Shutting Down Christianity

Liberal disdain for all things Christian, and the desire to remove all vestiges of Christianity from public view so as to pack the Christian faith into the four walls of the church, and no place else, is nothing new. The American Civil Liberties Union has been one of those organizations at the forefront of limiting biblical exposure to the general public. Click on the links below to view two different articles on this subject.

 

Shutting Down Christianity One Commandment at a Time.

Judge Suggests Chopping 10 Commandments Down to 6.

The Vanderbilt Decision

I’m not sure if you’ve heard of Vanderbilt University’s decision to require open access to all school sponsored groups. The decision would require any Christian organization to allow anyone to join and run for office regardless of their moral positions which may be in direct contrast to the teaching of the Bible. Several Christian organizations reject the open enrollment policy as it would obviously undermine the very reason for their existence in the first place.

Satan and the world continue to attack Christianity. We as Christians must be prepared to take a stand against tyranny.

Here is an excerpt from the post:

“Across the United States and around the world, few ministries are more urgently needed than campus ministries.  According to UCLA’s Higher Education Research Institute, many students said that they enrolled in college to find their life purpose, and that they expected their college education to help them not only with their intellectual development, but their emotional and spiritual development as well.  Little wonder that the college years have been called the last, best time to reach someone for Christ.

Yet now, on a growing number of campuses, there are stiff challenges regarding campus access for Christian organizations.

At least if they want to stay distinctly Christian.

In a test that may reverberate through private educational institutions around the nation, Vanderbilt University has placed InterVarsity’s Graduate Christian Fellowship and several other Christian organizations on provisional status until the issue of compliance with the university’s nondiscrimination policy is resolved.  In essence, Vanderbilt does not want organizations like InterVarsity to use religious criteria for the leadership or character of its organization.  There must be an “all comers” policy that requires completely equal access to all organizations for every student.”

The entire blog post can be found here.

 

China Increasing Crackdown on Christianity?

 

This article documents an increase in persecution against Chinese Christians. The article states house church members are subjected to torture but doesn’t outline what those torture methods may be. Below are the first three paragraphs from the article. Please click here to see the rest of the article.

EIJING, CHINA (BosNewsLife)– Chinese authorities have stepped up their “longstanding opposition to Christianity” in China last year, an influential human rights group said in comments monitored by BosNewsLife Thursday, February 2.

In its annual report, U.S.-based China Aid Association (CAA) cited figures that it said “showed a dramatic worsening of government persecution of Christians and churches.”

Those statistics included “a 131.8 percent increase” in the number of Christians detained for their religious beliefs. “This trend of worsening persecution has persisted for the past six years,” the group said, adding that Christians were not the only target.

Occupying the Lunatic Fringe

By Michael Shannon, on February 2nd, 2012 posted at Intellectual Conservative.

I like where this article started out but not so much where it ended. It begins by reminding readers that Jesus didn’t confront civil authority. When in conflict with the leaders of the day, the Sanhedrin, Pharisees, Sadducees and teachers of the law, he was confronting their religious beliefs. One incident where he did discuss political concepts was the discussion about  the payment of taxes. His answer disarmed the Jews who asked the question but really drew no political reaction at all. Jesus simply says to pay your taxes and give to God.

When the article turned to a comparison of the Tea Party and the Occupy Wall Street crowd I became disinterested. Jesus came to earth to introduce the heavenly kingdom and implement God’s plan of salvation. He didn’t come to earth to install any particular political philosophy.

When we enter God’s kingdom our lives should reflect his purpose for our life Ephesians 5:2, Galatians 5:22. Flowing out of that will be works of compassion for others.

Below are the first two paragraphs of the article. Click on the link at the first of this post if you’d like to read the entire article.

“Recently outraged Internet theologians took umbrage at my refusal to join the effort to transform Jesus into a big government, liberal Democrat that supports the Occupy squatters. Most echoed secular interpreters of Christ who claim, “Jesus shares many of the values of those in the Occupy movement.” I contend Jesus had plenty of time to confront civil authority, yet Christ focused on religious authority. He didn’t discuss politics with the centurion or tax rates with Matthew. In fact the only system of government approved by God was that of the judges, and the Jews disliked that arrangement so much they demanded a king. Democracy and social justice are not mentioned in the New Testament because it’s not a political science or economics text. The Word is directed at individuals and not Wall Street, corporations, the GOP, Congress or the Koch brothers. Solutions will come, if ever, from individuals acting on their own and not collectivists like Nancy Pelosi telling us what to do.

But I try to keep an open mind. Maybe I haven’t spent enough time with Occupy to form an accurate opinion. Fortunately, my daughter saved me a trip and reported back on her encounter with those New Testament individuals working to establish the Kingdom here on earth. Last Saturday night Occupy was marching through Downtown DC to block Obama’s appearance at that den of inequity, the Alfalfa Club Dinner.”

How Will The Shocking Decline Of Christianity In America Affect The Future Of This Nation?

Is Christianity in decline in America?  When you examine the cold, hard numbers it is simply not possible to come to any other conclusion.  Over the past few decades, the percentage of Christians in America has been steadily declining.  This has especially been true among young people.  As you will see later in this article, there has been a mass exodus of teens and young adults out of U.S. churches.  In addition, what “Christianity” means to American Christians today is often far different from what “Christianity” meant to their parents and their grandparents.  Millions upon millions of Christians in the United States simply do not believe many of the fundamental principles of the Christian faith any longer.  Without a doubt, America is becoming a less “Christian” nation.  This has staggering implications for the future of this country.  The United States was founded primarily by Christians that were seeking to escape religious persecution.  For those early settlers, the Christian faith was the very center of their lives, and it deeply affected the laws that they made and the governmental structures that they established.  So what is the future of America going to look like if we totally reject the principles that this nation was founded on?

Overall, Christianity is still the largest religion in the world by far.  According to the Pew Forum on Religion & Public Life, there are currently 2.2 billion Christians in the world.  So Christianity is not in danger of disappearing any time soon.  In fact, in some areas of the globe it is experiencing absolutely explosive growth.

But in the United States, things are different.  Churches are shrinking, skepticism is growing and apathy about spiritual matters seems to be at an all-time high.

Before we examine the data, let me disclose that I am a Christian.  I am not bashing Christians or the Christian faith at all in this article.  In fact, I consider the decline of Christianity in America to be a very bad thing.  Not everyone is going to agree with me on that, but hopefully this article will help spark a debate on the role of religion in America that everyone can learn something from.

Unfortunately, the reality is that most Americans spend very little time thinking about religion or spiritual matters these days.

Just consider the following quote from a recent USA Today article….

“The real dirty little secret of religiosity in America is that there are so many people for whom spiritual interest, thinking about ultimate questions, is minimal,” says Mark Silk, professor of religion and public life at Trinity College”

This is backed up by the numbers.  For example, a survey taken last year by LifeWay Research found that 46 percent of all Americans never think about whether they will go to heaven or not.

To most Americans, faith is simply not a big deal.  This is particularly true of our young people.  Those under the age of 30 are leaving U.S. churches in droves.  The following comes from a recent CNN article….

David Kinnaman, the 38-year-old president of the Barna Group, an evangelical research firm, is the latest to sound the alarm. In his new book, “You Lost Me: Why Young Christians Are Leaving Church and Rethinking Faith,” he says that 18- to 29-year-olds have fallen down a “black hole” of church attendance. There is a 43% drop in Christian church attendance between the teen and early adult years, he says.

But it isn’t just young people that are leaving American churches.  The proportion of Americans that consider themselves to be Christians has been steadily declining for many years.  Back in 1990, 86 percent of all Americans considered themselves to be Christian.  By 2008, that number had dropped to 76 percent.

Meanwhile, the number of Americans that reject religion entirely has absolutely soared.  According to data from the U.S. Census Bureau, the number of Americans with “no religion” more than doubled between 1990 and 2008.

So what is going to happen if these trends continue?

Dave Olson, the director of church planting for the Evangelical Covenant Church, has made some really interesting projections regarding what is going to happen to church attendance in America if current trends continue.

According to Olson, only 18.7 percent of all Americans regularly attend church right now.  If this number continues to decline at the current pace, Olson says that the percentage of Americans attending church in 2050 will be about half of what it is today.

Other research has produced similar results.

According to a study done by LifeWay Research, membership in Southern Baptist churches will fall nearly 50 percent by the year 2050 if current trends persist.

If you are a Christian, you should be quite alarmed by these numbers.

But what is happening to the faith of our young people should be even more alarming for Christians.

The American Religious Identification Survey by the Institute for the Study of Secularism in Society & Culture at Trinity College is one of the most comprehensive studies on religion in America that has ever been done.

According to that study, 15 percent of all Americans say that they have “no religion”.

That is up from 8 percent in 1990.

That is quite a change.

But the move away from religion is particularly pronounced among our young people.

One recent survey found that 25 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 29 say that they have no religion.

Obviously the Christian faith is not winning the battle for the hearts and the minds of our young people.  The cold, hard truth is that in America today, the younger you are, the less likely you are to consider yourself to be a Christian.

Large numbers of young Americans that went to church while they were growing up are now leaving U.S. churches entirely.  A recent study by the Barna Group discovered that nearly 60 percent of all Christians between the ages of 15 and 29 are no long actively involved in any church.

But not only have they left the church, our young people have also abandoned just about all forms of Christian spirituality.

Just check out the results of one survey of young adults that was conducted by LifeWay Christian Resources….

•65% rarely or never pray with others, and 38% almost never pray by themselves either.

•65% rarely or never attend worship services of any kind.

•67% don’t read the Bible or any other religious texts on a regular basis.

If this does not get turned around, churches all over America will be closing their doors.  When the survey above first came out, the president of LifeWay Christian Resources stated that “the Millennial generation will see churches closing as quickly as GM dealerships.”

But it is not just church that our young people are rejecting.

The reality is that they are also rejecting the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.

One survey conducted by the Barna Group found that less than 1 percent of all Americans between the ages of 18 and 23 hold a Biblical worldview.

The Barna Group asked participants in the survey if they agreed with the following six statements….

1) Believing that absolute moral truth exists.
2) Believing that the Bible is completely accurate in all of the principles it teaches.
3) Believing that Satan is considered to be a real being or force, not merely symbolic.
4) Believing that a person cannot earn their way into Heaven by trying to be good or by doing good works.
5) Believing that Jesus Christ lived a sinless life on earth.
6) Believing that God is the all-knowing, all-powerful creator of the world who still rules the universe today.

Less than 1 percent of the participants agreed with all of those statements.

That is staggering.

But it is not just young adults that are rejecting the fundamentals of the Christian faith.

Even large numbers of “evangelical Christians” are rejecting the fundamental principles of the Christian faith.

For example, one survey found that 52 percent of all Americans Christians believe that “at least some non-Christian faiths can lead to eternal life”.

Another survey found that 29 percent of all American Christians claim to have been in contact with the dead, 23 percent believe in astrology and 22 percent believe in reincarnation.

Without a doubt, the religious landscape of America is changing.

Over the past several decades, church attendance has been steadily declining, the percentage of Americans that consider themselves to be Christians has been going down, and the number of people that hold traditional Christian beliefs has been dropping like a rock.

So what does all of this mean for the future of America?

View original post

Founders En Masse Advocated Christianity

Another outstanding article from Apologetics Press.

Dave Miller, Ph.D.

Popular propaganda spouted for half a century or more claims that the Founders and Framers of America were deists and largely irreligious men who sought to establish a secular society that celebrates all ideologies, religions, and philosophies as equally valid. This sinister “diversity” myth has inflicted untold damage on American society, bringing the nation literally to the brink of disaster.

The failure of the average citizen to examine the facts and assess the gravity of the situation is inexcusable. In reality, the religious orientation of the architects of American civilization, and their view regarding its importance to the establishment and perpetuation of the Republic, is easily ascertainable. Rather than wade through the myriad pages and books that purport to depict American history accurately, all one need do is simply reread the organic utterances issued by the Founders as they orchestrated the founding.

Though not including all those who rightly wear the appellation “Founder,” nevertheless, the Continental Congress comprised a substantial portion of those men, and they may clearly be designated quintessential Founders (see Miller, 2009, p. 3). They certainly constitute a representative cross section of the men who brought the Republic into existence. Consider one sample among many in which the Continental Congress en masse issued a proclamation to the entire population of the country on March 19, 1782:

The United States in Congress assembled…think it their indispensable duty to call upon the several states, to set apart the last Thursday in April next, as a day of fasting, humiliation and prayer…that He would incline the hearts of all men to peace, and fill them with universal charity and benevolence, and that the religion of our Divine Redeemer, with all its benign influences, may cover the earth as the waters cover the seas (Journals of…, 22:137-138, emp. added).

The “Divine Redeemer” is Jesus Christ. Calling for Christ’s religion to “cover the earth as the waters cover the seas” is a direct allusion to two Old Testament passages—Isaiah 11:9 and Habakkuk 2:14.

 The Founders insisted that the stability of the Republic depends on the Christian religion, with its moral principles and spiritual framework. They felt that though other religions may certainly be tolerated in America, the peculiar doctrines and practices of those religions must not be allowed to alter the laws and institutions of the nation. Nor must those doctrines and practices do any physical harm to Americans or violate Christian morality (e.g., polygamy, homosexuality, and abortion). The Founders would be horrified at the notion of “political correctness” and its corrosive, destructive influence. They would have difficulty believing that Americans would ever even consider allowing Sharia law to be included in our courts, schools, or government. The Founders never asked that Hinduism cover the Earth, nor Islam, Buddhism, or Atheism. Rather, they begged God to cover the Earth with the religion of Christ as thoroughly and completely as the waters cover the oceans of the world.

REFERENCES

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ and the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Brick Walls

This is a tragic story about a young girl who has been denied a transplant due to mental handicap . It shows how our society has lost the value of human life. The article and website can be found here. Please go to the website and donate if your heart leads you in that direction.

I am going to try and tell you what happened to us on January 10, 2012, in the conference room in the Nephrology department at Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia.

We arrived for our regular Nephrology visit with Amelia’s doctor who has seen her for the last three years. She examines Amelia and sends us for labs. I ask about the transplant and she says we have about six months to a year until she needs one. She tells us she reserved the conference room and when we get back from labs, we can meet with the transplant team and he can tell us about the transplant process.

After the labs, Amelia falls asleep in her stroller and we are called back to a large room with a screen and about sixteen chairs. Joe and I get comfortable and leave a space between us to fit the stroller. After about five minutes, a doctor and a social worker enter the room. They sit across from us but also leave a space between the two of them.

The doctor begins to talk and I listen intently on what he is saying. He has a Peruvian accent and is small, with brown hair, a mustache and is about sixty five years old. He gets about four sentences out ( I think it is an introduction) and places two sheets of paper on the table. I can’t take my eyes off the paper. I am afraid to look over at Joe because I suddenly know where the conversation is headed. In the middle of both papers, he highlighted in pink two phrases. Paper number one has the words, “Mentally Retarded” in cotton candy pink right under Hepatitis C. Paper number two has the phrase, “Brain Damage” in the same pink right under HIV. I remind myself to focus and look back at the doctor. I am still smiling.

He says about three more sentences when something sparks in my brain. First it is hazy, foggy, like I am swimming under water. I actually shake my head a little to clear it. And then my brain focuses on what he just said.

I put my hand up. “Stop talking for a minute. Did you just say that Amelia shouldn’t have the transplant done because she is mentally retarded. I am confused. Did you really just say that?”

The tears. Oh, the damn tears. Where did they come from? Niagara Falls. All at once. There was no warning. I couldn’t stop them. There were no tissues in conference room so I use my sleeve and my hands and I keep wiping telling myself to stop it.

I point to the paper and he lets me rant a minute. I can’t stop pointing to the paper. “This phrase. This word. This is why she can’t have the transplant done.”

“Yes.”

I begin to shake. My whole body trembles and he begins to tell me how she will never be able to get on the waiting list because she is mentally retarded.

A bit of hope. I sit up and get excited.

“Oh, that’s ok! We plan on donating. If we aren’t a match, we come from a large family and someone will donate. We don’t want to be on the list. We will find our own donor.”

“Noooo. She—is—not—eligible –because—of—her—quality– of –life—Because—of—her—mental—delays” He says each word very slowly as if I am hard of hearing.

“STOP IT NOW!” The anger is taking over. Thank God. Why did it take so long to get here?

The social worker is writing some things down. Not sure what. She casually gets up to take a call. My eyes follow her to the phone and I see Joe’s face. His mouth is open, his face is pale and he is staring straight ahead of him at the white board.

Rage fills the room. I point in his little, brown pudgy face. “Do not talk about her quality of life. You have no idea what she is like. We have crossed many, many road blocks with Amelia and this is just one more. So, you don’t agree she should have it done? Fine. But tell me who I talk to next because SHE WILL HAVE IT DONE AND IT WILL BE AT CHOP.”

I see the social worker quickly writing down what I just said. Joe hasn’t moved. Amelia is still asleep.

The social worker decides to join the conversation. “Well, you know a transplant is not forever. She will need another one in twelve years. And then what? And do you have any idea of the medications she will need to take to keep her healthy?”

I speak through gritted together. “YES, I HAVE DONE ALL MY RESEARCH.”

She smirks a little. “Well, what happens when she is thirty and neither of you are around to take care of her. What happens to her then? Who will make sure she takes her medications then?”

In a voice that mimics hers, I snort, “Well, what happens if you die tomorrow? Who will take care of your children? Your responsibilities at work?” She breathes in and her eyes widens. “Right!” I throw at her. “Neither of us can predict the future and we shouldn’t try. But if Amelia does not have this transplant she has no future!”

The doctor interrupts. He puts his hands up and tries to take a stern voice with me. “These medications she has to take after the transplant, they are very dangerous. They can cause seizures. We have to get the dose exact. They may cause brain damage.”

“DO OTHER CHIILDREN WHO HAVE A TRANSPLANT TAKE THIS MEDICATION?”

“Yes, but it is different for her. She is already brain damaged and mentally retarded.”

He pauses as if he is choosing his words carefully. “I have been warned about you. About how involved you and your famliy are with Amelia.”

The devil himself could not have produced a more evil laugh. “Ha! Warned! That is funny! You have no idea…”

I am beginning to realize I want this over with so I can move onto the next person who will help me with the transplant. So I say the words and ask the questions I have been avoiding.

“So you mean to tell me that as a doctor, you are not recommending the transplant, and when her kidneys fail in six months to a year, you want me to let her die because she is mentally retarded? There is no other medical reason for her not to have this transplant other than she is MENTALLY RETARDED!”

“Yes. This is hard for me, you know.”

My eyes burn through his soul as if I could set him on fire right there. “Ok, so now what? This is not acceptable to me. Who do I talk to next?”

“I will take this back to the team. We meet once a month. I will tell them I do not recommend Amelia for a transplant because she is mentally retarded and we will vote.”

“And then who do I see?”

“Well, you can then take it the ethics committee but as a team we have the final say. Feel free to go somewhere else. But it won’t be done here.”

They both get up and leave the room.

I look at Joe who is sobbing trying to get the stroller and Amelia’s backpack. I break down with him before we head to the parking garage.

I hope you are disturbed, troubled, distressed, and pissed off when you read this. I hope you share it with many, many people. Although I did not know this yesterday, this is very common and happens across the map. I have researched and researched and researched transplants and the MR, as they are called in the medical journals, and it is appalling. We are in the year 2012 and my child still does not have the right to live, the right to a transplant, because she is developmentally delayed.

Atheism and Liberal, Missouri

By Eric Lyons M.Min. of Apologetics Press

In the summer of 1880, George H. Walser founded the town of Liberal in southwest Missouri. Named after the Liberal League in Lamar, Missouri (to which the town’s organizer belonged), Walser’s objective was “to found a town without a church, [w]here unbelievers could bring up their children without religious training,” and where Christians were not allowed (Thompson, 1895; Becker, 1895). “His idea was to build up a town that should exclusively be the home of Infidels…a town that should have neither God, Hell, Church, nor Saloon” (Brand, 1895). Some of the early inhabitants of Liberal even encouraged other infidels to move to their town by publishing an advertisement which boasted that Liberal “is the only town of its size in the United States without a priest, preacher, church, saloon, God, Jesus, hell or devil” (Keller, 1885, p. 5). Walser and his “freethinking” associates were openly optimistic about their new town. Excitement was in the air, and atheism was at its core. They believed that their godless town of “sober, trustworthy and industrious” individuals would thrive for years on end. But, as one young resident of that town, Bessie Thompson, wrote about Liberal in 1895, “…like all other unworthy causes, it had its day and passed away.” Bessie did not mean that the actual town of Liberal ceased to exist, but that the idea of having a “good, godless” city is a contradiction in terms. A town built upon “trustworthy” atheistic ideals eventually will reek of the rotten, immoral fruits of infidelity. Such fruits were witnessed and reported firsthand by Clark Braden in 1885.

St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885
St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Saturday, May 2, 1885

Braden was an experienced preacher, debater, and author. In his lifetime, he presented more than 3,000 lectures, and held more than 130 regular debates—eighteen of which were with the Mormons (Carpenter, 1909, pp. 324-325). In 1872, Braden even challenged the renowned agnostic Robert Ingersoll to debate, to which Ingersoll reportedly responded, “I am not such a fool as to debate. He would wear me out” (Haynes, 1915, pp. 481-482). Although Braden was despised by some, his skills in writing and public speaking were widely known and acknowledged. In February 1885, Clark Braden introduced himself to the townspeople of Liberal (Keller, 1885, p. 5; Moore, 1963, p. 38), and soon thereafter he wrote about what he had seen.

In an article that appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, titled “An Infidel Experiment,” Braden reported the following.

The boast about the sobriety of the town is false. But few of the infidels are total abstainers. Liquor can be obtained at three different places in this town of 300 inhabitants. More drunken infidels can be seen in a year in Liberal than drunken Christians among one hundred times as many church members during the same time. Swearing is the common form of speech in Liberal, and nearly every inhabitant, old and young, swears habitually. Girls and boys swear on the streets, playground, and at home. Fully half of the females will swear, and a large number swear habitually…. Lack of reverence for parents and of obedience to them is the rule. There are more grass widows, grass widowers and people living together, who have former companions living, than in any other town of ten times the population…. A good portion of the few books that are read are of the class that decency keeps under lock and key….

These infidels…can spend for dances and shows ten times as much as they spend on their liberalism. These dances are corrupting the youth of the surrounding country with infidelity and immorality. There is no lack of loose women at these dances.

Since Liberal was started there has not been an average of one birth per year of infidel parents. Feticide is universal. The physicians of the place say that a large portion of their practice has been trying to save females from consequences of feticide. In no town is slander more prevalent, or the charges more vile. If one were to accept what the inhabitants say of each other, he would conclude that there is a hell, including all Liberal, and that its inhabitants are the devils (as quoted in Keller, 1885, p. 5).

According to Braden, “[s]uch are the facts concerning this infidel paradise…. Every one who has visited Liberal, and knows the facts, knows that such is the case” (p. 5).

As one can imagine, Braden’s comments did not sit well with some of the townspeople of Liberal. In fact, a few days after Braden’s observations appeared in the St. Louis Post-Dispatch, he was arrested for criminal libel and tried on May 18, 1885. According to Braden, “After the prosecution had presented their evidence, the case was submitted to the jury without any rebutting evidence by the defence (sic), and the jury speedily brought in a verdict of ‘No cause for action’ ” (as quoted in Mouton, n.d., pp. 36-37). Unfortunately for Braden, however, the controversy was not over. On the following day (May 19, 1885), a civil suit was filed by one of the townsmen—S.C. Thayer, a hotel operator in Liberal. The petition for damages of $25,000 alleged that Clark Braden and the St. Louis Post-Dispatch published an article in which they had made false, malicious, and libelous statements against the National Hotel in Liberal, managed by Mr. Thayer. He claimed that Braden’s remarks, published in the St. Louise Post-Dispatch on May 2, 1885, “greatly and irreparably injured and ruined” his business (Thayer v. Braden). However, when the prosecution learned that the defense was thoroughly prepared to prove that Liberal was a den of infamy, and that its hotels were little more than houses of prostitution, the suit was dismissed on September 17, 1886 by the plaintiff at his own cost (Thayer v. Braden). Braden was exonerated in everything he had written. Indeed, the details Braden originally reported about Liberal, Missouri, on May 2, 1885 were found to be completely factual.

It took only a few short years for Liberal’s unattractiveness and inconsistency to be exposed. People cannot exclude God from the equation, and expect to remain a “sober, trustworthy” town. Godlessness equals unruliness, which in turn makes a repugnant, immoral people. The town of Liberal was a failure. Only five years after its establishment, Braden indicated that “[n]ine-tenths of those now in town would leave if they could sell their property. More property has been lost by locating in the town than has been made in it…. Hundreds have been deceived and injured and ruined financially” (Keller, p. 5). Apparently, “doing business with the devil” did not pay the kind of dividends George Walser (the town’s founder) and the early inhabitants of Liberal desired. It appears that even committed atheists found living in Liberal in the early days intolerable. Truly, as has been observed in the past, “An infidel surrounded by Christians may spout his infidelity and be able to endure it, but a whole town of atheists is too horrible to contemplate.” It is one thing to espouse a desire to live in a place where there is no God, but it is an entirely different thing for such a place actually to exist. For it to become a reality is more than the atheist can handle. Adolf Hitler took atheism to its logical conclusion in Nazi Germany, and created a world that even most atheists detested. Although atheists want no part of living according to the standards set out by Jesus and His apostles in the New Testament, the real fruits of evolutionary atheism also are too horrible for them to contemplate.

Although the town of Liberal still exists today (with a population of about 800 people), and although vestiges of its atheistic heritage are readily apparent, it is not the same town it was in 1895. At present, at least seven religious groups associated with Christianity exist within this city that once banned Christianity and all that it represents. Numerous other churches meet in the surrounding areas. According to one of the religious leaders in the town, “a survey of Liberal recently indicated that 50% of the people are actively involved with some church” (Abbott, 2003)—a far cry from where Liberal began.

There is no doubt that the moral, legal, and educational systems of Liberal, Missouri, in the twenty-first century are the fruits of biblical teaching, not atheism. When Christianity and all of the ideals that the New Testament teaches are effectively put into action, people will value human life, honor their parents, respect their neighbors, and live within the moral guidelines given by God in the Bible. A city comprised of faithful Christians would be mostly void of such horrors as sexually transmitted diseases, murder, drunken fathers who beat their wives and children, drunk drivers who turn automobiles into lethal weapons, and heartache caused by such things as divorce, adultery, and covetousness. (Only those who broke God’s commandments intended for man’s benefit would cause undesirable fruit to be reaped.)

On the other hand, when atheism and all of its tenets are taken to their logical conclusion, people will reap some of the same miserable fruit once harvested by the early citizens of Liberal, Missouri (and sadly, some of the same fruit being reaped by many cities in the world today). Men and women will attempt to cover up sexual sins by aborting babies, children will disrespect their parents, students will “run wild” at home and in school because of the lack of discipline, and “sexual freedom” (which leads to sexually transmitted diseases) will be valued, whereas human life will be devalued. Such are the fruits of atheism: a society in which everyone does that which is right in his own eyes (Judges 17:6)—a society in which no sensible person wants to live.

REFERENCES

Abbott, Phil (2003), Christian Church, Liberal, Missouri, telephone conversation, April 7.

Barnes, Pamela (2003), St. Louis Post-Dispatch, telephone conversation, March 12.

Becker, Hathe (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Brand, Ida (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

Carpenter, L.L. (1909), “The President’s Address,” in Centennial Convention Report, ed. W.R. Warren, (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), pp. 317-332. [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/wwarren/ccr/CCR15B.HTM.

Haynes, Nathaniel S. (1915), History of the Disciples of Christ in Illinois 1819-1914 (Cincinnati, OH: Standard Publishing Company), [On-line], URL: http://www.mun.ca/rels/restmov/texts/nhaynes/hdcib/braden01.htm, 1996.

Keller, Samuel (1885), “An Infidel Experiment,” St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Special Correspondence with Clark Braden, May 2, p. 5.

Moore, J.P. (1963), This Strange Town—Liberal, Missouri (Liberal, MO: The Liberal News).

Mouton, Boyce (no date), George H. Walser and Liberal, Missouri: An Historical Overview.

Thayer, S.C. v. Clark Braden, et. al. Filed on May 19, 1885 in Barton County Missouri. Dismissed September 10, 1886.

Thompson, Bessie (1895), “Liberal,” Liberal Enterprise, December 5,12, [On-line], URL: http://lyndonirwin.com/libhist1.htm.

One Code of Morality

Dave Miller, Ph.D. of Apologetics Press

The social turbulence of the 1960s created a revolution in societal mores among the baby boomer generation. The stated philosophy of “do your own thing” literally has “gone to seed” in American society. The result is that many Americans live their lives and make their day-to-day moral decisions on the basis of a hodge-podge of values drawn from a variety of sources. Situation ethics is the order of the day, and the average person simply acts on his feelings and personal opinions. Morality is now individualistic—with each person formulating his own belief system and then measuring his behavior against that subjective, personal, moral framework. Concomitant with the development of this circumstance is the corresponding sentiment that no one should “judge” anyone else’s beliefs or actions, and everyone should be “tolerant” of the diversity of viewpoints that permeate society. When such a state of affairs holds sway, one should not be surprised to encounter jurors who are lenient with a woman who murdered her husband in cold blood. One should not be surprised when millions of law-breaking, illegal immigrants are tolerated and even excused. One should not be surprised that repeat offenders who rape, maim, and murder are allowed to circumvent the criminal justice system and perpetuate their atrocities on innocent citizens.

The Founding Fathers of the American Republic would be deeply saddened to see the extent to which our civilization has slumped from its original high moral ground. In a letter from Paris dated August 28, 1789, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison: “I know but one code of morality for men whether acting singly or collectively” (1789). He was simply expressing the widespread view of the Founders as well as the populace of the United States at the time. Indeed, he merely articulated biblical reality, in which moral value, good, and evil, are defined by the Creator in His Word, the Bible. By that Word and by that standard, every human being’s life will one day be measured. In the words of Jesus Christ: “He who rejects Me, and does not receive My words, has that which judges him—the word that I have spoken will judge him in the last day” (John 12:48). Indeed, the day is coming when

the Lord Jesus is revealed from heaven with His mighty angels, in flaming fire taking vengeance on those who do not know God, and on those who do not obey the gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ. These shall be punished with everlasting destruction from the presence of the Lord and from the glory of His power, when He comes, in that Day, to be glorified in His saints and to be admired among all those who believe (2 Thessalonians 1:7-10).

REFERENCE

Jefferson, Thomas (1789), “Letter to James Madison,” The Works of Thomas Jefferson in Twelve Volumes, ed. Paul Leicester Ford, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mtj:@field(DOCID+@lit (tj050135)).

Is Mormonism a Cult, and Does It Matter in 2012?

From Church and Culture Blog

You’ve probably read the news by now. In a less than veiled attempt to sway evangelical voters to presidential hopeful Rick Perry after introducing him as a “true” Christian at the Values Voter Summit last Friday, the senior pastor of First Baptist Church-Dallas termed GOP front-runner Mitt Romney’s Mormonism a “cult.”

So is it?

The answer is both “yes” and “no,” and understanding why is an important discussion.

The answer is obviously “no” from a popular perspective, and this is what has created a bit of a firestorm.

Mention “cult” and most people think of Jim Jones or David Koresh. Or even worse, Charles Manson. They think poisoned Kool-Aid and Waco, mind-control and isolation.

None of which would be true of Mormonism, and would be wrong to insinuate.

But in theological terms, if you were to define cult as a religious group that denies the biblical nature of God, the full divinity of Jesus Christ, and that we are only saved through His atoning death on the cross through grace, then yes, it is.
This is not news; it has been the position of mainstream Christian faith since Joseph Smith came on the scene with his extra-biblical revelations. In a LifeWay Research survey of 1,000 American Protestant pastors, 75% rejected the idea that Mormons were Christians.

Not because of bigotry, but because of theology.

So sociologically, no, Mormonism is not a cult. It is not like Scientology or Hare Krishna, Jehovah’s Witnesses or Christian Science.

But theologically, yes, it is.

But because of the cultural overtones, we’re better off calling them a religion that borrows heavily from Christianity but stands outside of mainstream orthodoxy. They themselves would agree, maintaining that they have something different to offer than traditional Christian faith.

But whether a theological cult or not, does it matter? Does it matter whether we elect a non-Christian president? In the rush to condemn the comments by Jeffress, many seem to be bending over backward to maintain that one’s personal religious beliefs are irrelevant to higher office.

Much of this is pure politics. If Romney’s Mormonism becomes a liability, it will hurt the GOP’s chances in 2012 if indeed he proves to be their candidate for president. According to the Pew Research Center, 34% of white evangelicals report themselves “less likely” to vote for a Mormon for president.

But should faith matter?

Again, “yes” and “no,” and, again, understanding why is an important investment.

The answer is “no” in that we are not electing a president to be a pastor or Pope, priest or prophet. The title is commander in chief, not cleric in chief. Further, Article VI of the Constitution is very clear: “[N]o religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.”

There should be no doubt as to the freedom for any citizen to participate in the political process, regardless of faith.

But the answer is “yes” in that a person’s religious convictions, or lack thereof, shape their thinking. And we are very much electing someone to think and decide on our behalf.

*Does the candidate claim a faith but it has no real bearing on their life?

That matters to me.

*Does the candidate hold to an End Times view that will shape their dealings with the Middle East?

That matters to me.

*Does the candidate sincerely pray to the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, Jesus and Paul for wisdom and discernment?

That matters to me.

*Does the candidate hold to a theological perspective that will shape views on marriage, the sanctity of life, the treatment of the widow and the orphan and the alien?

That matters to me.

I think the question would matter to any thoughtful voter of any political leaning. They may want different answers than I would, but most in the electorate would find the answers to be relevant. People who say personal conviction, or religious faith, is irrelevant to a presidential candidate are being politically and intellectual naïve. Yes, vote for president on the basis of your estimation of their ability to govern, but don’t be misled that religious conviction is irrelevant to the decision-making process inherent within governance.

So is Mormonism a cult?

Yes and no.

Does it matter if a presidential candidate is a Mormon…or a Muslim, or a Jew, or a Christian?

Yes and no.

Just make sure you know which “yes” and which “no” you have in mind.

James Emery White