The Five-Headed Beast

In part one Allen claims that words are being stripped of their true meaning, which poses a grave danger to our society. In part two Allen names the Villain who is responsible for causing this calamitous situation and we find out it’s a five-headed beast. We’ll take a brief look at what these five philosophies actually are and see if we can discern why they make a toxic mix that is so threatening to Christianity. I have included some lengthy explanations about each head of the five-headed beast because it is important to not rely entirely on someone else’s take on what they really mean.

Allen’s words are in bold.

The new religion is a five-headed beast.

Allen: Again, the new religion isn’t merely secular or atheistic. It needs to be understood as a toxic mix of postmodern relativism, Marxist social analysis and a Nietzschean will to power. All of this feeds into and supports the redefinition of words and language.

The Five Heads of the Beast

Secularism

So, what is Secularism?

Separation of religion from state

The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.

Religious Freedom

Secularism seeks to defend the absolute freedom of religious and other belief, and protect the right to manifest religious belief insofar as it does not impinge on the rights and freedoms of others. Secularism ensures that the right of individuals to freedom of religion is always balanced by the right to be free from religion.

Secularism is about democracy and fairness

In a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law and parliament. No religious or political affiliation gives advantages or disadvantages and religious believers are citizens with the same rights and obligations as anyone else. Secularism champions universal human rights above religious demands. It upholds equality laws that protect women, LGBT people and minorities from religious discrimination. These equality laws ensure that non-believers have the same rights as those who identify with a religious or philosophical belief.

 

Not quite sure why Allen and other Christians would object to this. Is it toxic to believe that “Secularism is about democracy and fairness, or that in a secular democracy all citizens are equal before the law?”

Perhaps what he objects to is the phrase “The separation of religion and state is the foundation of secularism. It ensures religious groups don’t interfere in affairs of state, and the state doesn’t interfere in religious affairs.” From where I stand, secularism is a good thing.

Atheism

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

Atheism is not an affirmative belief that there are no gods nor does it answer any other question about what a person believes. It is simply a rejection of the assertion that there are gods. Atheism is too often defined incorrectly as a belief system. To be clear: Atheism is not a denial of gods; it is a lack of belief in gods (plural).

There are as many different kinds of Atheists as there are Theists. One of the most rational discussion about how theists misunderstand atheism can be found on the YouTube channel Genetically Modified Skeptic. What’s more important to discuss than a definition of Atheism is how Atheists are misperceived by Theists.

Phil Zuckerman in his well documented article entitled Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being writes that “it is often assumed that someone who doesn’t believe in God doesn’t believe in anything, or that a person who has no religion must have no values. These assumptions are simply untrue. People can reject religion and still maintain strong beliefs. Being godless does not mean being without values. Numerous studies reveal that atheists and secular people most certainly maintain strong values, beliefs, and opinions.” In addition, compared to religious people, atheists are actually less nationalistic, less prejudiced, less anti-Semitic, less racist, less dogmatic, less ethnocentric, less close- minded, and less authoritarian.”

If asked who I would trust more, an Atheist or a Theist, I would choose the former. From where I stand Atheism is not as toxic as some would have us believe.

Post Modernism

Post Modernism says that there is no real truth and that knowledge is always made or invented and not discovered. Because knowledge is made by people, a person cannot know something with certainty – all ideas and facts are ‘believed’ instead of ‘known’. People believe that they know what the truth is, but they will think that the truth is something different later. This is the opposite of ‘objectivity’, which says that the truth is always there and people have to discover it.

Since postmodernism says that the truth is just a thing that people invent, people can believe different things and think it is the truth and all be right. Postmodernism says that one person should not try to make another person believe what he believes, because it means nothing to say that one belief is right and the other is wrong. Postmodernism says that if somebody has a belief and tries to make somebody else believe it also, it means that they are just trying to have power over them.

I can see how this would be very threatening to Christians. This one head of the five headed beast opposes the very essence of Christianity. No objective meaning of words? No objective truth that goes beyond normal limits or boundaries? No objective reality? Pretty scary stuff for theists.

However, Allen does indeed believe in objective truths.

Allen: Christians “understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.  God is not some impersonal cosmic force, but a person, and He speaks and reveals Himself to us.”

If I’m not mistaken, he just supported postmodernism’s idea that truth is just something groups have invented and believe to be true. What if I don’t believe that “God is actually a person”? Am I rejecting objective truth? How about the six-day creation story? Is that an objective truth?

Postmodernism says that different groups can believe different things, and that no one group should try to make others believe what they believe. From where I stand, I would agree.

Marxist Social Analysis

Marxist Social Analysis is a method by which researchers expose how communication phenomena influence taken-for-granted assumptions regarding who “ought to be” and “ought not to be” empowered in a given society. The thoughts and beliefs of the ruling class tend to be accepted both by those in power and those disempowered by them. Thus, the underlying goal of a Marxist analysis is to reveal the ways in which (words) help create and maintain, political oppression.

Allen: Marxist social analysis sees the world as a zero-sum competition between “victims” and “oppressors.” The “oppressors” use language to create a “reality” that is imposed upon so-called victims– often without them being aware of it– as a means of maintaining power and privilege. The “victims” can liberate themselves by “unmasking” these (untrue) socially constructed realities.

I’m not an historian, but I believe there is enough evidence to declare that religion is one of the most egregious oppressors in the history of mankind and specifically Christianity in the common era. It seems that Allen is arguing on the side of the ruling class. Notice that he calls the disempowered “so-called victims”. Is it possible that Allen and evangelicals in general don’t want people to discover the real truth? That the bible has been and still is being used by the Church to create and maintain social control.

Members of the disempowered group are starting to question the control of the church. They are attempting to unmask the false realities that the Church has been using for millennium to maintain power. This is perhaps why Allen and other evangelical are so threatened by this. Could “the redefining of words and language” actually lead to freedom from religion?

Critical Theory

Allen: Today, this form of Marxist thought is widely taught on college campuses under the rubric “critical theory.” Critical theory studies have mushroomed in the English, history and social science departments of Western since the 1960s, completely replacing the older study of Western Civilization.

Since Allen chose to include “critical theory” here, we’ll address it now. Critical theory is a social theory oriented toward critiquing and changing society as a whole. It differs from traditional theory, which focuses only on understanding or explaining society. Critical theories aim to dig beneath the surface of social life and uncover the assumptions that keep human beings from a full and true understanding of how the world works.

When Allen says that “critical theory” has replaced the older study of Western Civilization” we have to take a look at exactly what he is saying. The older studies of Western Civilization simply taught nothing more than names and dates. Let’s remember that history is written by the victors. Critical theory’s aim is to help students gain a full and true understanding of how the world works. Why would Allen oppose that? Guess we’ll see later.

Allen: I’ll have more to say on this in my next entry in this series.

Nietzschean Will to Power

Nietzschean will to power: There is will to power where there is life and even the strongest living things will risk their lives for more power. This suggests that the will to power is stronger than the will to survive.

Allen: Words are no longer about truth. Nietzschean will to power seeks to manipulate or coerce others into using new definitions—even leveraging the power of the state as a means of attaining cultural supremacy. Now you begin to see the approach of the new religious orthodoxy towards language. Words are no longer a means of communicating truth. They are tools to control others, and ultimately to become master.

Not sure where Allen got the idea that “will to power” seeks to manipulate others into using new definitions, or that the state is involved in this sinister plot to attain cultural supremacy. When Allen says words are no longer a means of communicating truth, does he mean “his truth”? And when he says that words have become tools to control others, is his fear that the Church is losing its power to control others? An increasing number of people are beginning to question the Church’s authority? No wonder he’s on this crusade.

Important questions for Allen.

1. Have Christians ever used words to control others?
2. Is leveraging the power of the state as a means of attaining cultural supremacy something both political parties do or just liberals?
3. Is this new religion you speak of really a religion? Does it have members, bylaws, and buildings where they congregate? Do they have tax exempt status?

Allen goes on to quote Orwell’s famous book 1984 as a chilling view of how the state can use language to control the masses. The famous quote from 1984, “War is peace, freedom is slavery, ignorance is strength” was viewed, even before 1984, as a rather prophetic view of the future of our society.

What the rest of us call Big Brother, Allen calls a toxic new religion. Perhaps Allen is using this language because his readers would have a more visceral reaction to a villain called “a toxic new religion” than “Big Brother”.  By attributing manipulation of language to a new toxic religion (which doesn’t even really exist) Allen is alerting his readers to a new threat that needs to be feared. But no worries, he offers a salvation from this “toxic new religion”. Can you guess what it is?

Allen: There is, as the Bible says, “a more excellent way.”

What a surprise!

What we’ve discovered in this discussion is that, for Allen, a new toxic religion (which in reality is neither a religion nor toxic) consisting of secularism, atheism, postmodernism, Marxist Social Analysis and Nietzschean Will to Power. Somehow when all these concepts are combined it leads to a redefining of words and language. So, we have to ask, why is that so threatening to Allen?

Allen: Over the years, as this toxic new religion has begun to displace Christianity at the center of the culture, biblical meanings have been eroded, and words have been redefined. Christian culture survives if we understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture. 

Ah, there it is. Christianity is being replaced at the center of culture and is losing its power. It’s all about power.

Coming next:

In part three of this series, we’ll explore more about Allen’s God-given objective truths, where we actually got our “best words”, why this melodrama resonates with his readers and how he proposes Christians deal with the new toxic threat.

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

mt.toll@comcast.net