenge of the Sith" on her website. Albert Mohler also weighed in on the subject (from an article originally published in 1999).

Also:
Remember the Bereans

A Powerful Delusion

In his terrific May 7 and May 13, 2005, entries of the With Christ web log, Dan S. analyzed the conflict between Biblically-defined (or Godly) love and relativistically-defined (or postmodern) love. The incompatibility of these two concepts fuels the growing, impassioned prejudice toward conservative born-again Christians. Dan wrote:

For the past several decades, the meaning of love has been hijacked and largely redefined for use within the pervasive framework of moral relativism — even by Christians. This new love doesn't engage in any form of judgment and is characterized by a perverted form of tolerance. This so-called love is tolerant of all manner of evil and wickedness, and intolerant toward those who would seek to identify and scripturally restrain the same. Thus, when a Bible-based Christian sets forth Scriptural truth with any degree of certainty, they are viewed as being unloving, abusive and attempting to force their views on others.

On the grounds of the aforementioned conflict, some Christians today have joined the secular humanists in their efforts to suppress Bible-believing Christians. They have made a terrible mistake. Nominal Christians charge that their born-again brethren have failed to heed Jesus' commandment to "love your neighbor as yourself." (Matthew 22:39) They do not, however, buttress their argument for relativist love with Jesus' preceding commandment: "'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment." (Matthew 22:37-38) Because these last two verses so definitively clash with emotion/ideology-based love, they are typically ignored. God is referred to here as Lord, demanding submission of the soul (emotion) and mind (ideology). Loving our neighbor is the subordinate commandment, so it follows that loving our neighbor is entirely defined by loving the Lord.

Secularists use an ill-defined concept of love to silence believers. It is an effective cover to oppose God's laws. As the apostle Paul warned, "Satan himself masquerades as an angel of light." (2 Corinthians 11:14) Human beings are designed to love, and the devil uses this to his advantage. For who will stand against love, right? Conservative Christians are singled out in the postmodern culture because they make (Bible-based) distinctions between what is and what isn't love. This is deeply offensive not only in a godless society but in an ecumenical/pantheistic/universalist society, as well.

On his blog, Dan S. commented that "love and compassion are pervasive buzzwords in the culture war." Words like "tolerance" and "diversity" can also be added to that list. As part of a modern system of brainwashing, these terms are used to wipe the slate clean — the slate, in this case, being the typical Judeo-Christian, classically educated mind. In its place, secularists aim to create a societally mandated morality with a counterfeit love as its core principle.

Jesus said in John Chapter Eight:

³¹ If you hold to my teaching, you are really my disciples.
³² Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.

The Bible tells us that God's truth will free us from the bondage of this world — not love. Apart from God, man's "truths" are like a house of cards ready to fall. And God's truth defines love within the context of submission to the Lord. In 1 Timothy 4:1, Paul writes: "The Spirit clearly says that in later times some will abandon the faith and follow deceiving spirits and things taught by demons." Christians who persist in denying the sufficiency of Biblical truth dangerously open themselves up to further spiritual deception.

The culture at large brands Bible-believing Christians as narrow-minded zealots who are not only out of touch with the modern world, but who are also enemies of love, knowledge, and humanity in general. Today, secularists claim that conservative believers in the U.S. are attempting to hijack the government to enforce some kind of theocratic rule. These accusations reveal a decided lack of understanding of mankind — that, in reality, the inertia of the world is sin, and that natural man resists God and His Laws with his entire being. For any totalitarian regime to succeed, first it must either deny the existence of a Supreme Being (atheism) or assert such a being in absentia (agnosticism), then it must appeal to man's natural passions. It is no wonder that atheists such as Sartre and Voltaire are ready-made apologists for totalitarianism.

Man, in his sin nature, is predisposed to replace God's laws with counterfeits. Yet counterfeits are ultimately worthless. Secularists may tout the principles of tolerance, diversity, love, and compassion, but their real-life applications seem to always be in opposition to God's Word. When society progresses in this direction, people won't be able to tell the real from the fake.

The apostle Paul wrote in 2 Thessalonians Chapter 10:

¹⁰ They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved.
¹¹ For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie
¹² and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

Christian, Interrupted

An intense spiritual assault is being waged against believers today, anticipating fulfillment of Bible prophecy. The devastation has been wrought on two major fronts: behavioral and doctrinal.

The personal lives of Christians are under attack. The vacuum created by Christians' retreat from the public forum has been filled by a relativist and toxic culture. As the postmodern sphere of influence widens, major and minor temptations bully their way into the inner lives of believers. From time to time we hear stories in the news about a church scandal or of an egregious act committed by a Christian. Our resolve is weakened by personal failure, doubts, and compromises with the world. To resist sin, we shift vainly from reliance on Christ to reliance on our perceived goodness. When faith in God is reduced to faith in humanity, but is not labeled or regarded as such, the inevitable disillusionment can be crippling. The tragic result is behavior begins to determine doctrine, and it is now very commonplace.

Christ summons us to Him as we are, in our state of forlorn imperfection. The prerequisite for submission to Jesus is not "self-improvement" but rather a broken and contrite heart. Attempts to live the Christian life through human merit and endeavor lead only to disillusionment, despair, and an ultimate decline in faith. To the devil, believers present an enticing, albeit challenging, spiritual target. The spiritually oppressed believer is an ineffective Christian soldier who can do more harm than good to unbelievers. In his letter to the Ephesians, the Apostle Paul wrote, "Put on the full armor of God so that you can take your stand against the devil's schemes." (Ephesians 6:11) The full armor of God means immersion in His Word and total faith in Christ, not in ourselves or others.

The other major front is the attack on doctrine, in essence an attack from within. Perhaps it is more accurately described as the gradual usurpation of doctrine. Jesus warned of this danger when he said, "Watch out for false prophets. They come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ferocious wolves." (Matthew 7:15) False or incomplete doctrine will lead a Christian down a path of "virtual" Christianity. That is where the spirit of Antichrist (i.e. "in the place of Christ") is most powerful.

Contemporary humanist theologies attempt to resolve the Biblical discrepancy between God's standard for perfection and man's real world inability to measure up by convincing people of the "inherent goodness" in mankind. It is, of course, in total opposition to God's Word — that Jesus Christ is the only way to salvation. In many Christian churches today, these incompatible concepts are presented together without a second thought, and indeed with great arrogance. This kind of compromise can be recognized in the words of church leaders like Rick Warren, Jim Wallis, and Rowan Williams, the Archbishop of Canterbury.

The world of Christian publishing is replete with successful books like John Eldredge's Wild at Heart, which are simply "self-help" books with a Christian sheen. Targeted at Christian men, Eldredge's book attempts to build a Christian identity from a pop culture paradigm.

Such exercises in vanity only serve to drive believers away from Christ rather than to Him. Tricia Tillin of Banner Ministries expands on Christ's metaphor of a person (personal identity) as a house (cf. Matthew 12:43-45). For many believers, the Holy Spirit is kept in one corner of the house, but something has to occupy the rest of it. Ritualistic or utilitarian Christianity (legalism) may exercise a high level of human cognition, but not a powerful indwelling of the Holy Spirit. Or, at the opposite end, Christianity in the grip of humanistic philosophy and ill-defined "love" ceases to be Christianity altogether.

In her most recent book Total Truth, Nancy Pearcey describes modern evangelical Christians as "boxed-in," unwilling or unable to translate the truth of Christianity to the world in which they live. They exchange their Christian beliefs for secular or even pantheistic ones when interacting with the world outside of a personal "faith-based" sphere.

The pressure on Christians to conform to what Pearcey describes as the "sacred/secular" dichotomy was ever so present in the Terri Schiavo tragedy. By not acting on behalf of the dying woman in Pinellas Park, Florida, the sitting U.S. President failed to act upon his conviction, a classic example of a Christian interrupted by a self-imposed public ban on his belief system. This kind of self-imposition is quickly being manipulated into imposition from without, which is why the scared Christian will transition into the persecuted Christian.

Because many Christians today struggle to maintain a sense of Christian separation (being not of this world), they have consequently been unable to push back the rising tides of amorality and unbelief. When belief is diluted, its distinction in the world is muted. By definition, Christians must stand in opposition to the spirit of this world. The difficulty of this struggle is heightened in nations where Christianity is culturally ingrained. Since the secular arena has so successfully co-opted many Christian precepts (charity, moderation, justice), and Western Christianity in turn has allowed so much humanism to creep into it, nominal Christians are now artfully deceived into denying the core truths, that Jesus is the only path to salvation.

Only the hard truths can break the hardened hearts of man, and believers must be at the point of the charge. If the tip is dull, the sword can crack or fail to penetrate.

America the Beautiful? Part 3

In this day of worldwide communication and instant media coverage, it is often difficult to gauge the actual significance of an event unfolding before our eyes. Still harder to judge its place in history. The tragic events of September 11, 2001, are potent reminders that we have entered a new chapter in history even if we don't yet know its title.

In comparison, the suffering of one person seems less important, less significant. If it weren't for the Schindler family fighting to make it more than just a "personal matter," as the mainstream media would so desperately have us believe, then Terri Schiavo's plight would be relegated to obscurity along with the hundreds of other senseless tragedies occurring daily in the United States. And for the Christians who believe this type of thing should remain family business, then God has made certain this "personal matter" cannot, and will not, be ignored.

As Terri Schiavo is starved to death, America plunges into one of its darkest hours. Trendy catch phrases like "right to die" and "dying with dignity" have received tacit approbation from a society thoroughly soaked in humanism, secularism, and Social Darwinism. If indeed we believe God to be our Lord and Creator, we cannot possibly say we have a right to die any more than we can say we have a right to be conceived. And what dignity is there in death? As a human race, we are condemned to death because of our sin, and we all share the consequences of sin in death. Death is the ugly physical reflection of our spiritual sin.

God gave us His standard for life in Chapter Two of Genesis:

⁷ The LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.

There has been a lot of talk about "persistent vegetative states" and chances for recovery and so on. When it comes to the removal of Terri Schiavo's feeding tube, it matters little whether or not she has the capacity to improve so long as the breath of life is in her. She breathes without the aid of a machine. No one would want to be in that condition; finding ourselves in such a state, many of us probably would want to die. But this is not a choice we can make. It may seem cruel to resign someone to a fate like this for the rest of their lives. That is the logical conclusion made by the humanists and secularists. What is missing in their considerations are God's Will and God's Glory.

It is worse, though, when believers arrive at the same conclusion as the humanists. Abraham proved his true faith when he agreed to sacrifice his son Isaac for the Lord (cf. Genesis 22). God stopped him, of course. It was a a test. Abraham's faith in God was stronger than his faith in humanity. Faith is tested when the Godly thing to do diverges from the humane thing to do.

The Bible clearly states that mankind's sense of righteousness (humanism) is compromised and delusional:

There is a way that seems right to a man, but in the end it leads to death. (Proverbs 14:12)

All our righteous acts are like filthy rags. (Isaiah 64:6)

It would be easy to hate Michael Schiavo and the tyrannical judges who've ignored even reasonable injunctions to give this case more time for legal deliberation. But this is a systemic problem, reflecting broad cultural changes. Humanism is the religion of the day, and its dogma is pervasive. The judges only believe what is now generally accepted. In much of the Western world, the secularists have succeeded in driving Bible-based Christianity away from the public forum. The only Christianity given uncritical acceptance by secular media today is the kind that says God does not get involved in "personal matters" and that God changes and evolves with the times.

In the last few days, there have been calls from Christian quarters for Florida governor Jeb Bush to save Terri Schiavo's life in defiance of court orders and at the risk of losing his position of power. (Alan Keyes has written a comprehensive breakdown of legal scenarios in this case.) This is where America is today. To take action, Godly action, is to now increasingly find oneself at odds with not only the state but even public sentiment (judging from the less-than-objective media polls).

There is a backlash brewing towards Bible-believing Christians in the wake of the Presidential election and the Terri Schiavo case. The secular media is hoping to capitalize on the moment by manipulating an apathetic public whose conscience has been dimmed by materialism and humanism. There are more and more stories in the media warning how out of touch "fundamentalist/right-wing" Christians are from "regular" Christians. Believers find themselves standing idly by as society quickly grows antagonistic towards them. We end up countering (defensively) that we don't know everything and feel compromised by our weaknesses and doubts. Wasn't Paul? Yet we must submit to God these weaknesses and doubts if we are to act upon conviction.

Meanwhile, America is throwing away its Christian foundations with near wild abandon. Darker chapters lie ahead.

Also:
America the Beautiful? Part 2
America the Beautiful?

Christian, Public Enemy

Over the last two years, full-page advertisements have appeared in major American newspapers (such as the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, and San Francisco Chronicle) criticizing the current administration's domestic and international war on terrorism, denouncing the U.S. involvement in Iraq, and questioning the legitimacy of George W. Bush's presidency. Using "Not in Our Name" (NION) as both a slogan and name, the antiwar group has enlisted a number of recognizable names to its cause — the usual mix of academics, writers, dissidents, and celebrities, including Noam Chomsky, Ramsey Clark, Ed Asner, Howard Zinn, Studs Terkel, and John Cusack. Over 13,000 citizens have signed NION's most recent statement, an 800-word document referred to as their "new statement of conscience," which is running with their current ads and can be found also at their website.

Were the statement simply an expression of political dissent, believers would have little cause for alarm. The United States boasts a rich and varied history of dissenters, among whom Christians can be counted. The war in Iraq has attracted its share of detractors from conservative camps and evangelical Christians. In November, Jack Hook wrote a provocative essay on the Biblical versus Constantinian concepts of "just war," which is sure to stir healthy debate among Christians. However, believers can agree that men's hearts can only be truly changed by Christ, and that a nation whose focus has shifted from God to its wealth and might is certainly doomed.

What is sinister about NION's new statement of conscience is how perfectly acceptable it repesents its unmitigated prejudice toward historical and Biblical Christianity. The advertisements are cloaked in righteous solemnity and understated graphic design, but underneath the surface, Not in Our Name seethes with a hatred toward true Christianity that cannot be ignored by believers. While the vitriol in their words is largely directed toward one man (Bush), it is clear, upon reading between the lines, that the true object of their contempt are Bible-believing Christians.

In 2 Timothy 3:5, the Apostle Paul wrote that, in the last days, there will be people "having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof: from such turn away." NION's mission statement reflects the broader push among secularists to reclaim spirituality, particularly Christianity, for themselves, especially in light of last November's election results. The irony is surely not lost upon the humanists (lovers of irony all) that, for the purposes of political expediency, they have chosen to co-opt a system of belief which is so loathsome to them. Nevertheless, the kind of rhetoric which syncretizes incompatible beliefs (e.g. Christianity and Islam) and pays lip service to Biblical Christianity is gaining ground with an apathetic public, including nominal Christians. For this reason, it is not merely endemic to antiwar groups such as Not in Our Name, but prevalent across the political spectrum.

An excerpt from NION's 2005 statement of conscience:

The Bush government seeks to impose a narrow, intolerant, and political form of Christian fundamentalism as government policy. No longer on the margins of power, this extremist movement aims to strip women of their reproductive rights, to stoke hatred of gays and lesbians, and to drive a wedge between spiritual experience and scientific truth. We will not surrender to extremists our right to think. AIDS is not a punishment from God. Global warming is a real danger. Evolution happened. All people must be free to find meaning and sustenance in whatever form of religious or spiritual belief they choose. But religion can never be compulsory. These extremists may claim to make their own reality, but we will not allow them to make ours.

Consider for a moment the outright demagoguery and propaganda in those words. The declarative statements, self-righteous indignation, and hubristic presumptuousness contained therein would be condemned by NION were they in the service of a Christian group.

Once again, the semantic hydra known as "Christian fundamentalism" rears its ugly heads in yet another example of unsubstantiated communistic groupthink. Although the label has become a caricature of itself over the years, the secularists have wielded it with great success, particularly to divide Christians. As a useful piece of propaganda, its disingenuousness is manifold. One obvious aim of calling certain Christians "fundamentalists" is to lump them together, in the public consciousness, with Islamic fundamentalism and, by association, the abridgment of human rights. The myth that cultural, rather than fundamental, forms of a belief (whether Christianity or Islam) are its true representatives is reinforced further. The intelligentsia also seek to separate "Christian fundamentalism" from the main body of Christianity by insisting that it has shallow theological roots arising in the late 19th/early 20th century. The likelier reason for their resentment is that fundamentalism steered Christianity back to Scripture and historicity and rebuffed the preceding two centuries of humanist dogma. Although NION makes a point to describe the Bush government as imposing a "form" of Christian fundamentalism, this minor distinction will be ignored by their intended audience. Instead, all Christian fundamentalism will be read as "narrow, intolerant, and political" and as a dangerous threat to democracy.

Just this week, American television talk show host Bill Maher made comments equating Christianity with Islamic fundamentalism:

We [Americans] are a nation that is unenlightened because of religion. I do believe that. I think that religion stops people from thinking. I think it justifies crazies. I think flying planes into a building was a faith-based initiative. I think religion is a neurological disorder.

Not leaving any stone unturned, NION's statement labels President Bush's "form" of Christian fundamentalism an "extremist movement." The name-calling belies an intolerance of opposition which they would normally attribute to a totalitarian regime squelching its enemies. If NION is indeed correct in describing the Bush presidency as "marginal" and "extremist," then it is a marginal and extremist movement voted in by at least half of the voting populace. It's a case of the pot calling the kettle black. A group that claims 13,000 like-minded academics, politicians, and celebrities can only be defined as marginal, as well. To describe themselves as one elitist group fighting over the hearts and minds of the masses with another elitist group would, at the least, seem like a more honest assessment of their goals. When secularists question the legitimacy of "Christian fundamentalism" on the grounds that it is on the "margins of power," it sounds a lot like the uneducated rhetoric historically directed toward racial and religious minorities.

While the establishment clause in the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution provides for no state-sponsored religion, the free exercise clause does provide for the freedom of religious expression. Although humanists adore the former, they irrationally resist the latter, at least when it comes to Bible-based Christianity. Not in Our Name asserts that "all people must be free to find meaning and sustenance in whatever form of religious or spiritual belief they choose." Yet it is not the U.S. government that is banning the Q'uran or yoga or psychics, but rather schools and universities that are censoring Bibles. There is widespread abuse of religious freedoms in the U.S., but they are not being directed from the federal level. Newspapers, television, and local governments are violating the First Amendment by increasingly expunging any and all references to God, Jesus, and Biblical morality. NION states that "religion can never be compulsory," although humanism has become the compulsory de facto religion of most Western nations. Deviation from its "truth" results in a slap on the wrist, at best, or imprisonment, at worst.

NION's hypocrisy is matched only by their arrogance. Their statement declares "evolution happened" — a facile statement amongst peers, but it ignores the growing evidence in scientific fields that the theory is in doubt. They go on to make remarks about AIDS and global warming that, taken together with the evolution declaration, suggest that Bible-believing Christians are hopelessly uneducated. Worse yet, NION implies that believers would Scripturally refute the statement's AIDS and global warming declarations, as if these two issues were at all similar to the debate over evolution. To claim that fundamentalist Christians seek to "strip women of their reproductive rights" and "stoke hatred of gays and lesbians" is such brazen emotional manipulation that one would think it'd be rejected outright. It is not because, by and large, the prevailing popular culture is on the side of secularist causes. The homosexual and secularist agendas owe their success to natural man's desire to elevate Self over God. Moral objections are rendered as hate speech because they threaten the status quo. It's like the class bully demanding that the kids he beat up have no right to dislike him. Christians have complied.

Reacting to the born-again Christian assertions of one elected official — George W. Bush — Not in Our Name ludicrously labels his entire administration as Christian, revealing a certain willful ignorance (shared by many secularists) of the realities of U.S. government. That somehow President Bush's beliefs are shared by or influence hundreds of administration members and officials (many of whom are holdovers from previous administrations and do not share Bush's constituency) is quite a stretch. The system of checks and balances has, if anything, stymied reform even remotely harboring theocratical intent. The real effort here is to slant Christianity by associating it with governmental failure. Humanists are creating false fears of politicized Christianity to malign Christian beliefs in general.

The Apostle John wrote in John Chapter One:

⁵ The light shines in the darkness, but the darkness has not understood it.

Not in Our Name champions "spiritual experience" and "scientific truth" — two terms at the core of humanism's unsubstantiated presumptions. They've had a powerful semantic influence. "Spirituality" and "experience," when combined, describe a personal revelatory event that is untouchable and unassailable from higher criticism. And "science" and "truth," when combined, have the effect of subconsciously equating the two. These terms form a wall of intellectual hubris which prevents only the most half-hearted and apathetic from seeing that the emperor has no clothes. It has nonetheless been effective. Bible-based Christianity is portrayed as the enemy of science, scientific method, logic, and rational thought, yet "spiritual experience" is allowed to trump all of these on the basis of emotion and subjective truth. Secularists mock the Bible as being provincial and irrelevant to modern life but welcome alternative faith-based beliefs without reservation. Humanists are unsure which to emphasize more — spiritual experience or scientific truth — but they are allied in their distaste for these words from Jesus: "I am the way and the truth and the life." (John 14:6)

In their statement of conscience, NION asserts,"we will not surrender to extremists our right to think." However, the humanist elite will make others surrender their right to think by controlling what children learn in schools, by closing down intellectual debate to only one system of thought, by expunging media and entertainment of any traces of true Christianity, by discriminating against those who express a sincerely held faith in Jesus Christ, by ignoring scientific challenges to evolution, and by celebrating behavior that is a public health risk. Because of widespread thought oppression in the Western world, more and more children are growing up with tremendous emotional problems and mental inadequacies. Karl Marx, 19th century author of the Communist Manifesto, once said, "religion is the opiate of the masses." Today's secularists view God as a threat to their authority over what is right and what is wrong. In their minds, the course of man is determined by man and man alone, and that power wielded by "good, tolerant" men is the answer to the ills of society.

The sad tragedy is that, amongst the thousands who have signed the Not in Our Name statement, there are individuals who have declared themselves as "Christians" or seminarians or church pastors/ministers. Although the document does not conceal its contempt for Christianity, NION has convinced these particular signers that it sincerely aims to rescue Christianity from itself. The disastrous confusion of nominal Christians will only lead to further prejudice toward Bible-believing Christians until it is too late for them to realize that their rights have been taken away, too.

Perpetual Adolescence

The protracted adolescence of today's men and women is a social and spiritual hindrance. Contemporary culture's youth obsession combined with unstable economic realities have contributed to recent generations' inability (or reluctance) to grow up. College graduates are returning home in record numbers to live with their parents. And they're almost always single. When men and women do choose to get married these days, the decision arrives in their late 20s or into their 30s, particularly for men. Modern marriages now begin after long periods of sexual profligacy, experimentation, promiscuity, live-in relationships, and/or loneliness, frustration, and self-absorption. Marriages suffer as a result. Where once it was a necessary rite of passage into adulthood, marriage is today considered an option best postponed until after education is completed and a career is flourishing. Marriage is viewed as the icing on the cake rather than a regular part of the process of life. Such a view raises expectations to absurd levels. Worse yet, it ignores God's plan.

Jesus referred to Genesis 2:24 when He said the following in Mark Chapter 10:

⁷ A man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.

In August of last year, Albert Mohler wrote a two-part article titled "Looking Back at 'The Mystery of Marriage'" (part one and part two). In it, he discussed how modern Christians differ very little from society at large when it comes to views on marriage. Christians have bought into the contemporary lie that singlehood, as a lifestyle choice, brings greater freedom and happiness. This is not singleness in the service of Christ (or in the monastic sense), e.g. the Apostle Paul, which very few are called to. Rather, the singleness here is in the television-age sense — the sampling of sexual relationships contingent or not contingent on marriage. Churches and seminaries alike have done little to dispel the prevailing modern myths for fear of sounding out of touch, old-fashioned, or sexist. Paul wrote that "it is better to marry than to burn with passion." (1 Corinthians 7:9) What happens is, social maturation is centered around emotion and personal whim rather than God's Word.

Financial independence and marriage are not merely societal indicators of adulthood; they are part of God's plan for society. Dependence and singleness are representations of childhood and immaturity. A child is dependent on their parents or guardians. The single man or woman is the center of his or her life. In pampered Western societies, selfishness, self-absorption, materialism, and youth fixation are all part of the acceptable norms. Increased spending power via dependence or singleness is often regarded as necessary to obtain desired-for material goods and luxuries. Less familial responsibility is viewed as a way to satisfy the "me time." The culture is geared to oppose the realization of healthy families.

Of course, educators, psychiatrists, and the media will tell us that children are "growing up" faster and faster these days. Actually, they are being inculcated in pervasive amoralism and humanism faster and faster. But they are far from growing up faster. The Bible says that knowledge will increase in the last days (cf. Daniel 12:4). That does not mean there will be a rise in Godly wisdom. The growth of communications media over the past century and especially the internet in the past decade has definitely increased knowledge, and the rate of growth is phenomenal. New technologies are announced on a seemingly daily basis. Children are acquiring more knowledge than ever before, but indeed it is a matter of quantity rather than quality. Public education, television, and the internet are filling their minds with all kinds of information, but with what confidence can we say that any of it is meaningful, factual, historically accurate, or conducive to a life in Christ?

Furthermore, when children are described as "growing up faster," it is indicative of innocence lost rather than maturity gained. They are exposed to material on the internet and in television and the movies that, a century ago, even the most calloused adults would not have seen or heard. This assault on children's innocence does so much damage that their ability to mature as independent and secure adults is seriously hampered.

Paul wrote in 1 Corinthians Chapter 13:

¹¹ When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put childish ways behind me.

Ungodly ideals of social maturity have, in turn, stunted the spiritual growth of young men and women. The emphasis on the Self, personal revelation, materialism, feel-good philosophy, and a notable lack of spiritual accountability stand at odds with real Christian maturity. New believers are either unable to wean themselves from spiritual milk (cf. 1 Corinthians 3:1-3, 1 Peter 2:2-3) or are simply content to remain at this stage. Dependence and selfishness will hold back a Christian's growth, leaving them stuck in spiritual adolescence. God's social plan is designed to aid the maturation of a believer. Because modern society inverts His plan, spiritual growth is all the more difficult. When a believer weak in God's Word passes through the gauntlet of worldly peer pressure, their faith often shipwrecks.

Believers today are subtly and not so subtly encouraged to follow, in the New Age vernacular, their "personal bliss." Purpose-driven pragmatism has driven obedience and submission to God from the church, and ushered in the worship of self-esteem. Some Christians in leadership and teaching roles are caving in to worldly pressures and are not modeling spiritual accountability. Scripture is divested of its hard truths to make Christians feel better about themselves and to avoid offending other worldviews. Spiritual meat is nowhere to be found, nor stomachs that can digest it.

The spirit of this world wants men and women to be corrupt and worldly at heart and childish in the mind. Examples of this deceit abound: pornography is increasingly referred to as "adult entertainment," as if lasciviousness and degradation signify some kind of maturity. Licentiousness is permissible as long as individuals are "consenting adults." Once commonly referred to as "Sin City," Las Vegas is now touted as a "playground for adults." Yet Scripture commands us to possess childlike innocence in the heart (cf. Matthew 18:3) and mature, Godly wisdom in the mind (cf. James 1:4-5). Only in Christ can either of these two parameters be fulfilled.

Man Was Created Male and Female, Part 2

One of the rising stars in the hermetic literary world is American writer J.T. LeRoy. At the young age of 24, his work is already read and praised in universities such as Duke and Berkeley, and LeRoy himself has, over the past five years, become something of a celebrity, palling around with famous writers, actors, and musicians. His personal and artistic fame is driven by a transparency in his life that reveals a world of drug and sexual abuse, prostitution, and gender confusion.

In a fawning Los Angeles Times piece (subscription req'd) on LeRoy, his themes are described as being compassionate and forgiving, in contrast to the "rural, religion-dominated areas" of the U.S. from which his stories draw their inspiration. In nearly all modern art and criticism, objective truth and authorial intent are ignored or dismissed in order to present nonjudgmental "reflections" of reality. The simple Scriptural truth that man looks upon God as "through a glass, darkly" (1 Cor. 13:12) — an acknowledgment of man's perceptive inadequacy — is unacceptable in the humanist paradigm. Society nears the precipice when it not only accepts chaos as is, but desires chaos for what it is.

In the midst of all the plaudits, J.T. LeRoy's tragic history of childhood abuse is implicitly regarded as fodder for literary inspiration. The very real fruits of such darkness — pain, despair, sexual addiction, mental illness — are not addressed. In the L.A. Times article, Leroy claims that, although medicated, voices in his head are "always there." It's an admission which escapes comment, as if his interviewer viewed it as essential to the fabric that enhances a talented artist. This is the kind of humanist attitude that enables further self-destructive and self-deceptive behavior. The people heaping unqualified praise upon LeRoy would do well to consider the Scriptural underpinnings (Jeremiah 17:9) in the title of one of his books, "The Heart Is Deceitful Above All Things."

One of the central themes of LeRoy's work is gender confusion, which will partially explain its appeal to the literati and academia. Distortions of Biblical sexuality and sexual identity have spread like wildfire through a society that no longer acknowledges any spiritual super authority except that which man creates for himself. In her excellent two-part article (part one and part two) on transgenderism for Crosswalk.com, Annabelle Robertson writes:

Some might say that despite evidence to the contrary, the prevailing myth about [gender identity dysphoria] – that people are “born in the wrong body” – might well have led the 17th century philosopher René Descartes to re-define today’s emotion-centric culture as, “I feel, therefore I am.”

Either way, the sense that transgender is uniquely a genetic issue has become a foregone conclusion which leads more and more people to assume that God simply somehow made a mistake.

In recent months, television talk show host Oprah Winfrey has covered transgender issues. In Winfrey's supposedly nonjudgmental televised forum, children struggling with gender identity (as young as 5) were basically encouraged to pursue these feelings — even consider sex-change operations — while dissenting opinions were dismissed as unsympathetic and uninformed. Responding to the show, Annabelle Robertson commented, "Even more interesting – though not surprising, given the popular trend of revering children’s opinions over those of adults – is the fact that the children’s feelings were assumed to be fact." In a provocative commentary on this same episode (which aired back in August), R. Albert Mohler said, "the very idea that we 'discover' our gender as a matter of interiority is itself an act of aggression against the moral order and a demonstration of human arrogance against the divine design of creation" and described Winfrey as an "agent of moral insanity." As a famous television personality, Winfrey commands a fairly powerful sphere of influence, and her guiltless morality dovetails with the broader humanist agenda.

The apostle Paul wrote in Ephesians Chapter 5:

⁸ For you were once darkness, but now you are light in the Lord. Live as children of the light
⁹ (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness, righteousness and truth)
¹⁰ and find out what pleases the Lord.
¹¹ Have nothing to do with the fruitless deeds of darkness, but rather expose them.

Today, many fruits of darkness — in this case, cross-dressing and transgenderism — receive increasingly unqualified acceptance from a society heedless of their source: sexual abuse, pornography, and a popular culture intent on destroying traditional male and female roles. Women are portrayed as sex objects and men as brutes. Is it any wonder that, in such a climate, children reject these false ideals of true manhood and womanhood? Without any real Biblical guidance, children (and later as they become adults) will search for the answers elsewhere. An individual's rejection of their own gender is likely a rejection of these ungodly role models, and furthermore, mutilation of their body is encouraged in a society where physical change is regarded as a cure-all.

In addition to its wholesale slaughter of innocents, modern society engages in the widespread corruption of innocence. Believers must recognize that acquiescence to the prevailing culture is a key enabler of humanist deception — deception which destroys the lives of millions. In Luke Chapter 17, Jesus told his disciples:

¹ Things that cause people to sin are bound to come, but woe to that person through whom they come.
² It would be better for him to be thrown into the sea with a millstone tied around his neck than for him to cause one of these little ones to sin.
³ So watch yourselves.

The physical well-being and spiritual welfare of children is under direct attack by a selfish humanist system that cannot help itself. The weblog for Contender Ministries recently posted about an incident at a Chicago YMCA where children attending a swim meet encountered transvestites who were leaving a transgendered fashion show held there the previous night. Transgendered teachers are accepted by and legislated into America's public schools. The popular media unabashedly sell so-called "gender-bending" artists. In the case of the writer J.T. LeRoy, his talent is mined with little regard for the fractured past that is tied into it. LeRoy, raised with no knowledge of his father and subjected to abuse by an unprotective prostitute mother, has had his childhood innocence undeniably stolen from him. But like many troubled artists before him, LeRoy's self-destructive tendencies are ignored by hangers-on and admirers who desperately seek reassuring solidarity in a morality-free peer group.

Paul wrote in Ephesians 6:12 (KJV) that "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high [places]." The advocates of gender dysphoria argue that issues of sexual identity deal solely with the mind and the body. But gender confusion cannot be reduced to a physical/mental issue because sin, that is, separation from God, is always a spiritual issue. When people lock their sexuality away from God on ownership principle, it is inevitably distorted by the prevailing winds of emotion, circumstance, and rationalization. Mankind's dire spiritual situation will yield any number of mental and physical afflictions. Human-based solutions can be superficial fixes at best and totally destructive at worst because the ultimate deceiver distracts us from the true source of our problems — sin. If a child were encouraged to rob a bank or kill another human being, people would be justifiably angry and appalled, but when a child is encouraged to destroy their God-given identity, people are supposed to stand back and allow it to happen. Western society's rejection of natural gender roles is a terrible symptom of its terminal illness.

Earlier this month, the Christian Courier reported that the IRS will offer tax deductions for sex-change operations. Paul McHugh, a professor of psychiatry at Johns Hopkins University wrote on the subject of sex-change surgeries in the November issue of First Things:

I have witnessed a great deal of damage from sex-reassignment. The children transformed from their male constitution into female roles suffered prolonged distress and misery as they sensed their natural attitudes....We have wasted scientific and technical resources and damaged our professional credibility by collaborating with madness rather than trying to study, cure, and ultimately prevent it.

Gender identity issues revolve around the need for transformation, but the only true transformation that any man or woman can receive is from Jesus Christ. There is hope in a world that has lost its way. Purity does exist...in the cleansing blood of Christ. The Apostle John wrote in 1 John 1:7, "The blood of Jesus...purifies us from all sin."