Category Archives: Signs of the Times

The Fallacy of Social Justice: All for One and Theft to All

Posted on by
2

*This article was orginally published on October 6, 2010 by Forcing Change, a ministry of Carl Teichrib. Used by permission of the author. Visit the website at www.forcingchange.org

A boiling, seething emotion rose from my chest into my throat. An avalanche of angry words tumbled from my small mouth. My indignation could not be quenched. A final declaration sounded with thick certainty.

“When I’m older, I’m going to do something about this.”

How old was I? Ten: maybe younger? But I had seen enough to know. Gross injustices had been observed.

I well remember the bitter experience. Me, a sensible farm boy – and my grandparents, owners of a small fabric shop in a sleepy prairie town – had traveled to the claustrophobic city of Winnipeg. The purpose: to visit textile outlets and make purchases of cloth. After two days of warehouses and shop floors, I knew this was the end of the world. Working conditions were deplorable: Too little sunshine, poorly chosen paint colors, smelly old merchantmen.

“Here’s some candy, kid.” It tasted stale.

At one critical point Grandma had to shush me. Didn’t she know? Didn’t anybody care? The lone Pepsi machine we had passed in the darkened hall wore a sign of prophetic importance: “Out of Order.” And I was dying of thirst.

Yes, the textile industry – indeed the entire business world – was out of order. How could anybody work in these depressing places? Boredom alone had to be killing people; it was killing me!

As we loaded up with fabric and left this urban wasteland I caught a glimpse of something else. A brick-lined smokestack was silhouetted against the evening sky; and smoke – or steam, it didn’t matter– was belching forth to choke out nature’s life.

That’s when I lost it. Didn’t those people know what they were doing? Didn’t anybody in the government have a brain? Not only was the city a depressing place and the warehouses terrible for workers, but also the factories were going to kill everything! When I grew-up, I was going to put a stop to this madness. Others would join in this desire to change the world. We would save the worker from his intolerable slavery and rescue the environment from the hands of greedy merchantmen. Justice, or vengeance, would be served: whether at home or abroad.

Grandma soothingly patronized me. Grandpa, lips tights, said nothing. He just drove faster.

Bending Minds

Looking back I marvel. As a young mind I had a keen sense of “social rights” and “justice.” And I was a prime candidate to have swung to the more extreme side of the leftist camp. In fact, my impressionable mind was already moving in that direction. Unaware that I was mimicking a Marxist approach – social revolution through mass action – I was emotionally convinced that radical surgery was the only recourse. Where had this come from?

My parents and grandparents were no-nonsense farmers and business owners. They worked very hard at their respective livelihoods, were quick to help anyone who needed assistance, and contributed to the local community in different ways – including, on my Mother’s part, teaching English to Laotian immigrants (those were the days of the Boat People). Both my parents and grandparents emphasized Christian ethics and values, to stand up for the underdog, and remain independent in the face of peer pressure; “You were born an original, don’t die a copy.”

The church I attended had Mennonite roots, but didn’t cater to leftist ideologies. In fact, it had separated itself from a Mennonite denomination in part because of a growing socialist-slant in the larger body. At heart we were probably the only non-pacifist Mennonite church in the district.

Television? No. At that time TV consisted of Bugs Bunny on Saturday evenings, and Dad trying to watch The Lawrence Welk Show while we kids faithfully re-enacted Wile-E Coyote cliff-falls from the top of the couch. There just wasn’t much time for television.

Public school? This was the late 1970s, and “environmental” curriculum was already in play. In the high school across the street The Environmental Handbook was used as a text – complete with overtly anti-Christian, anti-family, and anti-capitalist rhetoric (See Forcing Change, Volume 3, Issue 2). The Environmental Handbook for all practical purposes was a Marxist/Trotskyite call to radical “green” action – “nothing short of total transformation will do much good.” (The Environmental Handbook, 1970, p.330). Other school texts, such as the Prose of Relevance and Worlds in the Making, shaped minds to accept quantum cultural shifts – including the move towards socialist and technocratic ideals.[4]

Elementary school and Junior High also witnessed a steady stream of transforming curriculum. I remember hearing about the growing problems of over-population and the destruction of the ecosystem caused by human greed and pollution. Injustice was occurring in different parts of the world. Nuclear annihilation was around the corner.

Whether overt or subtle, the message was clear: The old ways of how society functioned could no longer be tolerated. Too much was at stake, and it was up to my generation to fix the world’s problems. Whether the teachers knew it or not, we were being shaped to change the system. Thus, a variety of cultural and social alternatives entered the classroom – including Marxism.

The late 1960’s and early 70’s was a hinge time for Western society. The New Left, with its vanguard techniques, challenged traditional cultural norms. Radicalism clashed with conventionalism, the drug culture blossomed, and Eastern forms of spirituality entered the mainstream. In America the welfare or “servile state” was greatly expanded, including experiments in community housing. All of this was coupled with the Vietnam War, first demoralizing France and then the United States. During this time, “peace” groups parroted Soviet propaganda; Capitalism was equated with “war mongering” while socialism reflected equity and peace.

The liberal-mined West embraced this trend, even though Frederick C. Barghoorn, a Yale professor who had been interned by the Soviet government in 1963, had warned America about the use of “peace” as a method in furthering Marxist ideology. Published one year after his arrest and release, his book Soviet Foreign Propaganda provided an important warning,

“It should be emphasized that all of the Soviet leaders, from Lenin and Trotski through Stalin and Khrushchev, strove in their peace propaganda to appeal both to revolutionaries seeking the overthrow of constitutional democracy and to western businessmen, liberals, pacifists, and the general public whose non-dialectic conception of peace was limited to the simple absence of armed conflict.”[5]

Liberals and pacifists of Western nations were viewed as important players in the cause of international Marxism. Their importance came not from an understanding of the Moscow-Hegelian-Marxist program, but in their ignorance. Convinced of holding the moral high ground and blinded by a sense of enlightenment, these individuals advanced the Communist agenda by acting on the emotion of the ideal. In other words, they were emotionally drawn to a Marxist-oriented “social justice” cause; the “plight of the worker,” economic and social inequalities, the desire for class-based justice, and the “struggle for peace.” These individuals would then become activists, educators, and cultural trendsetters. And they demanded social transformation that would, invariably, have an anti-Capitalist and anti-individualist tone. The boys in Moscow grinned.

The only way of “assuring lasting peace in the world” from the Marxist perspective, explained Barghoon, is the “elimination of capitalism.” [6] Peace, solidarity, and justice throbbed with a Leninist heartbeat throughout this turbulent time period. Capitalism, with its emphasis on private property and a free enterprise, was considered the prime cause of social strife. Socialism, with its emphasis on community and social order, was the path to progress.

This leftist ideology was solidly embedded in Canadian education during the 1970s, and from that point on its fingerprints can be observed in practically all major institutional systems, including churches.

Retna Ghosh and Douglas Ray, in the preface to their 1987-book Social Change and Education in Canada, provide a short outline of social theories that have shaped modern education. This included Herbert Spencer’s Social Darwinism, the conflict theories of Karl Marx, modernization, and the concept of human capital with its emphasis on workforce development. Each impacted the Canadian school system, as has Technocracy and a host of other philosophies. And while the system may see distinctions in these theories, the classroom was far more blurred. Indeed, any of the above – or a mix of all – may have shaped the student’s worldview. But rarely did he or she understand the ideal behind the curriculum.

As Ghosh and Ray explain,

“Social change, whether gradual or revolutionary, is inevitable and brings with it new patterns of social interaction. The place of education in this process is both complex and critical.” (Social Change and Education in Canada, p.vii).

For a young mind in the late 70s bombarded by a host of conflicting educational patterns, the emotional tug attached to exploited social issues seemed the most relevant. No wonder my trip to Winnipeg ended with a Trotskyite call for revolution.

What has any of this to do with “social justice”? Everything.

Catholic Social Justice

In today’s Christian world – and Western culture in general – there’s a myriad of changes taking place, and with it comes new language. “Social Justice” is certainly in the spotlight. Jim Wallis of Sojourners uses this term repeatedly. Brain McLaren’s book Everything Must Change seeks to reframe Christianity in a social justice context. The Christian Reformed Church has a social justice office, as does the Salvation Army; and the Mennonite Church USA, the United Methodist Church, the United Church of Canada, and an endless list of other denominations and church bodies speak of “social justice.”

But where does this term come from, and what is its dominant history?

“Social justice” appears to have been first employed in the early 1840s by an Italian Catholic theologian and Jesuit, Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio.[7] As Daniel M. Bell points out in his book, Liberation Theology After the End of History, d’Azeglio’s concept was “justice as a general virtue that coordinated all activity with the common good.” [8]

The notion of virtue is important, for it brings a flavor of charity. Taparelli’s vision circled around justice as a system of moral norms that included individual rights and the freedom to associate.The greater whole of the community – the “sum total of individual goods” [9] – would thus benefit. This form of “justice” was also known as economic justice, and looked upon wealth redistribution as a coordination of rights. Direct government administration should be avoided wherever possible, for Taparelli recognized the danger of centralization.[10]

In 1891, Pope Leo XIII issued his encyclical, Rerum Novarum, which dealt with the conditions of the working class, the right to private property, and the workplace relationship. Leo XIII rejected Communism and the greed that arises from an amoral application of Capitalism, instead advocating that worker and employer should come to an honest agreement regarding labor and wages.

Decades later, Pope Pius XI penned his encyclical Quadragesimo Anno. In it he denounced Communism and at the same time embraced wealth redistribution – the sharing of benefits – as a function of a social justice (§ 57).

“By this law of social justice, one class is forbidden to exclude the other from sharing in the benefits.”

While this idea started to stretch the earlier limits of Catholic social justice, he at least recognized that all sides of the class divide could be negative players: the rich withholding the wages due the worker, and the worker demanding all from the rich. That aside, the free market system wasn’t an acceptable means to build a civilization on social justice.

“Just as the unity of human society cannot be founded on an opposition of classes, so also the right ordering of economic life cannot be left to a free competition of forces. For from this source, as from a poisoned spring, have originated and spread all the errors of individualist economic teaching… free competition, while justified and certainly useful provided it is kept within certain limits, clearly cannot direct economic life – a truth which the outcome of the application in practice of the tenets of this evil individualistic spirit has more than sufficiently demonstrated. Therefore, it is most necessary that economic life be again subjected to and governed by a true and effective directing principle.”(§ 88)

In reading through the encyclical an unsettling doublespeak emerges. Communism is chastised, yet the free market is evil. In this dialectic the end result is that “certain kinds of property…ought to be reserved to the State.” The “public authority,” according to Pius XI, should maintain ownership of enterprises that advance the “general welfare.” (§114-115). A slide down the slippery slope had now begun in earnest; “social justice” would become the excuse par-excellence in calling for a global collectivist system.

Speaking of Pius XI’s views on economic justice, Pope John XXIII pointed out that “man’s aim must be to achieve in social justice a national and international juridical order, with its network of public and private institutions, in which all economic activity can be conducted not merely for private gain but also in the interests of the common good.” [11] John XXIII advocated a “universal authority” to ensure this “common good.” [12]

Later in 1965, Pope Paul VI made similar comments while at the United Nations, openly suggesting “the establishment of a world authority.” [13] Why? Because a world authority is needed to establish and maintain an international “common good.” That same year, Paul VI’s document Gaudium et Spes – Pastoral Constitution on the Church in the Modern World – recognized that the Catholic church has an important role to play in constructing “a peaceful and fraternal community of nations.” (§ 90)

In that vein, he recommended in Section II, titled “Setting Up An International Community,” the creation of a Catholic organ designed to promote “international social justice.” (§ 90). Individualism was upheld in the document, but it must support the greater good. Collectivism in production was considered erroneous, yet a form of social collectivism was deemed necessary.

An excerpt from paragraph 65 demonstrates this social justice relationship,

“Citizens, on the other hand, should remember that it is their right and duty, which is also recognized by the civil authority, to contribute to the true progress of their own community according to their ability… those who hold back their unproductive resources or who deprive their community of the material or spiritual aid that it needs – save the right of migration – gravely endanger the common good.”

Here we see a swing far past the earlier idea of a charitable virtue. The implication is forthright; you will participate. In the context of this particular document, that participation includes the demands of a global community and world civil authority.

Although Pope John Paul II was perceived as more conservative, he too espoused a globally minded social justice agenda. This was evident in his endorsement of the UN Millennium Development Goals, which gravitate around wealth redistribution. [Note: The Millennium Development Goals have admirable targets, but the methods are highly suspect]. The US Catholic Bishops, operating under John Paul’s reign, were open regarding social justice in their 1986 letter, Economic Justice For All.

“The common good may sometimes demand that the right to own be limited by public involvement in the planning or ownership of certain sectors of the economy. Support of private ownership does not mean that anyone has the right to unlimited accumulation of wealth.” (§115)

Interestingly, Catholic commentators from all sides of the political spectrum described the Bishops’ document as “pro-capitalist.” However, a cursory read demonstrates that Economic Justice For All is pro-socialist. Yes, the responsibility of the individual is highlighted and private property is validated. However, it’s the Bishops’ version of justice that displays a different set of cards, with its call for collective, government-directed programs aimed at curing social ills. Individuals, therefore, are obligated to contribute to the common good, In other words, if you can contribute to the common good, then you must contribute. This is reminiscent of the Marxist maxim:

“From each according to his ability, to each according to his need.”

Writing for the Journal of Business Ethics, William E. Murnion gives a straightforward assessment of the Bishop’s text; “…the conception of justice it espouses is… clearly socialist, and communist at that.” Murnion conceded that the Bishops were not “crypto-communists,” just that their “conception of social justice is indeed identical with the communist principle of justice even though the bishops have arrived at it from a route entirely opposed to Marx’s.” [14]

Remember too that the 1980s was the era of Liberation Theology inLatin America, which combined revolutionary forms of Marxism with Catholic social teachings. And although theVaticandenounced certain aspects of Liberation Theology, this Roman Marxism was nevertheless a logical extension of “social justice.”

Finally, from the Catholic perspective, Pope Benedict XVI has amply demonstrated his affinity to social justice through his encyclical Caritas In Veritate (NOTE: Forcing Change published a major review of this document in Volume 3, Issue 8). Here, social justice is recognized as an issue of prime economic and political importance, one that goes beyond the free market approach.

And like a broken record, the market system must be directed “towards the pursuit of the common good.” (§36)

“The political community,” so explained Benedict XVI, “must also take responsibility.” Economic redistribution, according to this encyclical, is justice. The pope also recommended that the United Nations be reformed, along with the global economy, so that that a “true world political authority” would emerge “with teeth.” (§67) Why?

To “seek to establish the common good.” (§67).

Concluding this section: Although some Papal teachings uphold private property and reject Communism, such as Pope Leo XIII in Rerum Novarum, the Roman Catholic hierarchy over the past century has increasingly bridged “social justice” with economic and political collectivism.

But another historical movement arose in parallel to the modern Catholic version of social justice, giving active energy to the phrase. And if the Papal idea of social justice found itself on the slippery slope to Collectivism, this parallel movement intentionally aimed for the bottom of the hill.

Marxist Social Justice

For generations there has been an activist side to the idea of wealth redistribution. This popular front, with a web of splinter groups, organizations and fellow travelers, used “social justice” as the rallying cry for cultural transformation. In fact, this movement is very much alive today, and continues to use the term as an effective banner. These social justice flag wavers have been the most vocal preachers of Collectivism; the followers of Karl Marx, Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Castro, and dozens of other socialist and communist leaders.

Communists and social radicals have been, hands-down, the winners when it comes to employing this term. The Socialist International has always used it, as has Trotskyite organizations, Red factions, and a multitude of socialist political parties. It’s a favorite of the Green Party too, with little difference in meaning from that of its socialist sisters.

The idea of social justice within a more political context goes back a long way. In 1848 the Society of Fraternal Democrats, an international body that rubbed shoulders with Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, published a veiled threat against the British system;

“Let the privileged classes renounce their unjust usurpations and establish political equality and social justice, andEngland will have nothing to fear against a world in arms.” [15]

Marx and Engels fleshed out their “science of socialism” during the same time frame as Luigi Taparelli D’Azeglio’s “social justice.” And The Communist Manifesto was published the same year that the Society of Fraternal Democrats called for social justice. Under Communism, wealth redistribution was to be used for social ends. In this structure, private property for personal gain was viewed as the cornerstone of the class system, and was seen as the cause of social injustices and strife. Wealth redistribution, therefore, was aimed at producing a society where all people were economically equal. Hence, the abolition of bourgeois property (that of the capitalist class) was the key to Communism.

To make this work something else was needed: A framework to give the masses a political voice. Marx and Engels looked to democracy. Once the proletariat (working class) had attained political power, a more just social system could be birthed.

“…the first step in the revolution by the working class, is to raise the proletariat to the position of ruling class, to win the battle of democracy.

The proletariat will use its political supremacy to wrest, by degrees, all capital from the bourgeoisie, to centralize all instruments of production in the hands of the State, i.e., of the proletariat organized as the ruling class; and to increase the total of productive forces as rapidly as possible.

Of course, in the beginning, this cannot be effected except by means of despotic inroads on the rights of property…”[16]

This concept of social justice, the raising of an “oppressed” class through the degradation of another class, is a reactionary process based on the arousing of envy. At this base level Communism is directly linked to the French Revolution – an event that had sparked worldwide revolutionary fervor, and one whose shots are still echoing today. Austrian philosopher and defender of freedom, Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, provides historical context.

“If one were to take paper and pencil to make an estimate of how many people were murdered or killed in battle because of the ideas of the French Revolution in their various stages, guises, and evolutionary forms, because of the ideas of equality, ethnic or racist identity, a ‘classless society,’ a ‘world safe for democracy,’ a ‘racially pure people,’ ‘true social justice achieved by social engineering’ – one would arrive at simply staggering sums. Even the Jewish holocaust offered by the National Socialists with five or six million dead would seem almost a drop in the bucket.” [17]

Weaving the thread of envy and social change, Kuehnelt-Leddihn reminds us,

“In the last 200 years the exploitation of envy, its mobilization among the masses, coupled with the denigration of individuals, but more frequently of classes, races, nations or religious communities has been the very key to political success. The history of t he Western World since the end of the eighteenth century cannot be written without this fact constantly in mind. All leftist ‘isms’ harp on this theme, i.e., on the privilege of groups, minority groups, to be sure, who are objects of envy and at the same time subjects of intellectual-moral inferiorities. They have no right to their exalted positions. They ought to conform to the rest, become identical with ‘the people,’ renounce their privileges, conform. If they speak another language, they ought to drop it and talk the lingo of the majority. If they are wealthy their riches should be taxed away or confiscated.”[18] (italics in original).

This method of arousing envy, often disguised as virtue – “we’re doing this for the poor and oppressed” – is built upon a sense of moral superiority and indignation, which then ferments into loathing and “social action.” At this point the emotion of the ideal becomes the driver of transformation. Perched on this self-constructed high point, we quickly sanction Socialism (the theft of all for the “greater good”). Or, not content by the slowness of Socialism, we pursue Communism through revolution (the gutting of one class for the “greater good”). Either way we institute Collectivism – the empowerment of those who claim to guide the general good.

In all of this democracy comes to full form, taking on a purification role expressed as “Mob Rule.” Whoever controls the biggest mob through the emotion of the ideal is the one who rules.Social change then occurs either through the ballot box or the barrel of a gun. It doesn’t matter: the Mob has spoken, equality will be enforced, and we can bask in the “warm herd feeling of brotherhood.” [19]

Literary critic and former Marxist, Herbert Read, well understood these connections.

“Communism is an extreme form of democracy, and it is totalitarian: but equally the totalitarian state in the form of fascism is an extreme form of democracy. All forms of socialism, whether state socialism of the Russian kind, or national socialism of the German kind, or democratic socialism of the British kind, are professedly democratic, that is to say, they all obtain popular assent by the manipulation of mass psychology.” [20]

Over the years, Communist and socialist leaders have rallied the masses with the message of inequality (“oppression”) and the social justice solution: economic equality. “Communism was meant to have a universal liberating purpose. It was to bring the end of inequalities and establish real social justice.”[21]

In 1898, Eugene V. Debs – later dubbed “America’s greatest Marxist” – equated a collective society, industrial freedom, and social justice.[22] A few years later, during World War I, he noted that permanent peace based on social justice wouldn’t occur until “national industrial despotism” was replaced by “international industrial democracy.” Economic profit was anathema to peace, and the ending of war could only come with the ending of “profit and plunder among nations.”[23] A new order was needed where one class was striped and replaced by a more progressive, humane, and international apparatus.

V.I. Lenin and his gang “came to power with an ambitious programme of measures designed to ensure social justice and improve the lot of the poor.”[24] Maxim Gorky, a friend of Lenin’s couches this in glowing words of endearment.

“…It would be a difficult task to paint the portrait of Vladimir Ilyitch Lenin. His words were as much a part of his external appearance as scales are of fish. The simplicity and straightforwardness of everything he said were an essential part of his nature. The heroic deeds which he achieved are surrounded by no glittering halo. His was that heroism which Russia knows well – the unassuming, austere life of self-sacrifice of the true Russian revolutionary intellectual who, in his unshakable belief in the possibility of social justice on earth, renounces all the pleasures of life in order to toil for the happiness of mankind.”[25]

The result was disastrous. Mervyn Matthews tells us, “The efforts to banish ‘capitalist exploitation’ had all but destroyed the wealthier classes without benefiting more than a tiny proportion of the poor.”[26]

But it did benefit Lenin and company. Never mind the mountain of corpses; progress always comes with a price.

“Since the French Revolution established a new high mark of political liberty in the world, there has been no other advance in democratic progress and social justice comparable to the Russian Revolution…” (Socialist Party of America news release, August 1918).

By 1922, the Russian Revolution had cost the lives of six to ten million.

Decades later in theAmericas, Castro summed up the Cuban revolution “as an aspiration for social justice.” [27] Che Guevara couched his bloody revolution as an “armed struggle for freedom of rights and social justice.”[28] This crude theme is common to all leftist uprisings, because it rests in the heart of all leftist ideologies. The Will Miller Social Justice Lecture Series demonstrates this fact through the symbolism found on its banner: Marxism, world peace, social revolution, feminism, etc.

Celia Hart, an Internationalist, put it this way on December 2003.

“…we must understand that the only road to peace and social justice is socialism. Peaceful coexistence and all its fallacies have tragically lost their opportunity to triumph. With the exploiting classes there will never be social justice; without social justice there will never be peace… Let’s join the people under the banner of the International. Never before has the world needed, as now, to remember November seven [the anniversary of the October Revolution]. Never before must we understand that the banner of Bolshevism never died… And let us shout to our enemies, regardless of whether they call us terrorists, that we will not fight for the imperialist war, or for the miserable peace of injustices; we will fight together for the socialist revolution in permanent combat. Workers of the World, Unite!” [29]

It’s a radical call. Today we see social justice linked to a myriad of radical movements, including environmentalism. Nice sounding, morally-high terms arise from this Marxist-green marriage; “Eco-justice,” “green justice,” and “climate justice.” How does this look?

In 1990, the Manitoba government in partnership with UNESCO, convened the prestigious World Environment Energy and Economic Conference. The theme was provocative: “Sustainable Development Strategies and the New World Order.”

A report was released with the findings, titled Sustainable Development for a New World Agenda. Chapter 2, “Towards A Global Green Constitution,” fleshed out a section with the subtitle “Social Justice.” Population control, green energy regulations and accounting systems that suggested “an official global policy of one child per family,” and the “principle of global economic equality” would be central to the “green government,” the text reported. Human rights would also be at the forefront. Here’s how it would look; keep in mind that the following was deemed a positive state of affairs.

“Popular or not, green governments will oppose any culture if it proves to be prejudicial by reason of gender, age, colour, race, religion, belief, sexual orientation, mental or physical condition, marital status, family composition, source of income, political belief, nationality, language preference, or place of origin.”[30]

“Intolerable attitudes” wouldn’t be tolerated, all in the name of protecting the oppressed. Now, real oppression is evil. Nobody in his or her right mind wants oppression to occur or flourish. But social justice ala Collectivism is the most dangerous form of oppression imaginable. Moreover, the truly downtrodden – like the peasants of the old Soviet Union – rarely have their load lightened under social justice. Instead, with the destruction of the creative capital inherent in a free market, the plight of the poor continues. Life becomes more difficult.

No wonder F.A. Hayek called Marxist-based social justice a “pseudo-ethics.” One that “fails every test which a system of moral rules must satisfy in order to secure a peace and voluntary cooperation of free men.”[31]

Getting Our Terms Right

“My church has a social justice mandate… This is something I support.”

Sounds nice, but can you tell me what you mean? The usual response I get, thankfully, centers on feeding the poor, helping at a homeless shelter or safe house, assisting the elderly, working with troubled teens, or supporting an orphanage.

Sorry, that’s not social justice. The dominant social justice concept for the past 150 years has been centered on the sliding slope of Papal-advocated wealth redistribution, and a Marxist version of Collectivism. Feeding the poor and assisting the helpless, from a Christian perspective, isn’t social justice – its Biblical compassion, a generous act of love. Such acts of compassion engage individual lives, and are based on the Christian call of loving others more than self. This is the heart of compassion: An individual sees a need, and operating out of love, reaches to meet that need. Churches too are to function in a similar manner. A need is evident, and moved by compassion, the congregation works to solve the dilemma. Coercion never enters the picture, nor does a political agenda emerge, nor is a call for economic equality heard.

The Biblical parable of the Good Samaritan demonstrates true compassion (Luke 10). A Jewish man has been beaten, robbed, and left to die on the road. Various people pass him by, including the religiously pious. However, a Samaritan traveler sees the individual, and although the Samaritan is culturally alienated from the beaten man, he recognizes the desperation and individually takes action – dressing his wounds and providing a place of rest and refuge. And the Samaritan pays for it himself without demanding remuneration or compensation, either from the victim, his family or community, or from the government or ruling class.

However, if the Samaritan were a supporter of the dominant theme in social justice, he would have acted with a different motive for different ends. The Samaritan would have used the occasion to lobby for social transformation.

  1. The robbers were really victims of an unjust economic system, and had acted in response to the oppression of the ruling class.
  2. In order to bring justice to this oppressed class, and to steer them back to a caring community, equitable wealth redistribution should take place. The rich must be taxed to fund necessary social programs. A more equitable society is needed.
  3. Who will pay the victim’s medical bills? The community or the rich.
  4. This tragic event, the Samaritan would tell us, is a graphic reminder of the class struggle. We are all victims of an unjust economic order. Therefore, we must be the “voice of the voiceless” and advocate for radical social change.

In the social justice framework there is another agenda that lurks behind the tragic: A political/economic cause is piggybacked and leveraged – the cause of economic equality through wealth redistribution. This isn’t about truly helping the victim; it’s about using the victim.

Biblical justice, on the other hand, never seeks to dismantle class structures. Evil actions are condemned, but this isn’t specific to a particular social strata. Consider the words of Leviticus 19:15. “You shall do no injustice in judgment. You shall not be partial to the poor, nor honor the person of the mighty. But in righteousness you shall judge your neighbor.”

Dr. Mark W. Hendrickson helps put things into perspective.

“[Biblical] Justice not only means that nobody is to be picked on because he is poor or favored because he is rich, but that (contrary to the doctrine of ‘social justice’) nobody is to be picked on because he is rich or favored because he is poor.”[32]

Dr. Hendrickson further elaborates,

“The fundamental error of today’s ‘social justice’ practitioners is their hostility to economic inequality, per se. Social justice theory fails to distinguish between economic disparities that result from unjust deeds and those that are part of the natural order of things. All Christians oppose unjust deeds… [But] it isn’t necessarily unjust for some people to be richer than others.

God made us different from each other. We are unequal in aptitude, talent, skill, work ethic, priorities, etc. Inevitably, these differences result in some individuals producing and earning far more wealth than others. To the extent that those in the ‘social justice’ crowd obsess about eliminating economic inequality, they are at war with the nature of the Creator’s creation.

The Bible doesn’t condemn economic inequality. You can’t read Proverbs without seeing that some people are poor due to their own vices. There is nothing unjust about people reaping what they sow, whether wealth or poverty.

Jesus himself didn’t condemn economic inequality. Yes, he repeatedly warned about the snares of material wealth; he exploded the comfortable conventionality of the Pharisaical tendency to regard prosperity as a badge of honor and superiority; he commanded compassion toward the poor and suffering. But he also told his disciples, ‘ya have the poor always with you’ (Matthew 26:11), and in the parable of the talents (Matthew 25:24-30) he condemned the failure to productively use one’s God-given talents – whether many or few, exceptional or ordinary – by having a lord take money from the one who had the least and give it to him who had the most, thereby increasing economic inequality.

The Lord’s mission was to redeem us from sin, not to redistribute our property or impose an economic equality on us. In fact, Jesus explicitly declined to undermine property rights or preach economic equality when he told the man who wanted Jesus to tell his brother to share an inheritance with him, ‘Man, who made me a judge or divider over you’ (Luke 12:14).”[33]

I must confess that it’s easy to fall into the social justice way of thinking. My childhood rant over what I perceived to be injustices showed me, in retrospect, the power of an emotional ideal. Yet if by some twist I had followed up on my self-righteous outburst, and had become a social justice advocate in the true sense of the phrase, a sad irony would have occurred: In the name of “justice,” I would have promoted socially-sanctioned theft.

Dear Christians, let us act with compassion, be charitable, and pursue true justice; Let us be wise in our actions, clear in our language, and honest in our motives. FC

Carl Teichrib is editor of Forcing Change, a monthly online publication detailing the changes and challenges impacting the Western world.


To learn more about Forcing Change, including membership benefits, go to www.forcingchange.org

Forcing Change

P.O. Box31

Plumas,Manitoba,Canada

R0J-1P0

ENDNOTES:

1. Celia Hart, The Flag of Coyoacan, edited by Walter Lippmann in August 2004. Reprinted in Marxist.org.

2. William E. Murnion, “The Ideology of Social Justice in Economic Justice For All, “ Journal of Business Ethics, p.848, 1989.

3. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (Arlington House, 1974), p.17.

4. Prose of Relevance, Volume 1 & 2 (Methuen, 1971); Maryjane Dunstan and Patricia W. Garlan, Worlds in the Making: Probes for Students of the Future (Prentice-Hall, 1970).

5. Frederick C. Barghoorn, Soviet Foreign Propaganda (Princeton University Press, 1964), p.93-94.

6. Ibid. p.89.

7. Marvin L. Krier Mich, Catholic Social Teaching and Movement (Twenty-Third Publications, 1998), p.80-81. See also Daniel M. Bell, Liberation Theology: After the End of History (Routledge, 2001), p.104.

8. Daniel M. Bell, Liberation Theology After the End of History (Routledge, 2001), p.104.

9. Ibid. p.104.

10. Thomas Behr, “Luigi Taparelli and Social Justice: Rediscovering the Origins of a Hollowed Concept,” Social Justice in Context, Volume, 1.

11. Pope John XXIII, Mater et Magistra, paragraph 40.

12. Pope John XXIII, Pacem in Terris, see section 4, paragraphs 130 to 141.

13. Pope Paul VI, Talk at the United Nations, October 4, 1965; section 3.

14. William E. Murnion, “The Ideology of Social Justice in Economic Justice For All,” Journal of Business Ethics, see pages 847-857, 1989.

15. The Chartist Movement: The Fraternal Democrats to the Working Classes ofGreat BritainandIreland, January 10, 1848. As republished at Marxists.org.

16. Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, The Communist Manifesto (Penguin, 1967), p.104.

17. Erik von Kuehnelt-Leddihn, Leftism: From de Sade and Marx to Hitler and Marcuse (Arlington House, 1974), p.419.

18. Ibid., p.18.

19. Ibid., p.17.

20. As quoted in Leftism, p.174.

21. Robert Gellately, Lenin, Stalin, and Hitler: The Age of Social Catastrophe (Vintage, 2007), p.10.

22. Eugene V. Debs, “The American Movement,” published in Debs: His Life Writings and Speeches, and reprinted at Marxist.org.

23. E.V. Debs, “The Prospect for Peace,” American Socialist, 1916, reprinted at Marxist.org.

24. Mervyn Matthews, Poverty in the Soviet Union: The Life-styles of the Underprivileged in Recent Years (Cambridge University Press, 1986), p.7.

25. Maxim Gorky, “Days With Lenin,” Readings in Russian Civilization, Volume 3 (The University of Chicago Press, 1969), pp.517-518.

26. Matthews, Poverty in the Soviet Union, p.7-8.

27. Castro, “When the People Rule,” speech on January 21, 1959,Havana,Cuba.

28. Che Guevara, interview, April 18, 1959. Two Chinese journalists, K’ung Mai and Ping An conducted the interview “on the 108th evening after the victory of the revolution.”

29. Celia Hart, ibid.

30. Jim Bohlen, “Towards A Global Green Constitution,” Sustainable Development for a New World Agenda (Proceeding, October 17-20, 1990), p.11.

31. F. A. Hayek, Law, Legislation and Liberty: The Political order of a Free People (University of Chicago Press, 1979), p.135.

32. Mark W. Hendrickson, “The ‘Social Justice’ Fallacy? Wolves in Sheep’s Clothing,” April 7, 2010 (The Center for Vision & Values,Grove CityCollege).

33. Ibid.

Book Review of Gene Edward Veith, “Loving God With All Your Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World.”

Posted on by
3

This is a review, analysis, and critique of Gene Edward Veith’s book, Loving God With All Your Mind: Thinking as a Christian in the Postmodern World.[1] Veith has chosen to update his previous work to include new material related specifically to postmodernism.  The first edition release was 1987 and was not able to address the significant paradigm shifts from modernism to postmodernism that emerged shortly thereafter.  In the 2003 edition Veith tackles the ideas of relative truth and culturally created values within a postmodern view.

The author has divided his work into three parts.  Part one is devoted to laying a foundation for the Christian pursuit of education.  Veith makes the case that pursuing knowledge is foundational to Christianity.  The Christian faith according to Veith provides a basis for learning and encourages the “life of the mind,” a legitimate God-pleasing calling.  In part two the author discusses the prominent current secular framework of assumptions and characteristics that explain why secularism remains adrift and how Christians can contribute to discussions within all fields of knowledge.  Part three is devoted to laying out a Christian worldview that is seen to be intellectually superior to secular counterparts.

PART ONE

It has been well documented in the past three decades that secular institutions have abandoned any pretense to objectiveness in their educational goals,[2] opting instead to propagandize and develop a particular mindset in their consumers.[3] This disregard for traditional liberal classical education – not to be confused with liberalism today – has produced a negative response from most Christians as seen in the withdrawal from and criticism of secular educational institutions.  Most criticism is just and fairly accurate but the response of withdrawal while understandable to an extent is somewhat troubling.

Withdrawal in the current Christian context results in separation and disengagement.  Some see this as a right response.  I do not agree however, that the interests of faith and Christian cultural influence are best served by separation and disengagement.  The reasons are obvious but necessarily stated.  We are called to be salt and light in and to the world.  Salt is tasted and light is seen and neither quality is available to a secular culture when they are confined to a Christian subculture.

Veith states his own reasons for remaining engaged with secular culture and gives numerous examples of people who did from the Scriptures in support of his view.  Moses for example was educated in the wisdom of Egypt, Daniel and his three companions were trained in the ways of the Chaldeans, and the apostle Paul received the best available education of his time “at the feet of Gamaliel.”[4] The idea that Veith develops in the opening portion of his book is that, “by precept, by example, by its history, and by its very nature, the Bible opens up to us the whole world of truth.”[5] For the author this means that all fields of study that aid in an understanding of the Bible are worthy to be explored.  This would necessarily include literacy training as a foundational endeavor.  The development of literacy in Europe is most certainly traced back to Christians and their efforts to have the Scriptures available to all people for their personal reading, education, and edification.  This remains a large part of many missionary efforts including Wycliffe Bible Translator missionaries.  These literary efforts played an important role in the development of the printing press as demand grew for Bibles and other printed materials.

Linguistics education followed literacy training.  Because the original languages of the Bible are Hebrew and Greek it is important to know those languages to determine what God inspired.  That endeavor is aided by an understanding of the histories of those languages and of the nations in which they were utilized.  Veith develops a convincing dovetailed chain of events that include the disciplines already mentioned as well as geography, archaeology, and anthropology all arising out of the Christian belief that the Bible should be read and understood.

The most compelling evidence for a Christian educational endeavor is found in the existence of Western civilization and thought.  Veith makes it clear that in spite of the virulent attacks launched against Christianity by scientists, they must in the least acknowledge that only within a Christian worldview could science have arisen.  Without laboring the point here, one can look to other cultures that have remained undeveloped and seemingly locked in time for proof of this truth.  At issue are the assumptions that characterize their worldview.  For instance Christianity views nature as God’s creation and therefore worthy of investigation.  Nature is not to be feared or appeased as mankind has historically done.  Scientific disciplines can only develop within an atmosphere of intentional pursuit of knowledge and learning.  That is why Christian Europe developed and expanded to colonize the Western hemisphere.  The pursuit of knowledge and discovery was paramount, other issues notwithstanding.

Today, scientists who claim to pursue truth wherever it may be found have become in the West, prisoner to their limited worldview that values technique and technology above nature as creation.  Ironically while dismissing Christianity to the realm of personal individual choice they invest in nature divine qualities such as eternity and self-sufficiency.  For this writer a “bridge of contact” can be made at this point in the least.[6] By introducing ideas of transcendence into the universe Christians can engage secular people about their underlying premises for such thoughts and beliefs.  This leads inexorably to a decided advantage for the Christian over and against his or her secular counterpart.

PART TWO

Veith takes the secular mindset to task in part two.  Calling on Christians to understand that they are “freed from the credulities of secular humanism, the mind-deadening cynicism of postmodernism, and the stifling limitations of scientific materialism,”[7] he insists that the current secular attacks upon Christianity are grounded more in hyperbole than fact and reason.

This does not diminish the extent or ferocity of the secular assault upon Christianity.  A key issue for this writer is that the secular assault is often sublime.  This may appear to be contradictory to some as I have suggested that secularism is a ferocious adversary.  What this reveals is the intellectual mindset of those given to a secular worldview, including those who consider themselves Christians.

The pivotal point in understanding this seeming contradiction is seen in the approach taken to the authority of Scripture.  Christians fall into two general camps.  One perspective understands the authority of the Bible to inform and teach and accepts that authority as the rule for living.  Thus life is viewed through the prism of Scripture.  A second group consists of those who may have understood and accepted the Bible as a rule or authority but for various reasons no longer does.  This second group unwittingly it is hoped, has been duped into adopting a secular worldview.  This group has succumbed to the pervasiveness of a world without God.  What I mean by that is that God is never considered in light of any vocational discipline.  The net effect of this conspiracy of silence regarding Christianity is the accepted though not spoken belief that all of life can be explained without appeal to the supernatural.

Some might contest this explanation as untrue or perhaps unfair but analysis proves otherwise.  Theological liberals who are more attuned to secularists than traditional Christianity share a common experience.  At some point in their faith journey they have acquiesced to secular pressures for respect and acceptance.  The price they paid was the forfeiture of orthodoxy.  In spite of the constant drumbeat of the secular media against it, doctrine remains a central point of focus for understanding God and what He has spoken to His creation.  At the risk of oversimplifying the issue, God has spoken to us through the written word.  It is important that we understand what He has said and live life according to that understanding.  When Christians disengage from that foundation all forms of aberrant theologies follow.

A weakness of secularism and its attacks upon Christianity is revealed many times in the contradictory reasons people give for rejecting Christianity.  For example critics claim that God is indifferent to the suffering of mankind.  This criticism is certainly offset by a God who sent His own Son to be the suffering servant for mankind.  Secularists appear schizophrenic when they charge Christianity with neglecting the poor (Marxism) and helping the poor (followers of Ayn Rand) at the same time.

The most virulent attacks are reserved for the Church as an institution.  Few believers have not heard the litany of grievances against the Church that include the atrocities of the Crusades, the Inquisition, the numerous pogroms throughout the years, the political chicanery, as well as the belated support in some instances for human and racial rights.  Unfortunately these are all legitimate examples of Christians failing to live up to what they claim to believe.  This does not however, invalidate the Christian faith.  Sin is never consistent with Biblical faith no matter how sincerely practiced.  The Biblically inconsistent actions of some cannot hold Christianity hostage.  Those who shoot abortion doctors are not examples of what Christianity teaches.  Believers must affirm the criticisms they face as fair when appropriate but rejoin that the true example is found in Christ to which all believers are striving to emulate.

In this section Veith also moves from the modernist to the postmodernist challenge.  Modernism characterized by its dependence on and faith in scientific naturalism has been exposed much like the emperor in Andersen’s fabled children’s story.  Postmodernism takes a scorched earth approach to cultural engagement.  Any and every field of inquiry is fair game to the deconstructionist’s guillotine.  While Christianity has certainly not escaped postmodernism’s scathing critiques, it has fared far better than its secular counterparts.  For instance Christianity has always been forthright in its confession that faith operates by supposition.  Christians believe certain things based on certain other things that are taken for granted.  Of primary importance is the belief that God exists.  Science on the other hand had, until postmodernism captured the academic fortresses, believed it was without assumption.  The generally accepted albeit specious belief among academics was that science was conducted free of presuppositions.  Postmodernism brought an end to that unchallenged axiom.

This turn of events is fortunate for Christianity.  Previously most scientists were unwilling to discuss ideas, theories, or research that suggested alternatives to existing scientific dogma involving a beginning of the universe.  By challenging scientific naturalism postmodernism has opened the door for Christian scientists to discuss evidence of energy fields, the movements of galaxies, subatomic particles, and quantum physics within the context of a starting point for the universe.  Although still derided generally and adamantly by the so-called “new atheists,”[8] a theory of the universe that appears similar to the Christian creation origin story is being discussed.

One challenge to Christianity that postmodernism presents is seen predominantly in the area of knowledge, specifically related to epistemology.  Postmodernism agrees with existentialism by stating matter-of-factly that we cannot know anything with certainty.  Of course this statement itself is nonsensical because if it is true it is false as we would know at least that one thing and thus the statement becomes self-refuting.

The weight of the postmodern argument in the area of epistemology has been thrust against the notion of objective truth.  Truth to the postmodernist is not objective and cannot be discovered.  Instead truth is a construction of the individual based on personal likes, dislikes, cultural operators that influence an individual, and in the end is unknowable.[9] In support of their theories most postmodernists turn to the differences evident across cultures.  These differences according to postmodernism are the result of different cultural norms and values.  Postmodernists conclude that because there are differences across cultures there are different truths and because there are difference truths, truth must be relative.  Christians would agree with the initial observation but would disagree with the conclusion.

Christians would counter by saying that one way to account for the differences seen across cultures is to see cultures that exclude God as deliberate God-evading social constructions.  Truth cannot be apprehended nor denied by choosing to deliberately avoid it.  This is an effective method of restating the postmodern position in a way that turns it on itself.  The advantage for the Christian in pursuing this line of reasoning is that it leads quite naturally to an opportunity to introduce the Christian doctrine of original sin as the greatest underlying factor in the differences across cultures.  Again, cultures have responded to both internal and external factors differently over time.  Those cultures that have grasped and integrated a Christian concept of original sin and its attendant need to seek forgiveness from God as Creator are today seen as the most developed in almost all areas that can be measured.

PART THREE

Veith begins this final section of his book by emphasizing the need for Christians to maintain close fellowship with an established local body of believers.  Being an educator Veith speaks of what he has seen.  Academic peer pressure is a force few young and inexperienced academicians are prepared for.  The author quotes noted sociologist Peter Berger extensively.  Berger’s research has led him to conclude that moral libertarianism and political and social liberalism are required mindsets in order to gain acceptance and although unspoken certainly implied tenure.  Berger asserts:

The symbols of class culture are important.  They allow people to “sniff out” who belongs and who does not; they provide easily applied criteria of “soundness.”  Thus a young instructor applying for a job in an elite university is well advised to hide “unsound” views such as political allegiance to the right wing of the Republican party (perhaps even to the left wing), opposition to abortion or to other causes of the feminist movement, or a strong commitment to the virtues of the corporation.[10]

Within the broader scope of workplaces Christians can combat this type of secular influence and pressure to conform by remembering to serve the Lord who has called His servants into vocations of influence.  This will mean going the extra mile to discover fellow believers who are immersed in the same vocations.  Many times believers allow a sense of distance to develop within their spiritual lives because they believe they are alone and awash in secularism.  Wise is the believer who recalls the words of God to Elijah, “I have kept for myself seven thousand men who have not bowed the knee to Baal.”[11] God always provides for a viable remnant.

Veith transitions from the necessity for Christians to resist the pressure of assimilation to a comparison of the current secular climate and the Babylonian magicians and enchanters of Daniel’s time.  The author’s primary contention is that only a mind educated in and influenced by God can gain true knowledge from all sources in the fullest sense while simultaneously resisting the secular.  To support this view Veith presents the Hebrew youth’s accomplishments before Nebuchadnezzar compared with the accomplishments of the King’s own magicians and enchanters.  Daniel and his friends are described as being ten times better.[12] The reason this was so according to Veith is that the Hebrew youths were not seduced by the superstition and pagan religion surrounding the Babylonian worldview.

The point in this analogy is that modern secular man has returned to the ways of the Babylonians and their superstitious view of life and especially of nature as sacred.  The scientific naturalist’s claim that “the cosmos is all there is, all there was, and all there ever will be”[13] is a statement of eternality.  Ascribing divine characteristics to inanimate things is secular man’s way to create the sacred while maintaining control over it and conversely denying the truly sacred.

The same contempt for God is seen in secular man’s political structures (Marxism and fascism) where the state becomes god and consistent with a naturalistic worldview deny civil and human rights; promote censorship as patriotism, and political oppression as expedient for the greater good of all.  Postmodernism is likened to the Babylonian enchanters who were able to “spin a tale” that both entertained and misled their listeners and observers.  The misleading explanations of the current postmodernists have to do with their assertions that truth and meaning are constructions of the individual.  True freedom and humanness is best exemplified in free choices by all people.  For the postmodernist the only free choices made are those that are unconventional or cut against the grain of what is socially acceptable.  It is the duty of all free-thinking individuals to see oppression lurking just beneath the surface of all culturally constructed institutions.  This in turn produces the postmodern belief that societal institutions are nothing more than power structures designed to maintain the status quo by keeping the powerful in power and oppressing those who are not.  What must be obvious to even a casual observer is that the real victims in this philosophical “Wonderland” of imaginary adventures are the very people who can least afford it – those alienated from God and looking for an intellectually satisfying justification for their continued rebellion.

Against this intellectual and educational dead-end Christianity offers hope rooted in objective truth.  The Christian worldview offers a satisfying and consistent understanding of the universe because it is presented within a context of a God who loves it and created it with special purpose.   Randomness and chance evaporate into a sea of meaning.  The Christian view speaks of time and space having meaning.  Time is viewed as a linear characteristic of the universe, meaning that not only was there a beginning to all that currently is – space and time – but time is also moving toward a climax or ending.  The Christian worldview makes sense of the physical evidence even now being discovered and validated by scientists who are anything but Christian.

The Christian worldview also speaks of the rationality of the creation.  Because God is a rational being His creation has rational characteristics.  The Bible says that God created mankind in His image.  This means that people have inherent worth and value in God’s eyes in spite of the sin that dominates so many.  This is why Christianity upholds the sanctity of life and takes strong stands against policies and practices that seek to wantonly destroy human life.

CONCLUSION

Veith’s book is a valuable resource for Christians seeking to sharpen their understanding of the secular worldviews that currently hold sway in America.   More importantly it is a concise and cogent primer on how to respond to secularism consistently and authentically.  Despair accurately characterizes modern man but the Christian living in these times need not adopt the same despair relating to his or her effectiveness for the kingdom.  The answer to overcoming obstacles that appear insurmountable at times is to recall the words of our Lord Jesus.

Jesus commanded His followers to love God with heart, soul, mind, and strength.[14] The original admonition found in Deuteronomy 6 does not contain the injunction to “love God with all your mind.”  This is an important idea to grasp for the very simple reason that it is often most neglected by otherwise well-intentioned believers.  Christians strive to love God with their hearts (will, emotions), with their soul (in a saving faith relationship), with their strength (in their service activities), but what does it mean to love God with all your mind?

This writer is of the opinion that Jesus was offering His commentary on the Deuteronomy 6 passage.  There we read that Christians are to keep God’s Word on our hearts, teach them to our children, bring them up in conversations at home, at work, and in every place we find ourselves with an opportunity to speak of the goodness of God.  In short God is to be on our minds constantly.

The mind of the Christian has been freed to speak of the wonderful majesty of God.  The secular worldviews that have intentionally marginalized the Christian faith cannot answer the questions of secular man with any degree of satisfaction.  To the materialist who in despair cries out in loneliness the Christian can speak of the soul of man; to the hedonist who’s pursuit of pleasure has left him jaded and cold the Christian can speak of meaning and purpose in living beyond the chains of passion; to the existentialist enslaved to his nihilism the Christian can speak of reason; to the rationalist and his dependence on the intellect the Christian can speak of emotion; and to the postmodernist who cannot move beyond the quicksand of linguistic imaginations the Christian can speak of reality.  Jesus reminds us today that His peace is with us in every endeavor for as the Father sent Him so he sends us.[15]

[1]Gene Edward Veith Jr., Loving God With All Your Mind: Thinking as a Christian in a Postmodern World (Wheaton, IL: Crossway Books, 2003).

[2]Alan Bloom, The Closing of the American Mind: How Education has Failed Democracy and Impoverished the Souls of Today’s Student’s (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1987).

[3]Dinesh D’Souza, Illiberal Education: The Politics of Race and Sex on Campus (New York: The Free Press, 1991).

[4]Acts 22:3.  Unless otherwise stated all Scripture quotations are from The New American Standard Bible, The Lockman Foundation (Chicago, IL: Moody, 1995).

[5]Veith, 25.

[6]Francis Schaeffer used this term in his apologetic method to describe the point at which Christians can invade secular discussion.  People use morally-laden and value-pregnant phrases without correctly understanding the implications of their beliefs.  At that point Christians have the opportunity to inquire as to the personal premise for such statements.  This provides an advantage to the believer in most discussions as they are able to provide the biblical basis for such beliefs.

[7]Veith, 37.

[8]Dinesh D’Souza, What’s So Great About Christianity (Washington D.C.: Regenery Publishing, 2007).

[9]This postmodern view of truth is the intellectual basis for the unflinching and unashamed positions of pro-abortion, pro-homosexual, pro-euthanasia, and pro-drug usage as well as almost everything else many Christians stand opposed to on Scriptural grounds.  The postmodernist ethical insistence on individual choice as an unassailable right effectively negates any consideration of the substance or consequence of their choice.

[10]Peter Berger, “The Class Struggle in American Religion,” Christian Century, February 25, 1981, p. 198, in Veith, 99.

[11]1 Kings 19.18.

[12]Daniel 1:18-20.

[13]Attributed to the late Carl Sagan.

[14]Mark 12:28-30.

[15]John 20:21.

Review of: Grant R. Jeffrey, “The Global-Warming Deception: How a Secret Elite Plans to Bankrupt America and Steal Your Freedom” (Colorado Springs, CO: WaterBrook Press, 2011).

Posted on by
6

Far too many writers of books dealing with the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) attempt to mask their bias’ and personal presuppositions under the proclaimed guise of neutrality and objectivity.  Such a perspective is a fool’s errand and indicates that the writer in question is either naïve or deliberately deceptive.  Jeffrey is neither.

The author announces his bias and presuppositional basis immediately in the first paragraph of the introduction.  While this might discourage some readers and could potentially cause some to not read this book, I nevertheless applaud the author for his candidness and encourage readers who may not share Jeffrey’s bias’ to press on.

Jeffrey’s alerting his readers to the fact that he is writing from an evangelical Christian perspective is important for a number of reasons.  It is important in the first instance because the political debate surrounding AGW has been framed recently by advocates of all persuasions as being one with an underlying moral nature.  This naturally invites and encourages people of religious faith to participate in the process of debate.  Second, there has been a concerted effort by proponents of global legislation aimed at combating AGW to co-opt evangelical Christianity.  The desired implication being that THE evangelical Christian position on AGW is consistent, homogenous and supportive.  The fact is that among evangelical Christians there exist varied and heterogeneous viewpoints.  Third, in order to respond in a consistent and compassionate manner evangelical Christians must look beyond the sometimes heated rhetoric that occupies too much of the current AGW debate.

While it is necessary to understand the myriad rules, regulations, and legislation being proposed as a means to combat AGW the real questions for the evangelical Christian are (1) what are the consequences of adopting the proposed rules, regulations, and legislation on the poor?  This is the most reasonable and compassionate starting point for the evangelical Christian.  Advocating for AGW legislation without understanding what effects the implementation of said legislation will have on the poor globally is nothing short of shallow and superficial religious faith.  Can denying the poorest people of Africa the basic necessity of electricity for fear of raising the levels of CO2 really be called moral and compassionate from a Christian viewpoint?  It appears to be more than inconsistent with the Christian faith to deny the poor in other nations what is considered to be a basic necessity of life in America.  From this specific concern for the ramifications of AGW legislation Jeffrey asks a much broader question, namely, (2) what are the implications for all human beings if AGW legislation is passed?  It is the author’s contention that “those who lead the effort to combat AGW are not primarily motivated to reduce future global temperature increases.  Instead, they are bent on forcing the capitalist, free enterprise economies of the West to submit to a global socialist-Marxist government” (Introduction, p.5).

On this basis then, Jeffrey lays out his argument in twelve chapters. His theses appear to be three-fold.  One, AGW is a Trojan Horse of sorts, meant to undermine sovereign governments and to establish a global government in their place (chapter 1).  Two, that the vehicle to perpetrate the AGW hoax is the plethora of rules, regulations, and proposed legislation aimed at reducing carbon emissions.  These rules, regulations, and legislation are based on myths (chapter 2), propaganda (chapter 3), false claims (chapter 4), flawed data (chapter 5), outright lies (chapter 6), the recent “Climategate” revelations that demonstrated the ideology over fact perspective of AGW enthusiasts (chapter 7), the truth that modeling not empirical data is behind the AGW temperature change “proof” (chapter 8), the fact that international treaties are more about surrendering national and sovereign rights to international unelected bodies instead of establishing environmentally beneficial and economically feasible action plans (chapter 9), and that AGW enthusiasts are partnering with population control advocates to not only reduce carbon emissions but to also reduce the world’s population through abortion, sterilization, and birth control (chapter 10).  Jeffrey argues that AGW proponents have turned their activism into a religion that rivals even Christianity in terms of dedication to their “faith” (chapter 11).  The author concludes this book by explaining what must be done to escape the AGW exaggerations, deceptions, and manipulations of governments and people (chapter 12).

Together these chapters argue that there is more to the AGW legislation than the public is hearing and understands.  There is in fact a very cynical, sinister, and evil effort underway to turn the world into one global government under the control of “enlightened” elites.  Jeffrey suggests that this turn of events was foretold long ago in the Bible.  In this the author sees biblical prophecy being fulfilled.  He therefore bookends his evaluation of the AGW movement within the context of the Daniel and Revelation passages describing a one world government that will rise in the days immediately preceding the return of Jesus Christ to earth.  While this identification of a clear biblical parallel is important the author does not get sidetracked into a deep investigation of the Christian Scriptures, relying instead on a concise and cogent analysis of what drives the AGW agenda and the implications of its propositions.  This makes the book an enjoyable read for people of any religious faith or none. Let’s turn now to a brief chapter by chapter review.

Chapter 1

Deception and manipulation have proven over time to be the devices of choice for those intent on bending mankind to their desires when democratic processes fail.  The author believes that unless AGW advocates and their manipulators are stopped free citizens of the world and especially those in the West “will lose their standard of living and the economic, political, and religious freedoms they value” (p.13).

Governments, scientists, and their mouthpiece, the media, have all conspired to present a false picture of the earth’s environmental state.  The tool of choice presently is CO2 emissions.  The utilization of fossil fuels is responsible for global warming and therefore the solution is to dramatically curtail their usage according to the AGW script.

In an attempt to construct a legitimate basis for reducing carbon emissions the Obama administration and many Senators of both parties recently introduced the American Power Act.  This was a blatant attempt on the part of the US government to create obedience to upcoming AGW legislation through subversion.

It is a historical fact that AGW was an invention of the Club of Rome.  This group saw in the promotion of a global environmental crisis the one vehicle for herding all of mankind together under an umbrella of control.  Their own internal documents tell the story:

“In searching for a common enemy against whom we can unite, we came up with the idea that pollution, the threat of global warming, water shortages, famine and the like, would fit the bill.  In their totality and their interactions these phenomena do constitute a common threat which must be confronted by everyone together . . . All these dangers are caused by human intervention in natural processes, and it is only through changed attitudes and behavior that they can be overcome.  The real enemy then is humanity itself” (p.10).

Chapter 2

The author points out that the only scientifically verifiable variance in global temperature since 1900 indicates a 1 degree F rise.  Is a 1 degree rise in temperature reason for panic?  Jeffrey dedicates parts of nine pages to exploring temperature changes and concludes rightly that the earth has experienced temperature change normally and cyclically.

Why then are governments and organizations expending such energy and resources to create alarm over cyclical temperature change?  The answer is not to save mankind from a coming environmental apocalypse as advocates of AGW suggest but is instead a naked attack on the freedom of mankind around the world.  If allowed to continue unchallenged AGW elitists will “take control of the political, economic, financial, and military institutions of every nation on earth” (p.29).

Myths and obfuscation have and are being used to paint the “green” movement as rational, compassionate, and worthy of the best efforts of humanity to join in the cause of saving the planet.  The truth is that the “green” movement is really “Red” or socialist at its core.  President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus wrote in his book “Blue Planet, Green Shackles,” that “Green is the new red,” meaning that the AGW movement has been hi-jacked by socialist-Communists displaced when the Soviet Empire imploded.

Jeffrey’s cites H.L. Mencken who explained why otherwise rational and intelligent citizens are willing to be lead into political, economic, and social bondage: “civilization, in fact, grows more and more maudlin and hysterical; especially under democracy it tends to degenerate into a mere combat of crazes; the whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by an endless series of hobgoblins, most of them imaginary” (p.32).

Chapter 3

Propaganda is the art of selling something, be it an idea or product that appears beneficial while simultaneously hiding the negative consequences inherent within the idea or product.  Propaganda relies for its success on slight of hand and gradual acceptance by an unsuspecting populace.  The AGW movement has masterfully applied these principles and is seeing much fruit for its labor.

Jeffrey argues here that AGW legislation is promoted as beneficial to all humanity.  That façade is enough to enlist countless uninformed people to the cause.  While everyone is focused on the right hand that holds the baton and leads the choreographed orchestra of now familiar “green” choruses, the left hand is busy developing iron-fisted mandates that pave the way for socialism, enrichment of international financial leaders and private bankers, and the intentional degradation of the economies of industrialized nations most especially in the West.

Chapter 4

This is one of the better chapters in the book.  Advocates of AGW demand social, economic, and individual lifestyle changes on the basis of perceived harmful climate change.  The truth is that in the past 150 years there has been a 1 degree F increase in the earth’s temperature.  This is easily accounted for as a cyclical change.

Research shows that climate disaster alarmists have attempted to create hysteria many times in the past.  For example in 1895 the New York Times newspaper trumpeted the coming of a new ice age.  In 1912 the London Times announced that this same ice age would soon cripple the civilized world.  After the new ice age failed to materialize the media fell silent.  That changed on the inaugural Earth Day in 1970 when environmental alarmist Kenneth Watt sang the same tired song of an impending ice age because of human mismanagement of the environment:

If present trends continue, the world will be about 4 degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but 11 degrees colder in 2000.  This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age (p. 66).

At about the same time Professor Paul Ehrlich said with a straight face, “In ten years all important animal life in the sea will be extinct.  Large areas of coastline will have to be evacuated because of the stench of dead fish (p. 66).  This same man of great vision and understanding also opined in 1970 that, “Five years is all we have left if we are going to preserve any kind of quality in the world” (p. 66).  Perhaps Ehrlich was attempting to repair his damaged reputation, for in 1968 he had assured the world that if the global population was not slowed dramatically the available food supply would dwindle until people would starve to death in global famines.  Not to be outdone Time magazine announced with foreboding the coming ice age and Newsweek jumped on the global-cooling bandwagon with headlines of its own.

The problem for AGW advocates that cannot be overcome is they have no real scientific data on which to base their claims of a coming environmental disaster.  The United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) offered chilling statistics indicating that immediate action needed to be taken to avert the impending crisis.  Investigation has revealed that the IPCC scenario is based on computer modeling and not climate research.  In other words scientists created computer models based on the data they input not on actual empirical climate data.  Accountants go to jail for “cooking the books” but thus far AGW scientists in the IPCC have avoided the same well deserved jail time.

Chapter 5

In 1989 the previously mentioned United Nations IPCC was born.  Its charter was to create a theory that could be proven related to AGW.  Specifically the scientists were looking for data to prove that (1) an increase in global temperature that threatened life on earth is occurring; (2) that this increase in temperature is not mere cyclical variation; and, (3) that the environment, animals and humans are being threatened.  The IPCC settled upon carbon dioxide as the reason for AGW and targeted Western industrialized nations as the major contributors to its creation.

The evidence AGW advocates use is varied but is condensed every few years into a United Nations IPCC report that utilizes projections from 23 computer models.  In order to advance their green agenda the IPCC must ignore the empirical data that suggests zero warming has occurred.  In spite of the continued insistence among environmentalists that the “science of AGW is settled,” data continues to arise that clearly indicates the opposite.

The truth is that the IPCC is not conducting scientific research but is instead a propaganda mouthpiece of statists, leftists and globalists who have elevated care for the earth above every other consideration including tragically human life.  Dr. Vincent Gray echoes the growing fact-based resistance to the AGW alarmists: “The claims of the IPCC are dangerous unscientific nonsense” (p. 83).  Dr. John Brignall is even more scathing in his evaluation of the United Nations IPCC and AGW alarmists:

Here was a purely political body posing as a scientific institution.  Through the power of patronage it rapidly attracted acolytes.  Peer review soon rapidly evolved from the old style refereeing to a much more sinister imposition of The Censorship . . . New circles of like-minded propagandists formed, acting as judge and jury for each other.  Above all, they acted in concert to keep out alien and hostile opinion.  “Peer review” developed into a mantra that was picked up by political activists who clearly had no idea of the procedures of science or its learned societies.  It became an imprimatur of political acceptability, whose absence was equivalent to placement on the proscribed list (p. 83).

It is not just those opposed to the AGW agenda that are challenging the green orthodoxy.  Scientists involved in the analysis of computer modeling data are blowing the whistle on the IPCC as well.  Dr. Phillip Lloyd, an IPCC AGW report contributor revealed “I have found examples of a Summary saying precisely the opposite of what the scientists said” (p. 84).

Christopher Landsea of the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration was both an author and reviewer of the IPCC reports to the United Nations in 1995 and 2001.  He resigned from the most recent IPCC report committee after accusing the United Nations and the IPCC of playing politics with hurricane science stating that, “I am withdrawing because I have come to view the part of the IPCC to which my expertise is relevant as having become politicized . . . I personally cannot in good faith continue to contribute to a process that I view as both being motivated by pre-conceived agendas and being scientifically unsound” (p. 85).

Chapter 6

The reader of the literature on AGW will be very familiar with Al Gore’s pronouncements.  That he has become the punch line of every standup comic and late night talk show host in America is enough commentary.  I leave it to readers of Jeffrey’s book to be reminded of Gore’s many outright lies, exaggerations, and gaffes.

Chapter 7

In this chapter Jeffrey analyzes the fallout from Climategate, the November 2009 revelation that scientists working at the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglica in the United Kingdom deliberately distorted the truth of AGW and intentionally did not include climate data that would refute their pro-AGW ideology.  The most prominent example of this intentional deception is the now infamous “Hockey Stick” graph created by then University of Virginia professor Michael Mann.  Mann claimed that his graph proved that continual use of fossil fuel by humans was producing an environmental crisis.  One of the many things that Climategate exposed was Mann’s deliberate manipulation of his graph’s outcome by the exclusion of pertinent data from both the Medieval Warming Period and the Little Ice Age.  Scientists who peer reviewed Mann’s calculations and conclusions determined that Mann “had manipulated the data in order to support a predetermined conclusion” (p. 107).

The deliberate obfuscation of the truth by AGW advocates is a fact of public record thanks to the individual(s) who published thousands of internal documents including damaging emails.  Take for example this email from CRU scientist Phil Jones to Michael Mann in which Jones was giving advice on how to not reveal their treachery:  “If they (investigators and scientists not supportive of AGW) ever hear there is a Freedom of Information Act now in the UK, I think I’ll delete the file rather than send to anyone . . . We also have a data protection act, which I will hide behind . . . Tom Wigley . . . has retired officially from UEA so he can hide behind that” (pp. 111-12).

Jeffrey addresses three critical areas of concern as a result.  (1) The deliberate hiding of data; (2) Altering historical temperature data; (3) Silencing critics of AGW.  Clearly, the so-called consensus on AGW is a deliberate and manufactured illusion meant to siphon off financial resources from the West as well as erode jobs, raise taxes, and curtail economic growth.  Of course this is seen as a positive development among AGW proponents as they believe that would necessarily curtail the growth of the earth’s enemy – carbon dioxide.

Chapter 8

Jeffrey argues here that instead of using computer modeling that is clearly self-serving and easily manipulated (Climategate, Phil Jones, and Michael Mann), real climate and temperature data that is available should be used.

The author discusses the relationship between solar activity and the earth’s temperature, the human contribution of CO2 and the actual temperature data concluding that climate change is a natural occurrence and that the minimal increased levels of carbon dioxide is not harmful as AGW alarmists maintain but is instead good for the environment and especially agricultural products.

Chapter 9

The author details in this chapter the disastrous effects of implementing climate treaties such as the Kyoto Protocol and the Copenhagen Accord.  This is a must read chapter for those interested in keeping American jobs in America as well as keeping trillions of dollars here instead of sending them to Third World countries to prop up despots and dictators.  AGW advocates Amory Lovins and Paul Ehrlich see poverty as a means of protecting the planet and insist that Third World nations not be given the necessary energy to lift them out of poverty.  The real goal of AGW advocates is exposed in this chapter as a transfer of wealth that would render a majority of Americans impoverished.

In spite of Climategate and the now recognized fabrication of data and manipulation of people (chapter 7) and scientific/empirical data that demonstrates AGW is nothing but hot air (pun intended), the United Nations and many governments around the world are marching forward to the Pied Piper of AGW alarmists thinking that the world is still blind to their charade.

Climate summits such as Kyoto in 1997 and the largely entertaining spectacle of diplomats flying into Copenhagen in 2009 (burning millions of gallons of fossil fuels in the process) for the Climate Change Accord demonstrate the obtuseness or worse the evil intentions of world leaders who continue to press for global serfdom for the world’s people.

While some may scoff at that analysis Jeffrey rightly points out that the end game of all international climate-control agreements is “to legitimize and legalize a future global government (p. 138).  In a moment of candidness the president of the European Council, Herman Van Rompuy, said that the Copenhagen summit was specifically “Another step towards the global management of our planet” (p. 138).

Chapter 10

Researching the AGW reveals that in addition to fabricating information and data to support their ideology, the AGW movement has integrated various misanthropist organizations.  It is difficult for rational, emotionally balanced individuals to understand the self-loathing and human species-hating that characterizes population control advocates.  What started out as a radical idea (Margaret Sanger and her eugenics theology of only the fittest are worth preserving) has morphed into a main stream (among the AGW crowd) group-think.  Consider for example the following “rational” statements from human species-hating human beings:

Dave Foreman, co-founder of Earth First (perhaps the most radical human hating organization): My three main goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full compliment of species, returning throughout the world.”

Sir James Lovelock: The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil . . . Humans on the Earth behave in some ways like a pathogenic micro-organism, or like the cells of a tumor.

Prince Philip (husband of Queen Elizabeth II):  If I were reincarnated I would wish to be returned to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.

John Davis: I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong.  It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.  (All quotes pp. 150-151).

Clearly the goals of AGW advocates include far more than the cleaner air and purer water our school children are being taught.

Chapter 11

The worship of Gaia or Mother Earth is a well documented fact and is on the rise.  Many once Christian churches having rejected historical biblical faith have embraced eco-religion. They are joining with earth worshippers and pagans of all stripes forming what adherents believe to be a sustainable moral basis for loving the earth while simultaneously hating human beings.

Author Michael Barone fleshes out the theology of the green eco-religionists:

The secular religion of global warming has all the elements of a religious faith: original sin (we are polluting the planet), ritual (separate your waste for recycling), redemption (renounce economic growth), and the sale of indulgences (carbon offsets).  We are told that we must have faith (all argument must end, as Al Gore likes to say) and must persecute heretics (global warming skeptics are like Holocaust deniers, we are told).  [p.159]

Of course all religions seek converts and the AGW crowd suffers no shortage of evangelists.  While Al Gore might be the most prominent in the minds of many people, the most persuasive and successful AGW evangelists are undoubtedly the hundreds of thousands of elementary, high school, and college teachers and professors in America who preach the green gospel and teach its theology to unsuspecting students.

One of the most dangerous aspects of the AGW religion is the venom spewed toward unbelievers.  Consider the comments of one of the key climatologists employed by the Weather Channel.  Dr. Heidi Cullen suggested that anyone questioning global warming should lose their meteorological license.  Dave Roberts thinks that: “When we’ve finally gotten serious about global warming, when the impacts are really hitting us and we’re in a full world wide scramble to minimize the damage, we should have war-crimes trials for these [expletive deleted] – some sort of climate Nuremburg” (p. 166).

Brandishing the same Nazi-theme for Green Theology infidels CBS’s 60 Minutes commentator Scott Pulley “suggested that global warming skeptics were equivalent to people who deny that the Nazis killed 6 million Jews during World War II” (p. 166).

Jeffrey then proceeds to describe three dire consequences of allowing eco-fundamentalism to continue.  He lists (1) the threat to governments and economies; (2) its hostility to capitalism and free market economies; (3) the abandonment of Judeo-Christian principles that built Western civilization.

Chapter 12

Despite previous pronouncements that the science is settled in relation to global warming, institutions such as the Royal Society in the UK now admit that “any public perception that science is somehow fully settled is wholly incorrect – there is always room for new observations, theories, measurements” (p. 180).

The once claimed unanimous consensus by the United Nations IPCC of 2500 climate scientists is quickly unraveling.  One member of the alleged 2500, Professor Mike Hulme said recently that the 2500 number was really “only a few dozen experts” and that “claims such as 2500 of the worlds’ leading scientists have reached a consensus that human activities are having a significant influence on the climate are disingenuous” (p. 182).

The tearing down of the curtain to expose the fraud and lies of the AGW has not stopped their propaganda machines from continuing to churn out lies.  The new weapon of choice is concern for the so-called biodiversity of species throughout the earth because of human population growth and the alleged loss of the natural habitat of the earth species.  The vehicle to promote the latest deception is a new international organization formed in 2010 and initially named The Intergovernmental Platform on Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services (IPBES).  It is being modeled after the disgraced United Nations IPCC.  Americans especially need to wake up.  Jeffrey states the problem concisely from a civic perspective first:

The eco-fundamentalists, radical environmentalists, AGW movement leaders, and now the biodiversity camp care nothing for rights and freedoms that are guaranteed in the US Constitution.  Unfortunately, the vast majority of citizens are unaware of the global-warming deception and the hidden political agenda to radically transform our economy and our way of life (p.184).

And then from an evangelical Christian perspective:

As we awaken to the grim results of this struggle – the lies and deception, the confusion, the guilt and fear-mongering – Christians need to be reminded that we are not alone. We have access to God’s truth and His Holy Spirit to give us spiritual discernment.  While the AGW movement continues to resort to manufactured environmental “crises” to gain political support, the Bible reassures us that the earth’s climate is under God’s benevolent control (p. 186).

Being citizens of the United States carries with it the responsibility to be civically engaged.  We must hold our elected representatives responsible to vote their constituents’ conscience not their own.  It is imperative that we be energized and well-read on the subject of AGW.  In this way only will we correct error and educate our families and friends to the true agenda behind AGW alarmism.  For Christians it is most imperative that we pray.  We must pray for our nation and for our leaders that God will grant wisdom and will guide the activities of such that lead to freedom and liberty from the dangers of the AGW agenda.

* I received this book free for review from Waterbrook Multnomah Publishing Group.

Wake Up Christian!

Posted on by
7

The book of Isaiah is known for a lot of different things.  I was reminded recently that nearly 1/3 of Isaiah’s prophecy has to do with God’s warning to His people not to trust in other nations for their security.  Again and again, through the various “oracles” or woes upon the nations Isaiah reminds his listeners that they must place their trust in God alone or perish.

God issues a warning to his people at the very outset:

Isaiah 1:2

“Listen oh heavens and hear oh earth; for the Lord speaks, Sons I have reared and brought up, but they have revolted against me.”

In what ways have God’s people revolted against Him?  God’s people have revolted against Him in the sense that they look for security in things or people rather than in God alone.  Today, God’s people are busy being religious but not godly, spiritual but not filled with the Holy Spirit.

Those of you that have spent any amount of time “culture” and/or “church” watching understand that seismic shifts in perspective and practice are underway.  Some within the Christian community have embraced these changes as a means to reach the culture. 

Unfortunately, what is being sacrificed in order to reach the culture is the only thing that can save them – the gospel of Jesus Christ.

The so-called culture wars that America is in the throes of currently, are nothing more than a conflict between Protestant Evangelical Christianity that remains rooted in the authority of the Bible, and a government that has taken it upon itself to create and subsequently mandate morals based on humanistic and thus atheistic concepts that elevate mankind and relegate faithful expressions of Christianity to the realm of personal and subjective expressions not welcomed in the public square.

This is an interesting development to me.  All information is welcomed to join the cacophony except that information that calls individuals and nations to accountability before a holy and righteous God.  I am left to surmise that a message of peace and hope interrupts and brings too much order to the confusion.

Back to this point though – we live in a time that is aptly characterized as the age of information.  We have information at our finger tips 24/7/365.

What escapes the understanding of most people and unfortunately large numbers of Christians is that this constant barrage of information is not “value-neutral.”

What do I mean by that?  I mean to say that all information conveys a viewpoint, a perspective, an opinion, and often, some truth.  We cannot escape the fact that communication is a vehicle for these things.  Postmodernists of course insist that truth is socially or individually constructed, and is not objective in any sense and therefore is not suited as a foundation for the construction of a metanarrative.  This of course is a very underhanded way of pushing Christian theism to the sidelines.  More about that later.

My point is this brothers and sisters – we live in an information age where the exchange of information, i.e. communication, is dispensed much like groceries.  Grocery stores are still called markets in some places and I like this picture when it comes to information.  Americans live in a culture that is controlled through a “market place of ideas” that functions in part to filter and disseminate information.

And much like our grocery shopping habits, we must pay attention to the labels and nutritional value information as it relates to the content of what we choose to believe.

In fact I believe that our apathy toward the nutritional contents label of the ideas, philosophies, and politics Christians in America have unwittingly absorbed, is in large measure responsible for the sad state of the Protestant Evangelical Christian church today.  I make this distinction (Protestant, Evangelical) because most of the so-called church falling outside of these descriptors is already apostate.

It was Neil Postman, who in 1985 first brought to my attention the sometimes symbiotic relationship between media and culture in his book Amusing Ourselves to Death:

“. . . it is, I believe, a wise and particularly relevant supposition that the media of communication available to a culture are a dominant influence on the formation of the culture’s intellectual and social preocuupations” (p.9).

My plea today is therefore two-fold.  One, I call on all Bible-believing Christians, the remnant found within confessing, professing, Protestant Evangelicalism, to return to our first love – the Lord Jesus Christ.

Secondly, I call on these same Christians to once again take up the mantle of sound biblical scholarship.  We have wasted so much spiritual capital formulating fuzzy, anemic, egalitarian, ecumenistic “Christianity-light,” so that today, the teaching of sound biblical doctrine and faithful Christian living according to the Scriptures is seen as radical, narrow-minded, unloving, and according to the main stream media, “fundamentalism.”  That’s not a compliment by the way.

We must continue to insist that ideas have consequences, and not all ideas are equal as evidenced by the myriad consequences manifested.  Douglas Groothuis makes this point clear in his article entitled “Tolerance, Pluralism, and the Christian,” where he says:

“. . . while we should be egalitarians when it comes to people we must be elitists when it comes to ideas – and not the reverse.  All ideas – whether religious or ethical or whatever – are not equally true.  Americans have freedom of religion but this hardly renders all religion right or reasonable.  The Branch Davidians were neither.  It is nothing less than intellectual suicide to presume that the perennially profound issues of life – concerning the existence and nature of God, the nature of humanity, spiritual salvation, etc. – have no right and wrong answers, like a multiple choice test with no answer key.  Christians know otherwise because we are the humble recipients of God’s answers revealed through Christ and in the Holy Scriptures (online article at www.ivpress.com/groothuis/doug/archives/000107.php).

The path forward is surely to remain obedient to the Scriptures and the leading of the Holy Spirit.  I submit to you that we must also engage our brothers and sisters in the faith and especially those we attempt to reach in our cities with the gospel of Jesus Christ, within the “market place of ideas.”

This is then, an appeal for the Church to embrace the field of apologetics as one vehicle for engaging unbelievers and even the downtrodden within our own ranks.  Let me be clear.  I am suggesting that apologetics is one plank of the evangelistic effort that must be renewed and that must become a focus of our ministries.

Evangelism is about sharing the life-changing message of God’s salvation freely offered through faith in the finished work of Jesus Christ.  The apologetic task is often a necessary step in clearing the “minefield” of objections that an unbeliever might raise, in order that they may have a clear view of the cross of Christ where sin’s penalty was paid. 

Apologetics rightly understood is the discourse Christians enter into, that thoughtfully and rationally provide answers for the concerns of unbelievers.

We are losing the culture wars precisely because pastors and laypersons alike, have not understood this responsibility and are not teaching and leading others in doing it.

We need do nothing more than pick up the daily newspaper, turn on the television, or radio, or log onto the internet to see the truthfulness of this statement.  Becoming conversant within the secular market place of ideas is no longer optional brothers and sisters.  It is a necessity.

Let me illustrate my thesis by presenting to you some examples of a culture that has lost its way.

I want to show how disconnected and ill-informed we have become to the ways of the enemy and the path that America has taken that has resulted in the outrageous decisions we witness from our courts and Congress, not to mention the current and past presidential administrations.

Author George Weigel, in an April 2008 article in First Things journal entitled The Sixties Again and Again, describes 6 crucial incidents that helped shape American culture into what it is today.  One of the incidents Weigel cites caught my eye because it illustrates my point in this teaching.

Weigel describes it thusly:

“In 1961, the executive director of the Planned Parenthood League of Connecticut, Estelle Griswold, opened a birth-control clinic in New Haven in collaboration with Dr. C. Lee Buxton, a professor at the Yale School of Medicine. Their purpose was to test the constitutionality of Connecticut’s 1879 law banning the sale of contraceptives, a law that had never been enforced and which the U.S. Supreme Court had recently declined to review.

What appears to have been a carefully crafted strategy then unfolded: The state authorities acted; Griswold and Buxton were charged, tried, convicted, and fined $100 each; and the lower court decision was upheld by the relevant Connecticut appellate courts (including the splendidly named “Connecticut Supreme Court of Errors”).

 Griswold and Buxton then appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, which accepted the Case and, in the 1965 decision, Griswold v. Connecticut, struck down both the convictions and the Connecticut statute on the ground that the law violated what Justice William O. Douglas’ majority opinion called “the right to marital privacy.” Justice Douglas conceded that the Constitution did not mention a “right to privacy,” marital or otherwise, but famously opined that such a right was to be discerned in “penumbras (an indistinct, unclear, uncertain area –definition mine) formed by emanations” from the Constitution’s enumerated rights.

 In dissent, Justice Potter Stewart described the Connecticut law he believed constitutional as “uncommonly silly”—which, in retrospect, was a phrase he could have used to describe Griswold v. Connecticut, adding “pernicious” to “silly.” For in terms of our legal culture, Griswold was the Pearl Harbor of the American culture war, the fierce debate over the moral and cultural foundations of our democracy that has shaped our politics for two generations.”

That last statement is what originally caught my attention.  As I read the rest of Weigel’s argument I became convinced that he was absolutely correct in his conclusions and that this same understanding would explain every other tool of the liberals, both secular and religious, as well as their allies in the media and especially in our government.

Here in Weigel, we find a clear example of the importance of Christians working within the market place of ideas.  In the best Paul Harvey impression I can muster, “Here is the rest of the story.”

“As Edward Whelan has already put it, who knew that contraception could have such generative power? Griswold begat Eisenstadt v. Baird, the 1972 decision in which the court extended the protections of the “right of privacy” to nonmarried couples.

Then Eisenstadt begat Roe v. Wade, in which the “right to privacy” was cited to strike down state abortion laws from sea to shining sea, in what Justice Byron White described as an exercise in “raw judicial power.”

Roe, in turn, begat Casey v. Planned Parenthood, which positioned the “right to abortion” as a Fourteenth Amendment liberty right. Roe and Casey then begat the 2003 Supreme Court decision in Lawrence v. Texas, which struck down a state antisodomy statute, with Justice Anthony Kennedy making an explicit reference to Griswold’s “right to privacy” as “the most pertinent beginning point” for the line of reasoning that led the Court to Lawrence.

And if Eisenstadt, Roe, Casey, and Lawrence were the direct descendants of Griswold, it is not difficult to see how Goodridge v. Department of Public Health, the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision mandating so-called “gay marriage,” was a collateral descendant of Justice Douglas’ discovery of a constitutional “right to privacy.”

This judicial artifact of the Sixties has had tremendous impact on our political culture. Just as the oral contraceptive pill facilitated the sexual revolution technologically, Griswold facilitated it constitutionally. Governmental indifference to contraception was soon construed to imply governmental indifference to abortion, via the misconstrual of abortion as a matter of sexual privacy rather than as a matter of public justice; and the “right to abortion” soon became a defining issue in our politics.”

The ‘right to abortion,’ with its theme of sexual liberation,” as Hadley Arkes puts it, “has become the central peg on which the interests of the Democratic party have been arranged,” just as, “since the days of Ronald Reagan, the Republican party has become… the pro-life party in our politics.”

Careful observers will note here a profound inversion. If abortion and related life issues are in fact the great civil-rights issues of our time— in that they test whether the state may arbitrarily deny the protection of the law to certain members of the human community—then Griswold eventually led to a situation in which the Democratic and Republican positions on civil rights flipped, with members of today’s Democratic party playing the role that its Southern intransigents played during the glory days of the American civil-rights movement. (I’m not sure what is the greatest travesty here – the Democrats being painted today as champions of the civil rights movement of the 1960’s which they clearly were not; they were largely KKK members who did all they could to suppress civil rights; or, the inversion of good becoming evil and evil becoming good;  how else can you explain abortion being defined as a civil right that is good, wholesome, and healthy for a society?)

The Supreme Court was not the only actor in these momentous changes, of course. The invention of the oral contraceptive pill must rank with the splitting of the atom and the unraveling of the DNA double helix as one of the three scientific achievements of the twentieth century with world-historical impact. The sexual revolution was also influenced by trends in philosophy, particularly existentialism’s emphasis on authenticity. The inability of many modern moral philosophers to get beyond Hume’s fact-value distinction in order to think their way through to a contemporary form of natural-law moral reasoning (which would in turn have helped discipline the public debate on abortion) also played its role. The supine surrender of most religious authorities to the sexual revolution removed one cultural obstacle to the sexual revolution’s triumphant progress, which was in turn supported by developments (or, perhaps better, deteriorations) in popular culture.

Still, in measuring the impact of the Sixties on the politics of 2008, the legal consequences of Griswold must be underscored. Here the Supreme Court began to set in legal concrete the notion that sexual morals and patterns of family life are matters of private choice or taste, not matters of public concern in which the state has a legitimate interest. That this trend should have eventually led to claims that marriage is whatever any configuration of adults-sharing-body-parts declares it to be ought not have been a surprise.

Nor should it have been a surprise that the Court, having successfully claimed for itself the authority to write a “living Constitution” based on penumbras and emanations, should assume the roles of National Metaphysician and National Nanny (as it did in Casey, with its famous “mystery of life” passage and its hectoring injunction to a fractious populace to fall into line behind the Court’s abortion jurisprudence). The royal road to the imperial judiciary may not have begun with Griswold, but Griswold certainly accelerated the pace of the coronation procession.”

 When the law becomes something other than it was intended to be, morality becomes something other than what God has stated.

Some results in America’s shifting morality were captured in a World Net Daily article entitled “What Were 2009’s Worst Attacks on Christianity?” dated January 4, 2010 in which author Drew Zahn lists what were in his opinion the top 10 acts of religious bigotry and discrimination aimed at Christians. http://www.wnd.com/index.php/index.php?pageId=120976

President Obama has a decidedly anti-Christian bent as demonstrated in his continued appointments of individuals hostile to Christianity.  See for example these articles on President Obama’s recess appointment of Chai Feldblum who defends gay sex as morally good and as a newly appointed member of the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been very transparent in her anti-Christian position.  Consider for example this statement Feldblum made related to gay acceptance: “This is a war that needs to be fought, and it’s not a war overseas where we are killing people in the name of liberating them (typical liberal socialist anti-American slant – comments mine). It is a war right here at home where we need to convince people that morality demands full equality for gay people.” See http://www.wnd.com/index.php?pageId=112003 and http://www.cnsnews.com/news/print/59965 Feldblum is also the principle author of ENDA, the oxymoronic law banning discrimination that discriminates.  See http://www.ccv.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/909Courier.pdf

You need to understand that when Feldblum and others like our President talk of convincing people they don’t mean through rational dialogue but by the force of law.  There is no intention on the part of Mr. Obama and his crowd to try to convince Americans of anything.  His strategy is to force his agenda down our throats hoping that (1) we’ll not understand what he is doing until it is too late; (2) bury new laws so deep that they won’t be discovered until many years down the road and by that time entrenched;and/or  (3) play on the very real attention deficit disorder and general apathy Americans demonstrate.

I’ve shared all of this with you to underscore the need to become more outspoken about our faith and its foundational place in American cultural life.  This is the apologetic task in a nutshell.

Brothers and sisters, I do not take on this subject lightly.  Nevertheless I am reminded of the words of Edmund Burke who said, “All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men to do nothing.”

Far better still are the words of our Lord Jesus Christ.  “This is the judgment, that the Light has come into the world, and men loved the darkness rather than the Light, for their deeds were evil.  For everyone who does evil hates the Light, and does not come to the Light for fear that his deeds will be exposed.  But he who practices the truth comes to the Light, so that his deeds may be manifested as having been wrought in God” (John 3:19-21).

May God have mercy on us and ever lead us in the Light.

Finger of God or More Word-Faith Deception?

Posted on by
47

Finger of God or More Word-Faith Deception?

Brothers and sisters in Christ:

This post is one that may rankle a few feathers.  That is not my goal.  I mention it first because I know that the subject of Word-Faith theology is hotly debated today.  That Word-Faith theology is defended is in my view a sad commentary on the Church of Jesus Christ.  Clearly a large segment of the Church has lost its ability to discern between the doctrines of God and the doctrines of demons.

That brief critique serves to alert the reader that precious little Word-Faith theology is biblical.  This is to be expected however, when the foundation of a belief system is laid upon something other than Jesus Christ, Son of God, Sovereign Lord, the God-man.  Nevertheless, it is the responsibility of theologians and Bible teachers to take on the hard subjects and tread the paths where fearless people hesitate to go.

Hardly an introduction that inspires readers to continue, and yet, if you will engage what I have to say here I believe you will be the better off for it.  The occasion of this writing is a response to a dear brother who asked me to watch and then critique ten YouTube videos all entitled “Finger of God.”  At first I was hopeful that what I was about to watch would be encouraging and inspirational due to their Scriptural content and accurate reflection of our Wonderful God.  That hope was short-lived.  What I found instead was over one hundred minutes of video footage that purported among other things that God was miraculously giving people gold teeth, filling people’s Bibles with manna from heaven, sending angels to appear in group pictures of soldiers in Iraq, dropping gem stones out of thin air into people’s hands, and perhaps most interesting, miraculously healing people.  Three prominent examples of such healings being: (1) a Mozambique man named Francis who was beaten to death by four men and then brought back to life because his church family, who had gathered together to pray, refused to press charges against the men who had earlier beaten Francis to death.  Roland Baker states that Francis was raised from the dead because the church forgave the murderers; (2) a Bulgarian gypsy receiving a brand new kidney through the laying on of hands and prayer; (3) and a Muslim woman who was blind in one eye receiving sight through the laying on of hands and prayer.

At issue here brothers and sisters is not the sincerity of those believers involved in these activities, nor is it the power or ability of God to do any of the things claimed as His activities in the video footage.  At issue here is whether or not the activities prominently displayed and credited as movements of God are in fact authentic, whether or not these claims can be verified, whether or not there is a solid biblical basis for defining these activities as from God, and lastly the complete body of teachings and doctrines espoused by those involved in promoting these activities as movements of God.

Let me dispel the most obvious objection to an article like this before I begin.  There will be some who claim that Christians have no business “judging” other Christians.  Those who object to the activities put forth as movements of God in the “Finger of God” videos are challenged with a rejoinder that typically follows some pattern of “God will judge those who teach falsehoods, so believers should never challenge other believers.”  This is nothing more than a repackaged “Touch not God’s anointed” threat that the Word-Faith teachers have attempted to use for years to diffuse criticism of their teachings and activities.  Thus the response to those who believe that “God will sort it all out” is to remind them that God has already told us to sort it out.  For example, we read these words of our Lord Jesus Christ:

And Jesus answered and said to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will mislead many” (Matthew 24:4-5 NAS).

“Then if anyone says to you, ‘Behold, here is the Christ,’ or ‘There He is,’ do not believe him. For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will show great signs and wonders, so as to mislead, if possible, even the elect. Behold, I have told you in advance. So if they say to you, ‘Behold, He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out, or, ‘Behold, He is in the inner rooms,’ do not believe them” (Matthew 24:23-26 NAS).

Some additional Scriptural directives to discern the doctrines of God from the doctrines of demons:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world (1 John 4:1 NAS).

I wrote you in my letter not to associate with immoral people; I did not at all mean with the immoral people of this world, or with the covetous and swindlers, or with idolaters, for then you would have to go out of the world.  But actually, I wrote to you not to associate with any so-called brother if he is an immoral person, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or a swindler–not even to eat with such a one.  For what have I to do with judging outsiders? Do you not judge those who are within the church?  But those who are outside, God judges. REMOVE THE WICKED MAN FROM AMONG YOURSELVES (1 Corinthians 5:9-13 NAS).

Let two or three prophets speak, and let the others pass judgment (1 Corinthians   14:29 NAS).

I solemnly charge you in the presence of God and of Christ Jesus, who is to judge the living and the dead, and by His appearing and His kingdom: preach the word; be ready in season and out of season; reprove, rebuke, exhort, with great patience and instruction. For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths (2 Timothy 4:1-4 NAS).

But perhaps the most applicable passage outside of the admonitions of our Lord Jesus Christ to the current crop of New Order of Latter Rain/New Apostolic Reformation/Third Wave apostles and prophets is:

If a prophet or a dreamer of dreams arises among you and gives you a sign or a wonder, and the sign or the wonder comes true, concerning which he spoke to you, saying, ‘Let us go after other gods (whom you have not known) and let us serve them,’ you shall not listen to the words of that prophet or that dreamer of dreams; for the LORD your God is testing you to find out if you love the LORD your God with all your heart and with all your soul. “You shall follow the LORD your God and fear Him; and you shall keep His commandments, listen to His voice, serve Him, and cling to Him (Deuteronomy 13:1-4 NAS).

I don’t want to get into a lot of commentary on the passages above (although I personally like doing it) as it does not serve the purpose at hand here.  I believe these passages clearly teach that believers are to exercise discernment and not accept everything that comes along simply because it is purported to be of God.  Remember that Jesus Christ said there would come a time when all sorts of false Christs would be raised.  When Christ spoke of false Christs arising He was not limiting His prophecy to people who would claim to be a messiah but instead meant the whole spirit of the age when false teachers and self-proclaimed prophets would try and convince others that salvation could be found in all sorts of ways that they coincidentally promoted, and that God could be seen in the signs and wonders that they performed, thus verifying their claims to be His servants.  I believe we’re living in those days now.

What struck me first and foremost about the “Finger of God” videos was not the miraculous healings that were claimed to have occurred, but instead was the major figures behind the activities.  People like Bill Johnson of Bethel Church in Redding, California, Roland and Heidi Baker, John and Carol Arnott of the Toronto Airport Vineyard, and Georgian Banov.  What might not be apparent to those unfamiliar with these people is that every one of them is connected with the so-called Apostolic Reformation, Third Wave, New Order of Latter Rain, and other spurious and outright heretical groups of radical experientialists, mystics, and self-promoting apostles, and prophets.

These groups all espouse some form of the Latter Rain heresies.  This movement originated in North Battleford, Saskatchewan, Canada, among Pentecostal charismatics in 1948.  The name “Latter Rain” was adopted based on interpretations of several Old Testament passages that adherents believed described God’s outpouring of His Spirit in the last days that was meant to restore the power of the Church through official offices that transcended denominational lines.  According to the Latter Rain/New Apostolic Reformation teachers, these offices had been lost to the Church.  

From those alleged outpourings arose many traveling evangelists, faith healers, and Bible teachers.  The work of these individuals collectively came to be referred to as the Latter Rain Revival that lasted from 1948 through 1952.  Men associated with this movement/revival from its inception and very early days include William Branham, Oral Roberts, Franklin Hall, T.L. Osborn, and Paul Cain. 

Reception of the Latter Rain Revivalists was limited and within two years the Assemblies of God officially denounced the movement/revival and its abhorrent teachings and doctrines.  Nevertheless many of those teachings and doctrines rejected as heresy have resurfaced and been received in many modern churches.  Among the most prevalent are: (1) The supposed restoration of the fivefold ministry of Ephesians 4; (2) Positive Confession (name-it, claim-it); (3) The impartation of spiritual gifts through the laying on of hands; (4) The seed-faith doctrines; (5) Kingdom Now eschatology; and (6) The Manifest Sons of God teachings.  These teachings and doctrines continue to be advanced today by such men as Bill Hamon, Kenneth Copeland, Fred Price, Creflo Dollar, Rod Parsley, Benny Hinn, C. Peter Wagner, Rick Joyner, Kim Clement, Todd Bentley, and the aforementioned John and Carol Arnott, Georgian Banov, Roland and Heidi Baker, and Bill Johnson.

Bill Johnson was featured prominently in the “Finger of God” videos.  He pastors a church in Redding, California that operates a “school of ministry” that teaches its students to perform miracles of healing and then sends them out into the surrounding communities to practice their “gifts.”  You would be hard-pressed to find anything wrong with the zeal his school of ministry students demonstrate for going out into the surrounding cities to heal people.  One must wonder though at the basis for their zeal.  Is it with or without knowledge?  Are they proclaiming Jesus as Lord who calls us to suffer for His name sake or are they proclaiming a Jesus who says all Christians can enjoy health and wealth as a birth-right?  Thus, at issue for this writer is the nature of what students are taught as the foundation for their ministry.

Some may misunderstand or miss the distinction here.  That may be attributable to a misunderstanding of the entire Word-Faith theology.  Throughout the Finger of God videos a subtle theme was presented.  That theme was that God calls us to love and not judge.  God calls us to heal and not declare the need for repentance and confession.  God calls us to offer the Good News of His love for people apart from a call to these same people to transformed lives through faith in the Son of God.  In other words, just love people and cast aside discernment; just love people and let God do whatever he will do; just love people and don’t concern yourself about making disciples.  Obviously this directly contradicts the testimony of the Scriptures, especially the Great Commission of Matthew 28 where we are explicitly instructed to make disciples, teaching them all that Jesus said.

This is glaringly evident in the aforementioned scene where a Muslim woman allegedly received her sight when Heidi Baker laid hands on her and prayed.  The local Christian pastor wanted to share the Good News of Jesus Christ with this Muslim in order for her to understand the basis of her healing and he was told “just love her.”  Interestingly, as Baker left after praying for this woman, the video records the woman extolling her Muslim faith and the Koran. 

Equally troubling in these ten video segments are the totally unsubstantiated claims of gold dust, manna, and gem stones appearing out of thin air.  The Bible commends those who hold to the truth found in the Scriptures yet the Finger of God videos all commend those who promote and believe experiential signs and wonders.  In their promotion of experiences over the Word, these Word-Faith teachers place themselves in direct contradiction to the Bible. 

For instance, God ceased giving manna on the day after the Israelites ate of the fields in Canaan (Joshua 5:12).  The instructions the Israelites received was to put some of the manna in a jar to keep as a reminder of God’s provision for them (Exodus 16:32-35).  Jesus said manna would not be eaten again until His millennial reign commenced (Revelation 2:17).  This passage is interesting in that Jesus describes the manna as hidden until that day.

Concerning the alleged gold dust and gold teeth, this is a hoax of the grandest proportions.[1]  Beyond this, it can be proven that the sudden and unexplained appearance of gold dust is a demonic manifestation prevalent within pagan religions and is a prominent feature of Satanism.  JMS explains:

Within Wicca and Shamanism sects are many splinter groups that embrace something called “fairy magic” . There is Fae Wicca, Fae Shamanism, The Third Road, Celtic Shamanism, etc. each of these sects practice something called “fae magic”, “faery magic” “faerie traditions” etc. This “magic” is often thought of as “white witchcraft” which is allegedly “good” witchcraft. Faeries (also known as sidhe, pixies, elves, sheoques, brownies, pookas, goblins, etc) are actually demonic spirits and I don’t care how “cute” some of them are reported to be, this type of ideology only serves to enhance the satanic deception of being involved with them. (note there are even churches that worship faeries, though not many in number)

The idea of gold apparitions (gold teeth?) or gold dust also known as faerie dust, pixie dust, stardust, and the gift of fae within the occult, is allegedly representative of the highest “spiritual” attainment and is associated with the presence of faery spirits.[2]

This direct connection between Word-Faith practices and the occult/demonic is documented exhaustively in scholarly works too many to list.  Yet, thousands of otherwise seemingly intelligent believers continue to regurgitate ungodly and demonstrably false teachings mouthed by people who should have been judged as false teachers and excommunicated from the confessing Church of Jesus Christ.  Again, that they have not is not a testament to the truthfulness of their error but is instead an indictment against the Church at large.

Consider these false teachings that Johnson, the Arnott’s, and others in the Finger of God videos subscribe to:

“Poverty is from the devil and that God wants all Christians prosperous” (Benny Hinn, TBN 11/6/90).

The similarities between the Word-Faith heretics and the New Age teachings concerning money are not a coincidence.  They both drink from the same stream of paganism:

“Above all, as you rid yourself of old, stale feelings of guilt and obligation, you will understand that indeed, YOU DESERVE WEALTH, and you will feel greatly empowered to change your life so that you are now able to let this wealth into your life” (www.rebirthing.co.nz/money.html).

“The whole point is I’m trying to get you to see- to get out of this malaise of thinking that Jesus and the disciples were poor and then relating that to you- thinking that you, as a child of God, have to follow Jesus. The Bible says that He has left us an example that we should follow His steps. That’s why I drive a Rolls Royce. I’m following Jesus steps” (Fredrick K.C. Price, “Ever Increasing Faith” program on TBN, December 9,1990).

“If you keep talking death, that is what your going to have. If you keep talking sickness and disease that is what your going to have, because you are going to create the reality of them with your own mouth. That’s a divine law” (Fred Price, Realm 29).

“What you are saying is exactly what your getting now. If you are living in poverty and lack and want, change what you are saying….The powerful force of the spiritual world that creates the circumstances around us is controlled by the words of the mouth” (Kenneth Copeland: The Laws of Prosperity, Kenneth Copeland Publications).

The Word-Faith teaching of positive confession or as it is commonly known, “name it, claim it,” demonstrates roots in the mind science cults and Christian Science particularly as well as Satanism:

“A Word, as defined by this Initiate, is a conceptualization of those trends, actions, and forces set in motion which have taken Magicians to a certain point in time ……..” (The Power of a Word by James Lewis; Magus of the Temple of Set [a satanic coven]).

“Here is something to ponder; adepts who practice the right way to live also practice the right way to think. They have learned to work hand in hand with the force. They have learned to adjust their thinking accordingly. Being chips off the old block, they realize they are creators, some to more extent than others. Of course this all comes with practice” (Satan’s Bible by Daemon Egan; The Book of Leved; The Seven Scrolls; [the ‘force’ mentioned is Satan]).

“Why settle for what someone else has created, when instead you can create your own realms to absolute perfection? Afterall, you are the God, the creator and master of all you survey in your very own heaven”(Satan’s Bible by Daemon Egan; The Sermons of Lucifer).

“Positive thoughts concerning yourself and others will produce positive results, and negative thoughts will result in just the opposite.”(Satan’s Bible by Daemon Egan; The Book of Leved; The Seven Scrolls; Scroll 3)

The Word-Faith doctrine of “name it, claim it,” is the same thing as the New Age method of “name it and claim it.”  Both are methods of “manifesting.” This demonic doctrine is promoted as a way for believers to get what they have become convinced they need and/or have a right to but is nothing more than satanic imagining and visualization.  Consider the historical trail of the development of the name it, claim it heresy:

This teaching was given by a “spirit” [devil] named ‘Omni” through (channeling) a man named John Payne. Payne is quoted as saying “manifesting is the art of creating what you want at the time you want it” [author’s parenthesis].

“Manifesting is an eclectic hodgepodge of creating your own reality, visualization techniques, positive thinking, goal setting, self-analysis, selective thinking and post hoc reasoning, supported by tons of anecdotes. The purpose of manifesting is to get what you want by actively making your dreams come true, rather than passively waiting for someone to fulfill your dreams. Anne Marie Evers recommends “affirmation” [positive confession – author’s emphasis] as the best way to manifest one’s desires.” (Info taken from the ‘Skeptics Dictionary’ by Todd Carroll, on Manifesting).

Actually all “manifesting really is, is an acceptable and perhaps palatable version of spell crafting, and invocations; in other words, it is a nice acceptable rendering of practicing nothing more than witchcraft. The devil is simply making his evil look pretty by covering it up, disguising it and giving it a nice respectable name.

The point of citing the above (and there is much more on this subject) is to simply show the reader, if you are using little formulas, gimmicks, or tricks to obtain what you desire, if you are using doctrines outside of God’s will and His Word, if you have some little “ritual” or pattern or technique you are using…then you are engaging in witchcraft, even if it is unknowingly. The doctrine of “YOU can have what YOU say” is a doctrine void of the biblical principals of seeking God for His will on an individual basis.You may note from the above, YOUR will is the only one that matters in getting what you want, God is not sought nor considered. It is my opinion (within some christian circles) the Bible has been used as a type of “magick book” to get what one may want.. Even more, this seriously depletes the sovereignty of Almighty God, reducing Him to that of a spirit that has to do our bidding, very much like the occult. You can have what YOU say; according to witchcraft you can, for example within New Age and Wiccan philosophy:”saying mantra’s (a form of witchcraft and magic) is a wonderful way to raise your light levels. Mantra’s are holy words or expressions which when thought, spoken aloud or chanted (recited) draw great light to us and build a spiritual force.”(Taken from Mantra’s and Meditations; elevated therapy; author unknown) This doctrine may be likened to word of faith philosophy on “faith being a force”.

Yes, YOU can have what YOU say according to witchcraft and its components.[3]

The most troubling aspect of the latest signs and wonders movement represented in the Finger of God videos is the underlying doctrinal beliefs of Bill Johnson and others concerning the Lord Jesus Christ.  Johnson has declared in his book “Heaven Invades Earth” that, “Jesus laid aside his divinity . . . the anointing Jesus received at his baptism was the equipment necessary to make it possible for Jesus to live beyond human limitations” (page 79). 

Johnson’s doctrine of the “kenosis” is a heresy shared by all Word-Faith teachers who teach that Jesus laid aside His divinity at the incarnation, received the Holy Spirit at His baptism, lost this anointing when he died on the cross and was subsequently “born again” in hell.  Aside from the obvious blasphemy this teaching represents, Bible believing Christians must understand that anyone who denies the essential attributes of Jesus Christ – His divinity in this instance – and then has the audacity to teach that Jesus was a man that needed to be born again just like the created man, is not a Christian.  It doesn’t matter how many spectacular signs and wonders appear to accompany a ministry, the man or woman who espouses this teaching is not a Christian and is not being used of God to lead others to Christ through saving faith.

On the basis of the doctrines Johnson and his ilk believe and teach the entire Finger of God video series that purports to demonstrate the works of God through miraculous signs and wonders must be rejected as manifestations of demons through the teachings of deceived men and women.

Orrel Steinkamp was right when he stated that the current version of Christian Evangelicalism is terminally ill due to the immune system of discernment being switched off.[4]  It’s time to awaken the Church of Jesus Christ from its slumbers so that it can once again become the watchmen on the wall it is called to be.

[1]See http://intotruth.org/tb/gold.html  Additionally, both WV Grant and Peter Popoff were exposed as frauds.  This hasn’t prevented the modern Word-Faith charlatans from promoting the same heresies. See http://www.apologeticsindex.org/487-peter-popoff and http://www.bible.ca/tongues-encyclopedia-pentecostal-preachers.htm#grant  All three websites accessed February 15, 2010.

[2]See http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/dod2.html  Accessed February 9, 2010.

[3]All quotes in this section available at http://www.deceptioninthechurch.com/dod2.html  Accessed February 9, 2010.

[4]Orrel Steinkamp, The Plumbline, Vol. 14, No. 6, November/December 2009.