Truth Magazine

By Clinton D. Hamilton

Foreknowledge of God fascinates and puzzles many people. Some contend that if God foreknows anything that this foreknowledge predestinates and foreordains the thing to occur. Consequently, it is argued that if something is foreknown about a person or a group of persons, they cannot avoid the doing of it. In this situation, it is argued that the free will of man would be absent.

Others express wonderment that God could foreknow something and yet call on man to do something to ascertain whether he would do what he is asked to do. This presumes that God foreknows everything. In consideration of fore-knowledge in relation to revelation, God expects one to use the rational nature in him which is in the image of God. The reason for this is that the revelation that God has made to man is one agreeable to the reason; it is rational which is the meaning of the term logikos that is used to describe the word of God (1 Pet. 2:2). In this passage the word spiritual is the translation of logikos in the American Standard Version which I use.

The question to be considered in this article relates to the foreknowledge of God and some implications this fore-knowledge has for individuals.

Question: Did God know of Abraham’s willingness to offer Isaac and that he would offer Isaac before Abraham did the actual offering? And Judas and Peter (three times) etc. If he knows, why does he express it as though he did not?

Response: In responding to the querist’s question, attention will be devoted to the meaning and significance of foreknowledge in relation to the nature and power of God, on the one hand, and the freedom of the individual, on the other hand. Implications of each of these come to bear in responding to the question. All three specific individuals mentioned (Abraham, Judas, and Peter) will be focused on in the light of what heaven has revealed about them in the instances alluded to by the querist.

Foreknow in the scriptures is translated from proginosko, which is used five times in the New Testament: Acts 26:5; Rom. 8:29; 11:2; 1 Pet. 1:20; 2 Pet. 3:17. Of these uses, two have reference to men. Paul said in his defense before Agrippa that the Jews accusing have “knowledge of me from the first” (Acts 26:5). Peter made certain predictions and exhorted that the brethren “knowing these things beforehand” should beware lest they be carried away with error and fall from their own stedfastness (2 Pet. 3:17).

Foreknowledge from prognosis is used twice in connection with God: Acts 2:23; 1 Pet. 1:2. Accordingly, it is used only of God, not of man. God has prescience because if he did not he could not predict future events. When God predicts and knows what will happen does this knowledge of necessity bring the conclusion that the thing predicted is thereby foreordained? This is an issue that needs to be considered also.

A term that must be considered and defined in this context is foreordain or predestinate. This term is from proorizo which means to mark out or determine before-hand. It is used six times in the New Testament: Acts 4:28; Rom. 5:29, 30; 1 Cor. 2:7; Eph. 1:5, 11. God determined certain things. These were within the counsel of his own will and must of necessity come to be. They depend on the omnipotence of God. Just how does man with a free will fit into this foreordination? This is a question that deserves our reflection in the light of God’s revelation.

The relation between foreknowledge and foreordination is an important one; it deserves our reflection. Again, we should be content with God’s revelation and we should not run to philosophical speculations beyond the scope of the scriptures. It appears it would be helpful to consider this issue before proceeding further with comments in response to the question.

Being omniscient, God can know everything and any-thing. To say that he cannot is to put a limit on his knowledge which would be inconsistent with the nature of Deity. That God can plan and purpose is made clear in scripture. “. . . I am God, and there is none like me; declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient time things that are not yet done; saying, My counsel shall stand, and I will do all my pleasure” (Isa. 46:9-10). Assyria was the rod of God’s anger that he would send against a profane and wicked people but Assyria had another purpose in mind than being the rod of God’s anger (Isa. 10:5-11). Although Assyria was the rod of God’s anger, God said of him, “Howbeit he meaneth not so, neither doth his heart think so; but it is in his heart to destroy, and to cut off nations not a few” (Isa. 10:7). God’s sovereignty and foreknowledge can operate independently of the free will of a man in such a manner that God’s purpose as planned is carried out without interfering with the working of the will of the individual. This passage demonstrates this beyond a shadow of a doubt. Assyria would remove nations through conquest and devastation but his heart and purpose would be greed and self aggrandizement but at the same time the counsel of God’s will would be accomplished by Assyria’s fee will action. This is a point of revelation that must not be overlooked.

It has been shown that God can foreknow and predict; his ability to do so is without the constraint of time and the finiteness that attend men. Being able to foresee and to know how men will behave in a given set of circumstances does not cause that set of circumstances and the decisions foreseen within them to be foreordained or determined in relation to the individual or individuals involved. In that given set of circumstances, God used Assyria but independent of Assyria’s decision making process. Assyria was left to do what she would but what she chose to do worked to fulfill God’s plan. God’s prediction of Assyria destroying Israel did not foreordain it, but God was able to see the future as if it were the present or the past. If this were not the case, God’s power to foreknow would be limited.

On the other hand, God can and did foreordain or predestinate certain things to occur. The remedial work of Christ is one such thing (Acts 4:28), as is the adoption of Christians as sons of God and a heritage of God (Eph. 1:5, 11). God could foresee the character and the state of circumstances in which Christ lived and he did determine that all men were to be saved from sin by the crucified and resurrected Christ. These determinations of his were from the counsel of his will independent of those who may have participated to bring them to pass. In fact, it is said of the men who put him to death that they did it by the hands of “lawless men” (Acts 2:23). They were guilty for their lawlessness but God did not ordain their lawlessness. He foresaw it and knew that it fit into the counsel of his will. The action of the freewill of men could not thwart the purpose and plan of God but neither did his sovereignty in purposing and planning interfere with their freewill. What some men do is to set up a false proposition: God’s foreknowledge causes predestination and God’s pre-destination sets aside free will. It has just been shown from the scriptures that this is not a true proposition.

God can and did test men. It is said, “By faith Abraham being tried, offered up Isaac” (Heb. 11:17). In the Old Testament account of this after Abraham went to the designated mountain appointed by God, he was about to slay his son Isaac when God said, “Lay not thy hand upon the lad, neither do thou anything unto him; for now I know that thou fearest God, seeing thou hast not withheld thy son, thine only son, from me” (Gen. 22:12). Evidently, this is the account that served as the background for the question being considered.

The force and the crux of the question is that if God foreknows and knew what Abraham would do, why command him to do it or as the querist put it, “If he knows, why does he express it as though he did not?” What Abraham did here is in the plan and purpose of God to use as an example of faith for men in subsequent time. The force of the example is seen in the working of Abraham’s faith. Relating that God knew what we would do and therefore not call on him to do it would not have the powerful effect as did the actual happening. Surely, God could know what he would do. But God wanted men to have an example to follow. No doubt, the statement, “for now I know that thou fearest God,” is also in the background as the basis for the question.

By this test of Abraham, God shows to all generations the necessity of trial in the development and perfecting of faith. God had a purpose in mind for men the conveying of which could best be done in his counsel through this example of behavior. Accordingly, he chose the occasion to have Abraham demonstrate what faith is. This is how men are shown to be men of faith. To use only his foreknowledge and not the example of the behavior of the man was not the purpose and plan of God. Men are demonstrated to be people of faith when they behave as did Abraham.

Several times in the New Testament, God shows by example what was in his mind when he called on Abraham to walk by faith. The fourth chapter of Romans is a powerful one on the meaning of walking by faith; at the heart of it is the behavior of Abraham. It is said of him, “Who in hope believed against hope, to the end that he might become the father of many nations, according to that which had been spoken, So shall thy seed be. And without being weakened in faith he considered his body as good as dead (he being about a hundred years old), and the deadness of Sarah’s womb; yet, looking unto the promise of God, he wavered not through unbelief, but waxed strong through faith, giving glory to God, and being fully assured that what he had promised, he was able also to perform” (Rom. 4:18-21). Because he had such faith, it was reckoned to him for righteousness (Rom. 4:3, 9, 22). Why the example? Listen to revelation: “Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was reckoned unto him; but for our sake also, unto whom it shall be reckoned, who believe on him that raised Jesus our Lord from the dead, who was delivered up for our trespasses, and was raised for our justification” (Rom. 4:23-25)

The example of Abraham’s offering Isaac was used by James to demonstrate the meaning and significance of walking by faith (Jas. 2:23-24). The plan of God was to have this example to teach men the meaning, and the elements, of saving faith. Why should a man complain that God had such a plan? Why should man say that it was unnecessary or useless?

Judas serves as a negative example in the plan of God. His greed (Jn. 12:6) becomes a negative example to show the devastation to one’s well being that yielding to it can bring about. Surely, the Lord foreknew it was he that would betray him but the act of betraying him was in the purpose of God. Judas did the act out of his own heart and its being foreknown did not cause Judas to do it. God permitted the act to occur because there was in his purpose the plan to teach and to use Judas as an example.

Judas predicted that Peter would deny him (Matt. 26:34; Mk. 14:30; Jn. 13:38). Peter protested that he would not. He was over confident and serves as a wonderful example of this and the remorse that comes when one fails. God’s plan and purpose was to demonstrate this to men. The fact that Jesus knew what Peter would do was not the cause of his doing it; foreknowledge did not predestinate it nor did it interfere with Peter’s will to do as he desired.

Another matter should be discussed to bring some further context to the issue before us. It is obvious from Genesis 22:12 that God chose by his command to deter-mine whether Abraham feared God in not withholding his son. This suggests that in God’s purpose he sometimes decides to learn something through commands to men. In a similar vein, God chose to learn about Israel in the wilderness after they left Egypt. “And thou shalt remember all the way which Jehovah thy God hath led thee these forty years in the wilderness, that he might humble thee, to prove thee, to know what was in thy heart, whether thou wouldest keep his commandments or not” (Deut. 8:2). To say that God must foreknow a thing is to limit His omnipotence to choose not to know except under a given set of circumstances. Must God foreknow? No. He can choose to know some other way such as to give a command and observe the response to it. He chose this means to ascertain whether Israel would keep his commandments.

Likewise, God chose to send manna and to give commandments about their gathering and eating it. In connection therewith, God said, “Behold, I will rain bread from heaven for you; and the people shall go out and gather a day’s portion every day, that 1 may prove them, whether they will walk in my law, or not” (Exod. 16:4). God then gave instructions about what was to be done on the sixth and seventh days (Exod. 16:5). God chose to know their behavior by observing their response to his commandments.

Men not being deity cannot know all there is in the nature of deity except by what God reveals. His revelation makes clear that he can foreknow and predestinate without interfering with the free will of men; revelation also makes clear that God can choose not to foreknow but to observe to gain knowledge. Whether the character, nature, and behavior of God fits our preconceived notions is not the issue. What God reveals should be enough for men. “The secret things belong unto Jehovah our God; but the things that are revealed belong unto us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law” (Deut. 29:29). May we ever have this sentiment in our hearts.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 5-7
February 17, 1994

By T. Doy Moyer

To secularize something means to make it worldly and unspiritual. It is to deprive something of religious character and spiritual influence and significance. This is precisely what has happened, and continues to happen, to America. The United States was founded upon religious and biblical principles. However, in this modern age, those principles have been swept away and replaced by the depraved principles of situation ethics, “values clarification,” and general moral emptiness. Many factors have contributed to this, but one of the leading factors is, without question, the dominant news media.

The news media is a powerful factor in the thinking of people. They shape the world outlook of listeners. They are supposed to report news  what’s happening, the facts of events  without being biased. That is far from reality. Instead, the dominant news media is making news, and putting their own perverted twists onto whatever news events they choose to report. They are leaders in the fight against Christianity and biblical principles. They reflect the thinking of the government, and support virtually any liberal decisions that are made by the government. Cal Thomas wrote: “The American government, once the protector and even reflector of religious tradition and thinking, has become an enemy of those with religious faith” (The Courier-Journal, Louisville, Kentucky, Dec. 12, 1992). The news media shares a glad hand in opposing religious thinking. One wrote that the “media assault upon religious believers has been fierce” (AFA Journal, June 1993, p. 24). Though this includes all of the media, it cannot be denied that the news media has joined the assault.

Undermining The Bible

One way in which the news media contributes to secularism is to report things that undermine the integrity of the Bible. They always seem to find room for reporting someone’s study that says that the Bible is not what it’s made out to be. For example, in December, 1992, a story made the front page of the Louisville Courier-Journal showing that an Episcopal Bishop questioned the historical accuracy of the gospel accounts of the virgin birth of Jesus. The Bishop John Shelby Spong argued that the story in the Bible “contains much theological truth but precious little historical fact. The account is unbelievable to modem, thinking Christians” (Dec. 23, 1992). Other statements are made which undermine the integrity of the accounts.

Now, I wonder why this made the front page of the newspaper? Though the story mentioned opposition to the position, there was no “fairness” (a word they are well familiar with) of time given to someone who could defend the integrity of the accounts. Thus, there is one more barb against the Bible. People see this and accept it without real question, and it gives them more reason not to believe the Bible.

In a December, 1992 addition of USA Weekend, the front page advertised an article on “Who Was Jesus?” The thrust of the article was to show all of the debate about who Jesus really was. It talks of the “Jesus Seminar” conducted by liberal theologians who have virtually no respect for the Bible. It’s just one more piece added to the confusion that most people already experience.

News articles can be found almost daily that add skepticism to the Bible. Very few news articles can be found reflecting respect and defending the integrity of Scripture. This would not be the case if the news media were unbiased.

Every time the Bible is put down, secular humanism is built up. Let’s be thankful that, in the end, the Bible will stand while all other systems will be put down (1 Pet. 1:22-25; 2 Cor. 10:3-5).

Calling Good Evil, And Evil Good

The media contributes to secularism by painting a good picture of sinful people and putting those with biblical convictions in a bad light. This is especially true when it comes to issues like abortion and homosexuality. In the news media, abortionists and homosexuals are pictured as good, compassionate and loving people. Those who op-pose these things are pictured as mean, unkind, radical, right-wing religious fanatics who don’t know up from down.

For example, I have a copy of some video footage taken from a “gay” rights parade in San Francisco a couple of years ago (“The Gay Agenda”). What is seen is tasteless and obscene, but it shows the true character of so many n the homosexual community. Has this ever been shown in news coverage? No. If a statement is made, it is reported simply as being a gay-rights parade with perhaps hundreds of thousands in attendance. Nothing derogatory is said. Then, perhaps they will show some foaming-at-the-mouth religious leader condemning what is happening and making him look like the fool. The effect is that the homosexuals look like the “good guys,” and those in opposition look like poor, pitiful idiots. The kind of scenario has occurred far too often to deny it. The slant in the media is, without question, pro-homosexual.

One recent news article had the headline: “Study linking genes to homosexuality doesn’t alter religious leaders’ stance.” Immediately, we see the slant. Credence is automatically given to the “study,” and religious leaders who oppose it look like they oppose scientific evidence. Many such articles can be found. Just read the papers. One writer, concerning the pro-homosexual bias in the news, correctly observed: “Editorials are running on the front-page disguised as news stories. And activists  not reporters  are writing the stories” (The Homosexual Cop in the News-room, by Joseph Farah, AFA Journal, June 1993, p. 17).

We see virtually the same thing when it comes to the abortion debate. Abortionists are given the air time, and they are made to look kind, compassionate, and rational, while those who oppose it are made to look like irrational fools. Anti-abortionists are given coverage, but it is usually coverage of them blocking clinics, screaming madly across a street, or, as took place not long ago, shooting an abortion doctor. This just makes anti-abortionists look like radical, mean-spirited fanatics who have no capacity for reason. Thus, the public’s view of these people is perverted. And it is not difficult to notice that when the news media speaks of abortion, they speak in terms that show they believe that abortion is an axiomatic right for women. Terms like “pro-choice,” and “right to choose” show this slant.

Isaiah wrote, “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil; who put darkness for light, and light for darkness; who put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” (5:20). This is exactly what is happening today, led by the dominant news media.

Political Correctness

Perhaps the most perverted idea advocated by the news media today is that of “political correctness.” This has to do with appeasing certain special-interest groups (such as homosexuals and abortionists) and offending as few people as possible (that is, those who do not believe the Bible). To be politically correct, we have to say certain things in the exact way that we have been told to by the media. For example, it is politically correct to say “pro-choice,” but not so to say “pro-abortion.” To be politically correct, one must support abortion, homosexuality, feminism, and whatever else those of left-wing ideology decide.

It is not politically correct to talk about the Bible. After all, that has been removed from classrooms and anything having to do with the government. Bible believers certainly have no sympathy from the dominant news media either. Consequently, to speak of things from a biblical worldview means that we will be called bigoted and hateful. This is all part of the slant. Anyone who does not bow to the demands of the politically correct are promptly condemned without a fair hearing. Of course, these same people, led by the media, are dogmatic in their support for the right to free speech. But in these days, freedom of speech means that you can say and do anything you want, as long as you do not do it with a moral standard such as the Bible. That would be pushing your morals on others; and that would be terrible. Meanwhile, the politically correct are pushing their version of morality on the rest of us, and many Christians are cowering in shame at their demands. It is time for us to stand up and fight the good fight of faith.

Conclusion

There is nothing wrong with reporting news. But to do so with a secular humanist agenda is another matter. In this case, the goal is not simply to report news: the goal is to influence the thinking of people so as to support the agenda. The dominant news media is a willing participant in this as activists take the positions of reporters. People watch and listen, and are affected greatly. All of this just goes to say, “Take heed how you hear.”

Christians need to remember that our thinking must not be shaped by men. It must be shaped by God and his word (Col. 3:16). There is a real war going on, and we cannot ignore it. We must have minds trained to discern good and evil (Heb. 5:14). So, while we wade through coverage of news, let’s make sure that we can separate actual news coverage from the biased advocacy of a liberal agenda. Remember: “Those who forsake the law praise the wicked, but such as keep the law contend with them” (Prov. 28:4).

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 12, p. 11-12
February 3, 1994

By Eric Norford

We hear about this subject almost every day in our lives. We may know of people who tried to commit suicide and failed; we know of some who tried and were successful. We may know of some in our family who has tried to take his life. We may even hear some of our friends or family talk about committing suicide.

Since 1960, the suicide rate is up 200% in our country. Suicide is the second greatest killer among teen-agers. TeenAge Magazine surveyed 1,022 13-19-year-olds to find out the reasons behind teenage depression that leads to suicide. School and environment ranked first with 76%; followed by girlfriend/boyfriend relations with 54%; family conflicts with 44%; friendships with 43%; and appearance with 40% responding that this caused their depression (the percentages do not add up to 100% because most all cited more than one reason for their depression). It seems that for many young people depression originates in the home, with 70% of teenage suicides coming from broken homes. Dr. Jeff Ezell says that “what these kids almost always suffer from is alack of self-esteem” (C. Titus Edwards, Guardian of Truth, February 7, 1985, 77).

Even adults commit suicide. Most of the problems are a result of depression that led them to take their life. They may be depressed be-cause of family problems at home, job or lack of one, feeling of unimportance to people, frustration … etc. All of these can lead one to contemplate this action and executing it on themselves.

The media play a powerful role in planting the seed. A good many singers today believe that the cure for depression is suicide. Their lyrics are full of words that center around that theme. Anyone listening intensively may begin to think about this and eventually commit suicide. John McCollum, a 19 year old, committed suicide in 1985 after listening to Ozzy Osbourn’s song, “Suicide Solution.” Two teenage girls in 1987 committed suicide after listening to Metallica’s “Fade To Black.” An estimated 600,000 teenagers attempt suicide annually and 5,000 succeed. Approximately 14 teenagers kill themselves every day.

We’ve seen the terrible statistics and we’ve heard about this problem every day, but we need to focus on what the Bible says about this subject.

The word suicide is never used in the Bible, but there are things revealed from God that show that suicide is wrong. Suicide is self-murder (Rom. 13:9).

In the beginning of creation, God made a special creation  man. He made man after his image (Gen. 1:27). The Scripture says, “And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul” (Gen. 2:7). God was displeased when Cain took his brother Abel’s life (Gen. 4:8-12). It was God who said in Genesis 9:6, “Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God made he man.” That principle still applies today, whether the murderer is an enemy, friend, or self. God hates murder, God hates the taking of a life that he created. Brethren, doesn’t God have the right to instruct us how to live Suicide .. . our life and to take care of it and not kill it? He certainly does.

Suicide stems from a lack of self control, which we are to maintain. Paul says in 1 Corinthians 9:27, “But I keep under my body, and bring it into subjection (i.e. in control, emphasis mine  REN): lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.” There are many who lack self-control today. I am not naive to think that there are not Christians who have tried to commit suicide. We are to be temperate and we are to add that to knowledge (2 Pet. 1:6). We are to grow in the grace of Jesus Christ (2 Pet. 3:18).

What a terrible day it was when the Philistines defeated Israel. Saul was king and was defeated that day. His three sons were killed in battle and he was wounded, he re-quested that his armour bearer thrust the sword into him lest he be killed by the uncircumcised Philistines. His armour bearer would not, so Saul fell upon his own sword and his armour bearer did the same thing (1 Sam. 31:1-6). Saul thought the answer to his defeat was suicide, but it only created problems for him in eternity.

In the New Testament, when Paul and Silas were in prison for preaching the truth, a great earthquake shook the jail while they were singing and the doors were opened. The jailor, thinking that all the prisoners had escaped, drew out his word and would have killed himself, but Paul kept him from doing that by teaching him of Jesus (Acts 16:25-33). He turned this man’s despair into joy. He gave him a reason for living and meaning to his life.

Brethren and friends, Jesus Christ is the answer to life’s problems. First, you are somebody; you are important to God. God loves you! Don’t feel depressed, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me” (Phil. 4:13). Second, don’t try to run away from life’s problems by committing suicide; rather, take responsibility and face the problem. Everybody faces problems, it is how we handle them that is important. Paul said, “Every man shall bear his own burden” (Gal. 6:5). Look for positive things when there are problems, find good in everything. Third, don’t worry about things beyond our control (Matt. 6:31-34). Worrying doesn’t do any good. Learn to live with things the way they are  everyone has to. Love yourself and who you are. Fourth, be cheerful and enjoy life (Eccl. 9:7-10; 1 Pet. 3:10-11). God wants us to. Fifth, never lose hope (Ps. 16:9).

God is on our side and will help anyone. Paul said in Romans 8:28, “And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are called according to his purpose.” God wants you to live your life for him, to do him service. The things of this life are not as important as going to heaven to live with God for eternity. As William J. Gaither said in his song, “Because I know he holds the future, And life is worth the living, just because He lives.” Suicide is not the answer, but Jesus Christ is!

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 4, p. 1
February 17, 1994

By Warren E. Berkley

“The parents have a right to say that no teacher paid by their money shall rob their children of faith in God and send them back to their homes skeptical, or infidels, or agnostics, or atheists.” William Jennings Bryan, testifying at the Scopes trials, Dayton, Tenn. July 16, 1925.

If the famous attorney could be here today and make only limited observations into the public school system, I think he would repeat what he said in 1925, and perhaps with more urgency. The secularism that is spreading in our society has found an ally in the public schools. This doesn’t mean that every school, teacher or educational official has been taken captive, but the influence of secularism in our schools (and through our schools) cannot be disputed.’ Evidence follows .. .

1. Humanism isn’t just a philosophy to provoke intellectual discussion.2 It has become a political agenda, championed by the liberal left and advanced by many educators. Humanists believe “that man is just as much a natural phenomenon as an animal or plant; that his body, mind and soul were not supernaturally created but are products of evolution, and that he is not under the control or guidance of any supernatural being or beings, but has to rely on himself and his own powers.”3 If those making curriculum and text book decisions hold to this view of man, don’t you think that will affect their work? What about class room teachers who are humanists? Consider, humanists have said that “the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classroom, by the teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith. . . . The classroom will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new  the rotting corpse of Christianity … and the new found faith of humanism.”4

2. The Sex Education Movement is on the fast track, and proponents of these indiscreet curriculums have declared success in some states. Here in Texas we must constantly look over the shoulders of our state legislators, the lobbyists who try to purchase them, state and local school board members and the abortion advocacy groups such as Planned Parenthood. Educating children in sexuality, per se, is not the problem. The problems of secular influence become apparent when you start asking questions: [1] Who will teach my children? [2] What will my children be taught? [3] When will they be taught? [4] With whom will they be taught? [5] Can I opt my children out of the program? [6] Will the popular “mixed message” be the theme? “Don’t have sex, but if you do. . .?” [7] If “abstinence” is even brought up, what will the definition be? Another fearful dimension of the modern sex education agenda is the powerful homosexual lobby, and their intrusion into the school room. Consider, if state and local educational officials allow every culture, sub-culture, and interests group to have input into the sex education agenda, the militant gay rights leaders will be in line, right along with the conservative fundamentalists and family values people! It’s already happening, here in Texas and everywhere. If this agenda of perversion is implemented in the schools, homosexuality will be taught as an “alternate lifestyle,” and if your children are mature, articulate and courageous enough to state their objection, they will be labeled as guilty of the politically incorrect crime of homophobia. Anybody who expresses moral outrage or objection to the practice (sin) of homosexuality is  according to the politically correct pundits  homophobic. In some public universities, “Students who express disapproval of homosexuality are, under threat of expulsion, being required to take `sensitivity training’ to cure their ‘homophobia’.”’ (In a recent Andy Rooney column he spoke out: “. . .I disapprove of making condoms available to children because there may be a few boys or girls in the class who are sexually active. The only certain thing that all the talk about sex can do is promote more of it at a younger age.”6

3. Outcome-based Education (OBE) is one of the “politically correct” methods being discussed in circles of modern education reform. In some states, this has become nothing but a professional-sounding label for the same old secular agenda: getting in touch with your feelings, situation ethics, values clarification, subjectivist, affective development … and all this along with lowered academic standards, and  at tax payer expense!’

4. Social Services On Campus for “at risk” children is a growing trend. These “social service centers” are opening up for “business” on campuses all across the nation, taking schools further beyond their traditional academic roles. In some cases, semi-professionals are identifying children who are “at risk,” by applying standards that derive from their own secular agenda. School counselors and paraprofessionals in mental health are labeling children as “disadvantaged,” or “abused,” and in some cases the “evidence” is that the parents are using “inappropriate discipline”; that may mean that the discipline the parents are using is not what the secular, humanist mentality approves.

5. Multiculturalism. In some places, school children are being taught that street slang is just as good as proper English; social integration must take precedence over hard work and a free economy; and the fraudulent agenda and messages of some “minority groups” is part of the curriculum, all in the name of a newly created god, multiculturalism. Cultural assimilation has been elevated to a virtue at the expense of good education in many cases. “. . . Ethnic communities that are committed to preserving some of their cultural values and their heritage should be free to instill these values in their children  at home, at church, in the neighborhood. Surely it is not the office of public schools to promote separatism and heighten ethnic tensions.”‘

6. Re-writing history. In the effort to achieve cultural assimilation, some secularists are busy re-writing the history books  not to correct known error, but to indoctrinate. The revisionists are determined to use public schools as mediums for their activist agendas. Parents, beware!

7. Loss of Parental Oversight. Let me suggest that one thing parents need to look out for in public education is school officials and teachers intruding into areas tradition-ally reserved for parental oversight. The autonomy of parents is sometimes infringed by teachers who see them-selves as self-appointed social engineers and “mediums” who must usher in a new age. This was a heated issue during the term of William J. Bennett, early in his tenure as U.S. Secretary of Education. A Washington Post head-line said it all: “Education Chief Rapped for Supporting Parents.” The article said, “Some of the nation’s established organizers sharply criticized Education Secretary William J. Bennett . . . for his support of federal rules giving parents more control over `sensitive’ subject areas taught in public schools.”9 In some places, public schools may actually drive a wedge between children and parents (see Eph. 6:1-4).

8. Drug Education. Who would be opposed to drug prevention and education programs? We are not on a “witch hunt” when we ask, in regard to these programs, Who will teach it? What will they teach? Do the designers and leaders of the program have a secular, humanistic agenda? I fear that in some of these drug education programs, the students are getting the impression that the rightness or wrongness of drug use is a subjective matter  that it relates to physical danger and is a mental threat, but not necessarily morally wrong. Human potential psychology may be the hidden agenda in some of these projects.10

9. The Creation-Evolution issue is not over. And all the dinosaur hype may indirectly give more credibility to some of the atheistic theories of today’s secularists. “Pictures and replicas of dinosaurs automatically conjure up a false concept of pre-historic creatures which supposedly evolved 175-200 million years ago and became extinct 65 -70 million years ago, long before man came on the scene.’

10. New Age influence is everywhere: in entertainment, the media, retail commerce, politics and schools. New Age influence involves the deadly combination of subjective humanism and secular attitudes with the eastern, pagan concepts of deity. The August 1987 annual convention of The Association for Humanistic Psychology included  under the heading of Humanistic Education  a workshop titled, “Zen Buddhist Ethics and the Caring Classroom: The Application of Zen Buddhism to Educating Children.”12

What Can Parents Do?

Know Your Rights! “First is the power and rights of the parents. It is good constitutional law in our nation that the parents are the primary educators of their children. They have the right to safeguard the religion, the morals, the attitudes, the values, and the family privacy of their children.”13

“Re-double Your Efforts To Educate, Discipline and Influence Your Children At Home. Talk to your children about these things as soon as appropriate. Get help, use resources, and associate with other Christian parents facing the same threats. By all means, get serious about training your children in Biblical values.

“Be active in watching your state legislature, and don’t hesitate to communicate to them and initiate all the citizen input and influence that is legitimate. Much of what happens in your local school district is directly related to state mandates, regulations, standards, and pressures. You will need to watch and participate on the local (school board) level, but some things (like sex education) may be out of the control of the school board, because of state mandates. Before the next legislative session in your state, talk to your representative about these issues.

“Be a Christian, wear the whole armor of God, and spread the gospel everywhere, starting at home. ‘Education is a weapon, whose effect depends upon who holds it in his hands and at whom it is aimed’ (Josef Stalin).”

End Notes

1Secularism, as defined by Charles Colson (The Body 172): “As an adjective, the word secular means merely `of this world,’ or `of the present age.’ As a world-view, however, it becomes secularism, an ideology that places all emphasis on the here and now. The anthem of modern American secularism is captured in the beer commercial: `You only go around this way once, so grab for all the gusto you can.’ Or as the T-shirts proclaim, `Carpe diem’ Seize the day!  the ultimate existential expression.”

The writer of this article has a tract out on the subject of humanism, in English and Spanish; order from Guardian of Truth Bookstore. Also, The New Age Movement: A Biblical Perspective.

‘Quoted in The Battle For The Mind by Tim LaHaye 63. ‘From The Humanist Magazine, Jan./Feb. 1983.

‘Jeffrey Hart, “Not Just An Alternate Lifestyle,” McAllen Monitor, July 28, 1993, 6-D.

6 Andy Rooney, “Andy’s Startling Confession,” McAllen Monitor, Aug. 13, 1993.

‘For more research into OBE, write to CEE, Box 3200, Costa

Mesa, CA 92628, or call (714) 546-5931.

‘The Way Things Ought To Be, Rush Limbaugh 213.

‘The De-Valuing of America, William J. Bennett 46.

10For an excellent discussion of various drug education programs, see Why Johnny Can’t Tell Right From Wrong, William Kilpatrick, Simon & Schuster, 1992 (Chapter 2).

“Dinosaurs Attack Children!” Dick Blackford. Searching The Scriptures XXIX:11 [November, 1988], 252.

1 ‘The New Spirituality by Dave Hunt & T. A. McMahon, 43. “The Teaching Of Values In The Public Schools,” by Phyllis Schlafly, The Phyllis Schlafly Report, Oct. 1989.

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 17-19
February 3, 1994