CRIMES OF THE CROSSROAD -
An analysis of some of the more uncharitable "news" articles posted by --Kjos Ministries-- . None of the following should be assumed to be a personal attack on the Kjoses - I do not know who is responsible for the maintenance of the --News Section-- , and so have written this article on the assumption it is Berit Kjos, the site owner.
Original text is given in black. Comments are in the usual colour.
NEWS SECTION:
"Education. Literacy of College Graduates Is on Decline [link obsolete] :
"While more Americans are graduating from college, and more than ever are applying for admission, far fewer are leaving higher education with the skills needed to comprehend routine data, such as reading a table about the relationship between blood pressure and physical activity.... 'It may be that institutions have not yet figured out how to teach a whole generation of students who learned to read on the computer and who watch more TV. It's a different kind of literacy." See Redefining "Literacy" for a New World Order."
Unfortunately, the link is 'obsolete', so I cannot examine the context of this infuriating quote. Nevertheless, it is merely more Daily Mail tripe served up on a silver plate of contempt for higher learning. Does Mrs Kjos think it necessary or desirable for Christians to learn how to "comprehend routine data, such as reading a table about the relationship between blood pressure and physical activity?". If not, she has no business even reporting this. And what, exactly, means the author with THIS comment: "institutions have not yet figured out how to teach a whole generation of students who learned to read on the computer and who watch more TV"? Are they really attempting to suggest that learning to read from a screen is somehow less valuable than learning to read from a sheet of compressed tree pulp? And how can the author compare television and the computer. Both use screens, that much is true, but the average computer user must constantly comprehend and respond to text, whilst the television viewer is completely passive. Even the language gives it away - 'user' vs 'viewer'.
"The next link illustrates this process: It's a call for an adaptable form of Christianity that will blend Biblical promises with animist traditions:
Religion. Africans Need African Theology: "According to Joe Kapolyo, a theologian from Zambia, many of his African colleagues simply copy Western theology, which is influenced by rationalism.... A truly African theology must deal with subjects like poverty, tribalism, corruption, sexuality, and spiritism.... "Despite its fast growth in Africa Christianity has not succeeded in penetrating African culture, said Kapolyo. In many instances Africans have only been touched superficially. They often mix the Christian faith with paganism: They are good Christians during the day and consult the witchdoctor at night."
Would a mythical blend of preferred beliefs fit better than Biblical truth, which is historical and rational? The result would be an African version of Western occultism, which includes many "christian allusions" and symbols. See Warnings - How mysticism & the occult are changing the Church."
This just takes my breath away. If you read the full article, you will see that Kapolyo is concerned that the African church is becoming so lukewarm that thieves pray for God's help with their robberies then tithe from their loot. He also assaults Western rationalism - by which he means secularism - for downplaying the dangers of the spiritual realm and the demonic. As a result, he says, many African 'christians' are becoming involved in damnable paganism, such as employing the services of a 'witch-doctor'. He is arguing that the African church should take a stand AGAINST these practises and boldly tell their congregations that it is unacceptable. Berit Kjos, however, has decided that Kapolyo is issuing "a call for an adaptable form of Christianity that will blend Biblical promises with animist traditions". How can anyone GET that from this article? How can you possibly interpret an article plainly attacking paganism as a clarion call for the same? Evidently Berit has latched onto the words 'rationalism' and 'Western theology' and identified these terms with 'Biblical truth', when in fact the article identifies them with the 'Western occultism' she fears!
ARTICLE:
"Herescope was requested to prepare a "thumbnail sketch" -- an overview -- of what constitutes "transformation." Below is an outline summary which many will find helpful.
"Transformation" is the end-goal of a process that moves from TRADITION through TRANSITION to TRANSFORMATION. This is sometimes called a "Paradigm Shift," which means that Transformation shifts one's worldview (paradigm) from the old to a new. This is a dialectically unfolding PROCESS in which the THESIS is continually challenged by ANTITHESIS, evolving into ever-unfolding SYNTHESES. Transformation is engineered, orchestrated and/or manipulated. Transformation involves changing over a person's values, opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and even their behaviors to that of the new paradigm/worldview."
Note: this wording does not make it clear - the writer of this article believes this generic-sounding 'transformation' is a sinister process being forced on our churches and schools to make them more liberal and 'accepting' of other faiths (in other words, they believe churches are being forced to water down their stance on Christianity's claim of exclusivity). It also appears they believe that changing another person's 'values, opinions, beliefs, attitudes, and ... behaviours to that of the new paradigm/worldview', is always evil, regardless of the object or worldview in question (which for me immediately raises warning signs, since that is what Christ does in the heart of the new believer!).
How to tell if it is "Transformation" --
Characteristics of TRADITION:
1. Education (teaching) is didactic
2. Cognitive
3. Right and Wrong
4. Focus on "what is"
5. "I know" statements
6. Facts, TRUTH
7. Respond to change by standing on THESIS
Characteristics of TRANSITION:
1. Education is facilitation
2. Affective (feelings), psychological
3. Must "determine" right and wrong (up for grabs)
4. Experience (dialogue)
5. "I think" or "I feel" subjective statements
6. OPINIONS
7. Respond to change by adapting to new SYNTHESIS
Characteristics of TRANSFORMATION:
1. Education is modeling, spiritual formation, mentoring
2. Esoteric (mystical)
3. No absolutes
4. Common ground, coevolution, collective unconscious
5. Intuitive, "I sense," imagery, imagination
6. ANTITHESIS supplants THESIS
7. Continual, perpetual change
OK, let's see, this is "a process that moves from TRADITION through TRANSITION to TRANSFORMATION", right? So 'tradition' is always good, and 'transition' and 'transformation' are always bad. Hmmm, I suppose one could make a case for the 'old paths' and the 'Lord God of our fathers' of the Old Testament, but the New Testament definitely takes a dim view of the 'traditions of men'. Also, isn't the Biblical model of salvation 'transformation' by any definition of the word? Again, we get the definite feeling that the writers of this article do not take a very positive view of Biblical evangelism, and instead advocate insular 'Christian' communities which keep to themselves and raise their children with 'traditional' 'family' values, despite the Biblical emphasis on preaching the Word to the lost, and its near-total rejection of 'family values' (see Matthew 12:50, Matthew 19:29, Matthew 23:9, Mark 10:29-30, and Luke 14:26). There are a lot of people who, like the writer of this article, seem to be mired in the Old Covenant, which was described in Hebrews 8:13 as 'decaying', 'waxing old', and ready to 'vanish away'. The Old Covenant did indeed put more emphasis on godly tradition (Proverbs 1:8 and 6:20), but even the writer of this article would have to admit he is on distinctly shaky ground in the New (see Mark 7:8 and Colossians 2:8).
Anyway, back to the article's content. Let's line up each point and see how they compare:
Didactic education > Facilitating education > Character modelling education > Spiritual education > Mentor system
This just doesn't add up.
'Didactic education'? Isn't that just knowledge for its sake - sounds gnostic, and ignores the Biblical warnings about 'much study' (Ecclesiastes 12:12).
'Facilitation'? For what? Learning in order to 'facilitate' oneself for a given occupation sounds commendable enough.
'Modeling'? How is that new? Schools have tried to 'build character' for centuries, and that is not bad in itself - in fact, it is commanded for parents, who are instructed to train up a child 'in the way he should go' (Proverbs 22:6). The problem comes when the character the schools are trying to build is that of a 'global citizen' (a denizen of the world) rather than a Christian (who is called to be in the world but not of it).
'Spiritual formation'? Presumably, this is intended to imply that all 'TRANSFORMATION' is occultic, but it just doesn't work. How is one supposed to accomplish this 'spiritual formation'? Presumably through the same old didactic methods - an authority figure lays down spiritual values, then various activities, usually including group discussion carefully guided by the teacher, cement these values in the minds of the students. None of this is bad in itself - quite how one is supposed to bring up one's children in the Lord without subjecting them to 'spiritual formation' is not mentioned in this article. Maybe they would advocate teaching children about all religions, and then letting them choose between them when they are old enough for decide for themselves ... except that would be totally against the precepts of the Bible.
'Mentor system'. Oh no! Not the dreaded 'mentoring' process. God forbid that our teachers are role models we can look up to and imitate (1 Corinthians 11:1).
'Cognitive' thought > Emotional thought > Psychological thought > Mystical thought.
Again, I am left gobsmacked.
'Cognitive' as far as I can see, refers only to conscious intellectual thought. What is being implied here? That all non-intellectual thought is evil? Woah, toss out all that 'godly sorrow', and 'joy of faith', it's emotional and therefore evil. Jesus wept? Nonsense, he was totally emotionless. None of that effeminate 'love' stuff. And why ever did God permit his Son to die in such an emotionally charged way? Didn't he know that reaching people through their emotions is evil? The writers of this article have just given themselves away as practitioners of Victorian 'muscular christianity', recently reborn in what I can only describe as 'Texas Mystery Babylon' religion. This type of religionist believes it is very 'manly' to harden one's heart in times of turmoil, and preach a gospel of 'rugged individualism' and 'self-reliance' which leaves no room for the comfort of faith. They generally substitute sports and physical activity for genuine study of the Word (see 1 Timothy 4:8 for a refutation of this madness) and are always the loudest voices calling for 'family values'.
What, exactly, is meant by 'psychological thought'? Psychology is a secular and often anti-Christian way of examining the human mind - both intellectual thought and the emotions. One cannot 'think psychologically', unless one is specifically studying the human mind, which I doubt is in view here. 'Mystical thought'. Again, what is meant by this? That people are being taught occultic values (occult 'mystics')? That people are being taught to spiritualise and metaphoricise away truths at the expense of their plain meaning (as per the Romantic 'mysticism')? Or is it intended to impugne all metaphor, figures of speech, and spiritual truths? If the latter, than the writers of this article are leading their readers straight into Hell, because the Bible clearly identifies 'mysteries' that the discerning reader is to 'understand' (in other words, calling them to become 'mystics'!), and clearly presents numerous figures, types, parables and figures of speech. The muscular-minded religionist will often complain that such matters are too 'nebulous', too easy to misinterpret, and so we should go without them. Well, Jesus told us man must live by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God", and the Old Testament tells us it is NOT to hard to understand (Deutronomy 30:11-14). You ignore the so-called 'mystical' truths of the Scripture at your eternal peril!
'Right and Wrong' > told to 'determine' Right and Wrong (which puts it 'up for grabs') > No absolutes (no right and wrong).
Whilst I understand (probably) the author's intent - that society is apparently sliding from a more or less uniform set of values, to 'tolerating' other value sets, to seemingly abandoning morality altogether, the way it is presented here is almost meaningless.
First off, we as Christians understand some things to be right, and some things to be wrong. Other religionists, atheists, and occultists have their own views of 'right' and 'wrong' (even when their philosophy should preclude such pronouncements, i.e. evolutionism). Does the author mean by 'Right and Wrong' that everyone in 'traditional' society believes the same thing? Or simply that they rabidly cling to their own values, even when they are proven wrong? Either way, it is hardly desirable for the Christian (in the former, they could be forced to conform with a false 'state religion', in the latter, the gospel would be useless).
'Determining' Right and Wrong is right, and indeed mandatory ... when the Word of God is your compass. It becomes evil only when human 'reason' or non-Christian belief systems are substituted for the Bible. At no point is the truth 'up for grabs', whatever that means. I suspect the author is trying to suggest that increasingly, Christians are tolerating the attempts of unbelievers to determine what is right and wrong for themselves. But even here it falls down. Do the 'transformed' people believe fervently in non-Christian values (i.e. Moslems, Hindus, hard atheists, satanists), or do they merely believe truth is something warm and fuzzy that means different things for different people (i.e. New Agers, some Buddhists, etc.)? How anyone is supposed to believe in 'no absolutes' is not explained. Surely then, 'no absolutes' becomes the absolute? The closest you can get to 'no absolutes' is the satanic mantra 'do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the law', and I very much doubt anyone could accuse satanists of believing that right and wrong are 'up for grabs'. On the contrary, they believe very firmly that whatever they do is 'right', and that Christianity is 'wrong' and 'evil'. They simply flip Christian morality upside down, as foreshadowed in Isaiah 5:20.
'What is' > Experience ('Dialogue'?!?) > 'Common ground, coevolution, collective unconscious'
OK, this makes sense (sarcasm). So we transition from 'what is', to an experiential way of looking at the world (I'm not even going to try and understand how the author of this article thinks dialogue is equivalent to personal experience), to ideas about coevolution and the collective unconscious. This is a complete non-sequitur!
How does the author define 'Focus on "what is"'? Perhaps they are trying to suggest that the transition is from believing the Bible to forming a worldview based on what you experience (i.e. the scientific method), but how does one read the Bible except with ones mundane senses - unless the author of this article is trying to article that the Spirit communicates truths in some 'mystical', Charismatic/Pentecostal way! Also, this seems very insulting to all the creationists who have spent their life trying to show that what we see in nature leads us to the Biblical worldview, as well as the Bible itself, which clearly states:
"The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork" (Psalms 19:1).
And again: "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they (unbelievers) are without excuse" (Romans 1:20). So contrary to the insinuations of the writer of this article, the testimony of our senses points us to God (though most choose to reject this gracious testimony).
Furthermore, what is meant by 'common ground, coevolution, collective unconscious'? Perhaps the first article refers to the propensity to try and build a worldview on the appeal to popularity (i.e. 'most people think evolution is a valid explanation for how we all got here, so it must be true'), but even that is not clear. And 'coevolution'? 'collective unconscious'? Both are New Age ideas to be sure, but how do they supplant 'a focus on what is'? They simply rise from a different idea of 'what is' (namely, that man is a single spiritual entity that is evolving into God)! If New Agers really had no worldview (no idea of 'what is') they would agree with whoever was speaking at the time - an idea totally at odds with their hostility to God and his Word.
"I know" - objective worldview > "I think", "I feel" - subjective worldview > "I sense", 'imagery', 'imagination' - intuitive worldview
Again, non sequitur. I run into this bizarre mindset a lot, both from 'discernment' ministries and from New Agers. They draw a false distinction between an 'objective' and a 'subjective' worldview, and imagine that prefixing a statement with "I believe" or "I think" somehow waters it down. In reality, you cannot hold a worldview without believing or thinking it in the first place! It doesn't matter whether you believe a truth to be universal or limited in scope (which is really what they are getting at - 'true for me but not for you', etc.), since you can make an unqualified statement in a limited context, or state that you 'know' a statement to be true in a limited way. On the other hand, one could state that you 'believe' or 'think' that a statement is universally true. It is true that some people use "I think" and "I feel" to convey less than total confidence in a belief (i.e. "I think the shop is on the high street"), but the author of the article is obviously trying to convey something more than 'Christians are losing confidence in their beliefs and hence their testimony is suffering', they are trying to suggest that Christians are applying the truths of Christianity to a limited context (i.e. "Jesus is Lord for me, but other people have their own religions").
OK, this is getting too confusing, let's use a more specific example:
Speaker: "Jesus Christ is Lord" - seems fairly self-explanatory. He is asserting the Lordship of Christ as a universal truth.
Speaker: "I know Jesus Christ is Lord" - According to the writers of this article, "I know" should carry equal weight to the unadorned statement. Not so - one could easily use "I know" to mean "I know in my heart that this statement is true regardless of the weight of evidence presented against it", which is just as bad as "I sense" (which is a similarly irrational statement based on personal feelings rather than evidence).
Speaker: "I feel that all the evidence points towards the Lordship of Christ" - The statement contains the allegedly subjective 'I feel' but points to objective, rational thought.
Speaker: "I just know Jesus is Lord, OK!" - 'I know' appears, but the statement is intuitive.
Also note the reference to 'imagery' and 'imagination' - another popular 'discernment' ministry distinctive. Where the Bible (and indeed most people) would consider 'imagery' to mean 'images or symbols used to reflect a greater truth', the 'discernment' ministries take it to mean ... well, I'm not sure they even know what it means. But they don't like it. Any use of description or even a cohesive theme is suspect, because it might be 'imagery'. Likewise, they take 'imagination' to refer to Man's creative faculties, usually visual. The Bible, on the other hand, draws a significantly grander picture:
"And GOD saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every imagination of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually" (Genesis 6:5)
"...the imagination of man's heart is evil from his youth..." (Genesis 8:21)
"Which imagine mischiefs in their heart; continually are they gathered together for war" (Psalm 140:2)
The Bible speaks of imagination as Man's entire conceptual array, his ability to think and to plan for the future. As a result of the Fall, it is of course entirely corrupt. Everything Man thinks, says, or makes is twisted to evil. By limiting imagination to Man's ability to form pictures in his head, the 'discernment' ministries make one of the most important themes of the Bible of no effect:
"The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God : God is not in all his thoughts" (Psalm 10:4)
Imagination is never spoken of highly in the Bible because Man is a fallen creature - not just his creative faculty but ALL the thoughts of his heart are evil. Why - because the heart itself is wicked (see Jeremiah 17:9 - "desperately wicked").
Facts/Truth > Opinions > Antithesis supplants Thesis
More of the bewildering same, only with an even less relevant final stage tacked on. Clearly, the author is trying to allude to the 'frozen, unfrozen, frozen' system of brainwashing - people start off 'frozen' (believing one thing), must be 'unfrozen' (until they don't know what to believe anymore), then 'frozen' in a new mould (believing what you want them to believe). Of course, that process could just as easily describe conversion to Christianity. Also, the last phrase 'Antithesis supplants Thesis' is taken from the Hegelian Dialectic (the preferred method for changing the minds of large groups of people - rightly left on the shelf by Christians because it relies on secular psychology, and does not allow for a supernaturally powerful message). Why the writers of this article didn't present the whole process in Hegelian language (Thesis instead of Facts/Truth, Synthesis instead of Opinions) or down-to-earth language (Facts > Opinions > New Facts) is unknown.
Respond to change by standing on thesis > Respond to change by adapting to new synthesis > Continual, perpetual change.
Why, exactly, are they so drawn to the Hegelian vocabulary? Do they know Hegel was an occultist? They've given the Hegelian equation incorrectly anyway: it should be Thesis, Antithesis, Synthesis, not Thesis, Synthesis, Antithesis as in the last section, or even Thesis, Synthesis, Change, as it appears here. One also wonders whether they have considered the implications of their insinuations here:
Respond to change by standing on thesis = good. Really? So the writers of this article should be fine with Moslems or Hindus 'standing firm on their thesis', whatever the evidence produced in favour of Christ.
Respond to change by adapting to new synthesis = bad. So sharing the gospel with unbelievers will only lead to them blending the best bits with their paganism to produce an occult mix? What was God thinking when he promised his word would not return void (Isaiah 55:11)? According to the writers of this article, it will return worse than void, it will leave the heathen worse off than before they heard it!
Continual, perpetual change = worse. Strange how we don't see the Moslems, Hindus, Buddhists, Satanists, etc, in a process of 'continual, perpetual change'.
How to spot the PROCESS of "Transformation."
How to spot the PROCESS of becoming INCOMPREHENSIBLE. Look for: randomly CAPITALISED words"
Look for:
A. New Language:
1. Newly coined words, terms, phrases, slogans
2. Old words given new meanings
3. Old definitions discarded
4. Intentional deception, misleading statements, half-truths, ambiguity
Isn't that what the writers of this article have been doing all the way through - taking words like 'transformation', 'didactic', 'modeling', 'spiritual', 'mentor', 'cognitive', 'psychological', 'mystical', 'absolutes', 'experience', 'imagery', 'imagination', etc. and twisting them beyond recognition to fit their strange ideas? Misleading statements? Half-truths? Ambiguity? That's half their article!
B. New Worldview/Paradigm
1. A new way of seeing or interpreting reality -- events, circumstances, history, causes and effects, etc.
2. Creating a new reality using envisioning activities
3. Revisionist history: altering the facts, distorting prior events to fit new paradigm
4. Creating a new reality through psycho-social change mechanisms
1 - Could be Christianity.
2 - How, exactly, is this supposed to work? 'Creating a new reality'? Erm ... wouldn't that be impossible for anyone but God? I presume the author means 'using meditative visualisation techniques to alter your perceptions' - if even that were possible in God's creation.
3 - Could be Christianity if you remove the emotive language ('revisionist' and 'distorting').
4 - Again with the reality-creating? The only occultism I can see here is coming from the writers of this article.
C. New Structure
1. New authority structure, system of governance, new forms of accountability
2. New physical structure
3. New forms, formulas, formats, formations
4. New liturgies not based on doctrine or Scripture
Woops!
1 - The kingdom of heaven?
2 - "And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant" (Matthew 20:27)
3 - Again, could be Christianity.
4 - Again, we see that the writers of this article have a very definite situation in mind when talking about 'transformation'. I have no problem with exposing the occult change agents - but I have a problem with articles which hide an agenda then sneak it in with the last few lines.
D. New Mission/Vision
1. Subjective, constantly changing, relative
2. Strategic
3. Not tied to Biblical absolute Truth or Word of God
4. Subject to continual urgency, crisis, acceleration, etc.
Same. Also, how is 'strategic' evil? Am I missing something?
E. New Values
1. Subjective, relational, situational, abstract
2. Irrational, illogical, irreverent, irrelevant
3. Tolerance for everything but absolute Truth
4. "The end justifies the means"
"Irrational, illogical" - more Texan mystery religion for you (also note the flashy alliteration and hip rhyme - "Irrational, illogical, irreverent, irrelevant". Is this really godly?). "Irrelevant" - hmm, that would be the 'logical' fallacy known as 'begging the question'. 'Logic' is to these religionists what the Tao is the Taoists - a supreme law to which God must be subordinated. Of course, if anything is raised over God, he is no longer omnipotent. This construct gives us a nice example: The Scriptures say NOTHING is impossible for God (Luke 1:37). But logic says this cannot be true, because if he can lift any rock, no matter how large, he cannot create a rock he cannot lift. The God of the Bible on the other hand could create a rock he could never, ever, ever lift, then lift it. He could create an immortal 'omnimax' being older and more powerful then himself, then exercise control over him or destroy him. He could choose to die forever, or give up his ability to do anything, but he would still be alive and able to do anything. Neither 'logic' nor 'rationality' appear in Scripture.
I find it particularly amusing that they attack "The end justifies the means" when they themselves embrace it without shame. The Scriptures teach that the 'means justify the end', that it is better - indeed, excellent - to fail and die using godly methods than to win by 'dirty tricks'. So why do the advocates of "Texas Mystery Religion" defend the right to bare arms 'in case we need to defend ourselves from the government'? Why do they support the army when the Scripture clearly states to do violence to no man? Obviously, they believe that the end (freedom, whether religious or national) justifies the means (violence, bloodshed, etc.).
F. New Methods
1. Bait and switch, marketing, manipulation, machinations
2. Statistics, census-taking, databanking, assessing, monitoring
3. Orchestrated consensus, common ground, deceptions
4. Peer-driven, compulsive, coercive
No! Not the evils of marketing and statistics! Assessing! MONITORING! 1 Corinthians 5:1 should be enough to bury this heap of tripe.
G. New Doctrines
1. Man-oriented, culturally relative, contextualized, programmed
2. Anything that erodes the sovereignty of God
3. Utopian-sounding
4. Authoritarian in implementation
Aaand finally we get to something worth reading. Unfortunately, it's the end of the article. Quite what 'programmed' and 'contextualised' means in this context, we don't know, because it isn't explained. Likewise; 'Utopian-sounding', 'Authoritarian in implementation'? Aren't those the same accusations hurled against Christianity by liberals and atheists? Ah well.
NEWS SECTION:
"Education. 'Catastrophe' of undergraduates who cannot write a basic sentence:
"British undergraduates are incapable of composing even the most basic English sentences.... Based on evidence from more than 130 professional writers working in 71 universities under a scheme launched in 1999, it exposes 'shocking' inadequacies in all types of institutions and all academic departments. Even students who have won places at elite universities to study English literature 'lack the basic ability to express themselves in writing.' Socialization for a global society has replaced traditional academics.
See Molding Human Resources for the Global Workforce"
"British undergraduates". No attempt is made to qualify this breathtaking sweep with a statistic (oh no, wait, statistics are evil!). In the Bizarro world put forward by the writers of the original Telegraph article*, no British undergraduate is capable of writing a basic sentence. Such inanity should be exceedingly easy to refute.
"The elephant waved its trunk excitedly as the zoo-keeper approached with an iced bun".
OK, that's actually a compound sentence, possessed as it is of two main clauses united by a coordinating conjunction, but I think I have made my point. I am currently an A-Level student, so I look forward to losing the entirety of my lexical and grammatical faculties upon stepping over the threshold of a British university.
* Which I can now report has also appeared in the Daily Mail, that bastion of journalistic and academic excellence.
Also noted: a link to a rant which essentially reads "Duh, why isn't no teacher sayin' nuffink about Plato in History no more?" Hmm, would that be the pagan philosopher Plato? How edifying.
FROM AN ARTICLE:
"Community Education and popular economics [socialist economics] work together in many cases. From the beginning ICEA has seen and emphasized the importance of economics from below as a way out of marginalization. Here ICEA above all emphasizes the promotion of entrepreneurship. For where there is a lack of jobs, people have to be able to create jobs themselves. ICEA supports those, often from the informal sector, who want to get access to the regular market.
Kjos interprets this article's use of the phrase 'popular economics' to mean 'socialist (i.e. top-down) economics'. But what do the next two sentences say: "the importance of economics from below (private sector)". Communism! "ICEA above all emphasizes the promotion of entrepreneurship". Yeah, it's like something in the Soviet Union in the 1960s! Or maybe Kjos is just out of her mind. How can you possibly draw a conclusion from a phrase that is 180 degrees opposite from the rest of the paragraph?!?
ARTICLE:
"In Neo-orthodoxy, everything in the area of eternals or universals is a mystery that can't be discussed because there is no rationalism in the "upper story." However, "mystery" in the New Testament means something hidden in the Old Testament, but revealed in the New Testament. What is revealed in the New Testament is no longer a mystery (Col. 1:26)".
What, are you going to take their word for it? Look up that Scripture reference:
"Even the mystery which hath been hid from ages and from generations, but now is made manifest to his saints".
OK, that's got my back up right away, because there's no context. It's so vague it could mean anything quoted on its own. Something was a mystery, and is now revealed to the saints. Is that every mystery in the Bible? Let's look at the next two verses:
"To whom God would make known what is the riches of the glory of this mystery among the Gentiles; which is Christ in you, the hope of glory: Whom we preach, warning every man, and teaching every man in all wisdom; that we may present every man perfect in Christ Jesus."
Ah-hah! So this is a specific matter - the mystery in question is Jesus Christ! There ARE new mysteries given in the New Testament (1 Corinthians 2:7, 1 Corinthians 5:51, Ephesians 5:32, 2 Thessalonians 2:7, and of course Revelations 17:15), contrary to the assertions of the Crossroaders. But the answers to these mysteries are all there in the Scripture - often, they are explicitly explained (i.e. Revelations 17:7), which is the real difference between Biblical Christians and wishy-washy liberals. The former actually get their hands dirty and try to discern the meaning of the mysteries of the faith (in other words, they become mystics, a profession much maligned by Victorian Muscular Christianity religionists), whereas the latter use the word 'mystery' as an attempt to shut down rational discussion. Their hearts are usually in the right place - they are trying to defend the more fantastic doctrines of the Bible from the ravening rationalist hordes, but in doing so they theologically impoverish us all.
Look at the monstrous hypocrisy demonstrated by the Crossroad peeps:
"THE NEW THEOLOGY INFLUENCES TRANSLATIONS ... His (Eugene Peterson, the author of The Message) concept of spirituality is not a state of being filled or controlled by the Spirit, it is what you do or practice. He says, "Spirituality is no different from what we've been doing for two thousand years just by going to church and receiving the sacraments, being baptized, learning to pray, and reading Scriptures rightly. It's just ordinary stuff." This is contrary to the conservative or orthodox view of spirituality (Gal. 5:16-18, 22-26; Eph. 5:18, etc.)"
OK, what is this 'conservative or orthodox view of spirituality' if not what you do and practise? Some mystical state of mind? Some Pentecostal style demonic 'indwelling'? EVERY SINGLE SCRIPTURE QUOTE HERE IS ABOUT THE CHRISTIAN WALK AND PRACTISE. Look them up for yourself - do they pertain to some mystical experience, or are they a call to a specific way of living and behaving? But I digress. Crossroad.to have just bludgeoned Peterson around the head for believing that 'spirituality' is what you do, not a state of being. But later in the article:
"He (Rick Warren) talks about a new spiritual awakening, but in the New Theology terminology anything "spiritual" is mystical".
Make up your mind, people, either the New Theology rejects the alleged metaphysical guidance of the Holy Spirit in favour of works salvation, or it uses the word 'spiritual' as a shield against rational scrutiny in the same way 'Neo-orthodoxy' (whatever that is) uses the word 'mystery'. It should be fairly obvious that you cannot have both, not unless the author is taking serious liberties with the simple phrase 'what you do or practise'.
"He says, "I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek. Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language." He is not concerned about theological content, but about rhythm of the original texts ... The Christian Faith (belief) is in the content and details, not the rhythm! There is an implicit or explicit universalism in The Message wherein everyone is saved".
OK, I'm no fan of Eugene Peterson and The Heretical Mess, but this is about as uncharitable and unchristian a treatment of the issues as you can get.
"I began to realize that the adults in my class weren't feeling the vitality and directness that I sensed as I read and studied the New Testament in its original Greek".
Mr Peterson feels we need a translation truer to the Greek, which doesn't lose its directness being adapted to the English language and English cultural mores.
"Writing straight from the original text, I began to attempt to bring into English the rhythms and idioms of the original language".
Mr Peterson claims to be directly translating from the original text (doubtful, but we'll let that slide). He wants to translate ALL aspects of the original text - the word order and sentence structure as well as the words themselves (which makes sense: if 'The Word Of God' doesn't include 'The Grammar Of God' or 'The Punctuation Of God', we might as well just scramble our Bibles and try and obtain 'spiritual' messages by selecting random words and stringing them together).
"He is not concerned about theological content, but about rhythm of the original texts".
HOW DO YOU GET THAT FROM THE PREVIOUS TWO SENTENCES? He mentions 'rhythms' - is that a bad thing? Should I throw away my King James Authorised Version because it was written in a rhythmic/poetic style to aid memorisation? Did they miss the word 'idioms'? Sigh.
"The Christian Faith (belief) is in the content and details, not the rhythm!".
Did Mr Peterson say 'The Christian Faith is in the rhythm?' No? Then why are you playing these weird shell games with the word 'rhythm'? You would get on very well, I feel, with the --AV1611.org-- peeps (not Kenneth Sublett from --piney.com-- though, because he believes 'spirituality' is a matter of works, not a mystical Pentecostalist 'state').
"There is an implicit or explicit universalism in The Message wherein everyone is saved".
LOGIC!!
Peterson: "...rhythms...".
Berit Kjos: "UNIVERSALIST HERESY!!!".
Also, pray tell me how one can have 'an implicit or explicit' anything? You either have one or the other! Make up your minds, does Peterson's translation contain 'implicit' (under the surface) universalism, or does it teach 'explicit' (overt) universalism? One precludes the other! It's like saying 'it's a little or very draughty in here'. It doesn't make any sense at all! This coming from the people who have just spent an entire article arguing that the liberals don't believe words have definable meanings...
- - -
Whew. Well, I think that was a fairly comprehensive rebuttal. However, I really felt these issues needed addressing, especially where the Crossroad.to editor misused Scripture to justify their borderline cultic position. Remember, this was written quite a while ago, so some of it is now inaccurate (for example, I am now a University student, although as far as I know I am still literate).