Christian Popularity
Listen to the MP3
Sept 28, 2007, Wausau, Wi — As I detailed in my book Christianity and Secularism, throughout the much of the twentieth century, the rising dominance of secularism, combined with a church that was form the most part sleeping and unengaged with the culture, has had a devastating impact on the culture. As a result the popular culture is now not only dominated by secularism, but it is also markedly anti-Christian where negative stereotypes of Christianity are the norm, and outright attacks are common, not only against Christianity and Christians, but even against Jesus.
The damage this has done, was demonstrated once again in a recent study by the Barna Group, which showed “one of the most significant shifts [in American culture] is the declining reputation of Christianity, especially among young Americans.” One of the studies more disturbing findings is that ” only 3% of 16 – to 29-year-old non-Christians express favorable views of evangelicals.”
The study found that for many young people, even including Christians, Christianity was viewed as judgmental, hypocritical, old-fashioned, and too involved in politics. Not too surprisingly these are also the stereotypes that are so common in the popular culture. The study shows that, at least in the PR war, the secularist are winning.
Combating these perceptions will be difficult because these perceptions not only reflect the steady drumbeat of anti-Christian stereotypes, but also that the broader Christians worldview that once dominate in our society even among those who were not Christian, has been replace by a secular one.
Take the first two items on the list, that Christians are judgmental, and hypocritical. A major problem is that both of these terms have been radically redefined. Being judgmental, once referred to someone who was hypercritical, picking on every little flaw or mistake. As it is now applied to Christians, it refers those who make virtually any moral judgment at all. In the secular world view all morals are relative. Thus the common argument against Christians asking “who are you to judge?”
As for hypocritical, that once referred to someone who claimed that an action was wrong for others, but it was ok when they did it. The new secular understanding is that anyone who makes moral judgments, and yet does not live a perfect life themselves is a hypocrite.
This is one of the tricks of secularism, take terms that are commonly seen as negative, and redefine them so that they apply to things which secularist oppose. For both judgmental and hypocrite, the main goal is undermine (rather than defeat in open debate) Christian morality. As a result, under the new secular understandings of these terms, of course Christians are judgmental hypocrites, so how can we defend ourselves?
Secularist have been very successful with these redefinitions, but they have a two huge weaknesses. First they depend on the fact that the redefinition goes unnoticed, so that the negativity of the old definition is automatically transferred to the new meanings. Secondly these new definitions are not, and cannot be uniformly applied if the negativity is to remain. In fact, they are applied very selectively. Thus one ways to defend against such attacks, is to go straight to the core weakness of the secular redefinition.
For example, when the subject of being judgmental came up in my college classes on critical thinking, I would simply point out that the term had been redefined and it was important to know whether one was using the older meaning or the newer one. More importantly I would point out that under the new definition, being judgmental is not always a bad thing, and in fact that everyone is not only judgmental in some areas, but that they should be. One example I would give is, what if someone stole something you valued, such as your IPod. Would you say that to steal was simply their personal choice and who are you to judge; or would you be judgmental and say that they were wrong? Put in such a light suddenly the entire class would become “judgmental.”
Likewise for hypocrite, you can point out that there has been a change, and that either everyone is a hypocrite at which point the term become pretty much meaningless, or it is being wrongly and very selectively used. Which way will work the best will vary from individual to individual, and term to term, but the main goal here is to get onto a level playing field where everyone is speaking, and hearing the same thing.
Yet this problem is much deeper than just the redefinition of some terms. For many of those outside the Church, and even for many Christians, their view of Christianity is one shaped by the anti-Christian bigotry and falsehoods of skeptics. For example, I have found that even among Christians the belief in thing like Columbus having to fight the ignorance of Christians who believed in a flat earth, or that most wars are caused by religion are very common, even though both completely false. While well schooled in the negative aspects of Christian history, such as the inquisition, most have no idea of the important and positive contributions made by Christians such as the abolition of slavery, nor the intellectual foundations Christianity provided for things like science and human rights and democracy.
Such errors and falsehoods can be correct, but to do so we must know the truth, and as Peter said, “Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do so with gentleness and respect” (1 Pet 3:15).
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Victory Is Not An Option
The response to the improving situation in Iraq among the Democrats is very revealing. Last time I pointed out how their political rhetoric has become their reality. They have said that Iraq is a mistake and a failure for so long that, for them, not only is victory is inconceivable, there is not even room for positive news.
This can be seen in Senator Clinton’s comments to General Petraeus, when she said “You have been made the de facto spokesmen for what many of us believe to be a failed policy. Despite what I view as your rather extraordinary efforts in your testimony both yesterday and today, I think that the reports that you provide to us really require the willing suspension of disbelief”
For Clinton, Petraeus’ reports on the progress of the war could not possibly be correct. After all, as she said, the policy has already failed. How can something that has failed, succeed?
Much the same can be seen in the prepared remarks of Senator Obama, “It is long past time to turn the page in Iraq, where each day we see the consequences of fighting a war that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged. We in Congress must take action to change the President’s failed policy.”
While Petraeus reported that the new strategy has resulted in significant declines in the number of attacks, and in the number of civilian death, while significantly increasing the number of weapons caches found and cleared, along with increasing support by the population, Senator Edwards statement on the General’s report painted a different picture, “Even in the face of rising American causalities, greater civil unrest and no political progress, the Congress continues a false debate about whether President Bush should be granted more time. President Bush’s Iraq strategy has failed.”
For many on the left, success of any type is simply not an option, and victory is simply inconceivable. It is not so much that they want the U.S. to lose, but rather, because of their mind set they do not even think in those terms. As Nancy Pelosi described in an interview shortly have the Democrats won back the house, “It’s not a war to be won, but a problem to be solved.” Since this is not a war, there is nothing to lose, and the problem, i.e. that our troops are being killed, can thus be solved by simply leaving.
This same point of view can be seen in Edwards’ statement when he says that “Congress must support our troops by using every tool available to force the president to agree to a withdrawal.”
Yet as the troops have a different view. Rather than wanting to get out of Iraq as soon as possible, they are re-enlisting at records numbers, and do want victory. As Captain David Bradley put it “we owe it to the Iraqis to finish the job.” Staff Sergeant Ramond Piper, said, ”People back home just don’t see the progress we’re making or they would not want us to be withdrawn.” Spec. Edward Dubois whose son was born shortly after he left for Iraq, had this to say on the question of leaving, “If we pull out of here right now, it’s going to be total chaos. We’re going to be back to doing it all over again in 10 more years or 20 more years, and I don’t want my son to have to come back over here and take my place”
The difference between the statement of the Democrats and these soldiers results from difference views of the war around us. What Democrats like Clinton, Obama, Edwards, and Pelosi refuse to see is that like it or not, we are at war, and Iraq is just one front of that war. It is not a war of our choosing but one in which we were attack, and not just on 9/11, but repeatedly. We just choose to ignore the earlier attacks, hoping that those who attacked us would just go away, or that we could somehow manage the problem.
But the enemy we face in militant Islam, is both determined and vicious, and they took our previous inaction as a sign of weakness. They believe, based on our past history of Vietnam, Lebanon, and Somalia, that while they cannot directly defeat us, if they can just kill enough of our soldier, and get enough car bomb to show up on the nightly news, we will grow tired of the conflict and simply leave, giving them the victory they could not otherwise win.
The calls of current Democratic leadership to withdraw is exactly what our enemies are hoping for and thus must be music to their ears and gives them encouragement that their strategy is working. If the Democrats get their way, it will not bring about peace, but rather a stronger and emboldened enemy. And Sgt Piper’s fear may very well be realized and his son will have to go back to fight a Gulf War III, to once again finish what was left undone.
Mother Teresa's Letters
Sept 21, 2007, Wausau, Wi — Recently published letters of Mother Teresa revealed that, though her public life was one marked by service to God, privately she had struggled with doubt. For many, this might seem like a contradiction, or even a sinful lack of faith, but I do not see any conflict at all.
As a young Christian, I struggled with trying to understand what faith was. When I would hear pastors preached on the subject, I was often left even more confused. I was frequently told that faith was an otherworldly gift of God which was the basis not only for our salvation, but for our daily walk with God. Faith and doubt were often portrayed as opposites; you either had one or the other. This common view was why so many were the puzzled at Mother Teresa’s letters.
While such views of faith seemed to satisfy, and even encourage, those around me, they left me still wondering; exactly what is this otherworldly gift? How did I know I had it? When doubts arose, was that a sign of sin? I seemed to have a lot of questions, but not many answers.
Like many of my more troubling questions, the ultimate answer came, not by seeking out “better teachers” but by spending time with God, thought prayer and the study of His word.
The key for me came with the realization that, even though they are related, and in fact are often used synonymously, faith and belief are not the same thing. After all, the demons believe in God, but are not saved. (James 2:19) It is not our belief in God, Jesus Christ, or even his death burial and resurrection to cleanse us from our sins that saves us. It is our faith in these that saves us. In fact, simply believing is what James refers to as a “dead faith.” (James 2:17)
But while an important realization, this was still only telling me what Faith was not, in this case, that it was not belief. It still did not tell me what it was. The answer was to be found in Hebrews Chapter 11, the chapter on faith. I had heard many sermons on this, but most focused on the first verse where faith is defined as “being sure of what we hope for, and certain of what we do not see.”
Taken out of context, this would seem to link faith and belief, but rest of the chapter is a listing of examples of the faithful having faith. These examples flesh out the meaning of the faith and show us not only exactly what it is, but how we can have it.
Take the example of Noah, “By faith Noah, when warned about things not yet seen, in holy fear built an ark to save his family.” (Heb 11:7) Note the key focus of this example of faith, is not that Noah believed without a doubt that the flood would come but that he built the Ark. In fact almost all the examples in this chapter follow the literally formula of by faith, someone did something. Throughout the chapter the focus is what they did, not on what they thought.
This is faith. It is the confidence, or trust, we have in our beliefs that leads us to act upon them. The core of faith is not belief, it is trust. We may intellectually believe that God exists, or even that he sent his Son to die for us on the cross as a payment for our sins, but we have faith when we trust in this enough to change the way we live our lives. If we really have faith, we will serve God, for as James says, “Faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead.” (James 2:17)
To be clear this is not salvation base on works. Works do not result in salvation. Faith results in salvation, and a true saving faith will have an effect on how we live. How could to be otherwise? Can someone really trust in God and really trust what he says, and yet not let it affecting anything they do? Can someone really trust in Christ’s crucifixion as a payment for their sins without any impact in their life? I do not think it is possible.
When faith is understood in the context of trust that leads to action, instead of belief, one can easily see that there is no contradiction in the way that Mother Teresa led her life, even though she struggled with doubt. In fact, her doubts only further testify to her faith. It is easy to have faith in things about which you are certain. Those who have flown many times may not give getting on a plane a second thought. Having faith that the plane will not crash is easy. But for those with doubts, to have the faith to get on the plane can be a struggle. So it is a testimony to Mother Teresa’s faith, that despite her doubts, she still had the faith to lead a life of service.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
Moments of Clarity
There are several a dangers for all those strongly involved in politics. In the heat of a campaign it is common to resort to exaggerations, distortions, or even untruths in order to win. This “political rhetoric,” while hard to defend, is usually written off as simply the result of “getting caught up in the campaign.” Once the election is over, politics goes back to “normal” until the next campaign season.
But one of the “innovations” introduced by the Clintons was the never-ending campaign. Now, politicians are in ‘campaign mode” all the time. As a result, what would normally be simply “political rhetoric in the heat of a campaign” becomes the norm. Worse still, as it is repeated over and over and over, those who say it become so accustom to it that they forget that it is political rhetoric and actually begin to believe it!
Take for example the lefts claim that Bush lied about WMDs in Iraq. As it became clear that we were not going to find WMDs in Iraq, the initial reaction was the correct one, that Bush had been mistaken. Sure, the kooks immediately concluded that Bush lied, but the more sober minded understood the absurdity of such a claim. More importantly the leading Democrats who had had access to the same intelligence as Bush had reach the same conclusion as Bush. Then there were all foreign governments , leaders and intelligence services that had also reached the same conclusion.
But political rhetoric being what it is, ‘mistakenly concluded’, soon became ‘exaggerated the intelligence’, which then morphed into ‘Bush lied.’ More importantly the inflation of political rhetoric moved up the political hierarchy, far past just the kooks, until it began to appear even among democratic leaders, and then eventually became the norm for the party as a whole.
While the liberal dominance of the major media normally servers the democrats very well, here it actually becomes a hindrance. Republican rhetoric is constantly checked by the liberal media. For example, the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth basically charged that four of the claims made by John Kerry about his service in Vietnam were untrue. The Swift Boat Veterans were clearly correct on two of these points and on the other two, it was pretty much up to whose account you believed. Given the fact that Kerry had clearly lied on the first two, Kerry’s history of lies about Vietnam, such as his testimony to Congress about alleged atrocities, and the number of Swift boat Veterans challenging Kerry’s account, normally the benefit of the doubt would have gone to the Swift Boat Veterans.
But Kerry was a liberal, and so none of this mattered. The major media ignored the two points where Kerry was clearly wrong, and focused on the other two where there was some question. Kerry’s account was supported by the official record, and thus probably for the first time ever, the media claimed that the official account could not be questioned. But in any event, the media’s defense of Kerry, checked the Republican rhetoric before it could become too exaggerated. No such check exists for liberals. In fact, as a result of their unchecked rhetoric, Liberals today see the Swift-Boat charges as completely fabricated lies made up solely for political reason.
Worse, as their unchecked political rhetoric become their reality, it becomes a basis for further and even wilder claims. The claim that Bush lied about WMDs, morphed in to Bush Lied about the War, and finally everything Bush says about war is a lie. For growing number this even includes that Bush knew about or even planned 9/11.
This distorted view of reality recently combined with another inflated stream of rhetoric that went back to the swift-boat controversy. The liberal political rhetoric that the swift-boat veteran lied about Kerry’s military service, quickly became ‘Bush lied about Kerry’s military service.’ When that fact that Bush never questioned Kerry’s service was pointed out, it was dismissed with the assumption that the Swift boat veterans were acting at the behest of Bush.
The real danger of all this political rhetoric is that it cuts one off from reality, and becomes a barrier which shields the holder from things like facts. This all came to a head last week. As even some critics of the war have pointed out, the situation in Iraq has improved, and we seem to finally be making some progress. There are still some serious problems that remain, but the surge has had positive effect on the situation.
But many of the Democrats are immune to such good news. Viewed through the lens of their political rhetoric, victory is not an option, and thus any positive news from Iraq must be just another lie from the Bush administration. Since General Petraeus is the one delivering the news, in their eyes he is little more than just another swift-boat veteran.
Thus the Moveon.org’ New York Times ad, “General Petraeus or Betray-Us,” was in one sense just the next logical step in the left’s confusion of political rhetoric for reality. After all, as I heard some defending Moveon.org say, the Swift-Boat veterans attacked Kerry, so what is the difference between that and Moveon.org attacking Petraeus? Some differences might be that Kerry was a politician in the midst of a President al campaign, and he was questioned about his claims by those who served with him, versus General Petraeus is an active military commander in the midst of a war, being question by a partisan political organization. But such distinctions are irrelevant in political rhetoric of the left.
As despicable as this ad was, it does provide a moment of clarity, that cuts through all the obligatory “We support the troops” rhetoric and shows where the left really stands. The ad show clearly hollowness of such claims of support. There is also a moment of clarity in the reluctance of the democratic Presidential candidates, Except for Biden to condemn MoveOn.org. Those who really ‘support the troops’ did not have to wait to be asked about the ad, nor did they need to have time come up with a response. Hopefully the American people were watching and took note.
A Review of Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part VI
Sept 14, 2007, Wausau, Wi — Last time in my review of Richard Dawkins’, “The God Delusion” I showed the superficiality of Dawkins’ view of God. From there, Dawkins begins a discussion of the Founding Father, trying to claim that, “contrary to [The American right’s’] view, the fact that the United States was not founded as a Christian nation was early stated in the terms of the Treaty of Tripoli, drafted in 1796 under George Washington and signed by John Adams in 1797.” (pg 40)
Once again, the simplicity of Dawkins’ approach leads him into error. United States is not a Christian nation in the sense that government has established Christianity as the official religion of the United States; which is basically what the Treaty of Tripoli says for it clearly refers to “The Government of the United States.”
The problem for Dawkins’ is that there is a difference between the government and the nation as a whole. A country is more than just its government. This is true of all nations, and is particularly true of the United States where even within the government there is a difference between the federal and the states. Nothing shows this clearer than at the very time Dawkins claims that the Treaty of Tripoli showed that the United States was not a Christian nation, many of the states still had established religions, all of which were Christian.
Dawkins goes on to claim that, “the genie of religious fanaticism is rampant in present-day America, and the founding fathers would have been horrified… the founders most certainly were secularists who believe in keeping religion out of politics, and that is enough to place them firmly on the side of those who object, for example, to ostentatious displays in the Ten Commandments in government-owned public places.” (pg 41-2)
Dawkins’ view is common among secularists, but it conflicts with the actual history. In fact, as I detail in my book, Christianity and Secularism, the phase “Separation of Church and State” which is the defining phrase for secularists is not only absent from the Constitution and the Bill of Rights, it did not even enter into Constitutional law until 1947, when it was inserted by the Supreme Court.
While secularist do mention it very often, the very first clause of the First Amendment reads “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion” Perhaps the only thing that secularist mention even less, would be the second clause, “or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” The founding father thought that religion was important enough to make this the very first part of the First Amendment.
Dawkins’ view is even further called into question by the fact that Congress, the day after approving the First Amendment passed a resolution calling for a national day of prayer and thanksgiving. If the founding fathers were so intent on getting religion out of politics as Dawkins’ claims, how could the very same people who approved the First Amendment the very next day pass such a resolution? The simple fact is that if Dawkins’ view of their goals were correct, they couldn’t have.
Rather than being horrified by rampant religious fanaticism as Dawkins’ claims, the British historian Paul Johnson has a much more actuate view when he pointed out that the current dominance of secularism “would have astonished and angered the founding father.” (see Christianity and Secularism, pg 19)
While it is true the founding fathers did not want an established religion, it was because they saw religion as extremely important, so important that it needed to be the very first thing protected in the Bill of Rights.
The founding fathers believed in checks and balances. The reason they saw religion as so important, is that it was the one thing strong enough to check the growth of government. They did not fear religion, what they feared was that one group would gain power and use its position to dominate and suppress opposing points of view. In short, that a single view of religion would become a tool of government and used to suppress differing religious views.
The founding fathers’ view of religion dominated until the middle part of the 20th century. By then secularism’s distain for religion had grown to the point that religion came to be seen, not as something so important it needed to be protected from government, but something so dangerous that government it need to be protected from it.
Thus, starting with the 1947 Everson v. Board of Education ruling, the Supreme Court has effectively rewritten the constitution, allowing the court to reshape American society. What we have now is what the founding fathers’ feared most, that one religious view, in this case secularism, has gained power and has used that power to reinterpret the First Amendment, and is using the new interpretation to dominate and suppress all competing religious views.
Thus in the name of freedom, prayer in public schools was prohibited. In the name of freedom, Bible reading in public schools was prohibited. In the name of freedom, prayer at graduations was prohibited, even if voluntary and done by students. In the name of freedom, the Ten Commandments were banned from public schools. In the name of freedom, Christians are routinely told that their values and beliefs are illegitimate in the political process because they are “religious.” Thus on many issues such as abortion or definition of marriage or family, secularists say you are free to have whatever views you want, just as long as you keep them to yourselves, as only their views can be represented and promoted by government. That is hardly view of freedom and democracy the founding fathers wanted.
This is Elgin Hushbeck, asking you to Consider Christianity: a Faith Based on Fact.
