What the Bible says about Secular Humanism
(From Forerunner Commentary)

Psalm 14:1 Liberals, says James Hitchcock in "The Enemies of Religious Liberty" (First Things, February 2004, pp. 26-30), especially those infesting America's universities, have come to detest religion—any religion, anywhere. To these secularists, faith in the unseen God is incomprehensible and irrational. They view it as divisive to the coherence of society, as well as destructive. Stanford University professor and philosopher Richard Rorty believes that "the 'highest achievements of humanity' are incompatible with religion" (Truth and Progress, 1991). It may be instructive to see what Rorty's peers in liberal academia have to say about our religious freedoms. Since they see religion as at odds with freedom, academic liberals are increasingly coming to believe that the state has the right—indeed the obligation—to "damage-control" religion. So, New York University Law Professor David A.J. Richards claims that it is necessary for the state to foster its own religion, "a religion and an ethics that validate the highest order moral powers of rationality and reasonableness of a free people" (Toleration and the Constitution, 1986). Chicago University Professor of Jurisprudence Cass Sunstein advocates using "the liberal state to force the intolerant to be tolerant" (The Partial Constitution, 1999). Intolerant here means espousing strong religious beliefs, beliefs by which one lives. European University Institute Professor of Legal Theory and Legal Philosophy Wojciech Sadurski argues that no state can permit religious groups that have not transformed themselves into bodies both "rational" and self-critical" (Moral Pluralism, 1990). The state, therefore, becomes mentor, teacher, and priest. Princeton University's Steven Macedo in his book, The New Right Versus the Constitution, sees the state as "a permanently educative order," allowing the legitimate authority to use its coercive powers (read, police powers) against "illiberal churches" in order to promote greater freedom. He has no problem at all with excluding religious people from public office, such as judgeships. The government's new "educative" power sets it in opposition to parents' rights to raise their children in their own religion. Politics professors Amy Gutmann of Princeton and Dennis Thompson of Harvard "explicitly hold that the state need not be concerned that its educational system might violate the rights of religious believers" (Democracy and Disagreement, 1996). William and Mary School of Law professor James Dwyer holds that "religious education inculcates 'reactionary and repressive' values in children, and for the good of the child, the state is not only obligated to prohibit such schools completely or monitor them closely but also to monitor closely how parents educate their children at home" (Religious Schools vs. Children's Rights, 1998). He goes on to state that "parental choice in education might be 'inconsistent with the state's aims.'" Under the banner of children's rights, parental rights are wiped away! Not unpredictably, Dwyer demands that "all education inculcate feminism and permissive attitudes toward sexual behavior, and that religions which fail to do so be made subject to state regulation." He believes that the government does not violate the First Amendment restriction against the establishment of religion "so long as its actions are intended to inhibit religion rather than to favor it." Kathleen M. Sullivan of Stanford University Law School claims that "religion must be treated 'asymmetrically' from other freedoms, with 'entanglement' between government and religion a good thing for the purpose of restraining religion." These haters of God would commit mayhem against the United States Constitution (and against Americans) in order to build their utopian society of sterile rationality and unfettered choice. While we are unable to stop them, we can be thankful that we side with the One who can—and will. In the utopia He builds, religion will have a paramount place. Charles Whitaker (1944-2021) Liberal Haters of God Related Topics: Humanist and Secularist as Synonyms for Atheist | Intolerance | Radical Feminism | Secular Humanism | Secular Mind | Secularism as a Religion | Tolerance | Tolerance for Evil

Daniel 12:7 Who are the "holy people" in this verse? Are they the church of God? If so, what is their power that is completely shattered right before the end? I Peter 2:9 could back up the interpretation that the "holy people" are the church of God: "But you are a chosen generation, a royal priesthood, a holy nation, His own special people . . ." (emphasis ours throughout). However, the church is not the only group of people whom God has declared holy. Ancient Israel was also designated by God to be holy: For you are a holy people to the LORD your God; the LORD your God has chosen you to be a people for Himself, a special treasure above all the peoples on the face of the earth. (Deuteronomy 7:6; 14:2) Also today the LORD has proclaimed you to be His special people, just as He promised you, that you should keep all His commandments, and that He will set you high above all nations which He has made, in praise, in name, and in honor, and that you may be a holy people to the LORD your God, just as He has spoken. (Deuteronomy 26:18-19) Israel was holy, not because of their purity of conduct or irreproachable morality—far from it—but because God declared them to be so. They were holy in the sense of being set apart—not because of any inherent goodness but because of the oath that God swore to their fathers (Deuteronomy 7:7-8). Therefore, while the Israelite nations at this end time are not holy in their conduct, they are still holy in that God has set them apart to fulfill a purpose. Notice that Daniel 12:7 does not say that the people are shattered, but that their power is shattered. If we interpret the holy people to be Israel in general, their power would be representative of their political clout, military ascendancy, financial control, and cultural influence. The Hebrew word translated here as "power" is elsewhere translated predominately as "hand," indicating the means or agency by which something is accomplished. It is easy to understand a prophecy about the "hand"—strength, effectiveness, means, capabilities—of the nations of Israel being completely shattered before the end, for many such prophecies are well-known. But what would the "power" of the church be? Because of the church's overriding focus in times past on preaching the gospel to the world, we would typically answer that the power of the church is related to its effectiveness in preaching the gospel. However, notice Acts 1:8: But you shall receive power when the Holy Spirit has come upon you; and you shall be witnesses to Me in Jerusalem, and in all Judea and Samaria, and to the end of the earth. Similarly, Paul tells Timothy that Christians have not been given "a spirit of fear, but of power and of love and of a sound mind" (II Timothy 1:7). When these two verses are put together, they show that it is the Holy Spirit—the essence of God's mind, and the agency by which the Father and the Son live in the Christian—that is the "power of the holy people" where the church is concerned. More specifically, the church's power is God Himself, the Source of that Spirit. Jesus even tells His disciples that "all power" had been given to Him in heaven and on earth (Matthew 28:18). In recent church history, God empowered His servants to preach the gospel in a way that had not been done for 1,900 years. But to limit the church's power merely to its ability to preach publicly is to limit God Himself—for He is involved in far more than merely making a witness to the world before the end (Matthew 24:14). His work is centered on true belief (John 6:29)—which begins with the prodding of the Holy Spirit and ends in the regenerated Christian inheriting the Kingdom of God. This work requires much more than a public witness; it requires the transformation of individuals from sinful humans to spirit-composed members of the God Family. The means—the power—of that transformation is God, through the agency of His Spirit. If the church's power—Jesus Christ, living in us by His Spirit—were ever "completely shattered," the gates of the grave would prevail against the church, and God's purpose would fail! But we know that cannot be so. Even though it is prophesied that the "holy" peoples of Israel will fall, and even though the church of God may not always preach the gospel powerfully to the world—depending on what God is doing at any point in time—we can have every confidence that the power of the New Covenant church will never be shattered, for that power is God Himself! In general, the book of Daniel contains prophecies of world-ruling empires that are mentioned only as they encounter Israel. The "holy people" of Daniel 12:7 could just as easily represent the nations of Israel, and the fact that their "power" can be shattered strongly implies that God's power is not under discussion. Defining the power of God's church as "shatterable" reveals a humanist bent, as it assigns importance based on corruptible human action rather than the will and outworking of the unassailable Head of the church. In fact, such an inclination on our part may have been part of the cause of the church's scattering in the first place! Jesus Christ will lead and sustain His church—in that we can, and must, trust. David C. Grabbe The Power of the Holy People Related Topics: Be Holy | Church's Power | God's Own Special People | Holiness as Set apart | Holy as to Set Apart | Holy Means Set Apart | Holy Nation | Holy People | Humanistic Propaganda | Jesus Christ Leads and Sustains his Church | Royal Priesthood | Scattering of Church | Secular Humanism | Set Apart

Amos 5:13 Speaking at Regensburg University in Germany, Pope Benedict XVI quoted fourteenth-century Byzantine Emperor Manuel Paleologos II, a Christian: "Show me just what Mohammed brought that was new, and there you will find things only evil and inhuman, such as his command to spread by the sword the faith he preached." His remarks were met with the usual firestorm of protest from the Muslim world. From the growing Muslim enclaves of Europe to the more traditional Middle and Far Eastern Islamic nations, the Pope was being burned in effigy and lambasted as a bigot and a racist intent on promoting a modern Christian crusade against Muslims. The Byzantine Emperor's observation predates by about five centuries a lengthier and more detailed one from a young Winston Churchill, which he included in his book, The River War, published in 1899: How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property, either as a child, a wife, or a concubine, must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men. Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities—but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science, the science against which it had vainly struggled, the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome. Any objective history of Islam will show that "the religion of peace" expanded primarily at the point of the sword. The concept of jihad, whether or not the Koran's original intent included aggressive warfare, came to mean "holy war" early in Islamic history, and millions of Muslims have sworn to advance jihad, no matter the cost, until the entire earth lies under the banner of Islam. The so-called "moderate Muslim," if such a person exists, is either 1) a secularist in reality, or 2) a moderate because he has calculated that it is presently in his best interest (for example, the governments of "moderate" Arabian Peninsula states like Kuwait, the United Arab Emirates, and Qatar fall into one or the other of these categories). More broadly, the Pope's statement and the Muslim world's reaction to it highlight a confounding reality of this world: Those who speak the truth are considered dangerous and must be silenced. Usually, the silencing of those who dare to say what is right takes the form of ridiculing or discrediting them, branding them as intolerant, or stridently calling for them to apologize or resign. If this fails, Islamists are not above intimidation, threats, violence, and murder. In the Netherlands, Theo van Gogh and Pim Fortuyn both paid the ultimate price for daring to speak the truth about Islam and Islamic fundamentalism. But this goes beyond Islam. It can reach into every facet of life on earth, but it is especially virulent when the subject is religion, lifestyle, or morality. Anyone who speaks authoritative truth wears a target in these days of tolerance and liberal humanism. Should a preacher, backed by the authority of God's Word, condemn homosexuality, he could in some places not only expect persecution but also find himself jailed or heavily fined for his "hate speech." Were a missionary to enter America's urban neighborhoods and preach abstinence, non-violence, and respect for law and authority, he would likely be laughed down, roughed up, and perhaps even killed for his "insolence." Even college campuses, supposedly bastions of free speech, are no longer safe for preachers, pundits, and politicians who stray beyond a narrow, politically correct viewpoint. It seems that the whole world—the nations of modern Israel in particular—has come to such a point. The time of the end is fast approaching as we see these activities of evil men increasing. From here on out, it will become increasingly dangerous to speak the truth to a "hear no evil" world. Richard T. Ritenbaugh 'Dangerous' Speakers of Truth Related Topics: Crusaders | Homosexuality | Humanism | Islam | Islam is Religion of War and Death | Islamic Culture | Islamic Fundamentalism | Islamofascists | Jihad | Political Correctness | Secular Humanism

Amos 8:11-12 Verse 12 describes people wandering about in a vain attempt to regain the word of the Lord. Some of the people seem to realize that something is missing. They wander and even run "to and fro," but they do not find it. Part of the reason is that they are unwilling to look in the right place. Notice where they are willing and not willing to wander: They go "from sea to sea"—probably meaning from the Mediterranean Sea to the Dead Sea—so they will go from east to west. They will also go "from north to east." The only direction they will not go is toward the south. Why? Amos prophesied to the northern tribes of Israel. Shortly after Israel broke from Judah, King Jeroboam of Israel feared that Israel would reunite with Judah, because Judah was where Jerusalem and the Temple were. He therefore devised his own religious system, leading the northern ten tribes into gross idolatry. He appointed his own priesthood, established his own feast days, and created his own centers of worship, removing the need for the northern Israelites to travel south to Judah. The Israelites were willing to expend some effort in seeking the words of God, but they were unwilling to go where they actually needed to—where the Temple was. To a degree, they wanted the truth, but on their own terms. They were not so hungry for it that they would sacrifice for it. They wanted it, but not if they had to humble themselves and go to the Temple, where God was. As a result, they could not find the words of the Lord again. This same process happened in the modern nations of Israel, particularly in America. Though America has never been a true Christian nation, at its founding God's Word was held in high regard, and biblical principles were considered to be essential to the success of the Republic. However, during the mid- to late-1800s, bits of secular humanism began creeping into the larger culture. As the nation prospered because of God's promises to Abraham, it acted out exactly what God predicted in Deuteronomy 32:15: It grew fat and kicked, and forsook Him. Gradually, the words of the Lord were edged out of the picture, and each succeeding generation arose with a diminished regard for the Bible. This nation began with a President, George Washington, who wholeheartedly believed, and was willing to proclaim, "It is impossible to rightly govern the world without God and the Bible." Now, however, it is illegal to pray in schools, to speak warmly about Christianity or the Bible in a school or government office, and to post the Ten Commandments in a courthouse. As the Word of God was neglected and rejected, it began to be replaced. What bits of truth this nation had are quickly falling out of favor. Even the worldly, syncretistic Christianity—with its Sunday-worship, Christmas, Easter, pagan trinity-god, and other false doctrines—is being rejected. It is being rejected, not because of its falsehoods, but because of the bits of truth within it that still call people into account, directly or indirectly. Journalist and novelist G.K. Chesterton observed, "When people stop believing in God, they do not believe in nothing. They believe in anything." Something will fill the belief void. Even atheism is a belief system. To put it another way, a starving man will eat whatever is at hand—even if it is slow poison. Thus, we have seen rapid growth in secular humanism, Eastern religions, Islam, and Wicca and New Age religions. Apparently, an increasing number of people are even claiming "Jedi" as their belief system! Nominal Christianity has become so weak that in Britain, more people attend each week in a mosque than in a church. God's words, even in a watered-down form, are not being heard, and while some may still be searching for truth, they are not willing to seek out the true spiritual Temple that can actually provide nourishment. David C. Grabbe A Subtle Yet Devastating Curse Related Topics: Curse | God's Promises to Abraham | God's Promises to Abraham's Descendents | Idolatry | Israel, Migration of | Israel, Modern | Jeroboam I | King Jeroboam | Modern Israel | Neglect of God's Word | New Age Beliefs | Nominal Christianity | Northern Tribes of Israel | Running to and fro | Secular Humanism | Sin of Jeroboam | Spiritual Temple | Syncretistic Religion | Wandering | Wandering from Truth | Wandering of Israel | Wicca

 

		The Berean: Daily Verse and Comment Sign up for the Berean: Daily Verse and Comment, and have Biblical truth delivered to your inbox. This daily newsletter provides a starting point for personal study, and gives valuable insight into the verses that make up the Word of God. See what over 155,000 subscribers are already receiving each day. Email Address:     A Faithful VersionKing James VersionNew International VersionNew King James Version Leave this field empty
We respect your privacy. Your email address will not be sold, distributed, rented, or in any way given out to a third party. We have nothing to sell. You may easily unsubscribe at any time.