SIN-UNAWARENESS, C.S. LEWIS, AND MASOCHISM

The late scholar and apologist, C.S. Lewis, had been asked about reaching “modern unbelievers” with the Gospel. Lewis stated:

·       I have met…the almost total absence from the minds of my audience of any sense of sin. (God in the Dock, 243)

Lewis thought that this lack of awareness had worsened over the ages:

·       The ancient man had approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the [defendant’s] dock. (244)

This role reversal has had a profound effect on evangelism. Lewis lamented that instead of preaching the Good News, we now had to start with the bad news that our hearers are sinners who need a Savior:

·       We have to convince our hearers of the unwelcome diagnosis before we can expect them to welcome the news of the remedy. (244)

Who wants to submit to surgery if he is not convinced that he needs such a radical form of intervention! Lewis was therefore convinced that the awareness of sin and guilt must be quickened, but how:

·       If we can awake the conscience of our hearers at all, we must do so in quite different directions [than by pointing to their acknowledged sins]. We must talk of conceit, spite, jealousy, cowardice, meanness, etc. But I am very far from believing that I have found the solution of this problem. (244)

Along with strong preaching to awaken our awareness of sin, we also need a culture that highlights sins. Instead, we have one that mitigates sin and encourages us to suppress thoughts of unworthiness and objective guilt in favor of a positive self-esteem and self-forgiveness. We live in a feel-good culture.

To combat this, we need art forms that bring back the awareness that we are sinners. Actually, we already have this awareness buried within, and it often comes out in unsuspected ways, even in the form of masochism.

We punish or deprive ourselves because we know that we deserve it. We use masochism as a form of relief or atonement. It might even take very ordinary forms, like denying ourselves pleasure to atone for the vague sense that we are not entitled to pleasure.

Benedict XVI wrote about another form of masochism. He noted how Western culture, en masse, has turned against its own Christian heritage:

·       This case illustrates a peculiar western self-hatred that is nothing short of pathological. It is commendable that the West is trying to be more open, to be more understanding of the values of outsiders, but it has lost all capacity for self-love. All that it sees in its own history is the despicable and the destructive; it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure…Multiculturalism, which is so constantly and passionately promoted, can sometimes amount to an abandonment and denial, a flight from one’s own heritage. 

Hence, the Western intellectual establishes his virtue or “manhood” by self-denial, by rejecting his own culture. Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Muslim turned atheist, shares this insight:

·       In certain countries, "left-wing," secular liberals have stimulated my critical thinking and that of other Muslims. But these same liberals in Western politics have the strange habit of blaming themselves for the ills of the world, while seeing the rest of the world as victims. To them, victims are to be pitied, and they lump together all pitiable and suppressed people, such as Muslims, and consider them good people who should be cherished and supported so that they can overcome their disadvantages. The adherents to the gospel of multiculturalism refuse to criticize people whom they see as victims. Some Western critics disapprove of United States policies and attitudes but do not criticize the Islamic world, just as, in the first part of the twentieth century, Western socialist apologists did not dare criticize the Soviet labor camps. Along the same lines, some Western intellectuals criticize Israel, but they will not criticize Palestine because Israel belongs to the West, which they consider fair game, but they feel sorry for the Palestinians, and for the Islamic world in general, which is not as powerful as the West. They are critical of the native white majority in Western countries but not of Islamic minorities. Criticism of the Islamic world, of Palestinians, and of Islamic minorities is regarded as Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Self-castigation is subtly and subconsciously understood as a reasonable payment for self-validation, a necessary defense against shame. It works something like this: “I am a good and worthy person if I champion the interests of others and am willing to criticize my own traditions.”

We seem to have an internal and inescapable script defining what it means to be deserving and worthy. This script demands that we pay for these necessary commodities through various forms of self-sacrifice.

Instead of seeking the forgiveness and reconciliation that can only come from the One who has died for our sins, we seek to establish our righteousness through our own suffering.

This was also Paul’s understanding of Israel:

·       Israel who pursued a law that would lead to righteousness did not succeed in reaching that law. Why? Because they did not pursue it by faith [in Christ], but as if it were based on [their own] works. (Romans 9:31-32; ESV)

This is also what Adam and Eve did. Instead of confessing their sin to God, they were determined to cover it themselves. However, fig leaves cannot adequately cover sin and guilt. Why not? Essentially, we were designed for a healing relationship with the Divine. However, we feverishly attempt to neutralize our pain, our awareness that something is not right within, with a variety of substitutes. Although masochism, self-denial, and even good deeds might provide temporary relief, they will never provide the freedom that only our Lord can provide.

Although modern man has suppressed the awareness of their guilt and ultimate punishment, this awareness is always threatening to appear on the stage of our consciousness. Perhaps evangelism can help them see this big picture and awaken an interest in our Savior.

Can we Learn Anything from History?

Some believe that history doesn’t teach us any lessons. At a round table discussion with a group of secularists, I asked:

• Do you think we can learn from the past? Can we apply the lessons of yesterday to today and to the future? Can they instruct us to build a better world?

Almost all proclaimed that this was a new day – a New Age – and, therefore, the lessons of the past no longer applied.

Their answer was shocking. I had worked for the New York City Department of Probation for 15 years. There was an underlying assumption that the past would tell us a lot about the future. Therefore, when we wrote a report to the court, we always included a copy of the Rap Sheet, which recorded the perp’s criminal history, assuming that the past said a lot about one’s present legal entanglements and his future.

However, progressives seem to be unwilling to regard these lessons. Why? Jason Morgan calls it “the pathology of pride”:

• Most of today’s intellectuals are still lost in this present progressive tense, deaf to the subtle tones that ought to modulate their voices from behind. They dismiss all who came before them, rejecting whatever wisdom our ancestors might have won through hard trial and costly error. They want the future now, and will not let any notes of caution dissuade them from their project. (Salvo Mag., #33, 12)

This is most apparent in the area of human sexuality. Morgan writes:

• Gender Studies departments assure us that there are no differences in sex, only in gender indoctrination. Our bodies seem to indicate otherwise, but dual sexuality is so last century. (13)

Do these departments provide any historical justifications for their bizarre proclamations? No! In fact, they overlook all of the historic lessons, which point to the contrary. These same departments had claimed that traditional values and family had enslaved wives, depriving them of sexual fulfillment. However, studies have shown the exact opposite thing:

• Women without religious affiliation were the least likely to report always having an orgasm with their primary partner – only one in five … Protestant women who reported always having an orgasm [had] the highest [percentage], at nearly one-third. In general, having a religious affiliation was associated with higher rates of orgasm for women. (The Social Organization of Sexuality, 115; quoted by Salvo, Spring 2013, 35)

This is consistent with previous studies. A Redbook Magazine survey of 1970 found that:

• The more religious a woman is, the more likely she is “to be orgasmic almost every time she engages in sex.” Conversely, irreligious women tended to be the least satisfied with the quality and quantity of their intercourse. (35)

Writing for USA Today, William R. Mattox:

• Suggested that “church ladies tend to be free from the guilt associated with violating one’s own sexual standards” – a factor that a University of Connecticut study found to hinder sexual satisfaction among unmarried college students. 

Are the gender studies people creating a better society? The evidence would not suggest so. According to Brian Fitzpatrick, the most “definitive work on the rise and fall of civilizations, was published in 1934 by Oxford anthropologist J.D. Unwin”:

• In Sex and Culture, Unwin studied 86 human civilizations ranging from tiny South Sea island principalities to mighty Rome. He found that a society’s destiny is linked inseparably to the limits it imposes on sexual expression and that those sexual constraints correlate directly to its theological sophistication and religious commitment.

• Unwin noted that the most primitive societies had only rudimentary spiritual beliefs and virtually no restrictions on sexual expression, whereas societies with more sophisticated theologies placed greater restrictions on sexual expression and achieved greater social development.

• In particular, cultures that adopt what Unwin dubbed “absolute monogamy” proved to be the most vigorous, economically productive, artistically creative, scientifically innovative, and geographically expansive societies on earth. Absolute monogamy is a very strict moral code. Under absolute monogamy, sex can occur only within one-man/ one-woman marriage. Premarital and extramarital sex are not tolerated and divorce is prohibited.

Even from our limited, contemporary perspective on human thriving, we can see how Unwin had been spot-on:

• According to the Family Research Council… more than half (54 percent of American teens 15-17 years old do not live in a home with their married mother and father. The benefits to children of being raised by their married parents are significant, including higher educational attainments levels, better emotional health, and better self-esteem. Conversely, the risks to teens of not living with a father in the home are notable. Teenage boys are more likely to engage in delinquent behavior, and girls are seven to eight times more likely to experience a teen pregnancy. (Salvo, 19)

Besides, if we regard the stats, the fallout from extramarital sex is horrendous. We can only close our eyes to history at great cost, even in terms of lives.

The French Revolution, which promised freedom, brought a Reign of Terror through their “enlightened” reason. However, the communists were unwilling to learn from this horrible experiment. Morgan writes:

• Communism, which promised the ultimate in a rationally based society, found, much to their embarrassment, that in order to liberate humanity it was necessary to put tens of millions of its members into an early grave. A clearer view of history might have reminded man of his record of depravity and of the inadvisability of relying on his fallen nature to achieve perfection.

Morgan is not simply concerned about the disregard of history, but he claims that the “pathology of pride” is actively involved in tearing down or revising history to coincide with their narrative:

• The problem, beyond bad scholarship, is that young people flock to these madhouses every year, told by cynical university bureaucrats that they need to learn contempt for their own tradition if they want to get a well-paying job. Professors are being paid to take battle-axes to the roots of Western civilization.

In such a repressive climate, even conservative professors are afraid to come to the defense of Western Civilization. Oddly, commendation for the Christian West is more likely to come from Muslims turned atheists. Pakistani former-Muslim, Ibn Warraq, has written:

• The great ideas of the West—rationalism, self-criticism, the disinterested search for truth, the separation of church and state, the rule of law and equality under the law, freedom of thought and expression, human rights, and liberal democracy—are superior to any others devised by humankind. It was the West that took steps to abolish slavery; the calls for abolition did not resonate even in Africa, where rival tribes sold black prisoners into slavery. The West has secured freedoms for women and racial and other minorities to an extent unimaginable 60 years ago. The West recognizes and defends the rights of the individual: we are free to think what we want, to read what we want, to practice our religion, to live lives of our choosing.

• In short, the glory of the West, as philosopher Roger Scruton puts it, is that life here is an open book. Under Islam, the book is closed. In many non-Western countries, especially Islamic ones, citizens are not free to read what they wish. In Saudi Arabia, Muslims are not free to convert to Christianity, and Christians are not free to practice their faith—clear violations of Article 18 of the United Nations’ Universal Declaration of Human Rights.

• The edifice of modern science and scientific method is one of Western man’s greatest gifts to the world. The West has given us not only nearly every scientific discovery of the last 500 years—from electricity to computers—but also, thanks to its humanitarian impulses, the Red Cross, Doctors Without Borders, Human Rights Watch, and Amnesty International. The West provides the bulk of aid to beleaguered Darfur; Islamic countries are conspicuous by their lack of assistance.

• Moreover, other parts of the world recognize Western superiority. When other societies such as South Korea and Japan have adopted Western political principles, their citizens have flourished. It is to the West, not to Saudi Arabia or Iran, that millions of refugees from theocratic or other totalitarian regimes flee, seeking tolerance and political freedom. Nor would any Western politician be able to get away with the anti-Semitic remarks that former Malaysian prime minister Mahathir Mohamad made in 2003. Our excusing Mahathir’s diatribe indicates not only a double standard but also a tacit acknowledgment that we apply higher ethical standards to Western leaders.

• Nor does the West need lectures on the superior virtue of societies in which women are kept in subjection under sharia, endure genital mutilation, are stoned to death for alleged adultery, and are married off against their will at the age of nine; societies that deny the rights of supposedly lower castes; societies that execute homosexuals and apostates. The West has no use for sanctimonious homilies from societies that cannot provide clean drinking water or sewage systems, that make no provisions for the handicapped, and that leave 40 to 50 percent of their citizens illiterate.

Another Muslim-turned-atheist, Ayaan Hirsi Ali, also speaks highly of the Christian West, in a way the Western scholars would not dare to:

• The Christianity of love and tolerance remains one of the West’s most powerful antidotes to the Islam of hate and intolerance. Ex-Muslims find Jesus Christ to be a more attractive and humane figure than Muhammad, the founder of Islam. 

These are willing to listen to history, as any rational person would. A good farmer once told me:

• If you want to grow corn, find the farmer who always has a good stand of corn, and ask him how he does it. 

His advice was unimpeachable. However, I had asked my secular associates a similar question - if we could learn anything from the principles that had made the USA wildly successful. They were even appalled at my question.

Masochism, Western Elites, Sweden, and Rape

A recent video places Sweden as the rape capital of the world. 

A 2013 Front Page article had placed Sweden as number two:

• Sweden now has the second highest number of rapes in the world, after South Africa, which at 53.2 per 100,000 is six times higher than the United States. Statistics now suggest that 1 out of every 4 Swedish women will be raped.
  

• With Muslims represented in as many as 77 percent of the rape cases and a major increase in rape cases paralleling a major increase in Muslim immigration, the wages of Muslim immigration are proving to be a sexual assault epidemic by a misogynistic ideology.

When someone is seriously ill, he goes for testing to identify the source of the problem. Without accurate diagnosis, there can be no meaningful intervention. However, this isn’t happening in Western Europe. (See both the UK and Norway where Muslim rape of non-Muslims has also reached epidemic levels.) Instead, the diagnosis is strenuously avoided and even censured. It is as if the Western nations have a death wish or at least a virulent case of runaway masochism.

Benedict XVI wrote about this perplexing masochistic phenomenon. He notes how Western culture, en masse, has turned against itself and its Christian heritage:

• This case illustrates a peculiar western self-hatred that is nothing short of pathological. It is commendable that the West is trying to be more open, to be more understanding of the values of outsiders, but it has lost all capacity for self-love. All that it sees in its own history is the despicable and the destructive; it is no longer able to perceive what is great and pure…Multiculturalism, which is so constantly and passionately promoted, can sometimes amount to an abandonment and denial, a flight from one’s own heritage. (Quoted by Jean Bethke Elshtain, First Things, March, 2009, 36)

Why has the West “lost all capacity” to appreciate its own heritage? Why does it punish itself? Author Ayaan Hirsi Ali, a Somali Muslim turned atheist, shares this insight:

• Liberals in Western politics have the strange habit of blaming themselves for the ills of the world, while seeing the rest of the world as victims. To them, victims are to be pitied, and they lump together all pitiable and suppressed people, such as Muslims, and consider them good people who should be cherished and supported so that they can overcome their disadvantages. The adherents to the gospel of multiculturalism refuse to criticize people whom they see as victims. Some Western critics disapprove of United States policies and attitudes but do not criticize the Islamic world, just as, in the first part of the twentieth century, Western socialist apologists did not dare criticize the Soviet labor camps. Along the same lines, some Western intellectuals criticize Israel, but they will not criticize Palestine because Israel belongs to the West, which they consider fair game, but they feel sorry for the Palestinians, and for the Islamic world in general, which is not as powerful as the West. They are critical of the native white majority in Western countries but not of Islamic minorities. Criticism of the Islamic world, of Palestinians, and of Islamic minorities is regarded as Islamophobia and xenophobia.

Okay, victims are to be pitied, but why at the expense of the well-being of our own nations? What perverse psychological mechanism is preventing our elites from valuating and protecting their own people? Do they feel guilty for the benefits that the West has enjoyed?

Guilt and shame are life-controlling forces. In Healing the Shame that Binds, psychologist John Bradshaw perceptively wrote:

• When shame has been completely internalized, nothing about you is okay. You feel flawed and inferior; you have the sense of being a failure. There is no way you can share your inner self because you are an object of contempt to yourself…To feel shame is to feel seen in an exposed and diminished way. When you’re an object to yourself, you turn your eyes inward, watching and scrutinizing every minute detail of behavior…This paralyzing internal monitoring causes withdrawal, passivity and inaction. (13)

Bradshaw’s understanding of shame might explain why the West has been bending its neck before the sword of Islam. Perhaps the West feels ashamed of its privilege and must atone for it.

Shame had also been a life-controlling and life-diminishing factor for me. My feelings of unworthiness were so powerful that I couldn’t enjoy anything. I couldn’t take a shower for more than two minutes. I just didn’t feel worthy of it. Nor could I spend any money on myself. However, when I did go without, I felt more worthy. When I didn’t, I felt psychologically threatened, as if I had done the unpardonable. I was trying to redeem myself. However, when I came to know my Redeemer Jesus, this bondage began to loosen. Since He paid the price for my sins, I no longer had to redeem myself.

It seems that we are built with a moral law that tells us that we are unworthy unless a price is paid for our unworthiness. Some indulge in self-flagellation; others in self-mutilation; while others pay the price through compulsive do-gooding and people-pleasing. In any case, we are controlled by the slave-master “shame.”

I think that this problem has gone viral, as has rape in many of the Western nations. Why? We have rejected our only protection against internal accusations of shame and unworthiness – Jesus the Savior – and are paying the just price for this rejection.

Western Civilization: Its Self-Contempt and Demise

A group neutrally named Institute for Ethics & Emerging Technologies (IEET) must be relatively reliable, right? Wrong! In an article entitled, “Psychological Harms of Biblical Christianity,” IEET claims:

• Humanity has been going through a massive shift for centuries, transitioning from a supernatural view of a world dominated by forces of good and evil to a natural understanding of the universe. The Bible-based Christian population however, might be considered a subset of the general population that is still within the old framework, that is, supernaturalism… In the biblical view, a child is not a being that is born with amazing capabilities that will emerge with the right conditions like a beautiful flower in a well-attended garden. Rather, a child is born in sin, weak, ignorant, and rebellious, needing discipline to learn obedience. 

IEET is committed to philosophical naturalism – the belief that phenomena originated, are sustained, and work by strictly natural and mindless processes. However, there is not one shred of evidence for this belief. There are no experiments, findings, or observations that have been able to rule intelligence out of the equation.

From the perspective of this belief system/religion, Christianity is therefore antiquated. However, IEET takes their criticism to another level, claiming that Christianity is destructive.

IEET, in their zeal to prove their case, consistently misrepresents Christianity. Contrary to IEET’s claims, we do believe that children are extraordinary. If fact, we have a higher regard for children than they do. We believe that they are created in the image of God, endowing them with unalienable rights – something that naturalism has no rational basis to embrace.

Of course, we believe that children sin and that sin must be addressed, but does this make it wrong? If the child has a fever, shouldn’t that be addressed? Problems need to be addressed. If we didn’t do so, IEET would accuse us of neglect!

• Because the child’s mind is uniquely susceptible to religious ideas, religious indoctrination particularly targets vulnerable young children. Cognitive development before age seven lacks abstract reasoning. Thinking is magical and primitive, black and white. Also, young humans are wired to obey authority because they are dependent on their caregivers just for survival. Much of their brain growth and development has to happen after birth, which means that children are extremely vulnerable to environmental influences in the first few years when neuronal pathways are formed.

There is no alternative but to “indoctrinate” infants. They must be socialized and learn their ABCs. All schools are agents of indoctrination. Admittedly, children should be taught to reason for themselves as they are able. However, any Einstein must first learn the ABCs, addition and subtraction.

However, IEET gives the mis-impression that they are able to bypass the inculcation of the basics, while we abusively force our children into mental strait-jackets.

Naturalists also convey the idea that they support science, while we distort children’s minds with myths:

• If you are good and that 2000 years ago a man died a horrible death because you are naughty. Adam and Eve, Noah’s ark, the Rapture, and hell, all can be quite real. The problem is that many of these teachings are terrifying.

Is it more scientific to believe that the world naturally jumped into existence uncaused out of nothing, even before there were such things as the laws of physics, than to believe that a Transcendent Being created?

Indeed, some teachings are terrifying, but does this make them wrong to teach? Should we not teach our children about sexual predators, Ebola, warfare, and evil? Of course we should! However, the Christian has a resource that the naturalist lacks to mitigate the terror. We also teach that God is totally forgiving and protecting – that even if we are killed, we go to be with Him!

If IEET is so concerned about the abuse of “teachings [that] are terrifying,” they should either teach denial or the Christian God!

• When assaulted with such images and ideas at a young age, a child has no chance of emotional self-defense. Christian teachings that sound true when they are embedded in the child’s mind at this tender age can feel true for a lifetime. Even decades later former believers who intellectually reject these ideas can feel intense fear or shame when their unconscious mind is triggered. 

There is some truth to this. When we live unrepentantly in a way that violates God’s commands, this can produce “intense fear or shame.” However, this is a good thing when it leads to confession. The murderer should experience “intense fear or shame” if his conscience is healthy. Society would then be healthier and safer.

It is noteworthy that one of the authors of this article “describes herself as cosmist, cosmicist, upwinger, socialist-libertarian, hedonist and abolitionist. Khannea is transgendered.” It is therefore understandable that she would feel contempt for the Christian faith, regarding it as the source of her “intense fear or shame.”

• Home schoolers and the Christian equivalent of madrassas cut off children from outside sources of information, often teaching rote learning and unquestioning obedience rather than broad curiosity. 

But what are the facts about homeschooling? Dr. Brian D. Ray of the National Home Education Research Institute conducted a nationwide study of homeschooling in America. He collected data for the cross-sectional, descriptive study in spring 2008. The 11,739 participants came from all 50 states, Guam, and Puerto Rico. The findings read:

• In the study, homeschoolers scored 34–39 percentile points higher than the norm [50%] on standardized achievement tests. The homeschool national average ranged from the 84th percentile for Language, Math, and Social Studies to the 89th percentile for Reading.

These findings prove that statistically children fare far better with their home-schooling parents. Also, instances of abuse are far lower.

• Fear of sin, hell, a looming “end-times” apocalypse, or amoral heathens binds people to the group, which then provides the only safe escape from the horrifying dangers on the outside. 

Are these fears unrealistic? IEEP must first prove that these teachings are destructive myths – something they haven’t even begun to do. However, we insist that it is beneficial to prepare our children for eternity. Of course, if there is no eternity, then we have done our children a disservice. However, if there is an eternity, then the naturalist is guilty of criminal neglect.

• In Bible-believing Christianity, psychological mind-control mechanisms are coupled with beliefs from the Iron Age, including the belief that women and children are possessions of men, that children who are not hit become spoiled, that each of us is born “utterly depraved”, and that a supernatural being demands unquestioning obedience.

This too represents libelous distortion. Instead, the Bible teaches that we are caretakers and have a great responsibility to our wives and children. The husband is called to greater forms of self-sacrifice for his family – loving his wife as Christ did the church, even to the point of giving his life for his wife.

One of my students had sent me this article. I’m glad that she did! These misrepresentations need to be addressed. We live in a culture experiencing a severe auto-immune response – attacking itself and everything that it values. Ayaan Hirsi Ali, ex-Muslim, ex-Dutch Parliamentarian, and atheist, seems to understand this better than most Western intellectuals. She even promotes Christianity, not naturalism, as an alternative to Islam:

• The Christianity of love and tolerance remains one of the West’s most powerful antidotes to the Islam of hate and intolerance. Ex-Muslims find Jesus Christ to be a more attractive and humane figure than Muhammad, the founder of Islam.

• I have a theory that most Muslims are in search of a redemptive God. They believe that there is a higher power and that this higher power is the provider of morality, giving them a compass to help them distinguish between good and bad.  Many Muslims are seeking a God or a concept of God that in my view meets the description of the Christian God.  Instead they find Allah. They find Allah mainly because many are born in Muslim families where Allah has been the reigning deity for generations… (p. 239)

• The Christian leaders now wasting their time and resources on a futile exercise of interfaith dialogue with the self-appointed leaders of Islam should redirect their efforts to converting as many Muslims as possible to Christianity, introducing them to a God who rejects Holy War and who has sent his son to die for all sinners out of a love for mankind… The Vatican and all the established Protestant churches of northern Europe believed naively that interfaith dialogue would magically bring Islam into the fold of Western civilization. It has not happened, and it will not happen…. To help ground these people in Western society, the West needs the Christian churches to get active again in propagating their faith. It needs Christian schools, Christian volunteers, the Christian message… The churches should do all in their power to win this battle for the souls of humans in search of a compassionate God, who now find that a fierce Allah is closer to hand. (Nomad, pp. 247, 249, 250, 251)

Naturalism and moral-relativism will never win hearts. Meanwhile, it has blindly set itself against the one resource that can!