Can we Trust Atheists to be Honest when they don’t Believe in Honesty?

Today’s atheists deny that their beliefs are religious. However, this wasn’t always the case:

·        ATHEIST BERTRAND RUSSELL: “The greatest danger in our day comes from new religions, communism [one expression of atheism] and Nazism. To call these religions may perhaps be objectionable both to their friends and enemies, but in fact they have all the characteristics of religions…”

·        THE FIRST HUMANIST MANIFESTO (Paul Kurtz, 1933): “Humanism [the belief that since there is no God, it’s all about humans] is a philosophical, religious, and moral point of view.”

·        ATHEIST JOHN DEWEY, WHO SIGNED THE MANIFESTO: “Here are all the elements for a religious faith that shall not be confined to sect, class or race…It remains to make it explicit and militant.”

·        THE US SUPREME COURT (Torasco v. Watkins – 1961): “Among religions in this country which do not teach what would generally be considered a belief in the existence of God are Buddhism, Taoism, Ethical Culture, Secular Humanism [atheism] and others.”

Why are atheists singing a different song today?

·        By claiming they don’t have any beliefs, they can go on the offensive, while they put out nothing they need to defend.

·        This allows them to lump all of the other religions in one indiscriminate and contemptible bag, enabling them to damn Christians along with Muslims.

·        By claiming that atheism/naturalism isn’t a religion allows them to spread their religious beliefs in public settings – ie. schools – where atheistic naturalism is now considered synonymous with science. When Christians try to do that, they are shut down with the charge, “separation church and state.” However, by denying that atheism is religious, they can sidestep this charge.

U.S. Senate Chaplaincy – a Dying Light?

Despite all the misguided talk about the alleged “separation of church and state,” prayer has always been a part of the Congress of the USA. “The inclusion of a prayer before the opening of each session of both the House and the Senate, traces its origins back to the days of the Continental Congress, and the official recommendation of Benjamin Franklin, June 28, 1787”:

·        “I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth: that God Governs in the affairs of men. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice, is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the sacred writings, that ‘except the Lord build the House they labour in vain that build it.’ I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better, than the Builders of Babel . . . I therefore beg leave to move— that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessings on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the Clergy of this City be requested to officiate in that Service.” (Wikipedia)

We have come a long way. Just how far, in three short decades, was illustrated to me by the homilies and prayers of Senate Chaplain Richard C. Halverson (1981-95). In 1981, he warned the Senate:

·        No great nation or empire was defeated from without before it had rotted from within – spiritually, morally, ethically. America will be no exception. She will be destroyed not by forces without, but by her own decadence….the need is critical for her people to take a stand against the conditions contributing to the pollution and corruption of American life. Secular humanism, materialism, hedonism, self-indulgence, sexual permissiveness, drunkenness, drug abuse – a cancer is ravaging America’s health and strength. ((No Greater Power,  46)

It made me wonder what type of homily the Senate is now feeding upon. Are their hearts still being convicted by the Truth? Halverson concluded with this prayer:

·        What will it take, O God, to make us know that we cannot do it alone? What calamity must fall before we humble ourselves and acknowledge our dependence on Thee?...Lord God help us. Quicken our minds to seek Thy wisdom, our hearts to repent, our wills to obey Thee. Return us to the noble dependence on Thee by which our forefathers persevered against incredible odds to give us our grand national legacy. In Jesus’ name. Amen!

What light had been shed upon our Senate! Halverson had predicted that without the Lord at our center, we will rot. Can you begin to smell the stench?

Perversion of the First Amendment

Amazingly, I just hijacked these curious state laws from an atheist Facebook page:

• Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.

• Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.

• Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.

• North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8: The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God. 

• South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.

• Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.

• Texas, Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.

In view of the above, we should ask, "How is it that we now can't mention God in the schools but yet our laws forbid His non-belief in regards to public office?" And what does this say about the US Supreme Court’s present radical misinterpretation of the First Amendment?

This Amendment states that government should neither set up a religion nor interfere with the free exercise of religion. It was later termed the “separation clause,” separating church and state.

Still no problem! However, what does the “separation of church and state” mean? For one thing it never forbade prayer in the Congress nor even support for the Bible. Nor did it forbid the States from establishing their own qualifications for office-holders. Had the First Amendment forbade this, these State laws could not have seen the light-of-day!

I’m not saying that States should now establish religious tests for holding office. However, these laws speak forcefully about the First Amendment and the way our religious freedoms are being limited today by a perverted understanding of this Amendment.

Righteousness and Prayer Exalt a Nation even if many Don’t Agree

  

How far should our concept of “separation of church and state” take us? Should a president never mention anything about his personal faith? If so, then almost every politician has violated this principle. But should a president lead his nation in prayer? Evidently, the Ugandan president thinks that this is legitimate, even necessary: http://drudgegae.iavian.net/r?hop=http://www.wnd.com/?p=314155

• The Ugandan newssite New Vision reports President Yoweri Museveni celebrated Uganda’s 50th anniversary of independence from Britain at the National Jubilee Prayers event by publicly repenting of his personal sin and the sins of the nation.

• “I stand here today to close the evil past, and especially in the last 50 years of our national leadership history and at the threshold of a new dispensation in the life of this nation. I stand here on my own behalf and on behalf of my predecessors to repent. We ask for your forgiveness,” Museveni prayed.

• “We confess these sins, which have greatly hampered our national cohesion and delayed our political, social and economic transformation. We confess sins of idolatry and witchcraft which are rampant in our land. We confess sins of shedding innocent blood, sins of political hypocrisy, dishonesty, intrigue and betrayal,” Museveni said.

• “Forgive us of sins of pride, tribalism and sectarianism; sins of laziness, indifference and irresponsibility; sins of corruption and bribery that have eroded our national resources; sins of sexual immorality, drunkenness and debauchery; sins of unforgiveness, bitterness, hatred and revenge; sins of injustice, oppression and exploitation; sins of rebellion, insubordination, strife and conflict,” Museveni prayed.

Admittedly, I find Museveni’s pray so utterly refreshing and needful. But doesn’t such a prayer represent the establishment of a national religion? Clearly not! President Obama had Pastor Rick Warren pray at his commencement. In fact, Congress has never made a move to remove congressional prayer!

But wouldn’t such a prayer marginalize some of Uganda’s citizens? I’m sure it would! However, feelings of marginalization aren’t always measures of truth. Besides, doesn’t every presidential proclamation marginalize someone? Isn’t someone going to feel offended or slighted? Of course!

I certainly felt very marginalized in High School, having to attend their assemblies and pep rallies. I had felt that these “sacred” assemblies disaffirmed everything that I was about. I felt deeply offended – even before I could put it into the correct verbal form – having to mindlessly spout “Yea team,” when I didn’t care at all whether they won or lost.

Was the school wrong for coercing me to participate in behavior contrary to my honest inclinations? I see things differently now. Schools can only survive and fulfill their mandate if they have the authority to enforce a certain degree of conformity. Should the pep rally have been part of this mandate? I don’t think so, but I must admit that if the school enforced the program of my choice – “Why Christianity should be Banned” (at least, that’s the way I felt at that time) – others would have been offended. Besides, this programming wouldn’t have helped the school fulfill its mandate.

Well then, how are nations to fulfill their mandate to serve their citizenry? As a Christian, I think that there can be no better example than Museveni’s pray. This is the best way to acknowledge our need for Divine help and to position ourselves to receive it. It’s also the best way to pursue the welfare of our countrymen, even those who would oppose such a prayer.

Not everyone will approve of Museveni’s pray; nor should we expect otherwise in a democratic society. However, Ugandans mustn’t say “He has no right to invoke his faith in national matters.” After all, our faith and values govern almost all of our decisions. Instead, they have the ballot box, but before they cast their ballot, they should consider their own welfare – whether they have benefited under Museveni’s presidency.

Hypocrisy or Indoctrination: The Choice is Yours

These kinds of lawsuits have become very common and are symptomatic of the insanity that is now overtaking the West:

• Citizens represented by the group American Atheists are asking the U.S. Supreme Court to hear their appeal of a lawsuit challenging a Kentucky law that credits Almighty God with homeland security. 

• At issue is legislation passed after the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks. A 2002 “legislative finding” said the “safety and security of the commonwealth cannot be achieved apart from reliance upon Almighty God.”

Does the First Amendment to our Constitution prohibit the use of such words or this expression of faith in the “Almighty God?”

Hardly! The “separation clause” merely reads:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

Does this clause - Almighty God - represent the “establishment of religion?” According to the American Atheists, it does:

• “This new legislation should not be swept under the ceremonial deism rug, especially as it ostracizes atheists from politics,” wrote Kagin, the national legal director for American Atheists, in his petition to the U.S. Supreme Court. He was referring to the legal doctrine that a passing reference to God in official statements does not amount to a religious endorsement.

However, if this clause represents a violation of the First Amendment, so too does every single one of our 50 State constitutions, all of which mention God. For instance, the New Jersey 1844, Preamble to their constitution reads:

• We, the people of the State of New Jersey, grateful to Almighty God for civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing on our endeavors.

However, on a deeper more important level, the position that the American Atheists are taking is incoherent. Almost every politician and even those who have brought this suit mention their source of trust. They mention this trust in a variety of ways, but it all comes down to an alternative faith:

1. “I trust in the character and will of the American people.”
2. “We need to trust in ourselves.”
3. “Trust in science.”
4.  “Using technology wisely, we can control our environment, conquer poverty, markedly reduce disease, extend our life-span, significantly modify our behavior, alter the course of human evolution and cultural development, unlock vast new powers, and provide humankind with unparalleled opportunity for achieving an abundant and meaningful life.” (The Humanist Manifesto II)

These are no less religious statements that statements that recommend a trust in God. If this is the case – and it clearly is – then the admonishment to trust in self is no less religious than the admonishment to trust in God. Therefore, if it is illegitimate to say “trust in God,” then it is also illegitimate to say, “trust in yourself” or “trust in science and humanity.” In other words, “We can express our faith, but your expression of faith is forbidden.”

We need to inquire why it is now OK to deify self or science, while it’s not OK to deify the Deity Himself. Is this hypocrisy or the product of a calculated strategy to close down both voice and mind of the opposition? The choice is yours.

Lambs for the Secular Slaughter

If you think that the secularist agenda will allow the church to be the church, you are mistaken. If you think that this militant, monopolistic religion has any limits when it comes to humbling the church, you need to look to Denmark. According to LifeSiteNews:

• The nation of Denmark has voted to force churches in the established Evangelical Lutheran Church to perform same-sex “marriage” ceremonies inside their sanctuaries, although one-third of all the denomination’s priests say they will not participate in such rituals. Danish parliament voted by an overwhelming 85-24 margin to compel churches to carry out unions for same-sex couples that are identical to heterosexual marriage celebrations.

• Under the new law, priests may opt out of performing the “wedding” service for theological reasons.  However, a bishop must arrange for a replacement.

In Denmark, at least, it no longer matters what the church or the priest believes. He is now coerced to compromise his faith at the altar of an intolerant secularism that has only contempt for the Christian faith.

• Although the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution prohibits the government from dictating church doctrine, religious institutions have already been subjected to government censure or private lawsuits if they refuse to allow homosexual couples to rent their facilities for a ceremony that deeply offends the church’s core doctrines of marriage and family.

• The city of Hutchinson, Kansas, recently adopted a non-discrimination statute that would require houses of worship that rent their facilities to the public to allow same-sex “marriages” on the premises.

Tragically, this is becoming commonplace as government has quietly established the militant and intolerant religion of secularism, which is forcing all other religions to submit to its dictates.

It no longer seems to matter that the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution specifically prohibits religious coercion:

• Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

When the church is coerced into performing an act that goes against its teachings – especially within its own house – this unambiguously prohibits “the free exercise thereof.” What then is to prevent secularism from coercing the pastor to officiate? Already, in Denmark, the priest is legally compelled, even in his own church, to find a substitute if he opts-out.

Where will this abuse of the faith end? It now seems that the Constitution only matters to the secular onslaught when it can be twisted or reinterpreted to support their secular agenda.

What does the Christian do when faced with such threats? I think that before all else, the threat must be recognized, faced and exposed (Eph. 5:11). The hypocrisy must also be exposed – that today’s secularism, while posing as “neutral,” is actually intolerant, repressive and totalitarian.

Many Christians will object that exposing sin and hypocrisy doesn’t measure up to our calling - that it doesn’t reflect Christian love. However, this stance represents a misunderstanding of Scripture. Jesus called the religious leadership “hypocrites” and “vipers.” However, this was something that they needed to hear. Hard soil requires severe plowing.

John the Baptist castigated King Herod for taking his brother’s wife. This too was love, albeit “tough love.” It landed him in prison where, eventually, it cost him his head.

Although prayer is imperative, we also need to be mentally prepared for the tough times that are now banging at our door. This means that we must draw together and find comfort and encouragement from one another:

• And let us consider how we may spur one another on toward love and good deeds. Let us not give up meeting together, as some are in the habit of doing, but let us encourage one another--and all the more as you see the Day approaching. (Hebrews 10:24-25)

We also have to remind ourselves that we aren’t sorry hapless victims, even though we experience intense persecution. We are victors and over-comers (1 John 5:4-5) by the grace of our faithful God. These challenges are confronting us because God is allowing them for good. Therefore, we have to channel anger and bitterness in positive and loving ways.

Although it is manifestly clear that the government has no Constitutional right to coerce the churches into performing homosexual marriage, there is even a more important question. Are we offending our Lord by complying? In other words, is it sin to help facilitate a sinful act? Is it sinful to participate in the legitimization and public acceptance of a lifestyle that is sinful?

I think that the answer has to be “Yes!” Likewise, it would be wrong to drive the get-away car in a robbery even if we didn’t directly participate in holding the gun or taking the money. This is called “aiding and abetting” and is considered criminal. Consequently, if an action is sin, any activity to support it is also sin.

Yoking ourselves with those who are actively living in ways contrary to our Lord is sin. God had destroyed King Jehoshaphat’s navy for this reason:

• "Because you have made an alliance with Ahaziah, the Lord will destroy what you have made." (2 Chron. 20:37)

The righteous King Jehoshaphat had abetted the wicked Ahaziah, and the Lord regarded this as unfaithfulness. Although we need to love those who are trapped in the gay life, we cannot become yoked together and abet what is sinful before our Lord:

• Do not be yoked together with unbelievers. For what do righteousness and wickedness have in common? Or what fellowship can light have with darkness? What harmony is there between Christ and Belial? What does a believer have in common with an unbeliever? What agreement is there between the temple of God and idols? For we are the temple of the living God. As God has said: "I will live with them and walk among them, and I will be their God, and they will be my people." "Therefore come out from them and be separate, says the Lord.” (2 Cor. 6:14-17)

Christian support for gay marriage gives society – and even our own people - the wrong message. It communicates that gay marriage is so acceptable that the church can support it materially. This violates our Lord’s commands to warn against even the appearance of sin. He warned Ezekiel that he must speak up against Israel’s sins:

• "Son of man, I have made you a watchman for the house of Israel; so hear the word I speak and give them warning from me. When I say to the wicked, 'O wicked man, you will surely die,' and you do not speak out to dissuade him from his ways, that wicked man will die for his sin, and I will hold you accountable for his blood. But if you do warn the wicked man to turn from his ways and he does not do so, he will die for his sin, but you will have saved yourself.” (Ezekiel 33:7-9)

How can we warn when we are actually facilitating the very thing that we are supposed to warn against! Besides, we are all “watchmen.” We are all to be the light of truth, according to Jesus:

• "You are the light of the world. A city on a hill cannot be hidden. Neither do people light a lamp and put it under a bowl. Instead they put it on its stand, and it gives light to everyone in the house. In the same way, let your light shine before men, that they may see your good deeds and praise your Father in heaven.” (Matthew 5:14-16)

How can we be the light exposing the darkness when we are passively or actively abetting the same evil!

   

Do coercive laws relieve us of our moral duties? The Apostles didn’t think so. When they had been brought before the court and forbidden from preaching the Gospel:

• Peter and the other apostles replied: "We must obey God rather than men! (Acts 5:29)

Threat of punishment does not relieve us of our responsibilities before God. Whenever there is a choice between obeying God or the law, God must come first.

What happens when we justify compromise in just one little area? Adam and Eve merely shared a single hand-picked fruit. However, the consequences of this compromise became a virtual avalanche of evil. They could no longer stomach the presence of God; they refused to confess their sin; they told half-truths and blame-shifted. Finally, the unrepentant couple were cast out of God’s presence without a word of remorse.

Should we comply with evil laws, especially as our brethren suffer because they refuse to be silenced? Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. was confronted with this very question as he contemplated the morality of the Montgomery, Alabama bus boycott. Although he had his own car and didn’t have to suffer the indignities of taking the bus, King concluded:

• He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it…So in order to be true to one’s conscience and true to God, a righteous man has no alternative but to refuse to cooperate with an evil system. (Stride Toward Freedom, 51)

We too must refuse to cooperate with evil, whatever the cost. Many have already lost their jobs after it had been disclosed that they favored traditional marriage against the modern secular innovations. We need to stand in solidarity with them.

Oh Lord, Hear Our Prayer

There are righteous causes worth fighting for. In fact, I intend to march in favor of one of them on Sunday. NYC is attempting to kick its churches out of the NYC schools where they rent space on Sunday AM.  I feel that I have a responsibility to uphold the rights of others, especially as they are being deprived in this hypocritical manner.

While allowing other groups to rent space in the NYC schools, the City Council is discriminating against it churches, pleading the “separation of church and state.” Such a charge beckons us to reexamine the First Amendment to our Constitution:

• 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.

There is nothing here about the “separation of church and state” – just the prohibition against establishing a state religion, and this is clearly not at issue here. Ironically, NYC’s ruling does establish a law “prohibiting the free exercise thereof.” Hence, it is the City’s discriminatory law that is unconstitutional – it violates our “free exercise” – rather than the churches meeting in the schools.

This is just one of many examples of what has become known as “the war against Christianity.” And I think that this needs to be addressed. However, this “war” is symptomatic of something far greater – the vulnerability of the church. We have become marginalized and our voice no longer carries the moral authority that it once did.

Even if we did have the political strength, this “war” is nothing that we can simply legislate away. It’s bigger than we are. It overwhelms our puny resources. However, these threats occur to show us that we need our Lord’s deliverance!

We have to confess our utter need - our own sins and even the sins of the church. This has always been a pre-condition for revival and deliverance. The prophet Daniel humbled himself before the Lord in this manner:

• "Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame--the men of Judah and people of Jerusalem and all Israel, both near and far, in all the countries where you have scattered us because of our unfaithfulness to you. O Lord, we and our kings, our princes and our fathers are covered with shame because we have sinned against you. The Lord our God is merciful and forgiving, even though we have rebelled against him; we have not obeyed the Lord our God or kept the laws he gave us through his servants the prophets. All Israel has transgressed your law and turned away, refusing to obey you. Therefore the curses and sworn judgments written in the Law of Moses, the servant of God, have been poured out on us, because we have sinned against you. You have fulfilled the words spoken against us and against our rulers by bringing upon us great disaster.” (Daniel 9:7-12)

And Daniel’s prayer was answered:

• While I was speaking and praying, confessing my sin and the sin of my people Israel and making my request to the Lord my God for his holy hill--  while I was still in prayer, Gabriel, the man I had seen in the earlier vision, came to me in swift flight about the time of the evening sacrifice. He instructed me… (Daniel 9:20-22)

Whenever God’s people humbled themselves in confession of sin, they received answers. King Josiah humbled himself:

• Because your heart was responsive and you humbled yourself before God when you heard what he spoke against this place and its people, and because you humbled yourself before me and tore your robes and wept in my presence, I have heard you, declares the Lord. (2 Chron. 34:27)

The evil King Manasseh was restored after he humbly confessed his sins:

• In his distress he sought the favor of the Lord his God and humbled himself greatly before the God of his fathers. And when he prayed to him, the Lord was moved by his entreaty and listened to his plea; so he brought him back to Jerusalem and to his kingdom. Then Manasseh knew that the Lord is God. (2 Chron. 33:12-13

King Hezekiah repented of his pride and also found deliverance:

• Then Hezekiah repented of the pride of his heart, as did the people of Jerusalem; therefore the Lord's wrath did not come upon them during the days of Hezekiah. (2 Chron. 32:26)

In fact, we never find anyone in Scripture repenting of their sin and going away empty handed. The trials that have come upon the church are an opportunity to examine ourselves, our church, and to cry out to our Lord, who loves His church beyond words (Eph. 2:16-20).

   

   

   

   

   

Speaking against Injustice and Hypocrisy: It isn’t an Option

Many Christians have accused me of erroneously portraying Christians as persecuted, marginalized and stigmatized victims.  Well, I don’t want to erroneously portray anything or anybody. However, I am deeply concerned about the dimming of the light of the church and of Christians. I think that some of the problem arises from the secularized media and schools that consistently portray Christians in a negative light and use this as an excuse to act in prejudicial ways towards the church and what it stands for.

There are so many examples of this hypocritical intolerance of the church. Here is just the latest:

• Officials at Dixon High School in Dixon, Mo., took down posters advertising the "Pro-Life Day of Silent Solidarity," claiming that they were offensive to some at the school.

How long will it be that the Bible or the Christian faith is deemed “offensive?” Meanwhile, secularism ignores the fact that they too are offensive, and by their own standards, they should be silenced:

• "Time and again students find themselves being censored … when speaking from a pro-life perspective," said [Matt] Sharp [of the Alliance Defense Fund]. "They have rights that should be protected, nourished." Sharp found it interesting that although the school took down the pro-life posters, posters not taken down include ones showcasing students as "bloody zombies" and the school's Gay-Straight Alliance's "Day of Silence." "Of all the posters, [the pro-life posters] are the only ones we know of that have been torn down," said Sharp, who considered the selective censorship to be a "dangerous thing." 

There are many parents and students who find the Gay-Straight Alliance and much of what passes muster in the schools as offensive. If everything that was deemed “offensive” was censored, we could no longer even conceive of a public domain. There couldn’t be such a domain at all.

However, our secular masters will not follow through with their logic. They would rather make false distinctions – secular vs. religious – so that they can discriminate against religion, erroneously appealing to the separation of church and state. In order to pull off this false dichotomy, they insist that they are not a religion. By doing this, they can then claim that their own values are not subject to censorship while “pro-life” is!

This means that a school can promote abortion and same-sex rights, while the anti-abortion or anti-Gay-Straight Alliance reasoning is prohibited. Oddly, the secularists even appeal to the 1^st Amendment to support their hypocrisy.

A small minority of Christians will say, “If that’s their game, let them play it. We have more important things to do.” However, I can’t go along with this reasoning, even if there are more important things than this “game.” Here’s why:

1. We have a responsibility to uphold society.
2. We have a responsibility to defend the religious and free speech rights for everyone.
3. We have a responsibility on behalf of these beleaguered Christians to speak up on their behalf, like the churches that now are being banished from the NYC schools or the Christian institutions, now being compelled to finance insurance that violates their faith.
4. We have a responsibility to our youth to provide a more realistic portrait of the church. Many are leaving or wanting to change the church because they have been indoctrinated by society to think that the church has utterly failed.
5. We also have a responsibility to he church and before God to be prophetic – to speak against the dangers of sin in all its forms.

Being prophetic in these matters isn’t an option:

• Anyone, then, who knows the good he ought to do and doesn't do it, sins. (James 4:17)

Ezekiel, the Temple, Secularism and the Decay of True Religion

I felt like the Prophet Ezekiel. God had taken him on an intimate and private tour of the inner workings of the Temple. The spiritual decay was far worse than Ezekiel had imagined. Israel’s spiritual leadership was happily engaged in idolatrous worship behind closed doors.

This Sunday, Anita and I went to the Episcopal Church. The honored guest preacher invited us all into the Episcopal inner sanctum, revealing its treasured secrets. According to him the Bible couldn’t be authoritative. That’s because even Jesus had been wrong on numerous occasions, and Paul showed us how irrational many of the Old Testament revelations had been by overturning them. Conclusion: This gives us the authorization to overturn anything in the Bible that’s irrational to us!

Anita and I looked at each other. I had long suspected that the guest preacher’s candid tour was an accurate representation of the real, unvarnished Episcopal Church. (Here’s what we usually hear it saying, “We too believe in the Bible. We just have a different interpretation.”) It reminded me of my tooth where the infection had penetrated to such a depth that I needed a root canal.

I whispered to Anita, “I think that we are seeing the real Episcopal Church.” Then the resident pastor got up to praise the “wonderful” sermon we had all just heard. That confirmed it, and so I took a long fretful walk to compose myself in prayer.

During the coffee hour, I confronted the pastor in the most loving manner I could conjure up. “If the Bible is no longer authoritative, what should be authoritative for us?” I shot at him.

“Well, I didn’t say that,” he corrected me. “Instead, we have to approach the Bible carefully, using our best critical tools.” I envisioned a doctor wearing his anti-septic mask and gloves, lest he be contaminated by the cadaver before him.

“Instead, of placing our faith in the Bible as God’s Word, are you insisting that we should now place our faith in the scholars and their Biblical-criticism tool box?” I asked. He responded surprisingly good-naturedly. However, I shouldn’t have been surprised. He had been a professor at Oxford for six years, among many other places, and knew all about dealing with characters like me. Nevertheless, he was one of the many architects of the new religion – the religion of the educated, secular experts, tamed, defanged, and socially acceptable

“I wish you had been in my Bible study!” I wasn’t going to be flattered. At least, I wasn’t going to allow this too soften me. However, someone else caught his ear, and I wandered away and found the seminarian – the interning General Theological Seminary student.

After exchanging some pleasantries, enough to convince her that I was one of them, I asked her, “What do you thin of the NYC ruling, ousting churches from the NYC schools where they had been renting space on Sundays. She was all in favor of the ruling and cited the “separation of church and state.”

“Well, isn’t this a violation of the principle of ‘equal access?’ If AA can rent space, why not also the churches?” I asked.

She then lifted the veil to the “holy place” of her true thinking. “Well, these churches tend to be fundamentalist. They won’t have women pastors.”

Sadly, it has been the more Biblically-oriented people who had been marginalized from the mainline churches and forced to seek asylum in store-fronts and schools, while the majestic church structures, which Bible-believing Christians had built, have been taken over by “wolves in sheep’s clothing.” Now, once again, these churches were going to be booted out.

I then asked her a series of pointed questions: “Doesn’t your position represent ‘viewpoint discrimination?’ In essence, aren’t you saying that religions that don’t share your views or the views of your religion shouldn’t receive equal protection and access under the law?” She graciously excused herself to find more congenial company.

This is the nature of the modern secularized religion – monopolistic, intolerant, and promoting “freedom of religion,” as long as it’s their own pluralistic religion.

This new monopolistic religion is taking many forms. Here’s a recent example:

• Gov. Christine Gregoire of Washington State has signed into law a gay “marriage” bill that will force church-owned facilities to accommodate homosexual ceremonies.

• The bill text originally stated that religious organizations that provide “accommodations, facilities, advantages, privileges, services, or goods related to the solemnization or celebration of a marriage” to the public must offer all those goods for use to homosexual couples seeking marriage or else face a penalty for discrimination. The version of the bill that passed dropped the qualification, allowing religious groups to retain marriage facilities for heterosexual unions.

Although this clause was finally dropped, it reflects the drift of today’s secularism: “If you don’t play ball with us, you don’t play ball at all. We will not respect your freedom of conscience or your freedom of speech or your freedom to worship if you violate our own religious views.”

While the secularists cry “separation of church and state” when a church rents space at a school, they have hypocritically instituted their own state-sponsored church with government funding in our public schools. And it’s a highly permissive religion! A recent video shows how Planned Parenthoodis sexualizing our children according to their beliefs about the “good” life. 

Meanwhile, the religious belief of naturalism has been exclusively enthroned in the science classroom. Consequently, natural mindless causation is the only form of causation that can be mentioned. Free from any God-talk, they now can joyfully shout, “Look how irrelevant God is! We can explain everything by naturalistic causation!”

However, there is not the slightest shred of evidence that causation is natural and mindless. Instead, it’s another chunk of evidence that cries out “God.” (It is much more reasonable to conclude that our laws emanate from the mind of God. After all, who created and maintains the laws!)

I’m almost sure that Ezekiel wasn’t thrilled with his Temple tour. It meant that he now had to do something. He had to cry out his outrage to a people who didn’t want to hear him and eventually killed him.

AN INTERESTING ADDENDUM:

Some unlikely people are waking up to the threat of secularism and its offspring - moral relativism:

• A Muslim Cabinet minister has become the latest member of Prime Minister David Cameron's government to urge the country to embrace its Christian heritage. Sayeeda Warsi also said that "militant" secularism poses a threat to Europe, a comment that has angered atheists and highlighted the divisive political potential of religion…In an article published Tuesday in the Daily Telegraph newspaper, Warsi urged Europe "to become more confident in its Christianity"…

• "You cannot and should not extract (the) Christian foundations from the evolution of our nations any more than you can or should erase the spires from our landscapes," she wrote. "My fear today is that a militant secularization is taking hold of our societies," she added, accusing some atheists of having the same intolerant instincts as authoritarian regimes.

• In a speech in Rome, Warsi said that "too often there is a suspicion of faith in our continent." She said in Britain religion has been "sidelined, marginalized and downgraded" and "faith is looked down on as the hobby of 'oddities, foreigners and minorities.'"