Tuesday, March 26, 2019

3.26.2019 POSTMODERN TIMES: A Christian Guide to Contemporary Thought and Culture by Gene Edward Veith, Jr. 1994

*16  according to a recent poll,  66%of Americans believe that 'there is no such thing as absolute truth'.

*33  ..the age of reason, scientific discovery and human autonomy is termed the Enlightenment. its thinkers embraced classicism with its order and rationality (although their version of classicism neglected the supernaturalism of Plato and Aristotle.) however they lumped Christianity together with paganism as out dated superstitions. reason alone, so they thought, may now replace the reliance on the supernatural born out of the ignorance of 'unenlightened' times...
soon  people began to answer ethical questions in terms of the closed system and a new approach to moral issues - utilitarianism - emerged. Utilitarians decided moral issues, not by appealing  to transcendent absolutes, but by studying the effect of an action upon the system.  stealing is wrong, not because the Ten Commandments say so, but because stealing interferes with the economic functioning  of society. something is good if it makes the system run more smoothly. something is evil if it interferes with the

*34  cogs of the vast machine. practicality becomes the sole moral criterion. if it works, it must be good. 
Utilitarianism is the view that justified slavery, exploitive child labor and the starvation of the poor, all in the name of economic efficiency.  today this enlightenment ethic is the view that favors abortion because it reduces the welfare rolls and sanctions euthanasia because it reduces hospital bills. Utilitarianism is a way of facing moral issues without God.

as Enlightenment science continued to gather momenturm into the 19th century, the final tie to god dissolved. the Deists taught that while god is not, strictly speaking, necessary to everyday life, he Was necessary to get everything started. Charles Darwin , however, argued that god was not even necessary to explain the creation. in describing 'the origin of species' in terms of the closed natural system of cause and effect, Darwin removed the need for any kind of creator. nature became completely self-contained. science could now explain everything.

eventually, thinkers discarded even Enlightenment classicism.  the rationalism that had its roots in Plato and Aristotle assumed universal absolutes and nonmaterial truths. in the 19th century, however, the empirical supplanted the rational. according to 19th century materialism, only what we can observe is real, the physical universe, as apprehended by our senses and as studied by the scientific method, is the Only reality.
the philosophers known as the Logical Positivists went so far as to say that any statement that could not be verified empirically  (such as theological, metaphysical, aesthetic and moral statements) are meaningless. you cannot show me 'God' or 'justice'; therefore, they do not exist. abstract philospphy is nothing more than a game of language.  (It did not seem to mater to the Logical positivists that their own criterion of meaning is also nonempirical and this by their own standards must be meaningless.)
the heritage of the Enlightenment blossomed in diverse ways. methodologies designed to dissect natural objects began to be applied to human beings. the 'social sciences' were invented. sociology purported to explain human institutions; psychology sought o explain the inner life of human beings, all in terms of a closed natural system accessible by empirical scientific methods.

societies and economies wee re-thought and re-engineered.

*35  the American Constitution and free enterprise economics, like the natural sciences, had their origin in a Biblical worldview, though they  dovetailed with Enlightenment theories.  the social  theories that excluded God went much further.under the assumption that all problems could be solved by human planning, various schemes of socialism succeeded the noble ideals and brutal practices of the of the French Revolution. the most thoroughgoing attempt to remake society and human planning,  various schemes of socialism succeeded the noble ideals and brutal practices of the French Revolution. the most thoroughgoingattempt to remake society and human beings according to a rationalistic therory came through the imposition of Marx's dialectical materialism on a vast percentage of teh world's population. Marxism eradicated private property, sought to liquidate religion, suppressed natie cultures and tried to abolish individualism i favor of a vast collective community. 

Tuesday, March 12, 2019

3.12.2019 MAN OF PEACE (From Every Side Syria's Democratic Opposition Has Been Sidelined) by Mindy Belz

QAMESHLI,  Syria - Gabriel Moshe is the sort of gentleman whose coat and tie look morning-fresh though it's nearing midnight and we are talking by the last light and heat before the electricity shuts down. rationing the power grid is just one routine part of life in a war zone.

Moshe's dignified profile shouldn't fool anyone:
He's actually an enemy of the state.
president Bashar al-Assad's regime arrested him in 2013 and held him for 2.5 years, a man of peace caught in the politics of war.

Moshe heads the Assyrian Democratic Organization  (ADO),  a prominent party founded in the  1950s. ADO draws support from Syriac, Chaldean and Assyrian Christians who dream of a day when they will have truly representative government and equal rights under the law. his stature - and threat to the state - grew as the plight of Christians and other minorities in Syria worsened.

the 56 year old in many ways is a an without a country. born in Quameshli and arrested by its state security bureau, Moshe returned to live here. he grew up among Arabs and Kurds in this city with churches on nearly every corner. his father owned a shop in the Jewish quarter.

such diversity served Moshe in building a wide political base, though today Qameshli is divided, with war driving out perhaps half its population. in an uneasy truce, the Syrian army controls some sectors and opposition Syrian Democratic Forces  (SDF) others. offices for anti-Assad groups like ADO  and the Syriac Military Council actually sit inside a government controlled area.

Moshe operates now on the periphery and under the watchful eye of the state. though a long-standing partner in the opposition, Moshe's QADO opposes taking up arms, making it an uneasy ally with militias governing northeast Syria.

if that's not enough, he and other Christians find themselves at odds with their Christian brethren.  the patriarchs and most leaders in Syria's established churches continue to support Assad, seeing him as despotic enough to control jihadists and other enemies of the church.

it was a political disagreement with Barnabas that sent the apostle Paul back to Syria, so we shouldn't be surprised that 8  years into the Syrian War, Christians find themselves divided. yet the breach has consequences, especially as Assad retakes most of the country an appears stronger than ever.

a long record of injustices starting with Hafez al-Assad, Basha's father who ruled Syria from  1971  until his death in 2000,  has taught Moshe and democracy advocates like him to yearn for something altogether new.

he and others formed the Damascus Declaration for Democratic National Change in  2006 as a secular coalition calling for gradual and peaceful transition. when 2011 Arab Spring protests ignited in Syria, the coalition evolved into the leading voice for political changed - democratic, non-Islamist change - all the while struggling  to  win deserved recognition and support from the west. the jihadist armies that hijacked Syria's anti-Assad revolt confined the democrats' gains to this enclave east of the Euphrates. 

Moshe endured setbacks from the Assads and from the terrorists. like many in the opposition, he thinks the 2 are linked.

with war underway in  2011, Assad without explanation released Islamist fighters from Sednaya Prison.  many went on to head the al-Qaeda-linked forces fighting in Syria  - raising speculation released islamist fighters fro Senaya prison.  many sent on to head the al-Qaeda-linked forces fighting in Syria  -raising speculation that Assad actually contrived to use jihadist groups as justification for all out attacks, which have included chemical weapons and barrel bombs. all opposition groups became 'terrorists', justifying Assad calling in Hezbollah and beckoning Russian intervention.

the Assad regime has notoriously not protected some Christian populations in the war. that includes Damascus and Aleppo with their loyal church bases, where church leaders were kidnapped under government -held areas, raising suspicions. but in historically Christian Hasakah, the region that includes Qameshli, populations that also opposed Assad were left particularly vulnerable to attack by jihadists.

US strategists have been slow to understand the complex battle field , allowing Russian and Assad to gain the upper hand, perhaps only putting off a coming cataclysm for people who most deserve support. 'it's the peaceful people who are attacked and suffer most her,  he said.

3.12.2019 ASSESSING THE INTERACTION OF ADULTERY, NO-FAULT DIVORCE, LGBTQ, TRENDS, POVERTY AND CHURCH SURRENDER (World Magazine 3.16.2019)

Marvin Olasky interview with Patrick Henry College professor Stephen Baskerville ..the author of Not Peace but a Sword:  The Political Theology of the English Revolution. his most recent book, The New politics of Sex: The Sexual Revolution, Civil Liberties and the Growth of Governmental Power, brings a sword to some current debates. here are edited excerpts of our interview.

should we mourn the abandonment of that old-fashioned word, Fornication? (def  sex between a male and female who are not married)?
many churches are deserting their posts an language is an indication. even from the pulpit today, let alone in public policy, we don't hear words like fornication, adultery, cohabitation, even sin. we hear words like Misogyny, Sexism, Sexual Harassment. we've substituted  legal jargon for Christian morality and have allowed political ideology to replace Christian sexual morality.  instead of emphasizing families, pastors, churches and local communities - moral pressure - we're bringing in police, judges and lawyers, the instruments of the coercive state to enforce a new kind of sexual morality dictated by the government.

as Christians and non-Christians approach the elephant, does one group fixate on the long trunk and the other on its massive legs?
Christians deal with homosexuality and transgenderism. non-Christians emphasize issues like campus rape, Harvey Weinstein, allegations. Christians tend to stay away from those. they often don't talk to each other and don't see the bigger picture of what's going on.in The New Politics of Sex (most recent) you connect the dots.

In The New Politics of Sex you connect the dots.
our multifaceted sexual revolution has had a huge impact on our society,  but scholars, journalists, Christians and our clergy have not shown the interconnections.

Cohabitation didn't come purely from the culture. it also came from public policy changes like the creation of the welfare state that offered a very clear financial incentive to have children our of wedlock.

It's almost 50  years since no-fault divorce began in California with a bill signed by Gov. Ronald Reagan. how did that eventually lead to changing ideas about same-sex marriage?
it abolished marriage as a legally enforceable contract.  the state was saying it can dissolve your marriage over your objections without you having done anything wrong. from then on marriage retained its moral power but was no longer legally enforceable.

that also had an effect on the homosexuality debate?
same-sex marriage activist said,  'If you want to go back to the monogamous, legally enforceable marriage of the  1950s,  go ahead and we'll stay out of it'.  only when marriage became serial monogamy, something you could get out of easily, did it fit the promiscuous lifestyle of many homosexuals.

Were churches sleeping when no-fault divorce emerged?
some churches did raise heir voices, but much of their attention was diverted at the time by Vietnam and civil rights. there was very little debate, very little discussion. no-fault divorce, the welfare state and the cohabitation explosion were all usurpations of the church's role by the state . governmental power was inserted into a realm of private life that had been the realm of the churches.

the churches withdrew from private life?
and the state moved in. what had been the role of pastors and priests became the role of lawyers, judges and social workers. the church has never tried to reclaim its turf and has been a major contributor of secularization, of people feeling the church is not part of their life when it's no enforcing the marriage contract.

What can be done now?
the church has got to step in. much of the history of the Christian church has been brave churchmen speaking out when the state overreaches its authority. this whole area of sexual morality is, frankly, our turf and God's turf. the state has a role but is overstepping.

pastors sometimes do counselling.
it's common when there's a divorce case that the man often loses access to his children. he goes to the pastor and says, 'Look, you married us. don't you have something to say about this? and the pastor says,  'I'll certainly pray for you and I can help you find a lawyer'.  that's about it.

Why do many Christians talk more about the effects of homosexuality than the effects of single-parent homes?
the most destructive trend in our society is raising children without fathers, yet it's being promoted as a good thing...the consequences of single-parent homes and unwed child-bearing are much more severe than the problems caused by homosexuality. most of our domestic budget goes to solving problems created by the fatherless.

How many people promote single-parenting as a good thing?
look at an organization called Single Mothers by Choice, or the spate of books with titles like Raising boys Without Men. promoting single parenthood as an empowering move is destructive and the next logical step is raising children by homosexual couples. these different aspects of the sexual  revolution feed upon and exacerbate one another.

What ideology are churches up against?
the first claim is for unlimited freedom, but there's also a corollary to that  - and we're starting to see now the authoritarian side to it. Civil liberty violations in the name of sexual freedom, both feminist and homosexualist ,  are growing. this is much more than just a problem for Christians. it's a problem, a crisis, for our society as a whole.

Churches and pastors feel enormous pressure.
there's a feeling that the churches have only 2 choices, either to present a dogmatic Biblical view or to surrender. churches should combine compassion with biblical principles and find ways to show homosexuals that God loves them and the church loves them, but at the same time they're embarked on a very destructive lifestyle and our society is also making destructive choices. we need to be assertive on both of those courts.

Can we apply some lesson from history and sociology?
the Puritans emphasized family and that led to periods of enormous prosperity, political freedom and social stability. truncated relationships open the child to hyper-masculinity and gangs. we have an epidemic of fatherliness in our society:  How many of those children are developing same-sex attractions because they don't have healthy male to identify with?
you also point out the poverty-fighting aspect of this.
churches have always preached relief for the poor. it's an absolute Christian imperative.  virtually all the poverty in democratic countries is the result of family structure. we don't have starving children walking around with distended bellies:  the people we call the poor in American are poor mostly because of family structure - single-parent homes, for the most part. Christian  missionaries fed the poor, but they also taught them morality, including sexual morality:  have children  when you're married and stay married. many churches now emphasize relieving the poor but not building strong family structure.

the puritans emphasized both.
the purity in Puritanism was not just sexual purity but purity in things like alcohol, drugs, lust, evil thoughts.   (note-really?) purity is the beginning of what make us free.  in the English-speaking world, it's what makes us citizens, with purity the rite of passage to be an active citizen:  when you're wallowing in sin and license, you're literally enslaved, in hock to the devil. you're only truly free when you have control of yourself.

We need to recapture that understanding?
Our rivals in the Islamic world understand this keenly. I obviously don't agree with their answer to the problem, but they  understand that dialectic between purity and freedom, and they're playing on it. in contending with radical Islamists we need to recapture that element of our political history and our political culture.