Monday, November 1, 2021

The Legend of the Social Justice Jesus


from here: https://www.str.org/w/the-legend-of-the-social-justice-jesus

I want to tell you a story of an ancient sage who changed the world.

This wise man fought for justice, championing the cause of the poor and the oppressed. He rejected organized religion, showing tolerance—not judgment—for the outcast and the socially marginalized. He promoted universal love and the brotherhood of man. His unflinching commitment to speak truth to power cost him his life, but his legacy lives on. He is a model for us today of love, acceptance, and inclusion. His name is Jesus of Nazareth.

That is the story, in sum. It’s a noble tale, to be sure. But it’s a falsehood, a fiction, an urban legend. Though the story is parroted like a mantra by multitudes—even echoed reflexively by otherwise sound spiritual leaders who ought to know better—no such Jesus ever existed. Rather, taken as a whole, this version of Jesus is just another example of another Jesus bringing another gospel like the ones the apostle Paul anathematized to the Galatians.[1]

A Myriad of Myths

This is not the first legend about Jesus, of course. Paul chastised the Corinthians—somewhat sarcastically—for their own cavalier embrace of teachers fabricating a false Christ generated by a false spirit bringing a false gospel:

For if one comes and preaches another Jesus whom we have not preached, or you receive a different spirit which you have not received, or a different gospel which you have not accepted, you bear this beautifully. (2 Cor. 11:4)

The Corinthians were being led astray by the serpent’s crafty deceptions, Paul said, just as Eve was (v. 3)—abandoning simple devotion to the genuine Jesus for an alluring invention, an alternate Christ.

The trend would continue in the future, Paul warned, with the church turning their ticklish ears from truth to myths—legends—choosing man-made fictions over doctrinal facts (2 Tim. 4: 3–4). Jesus himself warned of future interlopers, imposters masquerading as messiahs who would mislead many (Matt. 24:24).

Times have changed, but the trend has not. New “Jesus legends” abound: the legend of Jesus, the (mere) itinerant moral teacher; the legend of Jesus, the prophet of Allah; the socialist Jesus legend; the legend of the Gnostic Jesus of the Gospel of Thomas; the legend of Jesus, the universal Christ; the LDS legend of Jesus, the spirit brother of Lucifer; the New Age Jesus-the-Hindu-guru legend. Et cetera, et cetera.

The remaking of the Jewish Messiah from Nazareth into a progressive advocate of social justice is just the latest example of the tendency people have to fashion Christ in their own social/spiritual/political image.

Of course, in one sense that shouldn’t surprise us. Most folks have a genuine respect for Jesus—as they should. It’s understandable, then, that on weighty matters they’d want Jesus on their side.

Here the tail wags the dog, though. The point is not for any of us to get Jesus on our side, but for us to get on Jesus’ side—hands to the plow, not looking back, fit for the kingdom.[2]

What precisely is “Jesus’ side,” though? Given the mishmash of myths, how do we separate wheat from chaff, fact from fiction, legend from history? We cannot follow Jesus if we do not have a clear idea of who the real flesh and blood Jesus of history was and which direction he was heading. But how do we know with any confidence?

Searching for Jesus

There is a reliable, uncomplicated method I employ to get an accurate, balanced, big-picture take on any topic in any section of Scripture, and it’s perfectly suited for this task.

Say, for example, I want to know everything about how God supernaturally guided the early church, or what Proverbs teaches on leadership, or what the New Testament instructs on prayer, or how the disciples of Jesus preached the gospel in the book of Acts, etc.[3] I simply read every word of the biblical material I’m interested in, isolate every passage that’s germane to my topic, then collate the passages in an orderly way to create a thorough, complete, precise portrayal of the topic. It’s a simple—if labor-intensive—technique anyone can use to get the full counsel of any section of Scripture on any topic.

This approach might be problematic for some, though—particularly the more progressive types who favor the social justice Jesus version. They simply do not trust the record. To many of them, Scripture is not an authoritative account of what God revealed to man, but simply one version of what certain ancient people believed about God. The Gospels are humanly “inspired,“ not divinely inspired—man-made, not God-breathed.

No matter. That distinction makes absolutely no difference to my assessment. Here’s why. Nothing about my case has anything to do with whether or not the Bible is divinely inspired. Though that is my view, it’s a separate issue for now.

Here’s the real issue. We have one body of detailed information about Jesus: the canonical Gospels. We can accept them as divinely inspired or not. We can accept them (as many scholars do) as non-inspired human documents that are, on the main, historically accurate. We can even accept them as error-ridden musings by primitive people about God and Jesus. What we cannot do, though, is reject the Gospel accounts out of hand and then advance our own personal opinion of the Jesus of the Gospels, since there will be no Jesus left to have a personal opinion about.

Reject the record, and you forfeit your opinion of the man of the record. It’s that simple. Of course, if you cherry-pick verses to fashion a Jesus in your own image, then I have nothing to offer you. If that’s your project, you are welcome to your fantasy, but do not mistake the views of your make-me-up Christ for the views of Jesus of Nazareth. That legend will reflect your opinions, not his.

Jesus and “Social Justice”

Our question here is simple: What did Jesus come to do? Preach a socialistic redistribution of wealth? Introduce New Age Hinduism to Torah-observant Jews? Prophesy for Allah? Teach us how to attain personal godhood or accomplish Christ consciousness? Advocate for the poor, the marginal, and the disenfranchised in a campaign for social justice? Let’s see.

To separate the real Jesus from legendary christs of any sort, I simply employed my system. I carefully read every line of every Gospel and isolated every passage that spoke of Jesus’ purpose—references either from Jesus himself, from clues in the birth narratives, or from statements from Jesus’ forerunner, John the Baptist. I also isolated every reference to the poor.

My search regarding the poor revealed something surprising, considering the breadth of the record. It turns out that Jesus almost never spoke of the poor. He made only ten specific references to “poor” of different sorts,[4] not counting parallel passages. Even this small number overstates the issue because of an interesting pattern my search revealed, one I have noted elsewhere:[5]

In the vast majority of cases where Jesus mentions the poor, he does so not to commend the poor as such, but to make a point about something else—hypocrisy, a widow’s generosity, Zacchaeus’s repentance, the rich young ruler’s confusion, or a lesson about the afterlife.[6]

Jesus did care about the financially destitute, of course, and enjoined charity and compassion for them through kindness and voluntary giving to the disadvantaged (Lk. 12:3314:13–14), a point John the Baptist emphasized as well (Lk. 3:11). Campaigning for the poor, however, was not part of his project.

In one case, Jesus actually was dismissive of the poor when compared to something else that was his greater concern: “For you always have the poor with you; but you do not always have Me” (Matt. 26:11, cf. Mk. 14:5–9Jn. 12:8).[7]

What was it about Jesus himself that defined his mission in a way that completely eclipsed a legitimate and appropriate concern for the financially destitute? Jesus’ three remaining references to the poor answer that question.

In only two instances did Jesus identify anything about his mission with those people he considered “poor.” When preaching on the Sabbath at the synagogue in Nazareth he said:

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, because he anointed me to preach the gospel to the poor. He has sent me to proclaim release to the captives, and recovery of sight to the blind, to set free those who are oppressed, to proclaim the favorable year of the Lord. (Lk. 4:18–19)

When John the Baptist sent word from prison questioning in his dark moments whether or not Jesus was indeed “the Expected One,” Jesus responded to his doubts by reporting the fulfillment of his earlier claim:

Go and report to John what you hear and see: the blind receive sight and the lame walk, the lepers are cleansed and the deaf hear, the dead are raised up, and the poor have the gospel preached to them. (Matt. 11:4–5, cf. Lk. 7:22)

Note two important things about the poor and oppressed from these passages. First, it is clear in both references that foundational to Jesus’ ministry of mercy—giving sight to the blind, healing the lame, cleansing the lepers, raising the dead—was preaching the gospel to the “poor.”

Second, Jesus’ sermon on that Sabbath in Nazareth is the only place he makes mention of concern for the “oppressed.” Peter, however, gives us insight into the kind of oppression Jesus had in mind:

You know of Jesus of Nazareth, how God anointed him with the Holy Spirit and with power, and how he went about doing good and healing all who are oppressed by the devil, for God was with him.… Of him all the prophets bear witness that through his name everyone who believes in him receives forgiveness of sins. (Acts 10:3843)

Taken together, these passages about the poor paint a clear picture of Jesus’ intent. The poor were to receive the gospel, have their sins forgiven, and be released from the devil’s power—that last point underscored by Jesus’ consistent practice of freeing people from demon possession.

What kind of “poor” would receive this gospel message of forgiveness and thus be freed from the oppression of the devil? Not the proud, pharisaical self-righteous, but rather those who understood their spiritual poverty—which is precisely the point Jesus makes in his sole remaining reference to the poor: “Blessed are the poor in spirit, for theirs is the kingdom of heaven” (Matt. 5:3, cf. Lk. 6:20).

Clearly, contending for the financially destitute as such was not his concern, nor was campaigning on behalf of the marginalized, the disenfranchised, or the socially oppressed.

Jesus’ central concern was bringing forth a kingdom in a way that secured liberty for the captives[8] through forgiveness of sin—a fact that every one of my remaining Gospel passages about Jesus’ mission makes manifestly clear.

On this point, I will simply let the record speak for itself.

In the Beginning

From the outset, the Gospels paint a clear picture of Christ’s purpose. The earliest reference comes from the prophet Micah:

And you, Bethlehem, land of Judah, are by no means least among the leaders of Judah; for out of you shall come forth a ruler who will shepherd my people Israel. (Matt. 2:6, cf. Micah 5:2)

Zacharias weighs in next when he prophesies at the birth of his son, John the Baptist:

And you, child, will be called the prophet of the Most High; for you will go on before the Lord to prepare his ways; to give to his people the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins, because of the tender mercy of our God, with which the Sunrise from on high will visit us, to shine upon those who sit in darkness and the shadow of death, to guide our feet into the way of peace. (Lk. 1:76–79)

At the annunciation, the angel Gabriel told Mary not to be afraid, since she had found favor with God and would be given a matchless gift:

And behold, you will conceive in your womb and bear a son, and you shall name him Jesus. He will be great and will be called the Son of the Most High; and the Lord God will give him the throne of his father David; and he will reign over the house of Jacob forever, and his kingdom will have no end. (Lk. 1:31–33)

Joseph, grieved and alarmed by the strange turn of events he faced, received counsel from an angel of the Lord in a dream. The angel said:

Joseph, son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary as your wife; for the Child who has been conceived in her is of the Holy Spirit. She will bear a son; and you shall call his name Jesus, for he will save his people from their sins. (Matt. 1:20–21)

At Jesus’ birth, an angel appeared suddenly before shepherds in the field, saying, “Do not be afraid; for behold, I bring you good news of great joy which will be for all the people; for today in the city of David there has been born for you a savior, who is Christ the Lord” (Lk. 2:10–11).

When Mary and Joseph brought the infant Jesus to the temple soon after his birth, they encountered a righteous and devout man named Simeon and a prophetess named Anna who served continuously in the temple with fastings and prayers.

When Simeon took the infant Jesus into his arms, he said, “Now Lord, you are releasing your bond-servant to depart in peace, according to your word; for my eyes have seen your salvation” (Luke 2:2628–30).

Anna spoke next: “At that very moment she came up and began giving thanks to God, and continued to speak of Him to all those who were looking for the redemption of Jerusalem” (Lk. 2:38).

At the outset of Jesus’ public ministry, the forerunner John the Baptist fulfills his father’s prophecy by giving “the knowledge of salvation by the forgiveness of their sins.” He points to Jesus and says: “Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (Jn. 1:29). He also says that this Jesus would baptize with the Spirit and with fire, with salvation or with judgment (Matt. 3:10–12).

In these initial Gospel passages, a precise profile emerges.

A savior named Jesus, who is Christ the Lord, the Son of the Most High God, will be born in Bethlehem to shepherd Israel. As the sacrificial Lamb of God, he will bring salvation and redemption through the forgiveness of sins, baptizing some with the Holy Spirit and others with the fire of judgment. He will be given the throne of His father David and rule over an everlasting kingdom.

Something seems to be missing here, though. There is nothing in these descriptions of Jesus by any of his various forerunners that suggests a single element of the social justice Jesus described earlier. As it turns out, there is nothing like that in Jesus’ own claims about himself, either.

Jesus on Jesus

Jesus had much to say about his own mission. He said he came to preach the good news of the kingdom of God (Lk. 4:43). He made clear, though, that his kingdom was not of this world (Jn. 18:36), at least initially. It was not a physical kingdom bringing social justice, wealth redistribution, or political and cultural equity. Rather, it was a spiritual kingdom bringing forgiveness, salvation, and eternal life. Listen:

  • Luke 19:10—The Son of Man has come to seek and to save that which was lost.
  • John 3:17—For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him[9] (cf. Lk. 9:56).
  • Luke 5:32—I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance (cf. Mk. 2:17Matt. 9:12–13).
  • Matthew 20:28—The Son of Man did not come to be served, but to serve, and to give his life a ransom for many (cf. Mk. 10:45).
  • John 6:38–39—For I have come down from heaven, not to do my own will, but the will of him who sent me. This is the will of him who sent me, that of all that he has given me I lose nothing, but raise it up on the last day.

For Jesus, salvation was not economic prosperity, equal distribution of goods, or sexual liberty without judgment or shame. Instead, salvation came through belief in him, bringing forgiveness of sins and eternal life.

  • John 3:16–17—For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish, but have eternal life. For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through him.
  • John 3:36—He who believes in the Son has eternal life; but he who does not obey the Son will not see life, but the wrath of God abides on him.
  • Matthew 9:6 —“But so that you may know that the Son of Man has authority on earth to forgive sins”—then he said to the paralytic, “Get up, pick up your bed and go home” (cf. Mk. 2:10–11).
  • Luke 5:20—Seeing their faith, he said, “Friend, your sins are forgiven you.”
  • Luke 7:47–48—“For this reason I say to you, her sins, which are many, have been forgiven, for she loved much; but he who is forgiven little, loves little.” Then he said to her, “Your sins have been forgiven.”

Jesus knew that in order to accomplish this mission, he must suffer, die, and be raised again, just as Moses and the prophets had foretold.

  • Luke 12:51—Do you suppose that I came to grant peace on earth? I tell you, no, but rather division.
  • Matthew 16:21—From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem, and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and be raised up on the third day.
  • John 12:27—Now my soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, “Father, save me from this hour”? But for this purpose I came to this hour.
  • Matthew 26:28—For this is my blood of the covenant, which is poured out for many for forgiveness of sins (cf. Mk. 14:24Lk. 22:20).
  • Luke 24:44–47—Now he said to them, “These are my words which I spoke to you while I was still with you, that all things which are written about me in the Law of Moses and the Prophets and the Psalms must be fulfilled…. Thus it is written, that the Christ would suffer and rise again from the dead the third day, and that repentance for forgiveness of sins would be proclaimed in his name to all the nations, beginning from Jerusalem” (cf. Lk. 24:25–27).

There you have it—the complete record of Jesus’ own statements about his purpose and mission. Once again, something is missing—any evidence of any kind that Jesus saw himself as an advocate for social justice. It’s not there. Not a word.

To be clear, there is no question that God in Scripture has a heart for the genuinely oppressed and destitute, and Jesus as God shared that concern as did his church.[10] When Jesus encountered deep human need, he responded with compassionate action—characteristically healing the sick, casting out demons, raising the dead, and in two instances, physically feeding multitudes.[11] Even so, Jesus’ principal purpose was redressing spiritual poverty, not rectifying social inequities.

“Who Do You Say that I Am?”

Reading through that plethora of Bible passages may have been a bit taxing, but there’s a point here.

Near the end of Jesus’ life, he asked his disciples the most important question anyone can consider: “Who do you say that I am?” (Matt. 16:15). The answer any person gives to that question seals his fate for eternity. We dare not be mistaken on this issue.

What I have tried to do here is to put Jesus in his proper place for those who have become confused by the cultural noise. I have done that by letting the record—the entire record—speak for itself.

Though I isolated every verse in the Gospels identifying Jesus’ purpose, I could not find a single sentence where Jesus championed the cause of the poor, the outsider, or the disenfranchised as such. There is not even a hint of it—in the sense that it’s commonly understood—in the entire historical account of the life of Jesus of Nazareth.

Did Jesus care about the poor, the downtrodden, and the marginalized? Yes. He also cared about the rich, the powerful, and the socially advantaged. Jesus cared about everyone, and he helped anyone who came to him—poor beggar or prostitute, wealthy tax collector or Pharisee.

The right answer to Jesus’ question is Jesus’ own answer, one that fits hand in glove with the message of each of his forerunners. He is the Christ, the Son of God, the Savior, the Lamb of God, the living sacrifice who secures forgiveness of sins and eternal life for anyone who bends his knee and beats his breast in penitence before him.[12]

It is the right answer because no other Jesus saves souls—and that, as it turns out, is what he came to do. Any other Jesus—Jesus the mere moral teacher, Jesus the prophet of Allah, the socialist Jesus, the Gnostic Jesus, the universal Christ Jesus, the spirit brother of Lucifer Jesus, the Hindu guru Jesus, even the social justice Jesus—is a falsehood, a fiction, an urban legend.

 

[3] These are all studies I’ve done. Find “Divine Direction and Decision Making in the Book of Acts,” “New Testament Prayer,” and the “Preaching God’s Love in Acts?” at str.org.

[4] Poor in spirit vs. poor financially, for example.

[5] Gregory Koukl, The Story of Reality (Grand Rapids, MI: Zondervan, 2017), 114.

[6] Hypocrisy (Matt. 6:2–3), a widow’s generosity (Lk. 21:1–4), Zaccheus’s repentance (Lk. 19:8), the rich young ruler’s confusion (Matt. 19:21Mk. 10:17–27Lk. 18:18–27), a lesson about the afterlife (Lk. 16:2022).

[7] Note, by the way, that Deuteronomy 15:7–811—the passage Jesus may be alluding to here—does enjoin God’s people to care about the poor. In the context, though, this was not Jesus’ point.

[8] That Jesus probably had spiritual captives in mind here is clear from his short discourse on freedom and slavery in John 8:31–36.

[9] Judgment would come, as John promised, but later, at the end (Matt. 25:31–46; cf. Jn. 9:39).

[10] The New Testament Christian community readily responded to poverty—not as an expression of justice, however, but as a voluntarily demonstration of charity (love) and mercy (cf. Acts 11:2924:17Rom. 15:26Gal. 2:101 Cor 16:1–4).

[11] Notice, though, that Jesus’ largess in feeding the masses became a distraction for them. He had to rebuke them for continuing to seek physical bread from him instead of hungering for Jesus himself, the bread of life (Jn. 6:26ff.).

[12] Luke 18:9–14. 

Thursday, October 28, 2021

Escaping the Clever “Kafka Trap”


Escaping the Clever “Kafka Trap”
Critical race theory is the latest worldview counterfeit. It plays the language game and relies heavily not on facts and evidence but linguistic arm-twisting. Let me show you what I mean:
Someone says, “If you say you’re not a racist, that just proves you are a racist.”
How would you answer?
I suspect you already see the verbal sleight of hand—the ham-handed attempt at rhetorical manipulation. If you admit you’re a racist, you’re a racist. If you deny you’re a racist, you’re a racist. Racist if you do; racist if you don’t.
The “You’re a racist either way” charge (called a “Kafka trap”) is just one current example of the kind of nonsense used by our own culture’s thought police to cloud our minds and confuse us. Racism exists, of course, but claiming all whites are racist because they’re white simply trivializes genuine racial bigotry.
The nonsense is obvious, but the charge still catches good people off guard. What now?
First, do not attempt to banter with such a person. Since it’s patently ridiculous that thinking you’re not a racist proves that you are, it’s obvious to me that no one who seriously offers this confused challenge can be reasoned with.
Saying so would be impolitic, though, so instead, try to slip in under the radar and catch him by surprise using the “Taking the Roof Off” tactic. Simply accept his approach, then turn the Kafka trap back on him. Here’s an example:
“I knew you’d say that, and I’m glad you did.” “What! Why?” “Because it proves you’re wrong.” “Huh?” “No one says that unless they’re mistaken. Don’t you see it?” “No.” “That’s even more proof you’re wrong. Sorry.”
Or…
“Do you know what ‘social justice’ means?” “Of course I do.” “That proves you don’t. No one who really understands social justice thinks he understands it.”
Like I said, nonsense. If your friend doesn’t get it when you use this tactic, don’t waste time trying to enlighten him. Just let it go. He’s confused, not you.
Here’s my point. Be alert for the linguistic baloney, and don’t be taken in by it. If it sounds silly, it probably is.
~ Greg Koukl

Truth is truth, whether I experience it or not. The Lord does not need my experience to validate His Word. Woke epistemology begins by saying something realistic - that everybody has their own perspective. But it loses sight of the fact that God's truth is true for everyone, regardless of their background or past experience. God's truth is truth at all times and in all places. God defines truth, not us - not our race, our experiences, or our own views. 
It is the strangest thing today. Personal experience matters and is validated [only] when you come to progressive conclusions, but not when you arrive at conservative convictions. Your voice must be heard when it speaks leftism, but not when it declares conservatism. You are true to your "heritage" when you embrace "social justice" but not when you hold to retributive biblical justice. 
Wokeness purports to have all the explanatory power for our political chaos. As I am at pains to say, it does not. In actuality, it biases us and leaves us with overly simple answers to complex questions.
~Owen Strachan







Tuesday, October 19, 2021

It’s not my job to save people!” Some personal advice on how to reach others

 

It’s not my job to save people!

Some personal advice on how to reach others

by 

123rf.comtwo-people-sharing-Bible
Published: 19 October 2021 (GMT+10)
Originally published in a CMI newsletter, March 2021

Several months ago, I wrote an article suggesting that the issue-laden year of 2020 could also provide us with good opportunities to present the Gospel, and also presenting how CMI was responding to the challenge. C.N. responded by baring his heart via email:

Admittedly, I am bad at evangelism. A lot of time I just get tired of the fighting against ignorance and hatred of God. Many times, people refuse to listen to logic and reason; just look at the state of the world today with gender, politics etc. So, a lot of times I take the position of why bother. I know it’s wrong, but I hate throwing pearls before swine or disturbing my peace because someone’s ignorance and foolishness is sorely vexing my spirit. These days, I only speak when I genuinely feel the Spirit commanding me to tell the truth and call out the lies being propagated (which admittedly still happens often). Then again, perhaps I am guilty of slight misanthropy. Humanity and even my own flesh sicken me with its sin nature and its reveling in its ungodliness. The love and support for wickedness in the world incenses me to my very core. So, a lot of times I figure, what’s the point in saying anything? I am young and to be honest, I wait earnestly for Christ’s return, as this world is suffocatingly evil and rotten to the core. I yearn for the future God promises of everlasting peace through the Son. If one is hurting and asks for the solution, then I will share gladly.

I would like to flesh out some of the points I made in my response to him.

Creation is a foundation for our existence

At CMI we provide information to help people deal with the skeptical arguments and objections to biblical creation, which is ultimately an attack on whether God exists or not. As you could imagine, as a leading ministry providing information to undermine the dominant worldview of evolution, we get our fair share of hostile opposition, and especially our speakers when on the road. So, it is not like we don’t understand. But notice that when C.N. shares this information, he allowed himself to get frustrated and even dejected. This is a normal human response because we feel that our efforts are being rejected. But is it us personally that is being rejected?

I often have to remind myself of three things:

  • It is not me that people are rejecting. Humans’ inbuilt sin nature is simply trying to reinforce their desire that there is no God. A default position from birth!
  • It is not my job to save people. We can’t and don’t save anyone. Only Christ can do that.
  • We are commanded to be a faithful witness. “always being prepared to make a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you; yet do it with gentleness and respect (1 Peter 3:15).

The words “gentleness and respect” are often omitted when citing this passage. The first thing we should remember is that we are to win people over—people that God loves and who Jesus died for. So, it is not about winning the debate or argument. And remember, that when someone trots out the tired, old anti-creationist arguments, they are only doing so because that’s all they’ve heard via their education and the mainstream media. In one sense, it’s not their fault.

So, instead of negatively reacting to opposition, we should see their questions as an opportunity to provide logical information they’ve never heard before. If this information can undermine their own confident belief system, perhaps it will make them more open to receiving the alternative.

Some of you will have heard me mention this before, and I often do so when out on ministry to encourage the take up and sharing of creation resources. But I do so again because when one grasps that it’s not our job to save people, it is incredibly liberating. Once I realized this in my own walk, the transformation from being timid to being confident was immediate. Some tips.

  1. If people ask questions or challenge me, then I respond and or counter-challenge with answers.
  2. I don’t allow them to move onto the next question unless they acknowledge the answer—that is, until I can get a response. For example, if you’ve answered an objection, you should remind them that what they believed was therefore wrong.
  3. Don’t allow questioners to dominate ‘the floor time’. Ask questions back about their views on evolution, for example. You would be surprised how little most know, because as mentioned earlier, they are only trotting out the old ‘garden-variety’ arguments.

“A truthful witness saves lives, but one who breathes out lies is deceitful” (Proverbs 14:25).

But what if they don’t listen?

Again, remember it is not you they are rejecting. I also keep in mind that the majority of people I witness to are unlikely to be saved. “Enter by the narrow gate. For the gate is wide and the way is easy that leads to destruction, and those who enter by it are many. For the gate is narrow and the way is hard that leads to life, and those who find it are few” (Matthew 7:13–14). I keep my expectations limited, after all, this is what Scripture says. Is this a defeatist attitude? Not at all. In all the years of ministry and the literally tens of thousands I’ve spoken to, I’ve often asked, “How many of you got saved the first time someone witnessed to you?” I can honestly say that the number would be fewer than ten people! What this tells us is that our witnessing is like a link in the chain, and this is why God wants us to be a faithful witness despite the seeming objections, because the Holy Spirit could be at work in someone’s life.

But of course, one can only provide answers if one is equipped. Maybe you are simply not confident when talking to others. In which case, be prepared by having some resources on hand like back issues of Creation magazine or our Creation Answers Book. And finally, let’s remember that “God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control” (2 Timothy 1:7). Be encouraged and remember that the harvest is actually plentiful (Matthew (9:37–38).

Monday, June 28, 2021

COVID's liberal religious revival – how their God-less theocracy's destroying politics, culture

COVID's liberal religious revival – how their God-less theocracy's destroying politics, culture

What is unique about COVID that brought this new left religiosity to the fore?

When the first documented COVID case appeared in the United States 16 months ago, few would have predicted the religious revival it ignited. Unlike the four previous Great Awakenings that expanded Christianity’s American footprint, this revival exposed what now is the country’s most politically powerful religion: Secular Science-ism. 

Pollsters have for two decades noted the rise of the "religious nones," people who claim no particular religious affiliation or beliefs. This group makes up less than one-third of the population but skews toward the higher educated, upper income and politically liberal classes. Pew Forum’s research indicates "solidly secular" Americans are 50% more likely to have a college degree and incomes over $150,000 – and 71% of that group identifies with the Democratic Party. 

The COVID-19 pandemic revealed these "nones" really are not without a religious belief structure, however. Their behavior is driven by the kinds of impulses, demands and leaps of faith they sometimes deride in more traditional religions.  

Rejection of the afterlife and focus on this earthly life pulls secular liberals toward caution – perhaps to an extent that risk tolerance drives, rather than follows, political ideology. This zealous pursuit of a no-risk lifestyle leads to ridiculous and self-contradicting requirements like Gov. Andrew Cuomo’s edict that summer campers wear masks while canoeing, or the continued closure of schools after teachers have been vaccinated. 

The Science-ism practiced today has its own clergy – epidemiologists, with the Centers for Disease Control constituting a holiest of holies, and Dr. Anthony Fauci as a pope. Left-wing belief in an inevitable positive progression of humanity licenses the worship of our betters, even elevating scientists over science, putting clergy over scripture. 

Adherents hung on every word Fauci uttered about COVID, and defended him viscerally, even when his advice conflicted with prior pronouncements or cited evidence. They put up yard signs expressing their witness to neighbors, reading: "In this house, we believe in science," as if it were a creed and not an academic discipline. 

A hallmark of any religion is the insistence that devotees make economic sacrifices, and in Science-ism this took the form of economic shutdowns implemented by blue-state governors. Liberals grabbed the moral high ground only affluent perches such as theirs can afford, and with missionary zeal embraced widespread economic harm for the nation and for less comfortable neighbors. 

In Islam, Judaism and other established religions, the most orthodox adherents demonstrate devotion by wearing symbolic religious clothing in routine daily life; Christians do it with cross-themed jewelry. Same for Science-ism, whose zealots not only wear masks in crowds, but also while they exercise outdoors, walk their dogs or drive their cars alone, even after vaccination. For them, mask wearing is not merely an attempt to limit exhaled aerosols, it signals a sincere, if irrational, belief structure. 

This spring, as COVID case data – real science – indicated the thresholds that triggered mask mandates were no longer being met, Secular Science-ism demanded that data be ignored and sacrifice maintained. President Joe Biden called the March relaxation of COVID rules in Mississippi and Texas "Neanderthal thinking." 

Now as even blue-state governors reluctantly rescind mask mandates, liberals who run some local governments and institutions have stubbornly clung to the piety high that only compelling your neighbors can bring. 

The real test of any faith is whether an adherent sticks with it once it is confronted with claimed truth it cannot prove – and many secular liberals are powering through those tests, clinging to the myths of outdoor transmission and purification rituals of wiping down surfaces to rid them of imaginary virus particles.  

The fundamentalist nature of this secular theology is demanding in a manner more severe than even that of the separatist Amish. The rabid practitioners of Science-ism do not just insist they should be left alone to practice their extreme beliefs; they insist on a theocracy in which all of government’s decisions turn on them as well. 

What is unique about COVID that brought this new left religiosity to the fore? Perhaps it was this pandemic’s perfectly layered components – its disproportionate racial impact, its beginnings with right-wing anger toward China, its clean trades between health regulations and economic capitalism, and its policy debate weighing personal responsibility versus forced collective action. 

The emergence of this militantly secular religion will not go away as COVID death counts steadily decline. While a coronavirus revealed the political power of Science-ism, the fulfillment its sanctimony gives its adherents will not subside. The personal voids created by the rejection of traditional religion will always demand to be otherwise filled.  

Liberals have embraced climate change as their feared apocalyptical Judgement Day. They eagerly impose penance on Westerners for the sins of consumption and growth, in the form of more expensive and less reliable energy; smaller homes, vehicles and families; higher taxes, and restricted diets. They are happy to require sacrifice from others, namely fossil fuel workers and their communities.  

Lacking room for grace or redemption, they see humanity needing to save itself, through an economy of scarcity tied to the imposition of strict regulations and higher costs. 

The most liberal dogma increasingly focuses on structural racism as America’s inherited Original Sin, and insists no baptism can wash away its stain. To compensate, educated White liberals have adopted their own self-flagellation, whereby they publicly and constantly confess their irredeemable privilege. They will continue to invent new rituals and sacraments, like the wearing of masks and other virtue signaling, to demonstrate their piety and to give their lives meaning.  

Given their education, income and influence inside the Democratic Party, these religious zealots will stay politically powerful. Unless the rest of us can persuade them to rejoin more time-tested faiths, we’re going to live with this pursuit of a God-less theocracy for decades to come. 

Brad Todd is a Virginia-based Republican strategist and ad-maker and the co-author of "The Great Revolt: Inside the Populist Coalition Reshaping American Politics" (2018).