The Conflict With Secular America In World Views

By Dick Blackford

After a twenty years’ nap, Rip van Winkle woke up to find he had slept through a revolution. I fear many Christians are sleeping through a revolution and are unprepared for conflict. While Nikita Kruschev will not get the satisfaction of seeing America buried “without firing a shot,” a philosophy similar to his has made successful inroads into the educational, legal, cultural, entertainment, and religious halls of our time and nation. This attack has been aimed at the foundation upon which western civilization stands  the view that this world was created by a God of justice and the moral teachings of the Bible (Prov. 14:34).

This is a call to battle. Not because of physical danger, but because of the danger to souls that have been and are being lost. It is not a battle of bullets and bombs but of ideas and concepts. “For the weapons of our warfare are not of the flesh, but mighty before God to the casting down of strongholds; casting down imaginations, and every high thing that is exalted against the knowledge of God” (2 Cor. 10:4, 5). If anyone should be able to meet the arguments of humanists, it should be Christians. Since Christianity is of the heart (Matt. 22:37; Rom. 10:10; 6:17,18), we cannot coerce, but must convince. As the twentieth century comes to a close, a new day is dawning. For many, it will not be good.

There are very few areas in which Christianity and secular human-ism agree. We could say that secularism is the antithesis or opposite view of Christianity  every step of the way. Secularism is a godless religion that deifies man and is intolerant of its opposite, Christianity. Even the Humanist Manifesto calls it a “religious and moral point of view” (3) and “a growing faith” (24). (Note: all page references will be to Humanist Manifesto I and II.) This manifesto proports to be a sophisticated treatise designed to give dignity to the humanist philosophy. In reality, it is the most corrupt, vulgar and degrading piece composed in this century. It is designed to destroy the dignity of man, his beliefs, his values, his life, and his soul.

Secularism’s View Of This World

“Secular” (Latin, saeculum) means “age” or “time.” One who is secular is bound by time. He is one whose hope is confined to the here and now. We are told that “Religious humanism seeks its . . . fulfillment in the here and now. This is the explanation of the humanist’s social passion” (9). And, “we strive for the good life, here and now” (17). This accords exactly with the view advocated by Charles Smith, former president of the American Association for the Advancement of Atheism in his debate with a gospel preacher in 1929, that “Our fourth fundamental is Hedonism, the doctrine that happiness here and now should be the motive of conduct” (Oliphant-Smith Debate, 27. Italics mine in all three quotes).

In short, the humanist philosophy is similar to the Epicureans who said, “Let us eat, drink, and be merry, for tomorrow we die” and this world is all there is. You only go around once. There is no judgment day. Jesus taught there are two worlds: the one that now is and that which is to come (Mk. 10:29,30). With humanism’ s view that there are no moral absolutes (“right” and “wrong”), it is easy to see the outcome of such a philosophy. It would amount to a free-for-all in the area of morality.

A “One-World Government”

When humanists say, “The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperative” (19), they mean to exclude all ideologies except humanism. They say “People are more important than decalogues, rules, prescriptions, or regulations. We look to the development of a system of world law and a world order based on transnational federal government” (21).

In order to accomplish this “we urge that parochial loyalties and inflexible moral and religious ideologies be transcended” (23). This would make the government number one in the life of every citizen. The New Testament church would be secondary. In fact, the statement continues,

… commitment to all humankind is the highest commitment of which we are capable; it transcends the narrow allegiance of church . . . What more daring a goal … than for each person to become . . . a citizen of a world community . . . Humanism … is a moral force that has time on its side. We believe that humankind has the potential intelligence, good will, and cooperative skill to implement this commitment in the decades ahead.

It has been two decades since the Humanist Manifesto II was written. The perceptive observer of current events in the news is well aware of our government’s bowing to the United Nations, our “One-world Government.”

The advantage to humanism in a totalitarian government is the implementing, world-wide, of its philosophy of:

1. God and salvation. “No deity will save us; we must save ourselves . . . we begin with humans, not God” (16). “Traditional theism, especially faith in the prayer-hearing God, assumed to love and care for persons, to hear and understand their prayers, and to be able to do something about them, is an unproved and outmoded faith” (13). Consider these words from a dedicated humanist:

The Bible is not merely another book, an outmoded and archaic book, or even an extremely influential book; it has been and remains an incredibly dangerous book. It and the various Christian churches which are parasitic upon it have been directly responsible for most of the wars, persecutions, and outrages which humankind has perpetrated upon itself over the past two thousand years … I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public classroom by teachers who correctly perceive their role as the proselytizers of a new faith … These teachers must embody the same dedication as the most rabid fundamentalist preachers, for they will be ministers of another sort, utilizing a classroom instead of a pulpit to convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach . . . The classroom must and will become an arena of conflict between the old and the new  the rotting corpse of Christianity, together with all its adjacent evils and misery, and the new faith of humanism, resplendent in its promise of a world in which the never-realized Christian ideal of `love thy neighbor,’ will finally be achieved (John Dunphy, “A New Religion For A New Age,” The Humanist, January/February, 1983. My emphasis, db).

2. The Universe. “Religious humanists regard the universe as self-existing and not created” (8, emphasis added).

3. Man. “Man is a part of nature and that he has emerged as the result of a continuous process … we can alter the course of human evolution . . . Man is at last becoming aware that he alone is responsible for the realization of the world of his dreams” (8, 14, 10).

4. Morals. “We affirm that moral values derive their source from human experience. Ethics is . . . situational, needing no theological or ideological sanction . . . neither do we wish to prohibit . . . sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered `evil”‘ (17, 18). These “varieties” would include adultery, lesbianism, homosexuality, incest, and bestiality.

The Role Of Government

In A “One-World Government”

Since man rejected God’s form of government God has allowed (not necessarily approved) many forms. A totalitarian government could be allowed the same as many nationalistic governments. The danger lies in what philosophy controls that government. In a one-world government that has no fixed base (such as the Ten Commandments), law will be arbitrarily decided by what is good for society at the time and in its practical results (pragmatism). For example, since humanists deny God then life is not sacred. Therefore .aborting babies is no problem since over population and welfare children are not “good” (practical) for society.

Biblically, God has given government as an agent of justice to reward good and punish evil (Rom. 13:1-4;1 Pet. 2:13-17). This presupposes some absolutes. And we say without hesitation that any attempt to produce world peace that excludes the Prince of peace is doomed for failure.

Morality In A “One-World Government”

How many times have we heard humanists and those misled by them say, “You can’t legislate morality?” They mean only biblical morality. Actually, they have redefined morality and are already legislating it. Morality has to do with ecology and “this world.” Notice: “Ecological dam-age, resource depletion, and excessive population growth must be checked by international concord. The cultivation and conservation of nature is a moral value” (21, 22). This is why humanists can get so upset over rain forests and saving the whales and the snail-darter, but favor abortion, suicide, and mercy-killing. Again, “it is the moral obligation of the developed nations to provide . . . massive assistance, including birth control techniques (they would include abortion, db)” (22). Their morality would compel the redistribution of wealth. “Hence extreme disproportions in wealth, income, and economic growth should be reduced on a worldwide basic” (22). And, “we would resist any moves to censor basic scientific research on moral . . . grounds” (22). Thus, they see no problem with harvesting aborted babies for research and profit.

The Role Of The Church

In A One-World Government

One may think there is no role for the church in a godless society, but there is, at least in the transitional period. Humanism has infiltrated churches. “Many within religious groups believing in the future of humanism, now claim humanist credentials. Humanism is an ethical process through which we all can move above and beyond the divisive particulars . . . of past religions . . . ” (15) “Religion must work increasingly for joy in living” (9). They mean in the here and now, since they don’t believe in a hereafter. “All associations and institutions exist for the fulfillment of human life” (9). “Certainly, religious institutions must be reconstructed as rapidly as experience allows … ” (10). The reason many churches have trouble deciding the simplest of moral issues is because they have been infiltrated by humanists and are in the process of reconstruction. “We believe … that traditional dogmatic or authoritarian religions that place revelation, God, ritual, or creed above human needs and experience do a disservice to the human species . . . Some humanists believe we should interpret traditional religions and rein-vest them with meanings appropriate to the situation” (16). Humanists don’t mind if you give lip service to God as long as it doesn’t affect the way you act and live. This is why many politicians can invoke the name of God while making humanistic decisions diametrically opposed to God’s will.

Jesus implied religious division would cause the world not to believe (Jn. 17:20-23). Today’s professed believers have worked against the prayer of Jesus with their denominational creeds, councils, and dogmas and have played into the hands of humanists who claim they can unite all men. Most churches have lost their ability to influence society and are preaching a generic gospel that soothes itching ears (2 Tim. 4:3). Many have become clubs de-signed to entertain and meet our social desires and have become impotent to affect any real good in the battle for the mind against the highly organized and aggressive forces of humanism. Conclusion: Humanism’s means of accomplishing their goals is three-fold: the legal system (consider the work of the ACLU), the media (especially television and music), and the classroom (consider values clarification, evolution, sex education minus morality, etc.). I ask the reader, how well do you think they are doing?

The difference between communism and humanism could safely be said to be about 5%. The differences between Christianity and humanism are about 98%. That communism’s goal to bury us “without firing a shot” is the same as the humanists is expressed in these words: “The true revolution is occurring and can continue in countless non-violent adjustments” (23). What difference does it make what they call themselves if their goal is basically the same? If communism can accomplish most of its goals by changing its name and compromising on a few points, they are more than glad to do so and have done so many times in the past. Humanism bears far closer kinship to communism than to Christianity. They are like Siamese twins. I have always believed the optimism over the so-called “death of communism” was premature. A part of communism’s plan since its origin has been to zigzag as a means of throwing others off track.

One can be a Christian in any society, but it is far more difficult and dangerous in a godless society than a free society. My fellow Christians, it may be later than you think. Let us close with the words of the late Will Durant: “The greatest question of our time is not communism vs. individualism, nor Europe vs. America, not even the East vs. the West; it is whether men can bear to live without God.”

Guardian of Truth XXXVIII: 3, p. 2
February 3, 1994