SILENCED BY SECULARISM

 

 

 

In Islamic nations, Christians are silenced by the law, by threat of imprisonment or death. In the West, we are silenced by many other devices.

 

One device is the alleged “separation of Church and State.” However, this is not mentioned in the US Constitution. Instead, this document proclaims the opposite:

 

·       Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

 

Nevertheless, today we march according to sets of unspoken social rules that are just as binding as a ball and chain. Let me offer you the example of the secular discussion group I participated in last night. It was on “authenticity.” The moderator stressed the importance of “free speech.”

 

However, I found that I wasn’t as free to be authentic and to speak as the moderator had indicted. In my closing response, I said:

 

·       I had been a basket case. All of my highly recommended PHD psychologists had left me worse off than I had been and were unable to relieve me of my depression and panic attacks. It was only the assurance of Jesus’ love that had enabled me to accept myself and to be authentic.

 

After this, I was warned against mentioning religion by the moderator, without a sound of protest from the other 17 participants:

 

·       I am glad that you have been able to find relief from your faith, but not everyone here can accept your answer.

 

Because of this reasoning, I was prohibited from defending what I had said. She simply stated that she didn’t want to discuss religion. But wasn’t this discussion about authenticity, and didn’t I too have a right to be authentic and to speak freely about who I am and how I had been enabled to speak authentically?

 

Evidently not! Why not? Because not everyone would agree with my answer! But does everyone have to agree with all the statements of others? Would their speech first have to pass muster and conform to the unspoken rules of NYC political correctness? Evidently, but this hadn’t been specified. What had been specified was “authenticity” and “free speech.”

 

Besides, isn’t it understood that these groups are supposed to give us the opportunity to air beliefs that might contradict those of the other participants? Of course! Why then did the moderator shut me down?

 

Should the moderator have first specified that religion was the one exception to the rule, as other moderators have done? Perhaps she understood that she couldn’t. Why not? These discussion groups operate under the assumption of a secular religion, which prohibits the expression of other competing religions - a religious stance, no less dogmatic than Islam. It also violates the spirit of the 1st Amendment.

 

Modern secularism is religious in many ways:

 

·       It is naturalistic and materialistic. You can express your spirituality but not as the truth, but just what has helped you.

·       Hope is placed in oneself, the highest source of authority and being. Therefore, we are to believe in ourselves and build self-esteem, even if it does not accord with reality. If we don’t, it means that we have a psychological problem.

·       They claim to be pro-science and pro-choice, while those who disagree are not. If you don’t believe in evolution, you are anti-science.

·       Religion has held humanity back.

 

However, our values are all religious. They are not scientifically derived from a laboratory. There is no scientific test to establish LGBTQ rights or any “human rights.” We don’t find “human rights” in nature. We don’t see them through a microscope or telescope. Nor do we see human equality or human preeminence or centrality. Nevertheless, even our laws all reflect these religious realities. From where then do they come? They are religious and reflect our values and worldviews. No way around it!

 

Can we forbid the discussion of these? Certainly not! Therefore, other moderators have established rules specifically against proselytizing, aimed at silencing any expression of the Christian faith.

 

Another moderator had accused me of proselytizing, of pushing my views. However, I pointed out that almost all come to these groups to push something - an idea or just themselves. They have their own agendas, whether simply to look good or to impress. Why then shouldn’t this form of peddling also be banned? I think Jesus’ words best explain what is really at stake:

 

·       “And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed.” (John 3:19-20)

 

Perhaps these words sound harsh, but we find them throughout the Bible in various forms:

 

·       For we are the aroma of Christ to God among those who are being saved and among those who are perishing, to one a fragrance from death to death, to the other a fragrance from life to life. Who is sufficient for these things? (2 Corinthians 2:15-16)

 

To many, we are the stench of their coming judgment (Romans 1:32). Therefore, we are hated, even though committed to love and peace. This should not silence us but inform us to not think that it is about our failures or inadequacies but about the One we represent (John 15:18-20). Instead, we have been commissioned to be His light to a darkened world (2 Corinthians 5:20).

 

I am sure that other Christians come to these groups. However, apart from those I invite, they are either intimidated into silence, or they are simply befuddled by the drone of our disapproving culture. Either way, they are indistinguishable from others. I pray that the Church might wake up and reflect the Light of our calling.