Culture Wars: Real or Imagined?

When I was pastoring a church in Pennsylvania in the early 1990's, I was introduced to a tape series by Chuck Colson that warned against the cultural shift toward secularism, pluralism, and privatization. In retrospect, his words were eerily prophetic. While listening to a sermon this morning, I was taken back to Colson's early warnings and our failure as followers of Christ to provide the light so desperately needed through the past couple decades.

While doing some research on the three types of culture discussed in the aforementioned sermon, I came across a presentation by Ravi Zacharias from 2013 at UCLA. Here is a transcript of the section that spoke of the three types of culture:

Cultures reduce themselves to three forms of manifestation on moral issues. Based on this backdrop, three forms. I want you to follow me carefully. The words are big but the ideas will become clear. There are three kinds of culture, theonomous, heteronomous , and autonomous. 

Theonomous is not a theocracy,  Theos meaning God and nomos meaning law. The idea in a theonomous culture is that God’s law is so self-evident within the human heart that there are some imperatives within you that find a consensus in society. That’s God’s law in you , the nomos the law of the Theos, God, that is so ingrained in your soul that there is an emerging consensus within society of certain norms that everyone agrees that are noble or the opposite of them being evil and not to be pursued. If there is a culture today that comes close to a theonomous culture, I would say it is India. They refer to themselves in Hindi “as the people of the soil”, their music talks about it, their lyricists talk about it, their poetry talks about it, the values that the culture tries to hold onto, principally respect for the parents, love for the children, the transmission from generation to generation, the closeness of the family tie. All of those values they consider ingrained in them. They say it is deep within them. There is a theonomous nature to it. It’s not identical but it is close to a theonomous culture. 

Then you get heteronomous culture. What is a heteronomous culture.  Heteros meaning different and nomos--- law, a different law, where there are two distinct sets in operation. There is the controlling few and the masses down here. In secular terminology Marxism is a heteronomous culture where the handful at the top dictate everything for the masses below. In religious terms Islam functions as a heteronomous culture. Either the Ilama or the Imam or whoever, the dictates are given to you from above and the masses then are told to follow along. There is a heteronomy to it, the law comes from above dictated to the masses whether you want to do it or not. 

And then there is an autonomous culture. The autonomous culture, autos meaning self, nomos meaning law, you’re a self-law. You’re a law unto yourself. You follow your individual autonomy. America would not fit into a theonomous culture, it would not fit into a heteronomous culture by definition. We pride ourselves that we are an autonomous culture. So here is the question, if we are an autonomous culture do we respect the autonomy of each individual? If I respect a person who disagrees with me and wants to live a totally materialistic life, ought not that  compliment to be returned and give me the privilege of having my autonomy and my choice to follow God. And my choice to follow where I believe the truth has lead. 

Autonomous cultures pride themselves on being self-driven, individually driven. But I’ll tell you what: there are some questions that bait the hook, will turn the questions toward people like me or others, and force us to answer it under the guise of an autonomous culture. But the moment my view is not in keeping with the view that wants to be heard, it switched into a heteronomous culture, and I’m dictated to and this is exactly what I need to believe and not what I actually believe. This bait-and-switch that has taken place is striking, absolutely striking. So we don’t go with the theonomous culture here, we don’t go with the heteronomous culture, we claim to go with an autonomous culture. But autonomous cultures need to be mutually respectful. 

And, I think what the Duke of Edinburgh once said, he said freedom can be destroyed not only by its retraction but also by its abuse. And so I leave you with two thoughts: in the first one I’ll do a little bit of a voice play here, not in any way to be unkind, but because it was so beautiful and so sweet, so sweetly done. 

In the 1980s when the cold war was still on, my wife and a couple of colleagues and I were invited to go to Russia somewhere in Moscow. Quite a cold day, a foggy day and we went and my host said would you like to have lunch, I said sure. So we had lunch. And things were sparse then, everything was a different consistency of mayonnaise , mayonnaise bound this and mayonnaise bound that. Mayonnaise, it just made you feel full. But you know … people were struggling. You looked at the empty shelves and you said what are we to mock that? The waitress was a lovely Russian gal, bilingual, and she spoke in a sweet voice and we finished our lunch. She leaned over and in a very sweet voice, she said would you like to have some dessert. So my host said things have changed, we can also have dessert. I said that will be lovely, what do you have? She said, "Ice cream." We said what else? "Ice cream." We said okay. Yeah we’d like some ice cream. "What flavor would you like?" We said what flavor do you have? "Vanilla.". We said any other flavor? "No, Vanilla." So the man on the left said would you like to have vanilla ice cream for dessert? We said yes we would. He said, you know the genius , she actually walked away from here thinking she gave you a choice of desserts. 

That’s what this game of tolerance can become. You’re actually given the idea that you have a choice. Is it true? It ought to be true. And that’s why Os Guinness is right, he thinks civility is a better word than tolerance. Where you may have learned to accept what another person believes but you don’t have to celebrate it and in a civil manner you disagree.

I plan to further examine the three categories of culture introduced, and attempt to clarify, by examples, how one can discern the impact of culture on contemporary issues.

Can We Keep It?

There is a seemingly increasing conversation about the involvement of Christians in the milieu of government. This conversation often takes on a scholarly tone that may serve to limit the dialogue.

It's hard to counter what one does not understand, or to which he or she has no familiarity or relevant connection. This blog post is an effort to establish the necessity of Christian influence in the governing of America.

I've begun reading If You Can Keep It by Eric Metaxas. He writes a paragraph that added some perspective for me,

"Therefore, if in any sense we care about the rest of the world, we must first 'keep' this republic. We are to shine not so that we can admire our own brightness but so that we hold out a beacon of hope to the rest of the world. Our exceptional-ness is not for us but for others." 

Seems rather like the essence of the Christian message.

He continues,

"That is the paradox at the heart of who we are. So what makes us different has nothing to do with jingoism and nationalistic chest beating. If we have ever been great, it is only because we have been good. If we have ever been great, it is only because we have longed to help make others great too. That earnest humility and generosity must be attended to."

To view the "American Experiment" as an exercise in nationalism is a gross misinterpretation of the intent of our Founders.

Our Founders sought to establish a nation based on self-government. They wrestled with the reality that no such government had long endured. The struggle for power, influence, and riches most often resulted in tyrannical leaders, whether monarchal or autocratic.

Clearly, no nation state can exist without government. The lack of some means of governance can only result in anarchy, or the absolute freedom of the individual. de Tocqueville expressed words of wisdom when he wrote in Democracy in America, "Nothing is more wonderful than the art of being free, but nothing is harder to learn how to use than freedom." True freedom only comes as the result of a surrender of one's will to a virtuous, even righteous, ideal. Unless there is a "greater cause," mankind will seek what benefits the self.

The form of government established by our Constitution presupposes two underlying assumptions (1) the fallenness of mankind, and (2) the possibility of redemption. These two principles find their source in Judeo-Christian teachings. As such, the removal of said teachings from the governing structures of our country will have a profound impact on the ability to govern justly.

To be clear, it is not within the mission of the church to evangelize a government. Rather, it is to make disciples, baptize, and teach the citizens to observe, fulfill, or comply with the principles taught by Christ. It is, however, incumbent on the citizen to hold his or her government to account for adherence to the foundational principles on which the government was established.

The authors of our Constitution were farsighted, maybe even prophetic. With a very real understanding of mankind's penchant toward pride and power, they created a government with checks and balances to enable boundaries not to be encroached.

Dr. Franklin was right to assert, " . . . if you can keep it," in his response to Mrs. Powell's probing question regarding the new Constitution. Our republic demands a stalwart, learned, and informed citizenry if we are to keep this marvelous gift called America. Undergirding this vigilance is the need to preach the gospel so the pattern designed by our Founders remains clearly visible.

Tolerance? Did someone cry "Tolerance!"?

Here is a press release from the Military Religious Freedom Foundation (MRFF) dated June 1, 2016:

PRESS RELEASE 

Wednesday, June 1, 2016 

Contact Bekki Miller | (337) 356-8696 bekki.miller@militaryreligiousfreedom.org 

VICTORY WITHIN 23 HOURS:

MRFF's "NO BOYKIN" DEMANDS RESULT IN NO BOYKIN AT

FORT RILEY PRAYER BREAKFAST 

MRFF's vigorous demands succeeded in having Islamophobic and fundamentalist Evangelical Christian fanatic Lt. General Jerry Boykin (Ret.) removed as the honored guest speaker at the Fort Riley Prayer Breakfast, as part of the 1st Infantry Division's "Victory Week".
MRFF achieved this victory within 23 hours on behalf of our 131 Army Officers, NCOs, and civilian clients at Fort Riley, inclusive of: Jews, Muslims, Protestants, Catholics, Native Americans, Agnostics, Atheists, Humanists, Secularists, and the LGBT community.
The Military Religious Freedom Foundation launched a protest on May 31 accusing the retired three-star general of being a “homophobic, Islamophobic, fundamentalist Christian extremist.”
“He sows hatred and heinous divisiveness with his sickening screed of fundamentalist Christian supremacy, primacy, exclusivity and triumphalism,” Weinstein (Mikey Weinstein, founder of the Military Religious Freedom Foundation) wrote in a complaint to Fort Riley.
Mr. Weinstein might want to consider cutting back on caffeine – and adjectives.
He went on to label the decorated military hero as a “World Class bigot” and threatened to sue unless Boykin was ejected.
Gen. Boykin told me the cancellation is “just another reminder of the incredible discrimination against Christians in our armed forces.”
“This should tell you how difficult it is for Christians, and especially chaplains, to live their faith in our military,” he told me.

To be clear, this is written by Bekki Miller, MRFF Administrative Assistant/Scheduler. This is not hyperbolized repetition of non-contextual verbiage. The use of Mr. Weinstein's caffeinated quotes serves to illustrate that the MRFF is not serving the the benefit of society, but, rather, the interests of a small, but vocal, minority ("131 Army Officers, NCOs, and civilian clients at Fort Richey" to be exact).

The People for the American Way (PFAW) published a Right Wing Watch:In Focus report entitled, "The Mythical Martyrdom of Jerry Boykin." The report concludes as follows:

The Truth
No one has challenged retired Gen. Boykin’s freedom of religion or freedom of speech. He is like all Americans free to speak, preach, and proselytize. He is free to continue to travel around the country promoting religious bigotry and calling for legalized discrimination against some Americans based on their religious beliefs. He is free to make his case in the media, as he has continued to do since withdrawing from the West Point prayer breakfast. And he is even free to claim that criticizing his outrageous statements is the equivalent of an attack on his personal freedom. 

But General Boykin has no “right” to be free from criticism.  And he has no “right” to have his irresponsible positions promoted by public officials.  Indeed, Americans who value free speech and religious liberty have good reasons to challenge Boykin’s assertions, and to hold accountable public officials who give his extremism credibility it does not deserve.

Now, let's review. Lt. Gen. Boykin is entitled to freedom of religion and speech so long as it doesn't offend others, and meets with the secular progressive (no apology for identifying a specific ideology) paradigm. Notice the adjectives "outrageous," and "irresponsible." And, his religious views are considered extreme and fanatical. Freedom of religion is not genuinely free if one must remain within the constraints of those that disagree with its tenets.

There is room for disagreement with Mr. Boykin's positions and assertions, even within the Christian community. His statements regarding Muslim's, and their ability to both live and worship in the United States, may be disagreeable. However, given the context in which they are made, there is reason to postulate that those who practice the Muslim faith are, at minimum, worthy of scrutiny, just as a Christian zealot looking to bomb an abortion clinic would be so. But to be labeled as a "homophobic, Islamophopic, fundamentalist Christian extremist," leaves no room for dialogue or even the ability to makes one's viewpoints known in the public arena.

Lt. Gen. Boykin was invited to speak to a religious forum. The context of the prayer breakfast provided those who were invited to attend, the opportunity to accept or decline the invitation (even if it was a publicly advertised event.) No one was being forced to attend, and no announcement declaring that Lt. Gen. Boykin's comments were to be interpreted as the official position of the USMA at West Point. His invitation to speak was based on his distinguished career as Undersecretary of Defense for Intelligence, and 13 years in the Delta Force. In addition, he has emerged as a religious leader and ordained minister. It violates common sense to disallow his invitation by virtue of the fact that (a) someone might disagree with or be offended by his comments, or (b) that a singular vitriolic voice, representing a very small segment of West Point, could instill sufficient fear in our military's leaders to cause them to stand down in the face of his invectives.

So much for the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Freedom to Stand

When the Founder's pensively and meticulously developed the Declaration of Independence, and The Constitution, their underlying presupposition was clearly the existence of an Almighty, transcendent Creator. They wrote, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation."

Webster's Dictionary, 1828 edition, states that a person enjoys liberty when no physical coercion restrains his or her actions or choices (e.g., the King of England). Common sense, however, would dictate that peace and harmony can only exist when one's deeds are performed within the confines of prescribed boundaries (i.e., the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God). To do otherwise would create a society without order, resulting in chaos and anarchy.

The Founders wisely asserted, "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Clearly, no attempt was made to remove principled restraints. With freedom comes the responsibility to self-govern. G. K. Chesterton asserted, "Self-denial is the test and definition of self-government." Self-government is only possible when citizens exercise their duties within the confines of just law and personal honor.

The United States Military Academy at West Point (USMA) has three words emblazoned on its coat of arms. Douglas MacArthur codified those words for the cadets at the USMA on 12 May 1962. He declared, "Duty, honor, country: Those three hallowed words reverently dictate what you ought to be, what you can be, what you will be. They are your rallying point to build courage when courage seems to fail, to regain faith when there seems to be little cause for faith, to create hope when hope becomes forlorn."

Associate Justice Clarence Thomas, in his recent commencement address to the Class of 2016 at Hillsdale College remarked, "At the risk of understating what is necessary to preserve liberty in our form of government, I think more and more that it depends on good citizens, discharging their daily duties in their daily obligations." Daily duties within daily obligations!

In large part, modern citizens have traded rights for responsibilities, apathy for integrity, and licentiousness for liberty. Even those in the community of faith have chosen to embellish grace to include actions and deeds that test the grace of God rather than demonstrate it.

In America, citizens are called upon to keep the Government in check. One privilege extended to make this possible is the right to vote. When such a privilege is voluntarily declined or cynically avoided, a breach of trust occurs between those who pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor to make this nation a reality. To vote is to exercise one's duty, to preserve one's honor, and to acknowledge the incredible blessings afforded by, and the sacred honor required to preserve this great country.

The Government is a reflection of it's electorate, To be candid, that reflection speaks volumes about modern American citizens. The current image does little to respect the Founder's model or ideal. Indeed, Franklin's assertion regarding keeping our Republic was prophetic. What was designed to be a Constitutional, Representative Republic has devolved into a democracy driven by minority interests, and ill-conceived, secular pragmatism.

No doubt, our Founder's, and revolutionary patriots, are rolling over in their graves as they witness an American citizenry that tolerates a Government that operates outside the boundaries of prescribed Constitutional limitations, checks, and balances. They provided us the freedom to stand and expose such fraudulent excess, but we sit idly by, allowing the political class to drive the agenda. It's time to stand!

Freedom & Faith

"It was the hard work of our people, the freedom they enjoyed and their faith in God that built this country and made it the envy of the world."

~ Ronald Reagan, 3/19/1981

In God is Our Trust

Francis Scott Key penned the verses of our national anthem. At the risk of offending some, I include the text of verse four:

Oh! Thus be it ever, when free men shall stand
Between their loved home and the war's desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav'n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: "In God is our trust."
And the Star-Spangled Banner in triumph shall wave
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

This new blog will provide thought provoking posts to encourage those blessed to live in this "heav'n rescued land" to "Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation."

In my lifetime, America has gone from being a melting pot of men and women proud to espouse the American ideals of E Pluribus Unum, In God We Trust, and Liberty, to a hyphenated populace without any cohesive principles. The three aforementioned qualities have been coined, this author believes correctly, the America Trinity by conservative talk show host and best selling author Dennis Prager. Mr. Prager is perhaps the most focused voice of Conservativism today. My readers are encouraged to visit, and support, Prager University (prageru.com).

"When Free Men Shall Stand" will inspire action(s) to raise the voice of truth in the face of the onslaught of relativism. It will offer counter assertions to answer the disquieting proclamations of the progressive movement. Above all, this blog will exalt the absolute Truth of "Nature's God" against the errant untruth of those who seek its demise. This blog is not intended to be bi-partisan. The offerings will be clearly conservative, strict constructionist, and bound to traditional American values.

Comments are invited, so long as they are in the spirit of candor, intelligence, and goodwill (to borrow the mantra of Bill Bennett of Morning in America fame). Any comment deemed outside these three parameters will be promptly deleted.

The hour is upon all free men, and women, to stand! Join us!