Listener Response to America’s New Civil War

Podcast: Download (8.9MB)

After hearing in Hour 1 from Robert Knight, senior writer for Coral Ridge Ministries and author of Fighting for America’s Soul, we will take listener phone calls in Hour 2 on any of the issues discussed with Mr. Knight.

Whether it’s the right to life, same-sex marriage, the homosexual agenda in our culture, government’s war on private charity, the socialization of health care, you will have the opportunity to offer your feedback.

So be ready with an insightful comment as we devote all of Hour 2 to ”Listener Response to America’s New Civil War.”

A Christian Response to America’s New Civil War

Podcast: Download (8.9MB)

Guest: Robert Knight, author, Fighting for America’s Soul

TRANSCRIPT

We were promised “change” and that is what we have received from the Obama Administration when they came into power in January 2009.  Robert Knight, our guest in Hour 1 of The Christian Worldview this Saturday, writes on the back of his book, Fighting for America’s Soul, “What’s happening is nothing less than a mighty clash of worldviews, with secular collectivist forces now in the driver’s seat and hoping to enact as much of their agenda as possible, before Americans wake up in time to fight for their liberties.”

Knight will frame the raging debates over issues such as the right to life, marriage, health care, judges, military, globalism, and several other hot topics.  Get informed about the battle and what you should think and do as a Christian by tuning into Hour 1 of The Christian Worldview.

Looking Back: TIME Asks, “Is God Dead?”

John T. Elson’s most famous article for TIME magazine appeared over 40 years ago, and it largely defined his journalistic career.  His April 8, 1966 cover story, “Is God Dead?,” became an icon of the rebellious and increasingly secular sixties.

Elson, who died September 7 at age 78, was the son of a reporter, and he knew a big story when he saw one.  He worked on the TIME cover story for more than a year, interviewing theologians and religious leaders. When published, the story became a symbol of the tumultuous decade of the sixties.  For the first time, TIME published the magazine cover without a photograph or drawing. The question, “Is God Dead?,” was all that mattered.

As William Grimes of The New York Times recounts,

The issue caused an uproar, equaled only by John Lennon’s offhand remark, published in a magazine for teenagers a few months later, that the Beatles were more popular than Jesus.  The “Is God Dead?” issue gave TIME its biggest newsstand sales in more than 20 years and elicited 3,500 letters to the editor, the most in history to that point. It remains a signpost of the 1960s, testimony to the wrenching social changes transforming the United States.

Elson’s report looked at the increasing secularization of the society. The decade of the 1960s saw the emergence of secularizing trends in intellectual life, the arts, and mass culture. And yet, Elson’s major focus was on the radical theologians of the decade.  The so-called “Death of God Theologians” were garnering headlines and forging a new post-theistic theology.

As Elson reported:

Is God dead? The three words represent a summons to reflect on the meaning of existence. No longer is the question the taunting jest of skeptics for whom unbelief is the test of wisdom and for whom Nietzsche is the prophet who gave the right answer a century ago. Even within Christianity, now confidently renewing itself in spirit as well as form, a small band of radical theologians has seriously argued that the churches must accept the fact of God’s death, and get along without him. How does the issue differ from the age-old assertion that God does not and never did exist? Nietzsche’s thesis was that striving, self-centered man had killed God, and that settled that. The current death-of-God group believes that God is indeed absolutely dead, but proposes to carry on and write a theology without theos, without God. Less radical Christian thinkers hold that at the very least God in the image of man, God sitting in heaven, is dead, and—in the central task of religion today—they seek to imagine and define a God who can touch men’s emotions and engage men’s minds.

Elson got right to the point. The radical theologians, influenced by theologians such as Paul Tillich, rejected the existence of a God who would possess being, but affirmed what Tillich called the “ground of being.”  The “theology without theos” Elson described became mainstream fare in liberal seminaries and divinity schools.  Before long, leading “Death of God” figures such as Thomas J.J. Altizer, Paul Van Buren, and William Hamilton had become media celebrities and public intellectuals.

The radical theologians pressed their case that orthodox theology was based on an outdated understanding of God.  God does not have to exist to be meaningful to human existence, they argued.  He remains a potent symbol and source of meaning. God is still a useful concept, they insisted, but, in the words of Langdon Gilkey of the University of Chicago Divinity School, the believer “still needs to learn that talk of God is largely symbolic.”

Seen in retrospect, it is clear that the “Death of God” movement did not survive the 1960s.  Within a few short years, much of the stridency of the secular tide had been repackaged into the more benign-appearing “spiritualities” of the postmodern age.  Furthermore, many of the central concepts of the “Death of God” movement were simply absorbed into the increasingly secularized mainline Protestant world.  Theological non-realism no longer holds the power to shock within liberal theological circles.

Looking back to the TIME cover story, what seems most remarkable now is what was absent from that report — the rise of a vigorous and fully orthodox alternative to liberal theology.  Elson noted the continued presence of the “true believer,” but the believer appeared to be in a rather lonely position. Missing from the account was the rise of an energetic Evangelicalism.  That story would produce a memorable cover story for Newsweek, exactly ten years later.

John T. Elson concluded his iconic cover story by wondering if the “contemporary Christian worry about God could be a necessary and healthy antidote to centuries in which faith was too confident and sure.” An antidote? Not hardly. But Elson’s essay about the death of God was a theological wake-up call that will be remembered long after his own death.

Dealing Biblically with False Accusations

Podcast: Download (9.0MB)

This past week, former President Jimmy Carter exemplified where America has come in its level of discourse by saying, “I think an overwhelming portion of the intensely demonstrated animosity toward President Barack Obama is based on the fact that he is a black man, that he’s African American,”

So, according to Jimmy Carter’s worldview, the majority of people who oppose President Obama’s policies are racists.

The accusations don’t stop at racism.  If you oppose same-sex marriage, you are a “bigot” and a “hater” and want to return America to its pre-civil rights days. Read more

Works Righteousness: The Most Popular (and Damning) False Gospel

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Guest: Mike Gendron, director, Proclaiming the Gospel Ministries

TRANSCRIPT

Works-righteousness.  It is the unifying belief of all false religions that man can earn a better afterlife based on the good things he/she does on earth.

John MacArthur talked about it last Saturday on The Christian Worldview.  He said, “The Pharisees, Sadducees, and Scribes of this day, this age or any age are those who misrepresent the truth. Those who proclaim, or purvey false religion, a false Christ, a false Gospel and there are a myriad: certainly you can start with the cults, the Jehovah’s Witnesses, the Mormons who have a false God, a false Christ, a false Gospel, a false everything. Read more

Wall Street Journal: Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War

War clouds over Iran are building rapidly. On Friday night during the 9/11 National Town Hall Meeting, I explained that because Washington and the Western powers are doing nothing decisive to stop Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons, there is an increasingly likelihood that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu will feel the need to matters into his own hands, and soon. Iran now has enough enriched uranium (that we know about) to build at least two nuclear weapons. If the Russians deliver and install the new S-300 state-of-the-art anti-aircraft missiles in Iran then the Israelis ability to decimate Iran nuclear facilities will be dramatically diminished. These are likely the issues Netanyahu discussed in the Kremlin last Monday. So, short of divine intervention and/or a dramatic turnabout in Western resolve and action, we may very well be looking at an Israeli preemptive strike in 2010.

In light of that assessment, I would draw to your attention a sobering and must-read column this morning by a Wall Street Journal editorial writer Bret Stephens. It’s entitled, “Obama Is Pushing Israel Toward War.”

Excerpts:

• “Events are fast pushing Israel toward a pre-emptive military strike on Iran’s nuclear facilities, probably by next spring. That strike could well fail. Or it could succeed at the price of oil at $300 a barrel, a Middle East war, and American servicemen caught in between. So why is the Obama administration doing everything it can to speed the war process along?
  
• “At July’s G-8 summit in Italy, Iran was given a September deadline to start negotiations over its nuclear programs. Last week, Iran gave its answer: No. Instead, what Tehran offered was a five-page document that was the diplomatic equivalent of a giant kiss-off. It begins by lamenting the ‘ungodly ways of thinking prevailing in global relations’ and proceeds to offer comprehensive talks on a variety of subjects: democracy, human rights, disarmament, terrorism, ‘respect for the rights of nations,’ and other areas where Iran is a paragon. Conspicuously absent from the document is any mention of Iran’s nuclear program, now at the so-called breakout point, which both Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and his boss Ali Khamenei insist is not up for discussion….
• “The longer the U.S. delays playing hardball with Iran, the sooner Israel is likely to strike. A report published today by the Bipartisan Policy Center, and signed by Democrat Chuck Robb, Republican Dan Coats, and retired Gen. Charles Ward, notes that by next year Iran will ‘be able to produce a weapon’s worth of highly enriched uranium . . . in less than two months.’ No less critical in determining Israel’s timetable is the anticipated delivery to Iran of Russian S-300 anti-aircraft batteries: Israel will almost certainly strike before those deliveries are made, no matter whether an Iranian bomb is two months or two years away.
• “Such a strike may well be in Israel’s best interests, though that depends entirely on whether the strike succeeds. It is certainly in America’s supreme interest that Iran not acquire a genuine nuclear capability, whether of the actual or break-out variety. That goes also for the Middle East generally, which doesn’t need the nuclear arms race an Iranian capability would inevitably provoke.
• “Then again, it is not in the U.S. interest that Israel be the instrument of Iran’s disarmament. For starters, its ability to do so is iffy: Israeli strategists are quietly putting it about that even a successful attack may have to be repeated a few years down the road as Iran reconstitutes its capacity. For another thing, Iran could respond to such a strike not only against Israel itself, but also U.S targets in Iraq and the Persian Gulf.”

Speaking Truth To Lies

Guest: Laura Ingraham, nationally-syndicated radio talk show host

President Barack Obama gave a nationally-televised speech to a joint session of Congress this past Wednesday night laying out his vision for health care reform.

In the middle of the speech, House member Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled out, “Lie!” when President Obama claimed his government-run plan would not cover illegal immigrants. The next morning, Representative Wilson apologized for his outburst.

Was apologizing the right thing to do, though, when the truth is Read more

What Christians Must Learn From the Bold Confrontations of Christ

Podcast: Download (9.1MB)

Guest:  John MacArthur, author, The Jesus You Can’t Ignore

TRANSCRIPT

“What would Jesus do?”  That is the question Christians ask on any pressing issue of our day.  The answer almost always given portrays a meek and mild Jesus, a lovey-dovey Jesus, and above all, a non-confrontational Jesus.

But is that a full representation of who Jesus Christ really was and is? Read more

We Are At The Most Dangerous Moment Of The Islamic Revolution: National Town Hall Meeting Set For Tonight

To misunderstand the nature and threat of evil is to risk being blindsided by it.

Eight years ago today, we lost 2,974 Americans and foreign nationals living in the U.S. (not counting the 19 hijackers) because we were blindsided by Radical Islam.

Since then, we have lost at least 4,343 Americans fighting Radical Islam in Iraq, and 823 Americans fighting Radical Islam in Afghanistan.

Will we be blindsided again? Read more

Ideas Have Histories … Where Postmodernism Came From

Postmodernism comes in all kinds of shapes and expressions. This sort of variety can make it difficult to understand. Further, postmodernism resists categories and distinctions, and this makes it more difficult to nail down as a worldview. There is a larger intellectual history that must be understood in order to grasp the uniqueness and significance of postmodernism as a worldview.

Ideas Have Histories: How We Lost Our Minds…

While dividing history into distinct time periods is not an exact science, there are two major historical transitions that can help us clarify the emergence of postmodernism: (1) the transition towards modernism, typically dated around the 1700s and (2) the transition away from modernism which began in the late 20th century.

The transition from what is often called the pre-modern period into the modern period corresponds with the influence of Enlightenment thinking and the scientific revolution. Prior to the Enlightenment, there was a dominant cultural belief in the existence of the supernatural. This was due in large part to the rise of Christianity and specifically the Roman Catholic church as the most powerful cultural presence in medieval times. This was a world of authority, and authority rested in the hands of traditional institutions, especially the church, since it was entrusted with interpreting and communicating this truth to the common person.

With a belief in God came a strong belief in the concept of revelation, that God not only existed but had revealed Himself and His will in the Bible. This revelation was considered the primary source of truth, and could be trusted to unlock God’s metanarrative (or, “Big Story”) for the world. Believing was the starting point of real knowledge. St. Anselm, typifies a pre-modern perspective on truth: “For I seek not to understand in order that I may believe; but I believe in order that I may understand, for I believe for this reason: that unless I believe, I cannot understand.” This view of revelation and authority did not fare well during the Enlightenment.

The Enlightenment was a movement among European intellectuals in the 17th and 18th centuries. In the decades leading up to this time, the church’s authority had been successfully challenged politically (reactions against corruption), theologically (Luther, Calvin and the Protestant Reformation), philosophically (downfall of scholasticism), and scientifically (Galileo, Copernicus, and Baconian method). There was a growing disillusionment with the traditional educational, political and religious institutions, as well as their authoritative sources.

During the Enlightenment, authority shifted from traditional institutions to human reason. A scientific approach to the world yielded tremendous advances in medicine, technology, and communications and challenged the centrality of theology and religious belief as the paradigm for learning. Free from the restrictive shackles of traditional beliefs (thus, modernism), progress seemed inevitable. Immanuel Kant described this period of time in this way: “Sapere aude! ‘Have the courage to make use of your own mind!’ is thus the slogan of the Enlightenment.” [1]

The modern period had begun. The growing skepticism in regards to anything supernatural was matched by growing faith in human ability to know the world, control it, and reap the inevitable benefits. The “Big Story” of the world was not given by revelation; rather, it was to be discovered and perhaps even determined by science, reason and technology. This major transition was at the heart of the modern period.

However, from our 21st century perspective, it is clear that the predictions of utopia guaranteed in the modern period never materialized. Instead, modernists became disillusioned as military increase brought world wars; failed development policies led to class oppression and colonialism; economic idealism resulted in communism and the Cold War; and our best science created nuclear weapons and the threat of global devastation.

Postmodern writers, beginning with Nietzsche, began to question the integrity of modernism’s metanarrative of progress. In fact, the main casualty of a postmodern perspective is the very idea of a metanarrative. Postmoderns are skeptical of any and all claims to an authoritative comprehensive worldview, absolute truth about reality, and an overarching purpose to the human story.[2] Postmoderns embrace local narratives, not metanarratives; a multitude of stories, not a “Big Story.”

In short, it could be said that religious metanarratives were dismissed by modernism. Man-made ones are dismissed by postmodernism. This is what Myron Penner and others have referred to as “the postmodern turn:”[3] postmodernism is a turn away from the certainty and optimism of modernism. As Jean Francios Lyotard wrote: “Simplifying to the extreme, I define postmodern as incredulity toward metanarratives.”[4]

Answering the Postmodern Challenge

Postmodernism’s impact on Western culture is hotly debated, and various thinkers and writers- including those coming from a Christian worldview- have offered diverging opinions of it. Some see it as a passing fad; others see it as long-lasting paradigm shift. Some decry it as dangerously destructive; others embrace its destruction of the oppressive structures of modernity.

The most helpful contribution of postmodernism is, first, that it has successfully challenged the reigning paradigm of the modern period, which was based largely on naturalistic humanism. Modernism, in seeking to arrive at absolute knowledge through empirical investigation, separated matters of “faith” from matters of objective knowledge about the real world. Postmodernism confronts this dichotomy in ways that are helpful for the Christian worldview.

Second, postmodernism has cast a large shadow of skepticism (and has offered a strong dose of humility) on the modern belief in the efficacy and near inerrancy of human reason. As was seen during the modern period, human reason can be quite productive, especially in the arenas of science, medicine, and technology. However, human reason can also be manipulative and destructive, especially when it produces the totalizing ideologies (e.g. communism, Nazism, colonialism, etc) that characterized the modern period.

Third, postmodernism has demonstrated that objectivity and certainty are not exclusive to the realm of science as was claimed during the modern period. In fact, science is often quite biased and agenda-driven, and is therefore in no place to claim to be the final arbiter on all matters of knowledge. This is especially helpful for Christians, who often feel the burden to play by the rules of modernism and empirically demonstrate every aspect of Christian truth.

Fourth, postmodernism rightly reminds us of the power of our culture, and especially the language of our culture, in creating our frames of reference. The modern period demonstrated that this power can be used to marginalize and oppress others at the personal and the systemic level. For the Christian, then, care should be taken to distinguish Scriptural teaching from our cultural perceptions.

Finally, the emphasis of postmodernism on story and narrative fits (to a limited extent) with the way the Bible presents God’s interaction with the world. The Bible is, on the whole, a narrative through which God gives us the Truth about Himself, humanity and the world. Of course, for the postmodernist, no story is to be considered true in this absolute sense over and above any other story, and propositions from one interpretive community are irrelevant for others.

The Bible does not present a God whose story is one among many, but a God whose story is the story above all others. So, in dealing with the postmodern mind, evangelicals face a difficult situation. For the past several centuries, modernity has relegated Christianity to the category of an unscientific, unrealistic worldview that is simply not believable for thinking people. Some Christians are tempted to settle for having Christianity accepted as a truth rather than face the prospect of being dismissed due to dogmatically claiming to be the truth, and abandoning the concept of worldview seems to be a small price to pay for having at least some claim to “truth.”

Although the dethroning of humanistic scientific reason is attractive to battle-weary Christian intellectuals, the postmodern denial of all objective truth is unacceptable. Further, it is important to note that none of the positive contributions of postmodernism originated with postmodernism! In fact, the Christian worldview has always attested to the limitations of unaided human reason, the effect of the fall on objectivity and certainty, the tendency of humans towards marginalizing others, and the role the concept of story plays in our experience.

Despite the popularity of postmodernism among many Christians, the Christian worldview and the postmodern worldview cannot co-exist without one capitulating to the other. One could argue that we are chronologically “postmodern;” but ideologically, we cannot become “postmodernists.”[5]

Next Page »