Christianity and Multiculturalism

How does Christianity relate to the concept of multiculturalism? The answer to that depends in large part on one's definition of multiculturalism. For this article, I will define it as the idea that all cultures are of equal value, none to be judged as superior to another, that society should be oriented around groups versus a common concept of a single united "we" working as a unit, that diversity is more important than unity. It is a desire not for assimilation and oneness but for diversity. Often proponents of the concept argue that in democracies the majority rule and thus minorities are held down and discriminated against. It often ends up being an ideology of grievances.

What does the Bible have to say, if anything, on the topic? 1 Cor. 1:10 reads as follows: "Now I plead with you, brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (NKJV) Here we have a plea not for diversity but rather unity which brings up the question of whether or not Christianity is a multicultural religion. If it is then in what sense is it?

That the gospel should be taken into the entire world and preached to every creature is clearly taught in the Great Commission. "And he (Jesus--DS) said to them, 'Go into all the world and preach the gospel to every creature. He who believes and is baptized will be saved; but he who does not believe will be condemned.'" (Mark 16:15-16 NKJV) God is "the Savior of all men" (1 Tim. 4:10 NKJV), not just the Savior of one nationality, or one language, or one race of people. In this sense then certainly the gospel is multicultural.

Where you live, what color your skin is, what language you speak, whether or not you are rich or poor, handsome or plain, educated or uneducated, young or old, the way you dress, or what you eat, or the kind of work you do, etc., has nothing at all to do with God's desire to see you be saved. "God our Savior…desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:3-4 NKJV) Neither does any of that have anything at all to do with a true Christian's love for you as a brother or sister in Christ or in his/her desire to see you have the opportunity to become a fellow Christian if you are not already one.

However, the word multiculturalism as it is often being used today (2011, the date I originally wrote this article -- DS) in our society conveys the idea that every culture is to be embraced as it is and that all have equal value. Does the Bible teach this to be the truth?

When Paul came to Athens, in Acts 17:16, the Bible says, "Now while Paul waited for them at Athens, his spirit was provoked within him when he saw that the city was given over to idols." (NKJV) Was Athenian culture to be embraced? In Ephesus their culture called for the worship of the goddess (idol) Diana (see Acts 19). Was this a culture Christians ought to value or embrace?

If every culture has value in its own right why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? If every culture is good why did God drive out the inhabitants of Canaan before the Israelites? If you do not know you can find out by reading Lev. 18 and Lev. 20. God in both chapters list a long list of sins and then says in Lev. 18:24-25, "Do not defile yourselves with any of these things; for by all these the nations are defiled, which I am casting out before you. For the land is defiled; therefore I visit the punishment of its iniquity upon it, and the land vomits out its inhabitants." (NKJV) In the next verse, he says of those sins, "You…shall not commit any of these abominations." (Lev. 18:26 NKJV) Compare this with his statement in Lev. 20:23 of similar import after reading the sins listed in the earlier part of that chapter.

What were some of these sins? Here is a sample--burning one's children to death in fire as a sacrifice to the idol god Molech (Lev. 18:21, Lev. 20:2-5), having sexual relations with animals (Lev. 18:23, Lev. 20:15-16), cursing one's father or mother (Lev. 20:9), homosexuality (Lev. 18:22, Lev. 20:13), and you can read the rest if you so desire to turn to those chapters and read them for yourself. Now here is the point--did God value these cultures he destroyed? Did he think one culture was as good as another?

Now do not get me wrong. Every man has sinned and fallen short of the glory of God (Rom. 3:23) and there is no doubt the same can be said of all nations. None are perfect. But are we to say because of that all are equally good or equally bad? Whether we are talking about nations, cultures, or congregations some are better than others, at least at a given point in time, or if you want to put it another way some are not as bad as others. As you read about the seven churches of Asia in Rev. 2 and 3 you immediately see not all were equal in standing before God at that particular time. Compare the church at Philadelphia, for example, with the church at Sardis or the church at Laodicea.

Does one wish to value Nazi Germany and its culture back during the reign of the Nazis? How about Russia under Stalin? Does one honestly believe that sharia law is as good as democracy (say Afghanistan versus the U.S.)? What happens to Christianity if Islamic law ever becomes the law of the land? Are the women in democratic countries looking forward to that time with eager anticipation?

Is one culture, one belief system, one ideology just as good as another? What if the other guy's culture (say Iran's for example) says you ought to be destroyed (in Iran's case destroy Israel)? If one guy's culture says it is a glorious thing to strap on an explosive device on your son or daughter and have them go off and kill themselves what difference does it make if you are a multiculturalist who believes all cultures are to be equally valued for who are you to judge?

When the children of Israel entered the Promised Land the idea was not incorporating two cultures into one but destroying one--the one that for that moment was most evil. God was not a multiculturalist. It is utter folly to value equally every culture and to say no culture has any claim to be superior to another. Some cultures need destroying, not embraced and built up--Nazi Germany, the Japanese culture of WWII days, the Khmer Rouge, and you can probably add to the list without any additional help from me.

By its very nature multiculturalism is antagonistic to Christianity for it puts sin and righteousness on an equal plane; it basically says there is no sin for there can be no value judgment. One can say the Bible supports not being judgmental. Generally, Matt. 7:1 is quoted as a proof passage where Jesus said, "Judge not, that you be not judged." (NKJV) This is one of the most abused and misrepresented passages in the Bible. Read in context one very quickly comes to verse 6 which says, "Do not give what is holy to the dogs; nor cast your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn and tear you in pieces." (Matt. 7:6 NKJV--Jesus speaking) Who is to judge who the dog is or who the swine is? You are the one who is to do it. You have to make that judgment. The Bible does not, contrary to popular opinion, prohibit judging but only unjust judgment. "Judge with righteous judgment," Jesus said (John 7:24 NKJV).

To make no judgments at all, and yes I am speaking of value judgments, opposes everything taught in the New Testament and in life. The New Testament praises those who because of full age are able to absorb solid food, "that is, those who by reason of use have their senses exercised to discern both good and evil." (Heb. 5:14 NKJV) To discern is to judge. "Do you not know that the saints will judge the world? … We shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?" (1 Cor. 6:2-3 NKJV) Paul was being critical of the church at Corinth because they refused to judge. "I say this to your shame. Is it so, that there is not a wise man among you, not even one, who will be able to judge between his brethren?" (1 Cor. 6:5 NKJV)

In life in general do we desire that our children go out into the world unwilling or unable to make value judgments? Do we send them out without guidance or direction? Is it our desire that they place the same value on the culture of a gang in an urban area as they do on the culture of a Christian brotherhood of believers? We sometimes hear talk of the drug culture. Are all cultures of equal value? Should no judgments be made?

Christianity is multicultural in the sense that was earlier stated in this article in that it is a gospel made for all without restrictions based on race, sex, nationality, economic, or social status, etc. However, once one becomes a Christian we are to become "one" people. "He himself is our peace, who has made both one (a reference to Jew and Gentile of which all mankind is one or the other--DS), and has broken down the middle wall of division between us, having abolished in his flesh the enmity, that is, the law of commandments contained in ordinances, so as to create in himself one new man from the two, thus making peace, and that he might reconcile them both to God in one body through the cross." (Eph. 2:14-16 NKJV) The end is not humanity divided as it once was between Jew and Gentile but now united as "one new man." "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus." (Gal. 3:28 NKJV)

Jesus' long prayer in John 17 includes this, "I do not pray for these alone but also for those who will believe in me through their word; that they all may be one." (John 17:20-21 NKJV) I would also recall to the reader's memory the verse that began this article, 1 Cor. 1:10, where the plea was (should we say command?) "that you all speak the same thing, and that there be no divisions among you, but that you be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (NKJV)

Christianity does not do away with culture, not mine, not yours, not anyone's. We all do not have to start eating the same foods, observe the same holidays, learn to speak the same language, wear the same style of clothes, etc. However, our allowance for diversity must end where the pages of the New Testament speak giving us law to abide by, the law of Christ.

Some might argue for multiculturalism in view of the fact that Christendom is divided into hundreds, if not even thousands, of denominations. It is a poor argument to make. Why? Because God condemned anything but unity and it is an utter failure in men and their character, or an acknowledgment of their ignorance of scripture, when they rejoice that every man has a church of his choice different from all others in items of faith and practice when Christ prayed for just the opposite. When men prefer division to unity the failure is in the men.

Some multiculturalists fear that to not accept multiculturalism will only lead to trouble, division, and possibly even to violence or war. The truth is just the opposite. People have not gone to war because they were united as one but because they were divided. Two people that agree and see eye to eye are not in danger of conflict with one another. The American Civil War did not start because of unity of belief and practice but because of disunity.

Neither America nor any other nation has anything to fear from within when all are in general agreement. We have been a strong country in a large part because every family that came to our borders came not to remain what they once were (you name the nationality or country) but because they wanted to be something new--an American. My family background is British by DNA but German in more recent descent. My family has not considered itself either British or German for many generations. We are not Germans living in America, not German-Americans, we are Americans.

I fear while hoping I am wrong that we are trying to promote in multiculturalism an ideology that will lead those living in our nation as immigrants to have first allegiance not to America but to the nation or culture from whence they came. What then? Trouble! Disunity! A warring among ourselves! That is certainly a possibility.

So it is in Christianity. When we become a Christian we are supposed to leave the old world and its ways from whence we came behind us. We are to become a "new creation" (2 Cor. 5:17, Gal. 6:15, Rom. 6:4). "Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Cor. 5:17 NKJV) One cannot be a new creation without being literally a new creation meaning he has to put off the old man and put on the new man (Eph. 4:21-24). The old life, the old way of thinking and doing as one pleased, of doing what everyone else around us was doing is over. The new life is one of faith and obedience to the word of God, to Jesus. Insofar as Christians bring their lives into accordance with that standard of conduct there will be unity of faith and practice.

The goal of Christianity as it relates to culture is to make all people one, one in Christ. There is only one way to do that--teaching the gospel to those who are then given the option through free will of either the obedience of faith or a rejection of the faith. It is a personal choice that must come from the heart of the individual. There is no such thing as forced obedience to the gospel. Maybe the God (?) of Islam can accept converts at the point of a gun but the God of Christianity will not.

The God of Christianity desires man's love. Love cannot be forced. It comes through getting to know the one who will become, through our learning of him, the beloved. If a man sticks a gun in your back to convert you to his God you quickly learn what kind of God he worships--one who believes in bullets, blood, and guts.

Some (most?) misunderstand Christianity thinking it has caused wars in the past, the Middle Ages. It is simply not true for Catholicism is a religion separate from Christianity that does not depend on the Bible for its existence. The Bible alone will never make one a Catholic, will never give you a Pope, will never allow you to pray to or worship the Virgin Mary, etc., etc., etc. Catholics, if informed at all, will readily admit it is the teaching of their church that has the primacy and that the New Testament alone is insufficient. Christianity is found in the pages of the New Testament, not outside it.

Protestantism is not Christianity. No man can take the New Testament and show where Jesus ever established a denomination (you can fill in any denominational name you want). Every one of them was established hundreds and hundreds of years after Christ built his church starting on the Day of Pentecost in Acts 2 thus they are not the church he established. Furthermore, it takes along with faith, repentance, and confession of Christ, baptism to make a Christian which virtually every denomination denies and rejects. Peter said baptism was for the remission of sins (Acts 2:38), that it saves us (1 Peter 3:21), but they deny it making Peter out as one who despite being inspired had no idea what he was talking about. As for Ananias telling Paul to "arise and be baptized, and wash away your sins" (Acts 22:16) he too was deluded according to denominational doctrine.

No, let the Catholics and Protestants war all they want back in the Middle Ages. It had nothing to do with Christianity. Christianity is a striving for one culture (one belief, one mind) but only through teaching and persuasion as a means of obtaining that. When you find the passage in the New Testament that shows a disciple taking up arms to promote the cause of Christ please contact me and let me know where you find it. Jesus himself said, "My kingdom is not of this world." (John 18:36 NKJV) "The kingdom of God is within you." (Luke 17:21 NKJV) It is found in the heart of the man who has become a true disciple of Jesus, who has become a Christian.

Christians love people of all other races, nationalities, and cultures. I write as an American Christian but Jesus was not an American. Does his race or nationality matter? Does any man's race or nationality matter? No! Paul said, "We regard no one according to the flesh. Even though we have known Christ according to the flesh, yet now we know him thus no longer. Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation; old things have passed away; behold, all things have become new." (2 Cor. 5:16-17 NKJV) As Paul said, "we regard no one according to the flesh."

One of the great experiences of my life was going to college and becoming acquainted with people of other races and from foreign lands and cultures. It greatly enriched my life, a country boy from rural white America. My personal doctor today, a man I like and a wonderful doctor, is from India. I am glad we have restaurants today specializing in food from almost every nation in the world. Cultural diversity is a wonderful thing in its place but we have to understand it has its place. There are limits to it. Go too far with it and it divides us into competing and warring factions and brings strife and trouble and sometimes even violence and war.

God's way is always best, "be perfectly joined together in the same mind and in the same judgment." (1 Cor. 1:10 NKJV) In doing so we will have peace and tranquility, be happy with one another, and at peace with God. Both as a nation and as Christians there is much truth in the adage that united we stand and divided we fall or at least fail to achieve what could have been achieved had we stood together as one united people.

[To download this article or print it out click here.]

Jesus and Tolerance--The Narrow Gate

Jesus’ teaching on the narrow gate is a part of the Sermon on the Mount as found in Matt. 7:13-14.  The question being raised here is whether or not Jesus was being narrow-minded as he spoke of only one gate, of only one way, that would lead to eternal life.  That is a pertinent question in the time in which we live, a time in which many are questioning Christianity making accusations that it is exclusive and intolerant.  Here is what Jesus said:

“Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it.  Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it.” (NKJV) 

As human beings, we sometimes believe and act upon wrong premises that can do us much harm.  To use myself as an example I once believed and acted on the premise that if a person exercised faithfully and intensely he could eat anything he wanted and not have to worry about diabetes.  I found out differently when I developed insulin resistance but until the truth hit me squarely in the face that was what I believed and the way I lived my life. 

In America today we have begun to think that the ultimate good is tolerance and we are acting on that premise.  We are so convinced that this is the case that we are closing our minds to other possibilities much like I had closed my own mind to the possibility of a man like me getting diabetes.  Let me ask a question.  Is tolerance of greater value than truth?  Are we better off with a tolerant Jesus or a truthful Jesus?  If we could have only one or the other which would we be better off with? 

A wholly tolerant Jesus would mean the end of justice, of righteousness.  Would one want to live in a society that was totally devoid of justice, could one live peacefully in such a society?  How does one call heaven a place of joy if tolerance allows in the willfully lawless and rebellious, the evildoers and the vile, the unrepentant?  God is indeed longsuffering but he is not tolerant without end nor would justice allow it.   

If we believe Jesus was God’s son, spoke by inspiration, and never sinned then he spoke the truth about the gates between which men must choose.  There are only two and we all must choose one or the other and thus the corresponding path we will take to death’s door and eternity.  One must either accept what Jesus said as truth or else deem him a liar and no saint at all let alone God and Savior.  If Jesus is a liar then you can forget about heaven and eternal life.

Jesus and Christianity are being challenged in America today by postmodernism, secularism, relativism, multiculturalism, feminism, humanism, Darwinism, atheism, nihilism, hedonism, by just about every “ism” you can think of.  Our culture has changed so much in the last fifty years that today Jesus is no longer seen necessarily as good, as was the case in the days of my youth, but rather as one who is somewhat arrogant, self-serving, and intolerant.  How dare he give us only an either/or alternative—his way or the highway.

The very fact he has given us an alternative to the wide gate and broad way that leads to destruction is no longer seen as grace but rather as a threat of violence if we do not choose it.  Instead of being thankful that we have an option not just of escaping from destruction but of partaking in a glorious, joyful eternal life many of us end up murmuring and complaining.  

It reminds me of what Paul said when he wrote to the Galatians.  “Have I therefore become your enemy because I tell you the truth?” (Gal. 4:16 NKJV)  Has Jesus become our enemy because he told us the truth about the two gates?  A man tells us the truth and we resent it.  Many among us have decided to reject what Jesus has said as truth; we will deny it, refuse to accept it.  We reject the New Testament.

Our problem is we want a third gate, one that is not difficult to enter and upon entering is easy to travel and leads to eternal bliss.  Narrow gates, when posted on roads, lead to narrow roads which are anathema in a society that prides itself on tolerance of everything man’s imagination can devise.   

We want broadmindedness in religion and morality but if we had it would we not think it to be somewhat of an anomaly?  Broadmindedness does not work in math, chemistry, medicine, banking, or any other field of endeavor I can think of.  We all want exactness in those things and if we are to have orderly lives rather than chaos we must have it that way. 

Narrowness is not equivalent to persecution as so many think but is rather a prescription for success, success for the reason that truth itself is narrow.  Deviate from narrowness in obedience to traffic lights as you drive in the city and you endanger not only your own life but the lives of others as well and it will be just a matter of time until disaster strikes.  Tolerance says let a man do it.  Truth says your tolerance will get someone killed.

It has always amazed me that man tries to make himself out to be God and make the rules that govern life when he cannot make one hair white or black (Matt. 5:36) and is totally helpless when death’s door opens.  He thinks he can play God, make the rules, and knows better than what God has said, and then has the audacity to accuse God of arrogance.  Perhaps a mirror would be helpful.

I have often asked myself the question why men do not believe or make an effort to live faithful lives.  What is the answer?  Is it unbelief based on the intellect, on the study of the evidence about Christ where the New Testament is found to be wanting and based on myth, fairy tales, and fantasy?  Well, the apostles knew whether or not Jesus rose from the dead and appeared to them after the resurrection and if he did not what was to be gained by becoming martyrs?  None of them became rich televangelists.  There was nothing to be gained if it was all a lie, based on falsehood.

People do not reject Christianity based on evidence.  It is rejected, and no attempt is made to live the life, because the human will finds the broadway more appealing.  The gate to that road is broad and easy to enter, the road is wide and easy to travel, everyone is accepted, there are no restrictions, no speed limits, no policing of it so that any lifestyle is accepted, sin does not exist on it for sin is not in the vocabulary of those who travel it, at least not in their own lives.  The Bible defines sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 KJV), the law of God.  Take God out of the picture and there is no sin.  Men may come up with moral standards but if history teaches anything it is that there is no “one size fits all” when it comes to man making moral law.

It is a world without God, without foundation, without any hope other than that God may accept you in the afterlife despite the fact you rejected him your entire earthly life and did so of your own free will.  He told us about this other gate and other way but we said we would have none of it and now at the end of the way we do not like where the road ends.  All roads do eventually end; the road reaches its destination.

“The prophets prophesy falsely, and the priests rule by their own power; and my people love to have it so, but what will you do in the end?” (Jer. 5:31 NKJV)

What happens, in the end, is easy enough to explain.  “God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, that he will also reap.  For he who sows to his flesh will of the flesh reap corruption, but he who sows to the Spirit will of the Spirit reap everlasting life.” (Gal. 6:7-8 NKJV)

Two gates, two ways of life, two destinations, life’s choices.  Was Jesus being narrow?  Jesus was being truthful; Jesus was giving grace.  Jesus was as tolerant as truth would allow and showed truth to be the greater value.  Grace, which one could argue is a godly form of tolerance, was shown in giving us the knowledge of the facts and in providing the way of salvation.  All that remains is human choice, man’s free will to choose.  The human heart is revealed in the choice that is made.

One final word, there is no such thing as not choosing a gate.  An “I will decide later” approach is in reality a failure to choose the narrow gate and the difficult way that leads to life and thus puts you in the wide gate and broad way that the many are traveling.  It is not hard to enter a wide gate thus no real effort is required.  A narrow gate is another matter.  You only get in that gate if you want in and make an effort.  The choice is ours but Jesus has already told us which road the many will choose.  We can go with the crowd or take the road less traveled.

[This article can be downloaded to save on your computer or be printed out by clicking here.]

The Real Motive Behind the Indiana RFRA Protests

The state of Indiana has been in the national news spotlight in recent days over the protests of Indiana’s new Religious Freedom Restoration Act.   The protest began in earnest this past Saturday, March 28, 2015, with a march in Indianapolis and has since spread nationwide with businesses threatening to pull out of Indiana and/or boycott the state.

The law attempts to provide some degree of protection to Christians, in particular Christians who run businesses, who due to religious beliefs do not want to be forced by law into taking part in things that would violate their conscience, things like gay marriage.  The protestors claim the law gives a license to discriminate against gays by refusing them services that a business would provide to others.

The truth is no Christian who reads the New Testament and actually believes what it says (there is some who no longer believe) is going to be willing to aid and assist anyone determined to commit sin when he realizes that is what is happening.  The sin does not matter.  It could be homosexuality, adultery, theft, deception, whatever the sin might be.

If the homosexual is discriminated against because the Christian will not help him sin, if that is your definition of discrimination, then by the same standard of reasoning the adulterer, the thief, the deceiver, and all others are likewise discriminated against by the Christian who lives his faith.  The Christian faith does not allow facilitating sin.

A Christian who aids and abets one determined to sin is little better than Balaam who Jesus said, “Taught Balak to put a stumbling block before the children of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols, and to commit sexual immorality.” (Rev. 2:14 NKJV)  Balaam was going to help Israel commit sin via Balak. 

The agenda, the real motive behind the protests, is to drive Christian faith into silence and out of the public sphere, to marginalize it and make it as insignificant a part of American life as possible.  There have already been a few instances nationwide where small Christian businesses have been sued successfully for their failure to provide services for those gay couples planning weddings.  When court costs, fines, etc. are figured into the equation such suits essentially destroy the tiny family-owned business and threaten even the financial survival of the family that owns it.  

This is really a matter of vengeance against those of faith.  How hard is it to get a wedding cake made or a photographer in to have pictures taken?  Would not the loving thing be to just take the wrong and go on?  It would if they were Christians which they are obviously not.  “Now therefore, it is already an utter failure for you that you go to law against one another. Why do you not rather accept wrong?” (1 Cor. 6:7 NKJV)  Of course, this is not to say the one who refuses to bake the cake for a gay wedding ceremony is in the wrong but only that the Christian thing to do is to refrain from suing.  But, there is no Christianity in gay marriage. 

Those who oppose this Indiana law on the basis that they think it discriminates against gays feel that such discrimination would be wrong—in their eyes sinful, evil.  That is strange, almost inexplicable, coming as it does from those who have rejected God’s word on the subject of sin.  How do they define sin if they are not going to use the Bible to do it?  How do I know what is sinful and what is not apart from God’s word?

If it had not been for the Bible the word sin would never have been in man’s vocabulary.  The word “sin” is first used in Gen. 4:7 where God is speaking to Cain although sin itself was first committed by Adam and Eve.  John the apostle defined sin as “the transgression of the law” (1 John 3:4 KJV), the law being the law of God.    

The gay lobbyists have rejected Rom. 1:24-27, 1 Cor. 6:9-10, 1 Tim. 1:9-10, and Jude 6-7 so I am sure they are not willing to take the Bible’s word for what constitutes sin nor are they willing to let God define love.  “For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments.” (1 John 5:3 NKJV)  If they do not like what a passage teaches they just put it into a category like foot washing, confine it to the first century, or make it figurative.  They cannot endure a literal interpretation of the word.

It is not that hard to reject God’s word, if you are so inclined, and still claim Christianity which is the very thing many of the non-atheists among them do.  Of course, many among them are outright atheists and none will accept the word of God as is.  You will hear much about love from them but be aware and be certain they will get to define it, not God.

It is a smorgasbord man-made religion that supports these protests but the kind of religion a secular world desires if they must endure religion at all.  If this group believed God meant what he said and believed it was applicable today they would have no part of Christianity, declare God the sinner, and become God-haters.  Their Bible has been made flexible so it’s meaning changes with the changing cultural seasons of society.  They alone will decide what is sin?

So what is the standard that man uses to determine right from wrong, righteousness from unrighteousness, when one has rejected literal New Testament texts on sin?  If the word of Christ is not reliable, where is the text that is reliable, that provides a standard for judging right from wrong?  Without a standard who dares make himself God and declare for all men what is righteous?  The answer is the gay lobbyists, at least on this and related subjects.

[This article can be downloaded or printed out by clicking here.]

 

 

Pilate’s Question and Postmodernism

Pilate’s response to Jesus’ statement that he had come to bear witness to the truth, John 18:37-38, is well known.  Pilate’s reply “What is truth?” is a question that has been asked down through the ages.  Up until recent times, the idea of truth as a thing man could find, grasp, and hold onto was not in doubt.  Truth was out there, all you had to do was find it.  Today that is being called into question, enter the age of postmodernism.  Postmodernists do not believe objective truth exists in matters of values, morals, and religion.

The postmodernist immediately comes into conflict with Jesus for how can Jesus say he came to bear witness to the truth if the truth does not exist?  Again, Jesus said in John 8:45 “I tell the truth” (NKJV) but he does not tell the truth if the postmodernist is right for truth cannot be told if it does not exist.  The word “truth” is found in 100 verses in the New Testament of the New King James Version of the Bible but to the postmodernist mindset talk about truth is meaningless.  Postmodernism is anti-Christian.

Postmodernists contradict themselves and thus prove the fallacy of their philosophy when they say objective truth does not exist while declaring it to be objective truth that “objective truth does not exist?”  One might add that any talk about “subjective truth” is an oxymoron.  If truth exists at all it is objective truth. 

Truth either exists or does not.  Truth cannot exist sometimes but not at other times.  No one would deny that there are times when we are unable to discern truth from error but the truth always exists whether we discern it or not.  My ignorance of truth does not destroy truth.

It is easy to see the attractiveness of postmodernism in our society.  If truth does not exist in an absolute sense then you can have your own personal truth and I can have mine.  I will call it “my life.”  No one will be able to judge me or condemn me justly and I will take God and thus accountability out of the picture altogether.  It allows me to live my own life the way I want to live it.  Of course, that is the very thing Jesus came to save us from—save us from ourselves.

We have a desire to live our own lives without being judged or held accountable for our actions.  We desire respect and honor even when we do the dishonorable, no one and no authority dare shame us.  If objective truth does not exist who can hold us to any moral accountability?  Not even God himself can for we took him out of the picture, so we think. 

If we try and rationalize our life and behavior by saying this is what is true for me that does not get us off the hook.  It is not about the way I see things, not if God exists and there is a higher power.  "For My thoughts are not your thoughts, nor are your ways my ways," says the Lord.  "For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.” (Isa. 55:8-9 NKJV)  “There is a way which seems right to a man, but its end is the way of death.” (Prov. 14:12 NKJV)  “It is not in man who walks to direct his own steps.” (Jer. 10:23b NKJV) 

If we say no one believes postmodernism, no one believes truth does not exist, then how does one explain the change in moral values that has come about in America in the past 50 to 60 years?  It is hard to say our culture has not been affected by postmodern thought.  According to the Pew Research Center, only 5% of our children were born outside marriage in 1960.  Today that number is 41%.  Have our values changed?  We have adopted the idea in our society that anything in moral (should one say “immoral”) conduct should be allowed to stand and no one should say a thing against it or criticize it in any way. 

As for the New Testament, it is not to be allowed in making moral judgments; in that sense, it is to be banned from having any influence on our thinking or way of life as a society.  Who among us would deny the effort to secularize America and to take Christianity entirely out of the life of our nation on every level except, at least so far, inside the four walls of places of public worship?  

When I was growing up I remember the Billy Graham crusades would be nationally televised from time to time by one or more of the major TV networks.  Can anyone, and I do mean anyone, imagine such a thing happening in the America of today?  I add I am not a Baptist but I am just making the point of the change that has come over American society just during my lifetime.     

When one takes away the foundations upon which to build a life, some solid rock, some absolute standards of right and wrong, which is the very thing postmodernism does, how does one ever judge what one ought to do?  Under postmodern thought you may never be wrong for there is no judgment but can you ever be right for there are no standards?  Life becomes an element of chance, just a guess as to what is the best course of action.

Postmodernism takes away hope, guidance, and direction.  It takes away a purpose for living.  It is ungodly.  There is no hope for heaven.  God becomes a myth.  Here and now is all you have and since there are no standards do as you well please as long as you can stay out of prison.  

Postmodernism is intolerant.  It is not to be questioned.  It is to be accepted no questions asked.  To question it would be to pass judgment, a thing postmodernism will not allow.  If truth does not exist, a tenet of postmodernism, then judgments cannot be passed for if there is no truth there is no standard by which to judge.  But the postmodernists contradict themselves again for they do not hesitate to judge Christianity.  While they claim tolerance they prove themselves to be very intolerant to any who would oppose them.

Postmodernism makes it impossible to judge evil from good and thus comes into conflict with the Bible for judging evil from good is a thing one finds on almost every page of the Bible.  Evil, from the postmodernist’s point of view, is not to be fought for who can define evil?  Who can pass judgment?   

If one cannot judge evil then one wonders what action a true postmodernist might take if someone was to break into his home to rape, pillage, and kill?  If objective truth does not exist how can one declare the intruder’s actions to be evil and therefore justifiably resist them? 

When as the old saying goes the rubber meets the road this is a most dangerous philosophy for it presumes real evil does not exist in this world.  Evil is just a judgment call.  Postmodernism cannot declare Hitler or Isis evil.  If there is no evil you cannot confront it.  When evil is not confronted where does that leave the individual or the nation?

The postmodernist’s mindset undermines the foundation of many of what man has considered to be virtues down through the ages--things like love, kindness, goodness--for without absolute truth existing how do you define any of these things?  If you cannot define virtues how do you express them?  Was Hitler’s definition of love as good as anyone else’s?  A postmodernist cannot be consistent and say no but a Christian can.

More and more people are coming down on Christianity declaring it to be intolerant and judgmental, an evil in the world.  Why?  The answer is because very subtly postmodernist thought has crept into the very pores of our society.  One can almost say of our society today that if the Bible is for it we are against it and if the Bible is against it we are for it.

Adultery is commonplace today, fornication and living together outside of marriage are things people think little about, and now the desire seems to be to make homosexual relationships an honorable thing on par with the marriage God ordained in the beginning (Matt. 19:4-6) between a man and a woman.

Add to those things abortion which runs rampant.  Planned Parenthood reported 327,653 abortions in 2014 which averages out to 37 an hour and the president of the organization says they are proud to provide the procedure so we kill babies and are proud of the opportunity to help people do it.

In our quest to live our own lives the way we want we end up discarding the New Testament of Christ as having any real impact on our lives and our society.  We will do as we please.  We have become a secular non-God fearing society where nearly anything goes.     

The problem every man has with the Bible is that it acts as a mirror.  We read it and begin thinking thoughts that trouble us for we see ourselves as we truly are—sinners.  The word of God judges us (John 12:48) and we know that judgment condemns us.  It is more pleasing to reject the word of God and its values than to accept it.

God offers grace and salvation to sinners but that would require giving up the life we desire to live and submitting our will to God’s will.  After all, we have some sins we kind of enjoy and who wants to give those up.  “Everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.” (John 3:20 NKJV)  “And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light…” (John 3:19 NKJV)

How does one create within a man or woman love for God, a longing, and a desire for God?  How does one create within a man a felt need for God?  Right now those feelings are in short supply and a national longing for God does not exist.  According to the statistics I have seen only around 17 percent of Americans will be in any kind of Christian worship service on an average Sunday (see The American Church in Crisis by David Olson, 2009).  As long as America is at war with God truth will elude it.

If America and the modern-day American cannot find objective truth that does not mean God has lost it.  God knows good from evil; he is willing to judge it.   

“For we must all appear before the judgment seat of Christ, that each one may receive the things done in the body, according to what he has done, whether good or bad.”  (2 Cor. 5:10 NKJV)

Where does that leave the postmodernist in the Day of Judgment?  They can only hope Christianity is just a fairy tale but if it is then man is just another animal whose life ultimately amounts to nothing.  That is the joy found in postmodern thought.  Hope is destroyed and man is doomed to an eternal grave.

[To download this article and/or print it out click here.] 

 

 

Rebellion Against the Word of God in America

A couple of items in the news recently, the year 2013, caught my attention.  In New Jersey, Gov. Christie signed a bill "barring licensed therapists from trying to turn gay teenagers straight."  If you want to read the article it is still online as I update this article here in 2022 under the title "Christie Signs Bill Banning Gay Conversion Therapy in New Jersey."  You can do a copy and paste and Google it.

I quote from the article I read, "The Republican governor also said the health risks of trying to change a child's sexual orientation . . . outweigh concerns over the government setting limits on parental choice."  Also quoting from the same article, "Christie said he believes people are born gay and that homosexuality is not a sin."  California also has a similar law.

It ought to be obvious to anyone who knows the Bible and can read that homosexuality is a sin in God's eyes.  Here is what the Bible says, "Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God?  Do not be deceived.   Neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor homosexuals, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Cor. 6:9-10 NKJV, my underlining)  Does Christie get to trump God in deciding what is and what is not sin?

In Romans 1 we read the following:

"Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, . . .  For this reason God gave them up to vile passions.  For even their women exchanged the natural use for what is against nature.  Likewise also the men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust for one another, men with men committing what is shameful, and receiving in themselves the penalty of their error which was due." (Rom. 1:24, 26-27 NKJV)  Does Gov. Christie believe this passage teaches that homosexuality is not a sin?

Note from the passage just quoted that God gave these people up to uncleanness.  Now I ask you what was this uncleanness associated with?  Was it not with homosexual acts?  A homosexual act in God's eyes is uncleanness.  I do not mean to imply that homosexual acts would be the only kind of acts that fit into the category of uncleanness but certainly, they are included if this passage is to have any meaning.

Here are a couple of New Testament passages that associate uncleanness with sexual sin in addition to the one above.

Paul speaking, "Lest, when I come again, my God will humble me among you, and I shall mourn for many who have sinned before and have not repented of the uncleanness, fornication, and lewdness which they have practiced." (2 Cor. 12:21 NKJV)  The word is clearly used in the context of speech about sexual sin.

Paul speaking again in Gal. 5:19 says, "Now the works of the flesh are evident, which are: adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lewdness." (NKJV)  Here again, uncleanness is in a list of sexual sins and we already know that while homosexual acts are not the only acts of uncleanness they are nonetheless one type of such acts based on Rom. 1:24, 26-27.  Do Gov. Christie and the lawmakers in New Jersey as well as those in California think the unclean will inherit God's blessing?  But then do some of them even believe there is a God?  If they do, do they believe the Bible is the word of God?  If so do they believe he meant what he said or is he wishy-washy? 

But I want to mention one other thing in the news just this morning, Sept. 4, 2013, which I saw on Fox News.  It seems in the state of Oregon a lady by the name of Melissa Klein had a bakery and cake decorating business.  When a lesbian couple planning on marrying came in asking her to make a wedding cake for them she refused.  What happened?  It got in the news and on social media and she was besieged by demonstrators and protestors carrying signs in front of her store forcing her to close her business (she moved it into her home).

She refused to make the cake for the couple out of her Christian faith.  Did she do what was right according to scripture?  Hear Paul, "Do not lay hands on anyone hastily, nor share in other people's sins; keep yourself pure." (1 Tim. 5:22 NKJV, my underlining)  "And have no fellowship with the unfruitful works of darkness, but rather expose them." (Eph. 5:11 NKJV, my underlining)

Now hear John, "Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ (teaching of Christ-ESV), hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ (teaching-ESV), he hath both the Father and the Son.  If there come any unto you, and bring not this doctrine, receive him not into your house, neither bid him God speed:  For he that biddeth him God speed is partaker of his evil deeds." (2 John 1:9-11 KJV)  Would helping one commit sin be a thing God would look favorably on?

Solomon said, "The fear of the Lord is to hate evil." (Prov. 8:13 NKJV)  So I guess the lady was to hate evil by making the cake and profiting off it and by helping out those who were engaging in it?  Is that right?  She did what was right and separated herself from any association with the sins of others.  She did not help others sin by assisting them in doing it.

The main point I wanted to get at in this article is the fact that Christianity and the Bible and even God himself are under attack in America today.  I have never seen a time like this where it has been so pervasive all throughout society and throughout our government.  People simply no longer care what the Bible says.  They are no longer willing to accept it nor want anything to do with it.  They are writing their own bibles, that is to say they are guiding their lives by the rules they have set up for themselves irrespective of any religion.

They are like Gov. Christie who is supposed to be a Catholic but does not care what his church teaches or what the Bible says and will not allow parents of homosexual children to get professional help under threat of law for those who provide the help.  I truly believe Christians in America are headed for persecution both by the government (by law) and by a people, fellow Americans, who have rejected the word of God and decided like the children of Israel to go their own way without God.

(All underlining was done by me for emphasis.)

[If you would like to download or print out this article click here.]