Blog

20 Apr, 2025

Blog

Critical Theory vs. Christianity 4/5

The Struggle to Maintain White Male Privilege

There is a “resentment against those who might take their relatively privileged place in society.”

We have been exploring a christian website called Abounding Joy. Steve, its author, is a white, heterosexual, evangelical christian male living in the South. Although he’s on the top of the social totem pole and bathed in white, male privilege, he claims that he is the one being oppressed and attacked.

In a 2005 online article, Steve’s expressed his distrust and distain for secular humanism. In that article, in order to support his evangelical agenda, he grossly misrepresented what secular humanists actually believe. Now, he’s at it again. This time he’s attacking something called Critical Theory. The subject of his distain has changed but his simplistic misrepresentations have not.

In his 2005 article, Steve played the Persecuted Person of Privilege card. As we will see, in his 2020 blog he continues to play the PPP card. The word “oppress” occurs 35 times in Steve’s article. This section of Steve’s blog is titled,

How would Christians answer these questions and how would critical theorists answer them?

I have several issues with Steve’s blog.

  1. Steve transfers the discussion of Critical Theory from the social sciences arena (where it belongs) to the spiritual or supernatural realm (where it does not). This might be okay during bible studies, but by comparing Critical Theory with Christianity, he has completely nullified any meaningful and reliable comparison between the two.
  2. Being supernatural by nature, his “christian views” are based on unverifiable beliefs that must be taken entirely on faith. On the other hand, the tenets of Critical Theory have a historical basis and are verifiable. Unlike his christian POV, which must be accepted without question (by christians) and is not subject to change, the tenets of Critical Theory can be acted upon, prompting social change.
  3. Steve is not exactly playing fair. Just as he did with secular humanism, Steve, more times than not, completely misrepresents what Critical Theory stands for. He’s playing a game of chess with himself and setting up the board, and making moves for both sides, so the white pieces win.
  4. He plays the PPP card. Notice how many times he says that Critical Theory calls him the oppressor and wants to overthrow him personally.
  5. He paints christianity as the noble protagonists in this melodrama and Critical Theory as the bad guy, who is painting him as the bad guy.

Steve’s words are italicized, and my comments are in parentheses. Steve’s blog continues…

How would Christians answer these questions and how would critical theorists answer them?

Who am I? 

  • Christian view: A person created in the image of God. Christians are new creations in Christ. (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: A member of a group, or groups competing with other groups for power. (Historically verifiable.)

What is my primary problem?

  • Christian view: Sin (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: Groups of people oppress other groups of people. (Historically verifiable.)

What is the solution to our problem?

  • Christian view: Trusting Jesus. (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: Activism. Overthrowing oppressors.  (Which includes him.)

What is my goal in life?

  • Christian view: To Glorify God and spend eternity with Him. (Pie in the sky belief that is unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: To overthrow oppressors. (PPPC)

What must I confess?

  • Christian view: That I have sinned. (What exactly is his sin?)
  • Critical theory view: That I am a homophobe, racist, sexist, etc., because I’m a member of an oppressing group (PPPC)

(Boy, Steve really made this one personal, didn’t he? Why would anyone call Steve homophobic, racist, or sexist? Hmmm, let’s see. Have we mentioned that he’s a white, heterosexual, evangelical, male living in the South? It’s a mystery, isn’t it? Steve is playing the PPP card here. He’s claiming that he’s being judged simply because he’s a member of a couple of oppressive groups”. He fails to realize that his beliefs and actions are also a part of the equation.)

How can I be redeemed?

  • Christian view: By the blood of Jesus, by repenting of my sin and trusting Him. (unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: There is no redemption. I can only confess my guilt as part of an oppressing group.

(Here we go again. Poor persecuted Steve.)

What is my primary duty?

  • Christian view: Love, serve, and glorify God and love others. (Extremely pious, but also unverifiable)
  • Critical theory view: Overthrow the oppressors. (which includes him- PPP)

What is truth?

  • Christian view: God is truth. (unverifiable) Truth is what corresponds to reality. (True statement, but christians quite often deny reality). Evidence and reasoning can help us find truth.

(Another true statement, “evidence and reasoning can help us find truth” but christians have a history of ignoring evidence, using fallacious reasoning, and relying on blind faith to conclude that God is truth.)

  • Critical theory view: Whatever the oppressed say it is. Scripture, evidence, reasoning are all irrelevant.

(Here we go again. Poor persecuted Steve. The “oppressed” reject his claims that he and his evangelical buddies have the only key to truth. He seems unaware that historically, oppressors have nefariously used scripture as a means to maintain their privileged status for millennia.)

What is the relationship between different groups?

  • Christian view: We are all created in the image of God. We can all become new Creatures in Christ. (unverifiable) We love each other regardless of our group identities.

(How pious of Steve, “We (christians) love each other regardless…” I’m sure this is what christians want to believe about themselves, and what they want us to believe about them. Unfortunately, it does not correspond with reality. Do christians unconditionally love members of the LGBTQ community or for that matter, do they love liberals like me? I have my doubts!)

  • Critical theory view: Groups are always pitted against each other. Some are oppressed. Others are oppressors.

(This is an historically accurate thing to say, but Steve grossly oversimplifies it.)

How should I think about Christians who are in minority groups but who reject critical theory?

  • Christian view: We are all created in the image of God and brothers and sisters in Christ. (unverifiable)

(Once again, how noble of Steve. “We’re all brothers and sisters in Christ”. This simplistic statement allows him to ignore that black christians might have lives that are very different from his.)

  • Critical theory view: He’s acting like an oppressor. – e.g., He’s “white” even if his skin is black.

(So, according to Steve, if a black person rejects Critical Theory, he or she is seen as an Oreo by other blacks! Seems to me that this is a black issue, and Steve, as a white man, lacks both firsthand experience and the cultural awareness to adequately address it.)

What if I find that the Bible teaches something I have not believed?

  • Christian view: The Bible is God’s Word. (unverifiable) If I’ve been wrong, I need to change. (This is also a true statement, but we don’t see much changing.)
  • Critical theory view: The Bible is merely a tool being used by oppressors.

(Historically, this is verifiable. Once again, we must point out that people have been weaponizing scripture as a means to maintain their privileged status for millennia. Antebellum Christians used scripture to support slavery.)

What should I believe about God?

  • Christian view: What the Bible says about Him. He exists. He created all things. He is all-powerful, all-wise, all-loving, etc. (All of this is unverifiable.)
  • Critical theory view: There is no supreme God. We have to exert our own power by overthrowing the oppressor.   

(First off, God’s existence can neither be proven nor disproven. The second part of this statement is true. Disenfranchised and marginalized groups do need to “exert their own power” but there are other ways to exert one’s power other than working to “overthrow the oppressor”. One can resist or stand up to bullies. Marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ community, the BLM movement, and women, are not looking to overthrow Steve’s group of privileged white, males. They are seeking equality. As we will see in the next blog, equality is something that Steve completely fails to address anywhere in his discussion of Critical Theory.)

After thought

It’s highly probable that Steve was a member of the Tea Party. Francis Fitzgearld in her book “The Evangelicals” wrote this about Tea Party politics.

“What they (the Tea Party) vehemently opposed were programs, such as Obama’s Affordable Care Act, which helped the young and the poor. The distinction they made was between government programs they perceived as going to hardworking, productive members of society, such as themselves, and “handouts” that went to undeserving “freeloaders”—a category that seemed largely to be made up of African Americans, Hispanic immigrants, and the young. The context, in the view of the scholars, was an anxiety about racial, ethnic, and generational changes. Apparently, the Tea Party was yet another flare-up of resistance to change—along with resentment against those who might take their relatively privileged place in society.”

To be continued…

 

From Where I Stand

Apr. 20, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

13 Apr, 2025

Blog

Critical Theory and Christianity 3/5

Like it or not, power concedes nothing without confrontation.

People don’t want to hear the truth because they don’t want their illusions destroyed.” Nietzsche

 

In the past several blogs we have been looking at a christian website called Abounding Joy and a blogger named Steve. We know that Steve is a heterosexual, white, christian male living in the South. Even though he is on top of his social totem pole, he exhibits characteristics of someone who is suffering from what we call Persecuted Persons of Privilege Complex. (PPPC)

In this week’s blog we’ll continue looking at Steve’s blog about Critical Theory and perhaps we’ll be able to discover why he believes he’s the one being persecuted.

Knowing Steve’s history of misrepresentation of secular humanists, it might be advantageous for the reader to look at the actual tenets of Critical Theory before reading Steve’s portrayal of CT.

Steve’s style of discussion is to ask and answer his own questions. By not asking tough questions he is able to control the conversation without having to address difficult and valid issues. He writes,

Q: What was the primary focus of Karl Marx? A: Economics

Marx did indeed write about Economics. His 944-page masterpiece book on economics, Das Kapital can still be found for sale on the internet. I guess that means it’s still somewhat relevant a century and a half later. However, economics wasn’t the only topic Marx focused on.

My go to source for anything related to philosophy is the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Their 15,000-word article about Marx covers an array of Marxists ideas, in addition to economics, his writings included such topics as Alienation, Human Flourishing, Morality, Ideology, and Utopianism. Stanford’s 1,800-word brief explanation of Marx’s stance on economics did not mention either “Bourgeoisie” nor “Proletariat”. Steve’s simplistic summary of Marx’s writings on economy took only 24 words. And here they are.

Q: How did Marx try to bring about revolution? A: He pitted economic groups against each other (bourgeois property owners “oppressed” proletariat working class people). He urged the proletariat to “rise up” in revolution.

It’s true that Marx had a strong distaste for the bourgeoisie and believed that a capitalistic system, (where an upper class exploits the lower class for personal gain), would ultimately lead to a revolution where the proletariat class would “rise up” and overthrow of the bourgeoisie. Take note of Steve’s use of the phrase “rise up in revolution”. It will be a reoccurring theme for the remainder of his blog.

This kind of class exploitation is as old as humanity itself. For millennia this exploitation has played out not only as feudalism, indentured servitude but also with chattel slavery. Marx argued that all capitalist profit is ultimately derived from the exploitation of the worker. “Capitalism’s dirty secret is that it is not a realm of harmony and mutual benefit, but a system in which one class systematically extracts profit from another.” He asked, “How could this fail to be unjust?”

Marx was not the only writer of his time to write about the bourgeoisie’s oppression of the proletariat working class. It was also a major theme in many great novels, such as Charles Dickens’ A Tale of Two Cities and Hard Times, Steinbeck’s Grapes of Wrath and Victor Hugo’s Les Misérables. There is even evidence of unjust exploitation of the poor in biblical times. The Old Testament prophet, Jeremiah seems to be addressing an ancient manifestation of exploitation.

“Among my people are the wicked who lie in wait like men who snare birds and like those who set traps to catch people like cages full of birds, their houses are full of deceit; they have become rich and powerful and have grown fat and sleek. Their evil deeds have no limit; they do not seek justice. They do not promote the case of the fatherless; they do not defend the just cause of the poor. Should I not punish them for this?” declares the Lord. “Should I not avenge myself on such a nation as this?”

By reading the next couple of verses we can see who an accessory to this ancient exploitation was.

“A horrible and shocking thing has happened in the land: The prophets prophesy lies, the priests rule by their own authority, and my people love it so. But what will you do in the end?

“And my people love it so!”  This is one of my favorite verses. It seems to also apply to modern times as well. The religious leaders of our day have put a godless man in a position of great power. His unjust policies are adding to the oppression of the poor and the alien living amongst us. If I’m not mistaken the bible speaks rather clearly on this issue.

Jeremiah 7:5-7, “For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place… then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.…”

Proverbs 29:7, “The righteous cares about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”

It’s a mystery to those of us who aren’t a part of the Jesus club why so many christians ignore scripture and continue to support this godless leader and his oppressive agenda. Jeremiah 5 correctly describes these people. “My people love it so! But what will you do in the end”, when their injustice comes for you?

Now back to Steve. it’s important to note here that even though Steve is invested in maintaining the status quo of his privileged lifestyle, he is not a part of the bourgeoisie. He was a school teacher for 29 years making somewhere around $40-50 thousand a year. He was solid middle class and as far as we know, he never created wealth, never had employees, and therefore never had the opportunity to exploit workers. So why is Steve even bringing up Marxism? We’re about to find out.

Q: How do advocates of critical theory re-spin Marxism? A: They pit different groups against each other based on race, sexual preferences, gender identity, religion, etc.

Let me see if I have this right. According to Steve, the main objective of critical theorists is not to achieve a more just and equitable society, but rather, to pit different groups against each other. Perhaps his real concern is that these groups are pitted against him.

Q: What do critical theory advocates mean by “intersectionality?” A: People are always members of more than one group. If they happen to be part of two groups that are in the “oppressed” category, they have more at stake in the revolution

An example of intersectionality might be a woman of color, or better yet, a gay woman of color. Steve is saying that since they are part of two or more oppressed groups then they have a greater stake in the “revolution”.

What Steve seems unable to grasp is that intersectionality also applies to people who happen to be part of two groups that are in the “oppressive” category. Using Steve’s logic, we can conclude that they would have more at stake in “resisting” the revolution because they would have more to lose.

What does this mean for Steve?

We know that he is a white, heterosexual, evangelical christian male living in the South. He’s on the top of the social totem pole. He is bathed in white, male privilege in our society, yet he seems unwilling to acknowledge it.

What’s clear from his writings, is that he is a person of privilege who is fighting to keep his power and status by belittling those who have less social privilege. Apparently, Steve is under the impression that if some minority group (or groups) gain some measure of power, equality, or status, he will lose some of his. The idea that if one group gains power, another group loses theirs is something that causes a great deal of concern for him. We will cover this more in our next blog.

We will also see that Steve never mentions “equality” in his blog. According to him, the above-mentioned groups are not simply fighting for equality, but rather, their goal is to overthrow him and his white, male, christian privilege. This also is a symptom of Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex.

Steve’s claim that christians are being persecuted is not new. This perception of christians being victimized and “robbed of their christian heritage and religious freedoms” is deeply rooted in evangelical history. During the W. Bush administration, William Donahue, leader of the Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights (1) claimed that “the left” had forced christians “to sit at the back of the bus” and then declared, “it’s time we moved to the front of the bus, and that we took command of the wheel.” (2) It’s not clear what Donahue’s stance was on the black civil rights movement, but it’s ironic that many of those white evangelicals who opposed the civil rights movement would embrace Donahue’s description of the plight of christianity.

It’s even more preposterous that a white man, the leader of an organization dedicated to preserving the “civil rights” of the most powerful institution in the history of the world, would compare Catholic’s plight to Rosa Parks and the black civil rights movement of the 1950s and 60s. In addition, can you imagine that Rosa Parks not only refused to give up her seat in the front of the bus, but then got up, commandeer the steering wheel of the bus, and drove it and its passengers directly to her destination?

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one.

What we see in Donahue’s ludicrous comment is that Steve is not the only white evangelical infected with PPPC. It’s a systemic problem that still exists to this day. As I’ve said before, the first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. Steve is only one voice in a much larger chorus of white evangelicals who are claiming that they are the ones being discriminated against. But there is a cure to this malady. And surprisingly enough, that cure comes from the only place it could come… from other evangelicals.

Also, during the W. Bush administration a few courageous evangelicals took a stand against the Christian Right’s “aggressive intolerance, and unholy quest for power.” Rev. Gregory A Boyd in his book, The Myth of a Christian Nation, wrote, “What if we spent all that energy serving each other with Christ-like love. We could feed the hungry, house the homeless, bridge the ungodly racial gap, and side with those whose rights are routinely trampled.”  In Boyd’s view christians, should bear witness to injustice, but they should not try to enforce ‘their righteous will on others.” (3)

Amen, Brother, Amen!

Another evangelical pastor, Rick Warren (whom I have criticized in previous blogs for his simplistic book The Purpose Driven Life) wrote, “I’ve had four years in Greek and Hebrew and I’ve got doctorates. How did I miss the 2,000 verses in the Bible where it talks about the poor?” (4)

Warren made millions from his book and used that money to help the poor and marginalized all over the world. Perhaps, I prematurely judged him.

I have come to realized that there is hope for evangelicals suffering from PPPC. That remedy can be found quite simply in the verse in Micah 6:8.

“He has shown you, O man, what is good: and what does the Lord require of you, but to do justice and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God?”

End note:

  1. The Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights, often shortened to the Catholic League, is an American Catholic organization whose stated purpose is to “defend the right of Catholics – lay and clergy alike – to participate in American public life without defamation or discrimination.
  2. The Evangelicals, The Struggle to Shape America by Frances Fitzgerald, p. 526.
  3. ibid. p. 540
  4. ibid. p. 550

Coming next

In true evangelical fashion, Steve switches the argument of Critical Theory from the social arena (where it belongs) to the religious realm (where it does not). He proposes a series of questions and then answers each one from a christian point of view and then from a critical theorist point of view.

Knowing his history of egregiously misrepresenting his opponents, will he misrepresent Critical Theory as well? We shall see.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Apr. 13, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

7 Apr, 2025

Blog

Critical Theory Explained

What is Critical Theory and why are white evangelicals threatened by it.

We’ve been critiquing the writings of a christian blogger named Steve, who strongly opposes Critical Theory. Being new to the topic, I was completely ignorant about its basic tenets, so I asked the AI gods, and this is what I was able to glean from the numerous articles about it. Some of the following information comes from this Wikipedia article.

AI Overview

Critical theory is a social, historical, and political school of thought that analyzes and challenges systemic power relations, arguing that knowledge, truth, and social structures are shaped by power dynamics between dominant and oppressed groups. 

Critical Theory researchers attempt to uncover 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, one of the underlying goals of Critical Theory analysis is to reveal the ways in which (words) help create and maintain, political oppression. The ultimate goal is to create a more just and equitable society.

Key Concepts and Origins:

  • Marxist Roots – 1840s: Critical theory emerged from the Marxist tradition, focusing on analyzing economic class relations and the exploitation of labor.
  • Frankfurt School – 1930s: Was a group of German-Jewish intellectuals who sought to understand and critique the rise of fascism and capitalism.
  • Beyond Traditional Theory: Unlike traditional theories that focus on understanding or explaining society, critical theory aims to dig beneath the surface and uncover the assumptions that maintain social inequalities and oppression.
  • Emancipation and Transformation: Critical theory is not just about understanding the world, but also about transforming it to achieve a more just and equitable society.

Core Ideas:

  • Critique of Power: Critical theory examines how power structures and ideologies shape social norms, institutions, and practices.
  • Ideology Critique: It seeks to expose and challenge the underlying beliefs, values, and systems of power that often remain unexamined in society.
  • Social Justice: Critical theory is often used to advocate for social justice and challenge systems of oppression based on race, class, gender, sexual preference and other social categories.
  • Interdisciplinary Approach: It draws on insights from various disciplines, including sociology, philosophy, psychology, and political science.
  • Normative Approach: Critical theory is not just descriptive; it is also prescriptive, aiming to identify and challenge the norms and structures that perpetuate inequality and oppression.
  • Emancipatory Goal: Critical theory seeks to liberate or emancipate people who are oppressed, aiming to create a more just and equitable society.

Examples of Critical Theory in Action:

  • Critical Race Theory: Analyzes how racism is embedded in social structures and institutions.
  • Feminist Theory: Examines gender inequality and the ways in which women are oppressed.
  • Queer Theory: Critiques heteronormativity and explores the experiences of LGBTQ+ people.
    • Heteronormativity is what makes heterosexuality seem coherent, natural, and privileged. It involves the assumption that everyone is ‘naturally’ heterosexual, and that heterosexuality is an ideal, superior to homosexuality or bisexuality.
  • Critical Theory of Education: Analyzes how education systems can perpetuate social inequalities.
  • Critical Theory of Media: Examines how media can shape perceptions and reinforce dominant ideologies.

While researching Critical Theory, I consulted my favorite resource for all things philosophical, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Their 22,500-word analysis of Critical Theory is much too complex (and wordy) to summarize here or anywhere. As we shall explore in future blogs, it’s doubtful that Steve’s dubious 1,600-word blog comparing Critical Theory to christianity would come anywhere close to accurately describing even the most basic tenets of Critical Theory. But that’s not really his objective anyway. His purpose is to explain why he, as a white, heterosexual, christian male living in the South, is the one being oppressed. He is suffering from the Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex.

The About Us page of the Mt. Toll Productions website reflects my stance on the topic of prejudice.

“In this polarized day and age, we have grouped ourselves into tribes. Internet logarithms are designed to make sure that we see only those images that support the ideology of our particular clan. When we are constantly bombarded by only those messages that support the prejudices of our side, we tend not to question what we’re being told. We are blind to the possibility that our way of thinking might actually be shortsighted, misleading, one sided or simply incorrect. This tribal POV condemns us to highly limited ways of looking at the world and thus highly limited modes of behavior. None of us is free of it.” 

Coming soon:

We will be critiquing Steve’s attempt to discredit critical theory, which might also help us to understand why he believes CT is a threat to his privileged way of life.

 

From Where I Stand

Apr. 7, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

10 Mar, 2025

Blog

PPPC – Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex

Privilege is not something someone actively works for or achieves… they are born into it.

People of privilege often are unaware of the advantages they experience within society.

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. 

It is not my practice to venture into the political realm. “Where I Stand” blogs are normally directed at evangelical christians and the misinformation found in their writings. However, last week, the Christian Right’s Anointed One declared that the US is not a Woke country. Let’s look at what it means to be Woke and perhaps we’ll be able to see why many christians (including Steve) are threatened by it.

What does ‘woke’ mean?

  • The term woke means being “aware, especially of social problems such as racism and inequality,” according to the Cambridge dictionary.
  • The Oxford English dictionary describes ‘woke’ as being “aware of social and political issues and concerned that some groups in society are treated less fairly than others.”
  • According to the Merriam-Webster Dictionary, ‘woke’ is a US slang that can be defined as being “aware of and actively attentive to important facts and issues (especially issues of racial and social justice)”.

Well, that didn’t help much. Do christians really reject any awareness of social problems of racism and inequality? Are they not aware of the reality that some groups are treated less fairly? Do they reject the idea that social and racial injustice actually exists? That would be almost impossible to believe. Let’s see what Steve has to say on the topic. But, before we do, let’s take a look at the meaning of “privilege”.

What is privilege? 

A “person of privilege” refers to someone who benefits from unearned advantages or special rights that are not readily available to others, often due to their social position based on factors like race (white), gender (male), socioeconomic status (solid middle class), or ability, allowing them to navigate life with fewer obstacles compared to those without such privilege; essentially, they have an “advantage” that is not earned through personal effort.

Key points about privilege:

  • Unearned: The key aspect is that privilege is not something someone actively works for or achieves, but rather something they are granted by the societal structures they are born into.
  • Invisible to the privileged: People who hold privilege often may not be aware of the advantages they experience because they are considered the “norm” within society.
  • Systemic: Privilege operates within systems, meaning it is not just about individual actions but also about the broader social structures that perpetuate inequalities.

Examples of privilege:

  • White privilege: White people benefiting from societal assumptions and expectations that favor them over people of color.
  • Male privilege: Men having advantages in society due to their gender, like being taken more seriously in professional settings.
  • Class privilege: People from higher socioeconomic backgrounds having access to better education, healthcare, and opportunities.

Steve is a white Anglo-Saxon, evangelical christian male, living in the South. He is at the top of the totem pole. Hmmm, wonder if there is any privilege there. While reading this blog be on the alert for any hints which might indicate that Steve is suffering from PPPC (Persecuted Person of Privilege Complex).

(You’ll notice that Steve loves to ask and answer his own questions. It’s the best way for him to control the discourse. He doesn’t want any hard questions that might actually be based on reality and cause him to question his narrow world view.)

Critical Theory Q&A by Steve

Steve: By what other name is Critical Theory often called?

  • Cultural Marxism

Steve: Why does Critical Theory often appeal to Christians who have only a superficial understanding of it?

  • Christians would agree that 1) oppressing the weak is bad; 2) racism is bad; 3) bigotry is bad; 4) black lives really do matter; 5) white supremacy is bad; 6) injustice is bad.

MTP: Christians might believe these things, but there is a growing movement in the US denying that privileged and underprivileged classes actually exist.

Because their Anointed One has declared that the US is not a Woke country, many impressionable christians also reject the idea of Woke. As a result, they have also rejected the idea that social and racial injustice actually exists.  So, when Steve makes the above statement, it’s a bit misleading because (white) christians have been led to believe (by certain political leaders and the likes of Steve) that none of those six conditions actually exists in America.

Steve: What does the “bait and switch” tactic (often used to confuse Christians) attempt to do?

  • Find something you will certainly agree with, then try to sneak in something else that seems very similar but really is not.

MTP: It’s important to note Steve’s definition of bait and switch, because he’s about to do exactly that.

Steve: What is an example of a “bait and switch” tactic that is used by evolutionists?

  • Get you to agree that bacteria become resistant to antibiotics, or that dogs can be bred to be very small, and then 2 Try to convince you that that’s “all” that evolution is, and that you’re therefore an evolutionist.

MTP: See how he did that? His article is supposed to be about critical theory, but he sneaks evolution into the discussion. What does critical theory have to do with evolution and creationism? We’ve seen this kind of deceptive tricks from Steve before, so we’re not really surprised. (BTW using the word “that” three times in that one sentence confirms that that’s all that we know about Steve’s undergraduate degree, that it was in science, not English.)

Steve: How do Christians show that they believe “black lives matter” more than the people behind the “black lives matter” movement?

  • We believe black unborn babies matter. We believe black lives matter when they are being taken by black thugs.

MTP: First off, you’ll notice that BLM is not capitalized. I don’t believe this is a typo. This might be Steve’s subtle way of undermining the importance of the movement by not respecting it enough to use capital letters. Kind of like what I do with the word “christian”. And second, notice that Steve says that white christians are more concerned about black lives than blacks are. Christians are concerned about unborn black babies; however, their concern seems to cease once “black babies” are born. Next, I think he’s talking about black-on-black violence. I might be clueless here, but I have never heard a white evangelical christian express concern for black-on-black violence. Maybe they do, and I’m just unaware of it. But what really concerns me is his use of the expression “black thugs”. It’s a downright racist thing to say, which of course, according to him, doesn’t really exist.

We took a deeper dive into some of Steve’s other blogs and found one where he says this about the Black Lives Matter movement.

So, what’s the problem with “Black Lives Matter?”

  • It’s a non-Christian movement that uses words like “racism,” “poor,” “oppression,” etc. to teach values that are strongly opposed by God.

Wait a minute, did he just say that exposing systemic racism, and helping the poor and oppressed are values that God strongly opposes? Perhaps Steve’s bible doesn’t contain these verses.

  • Jeremiah 5, For wicked men are found among my people. They are fat and sleek, the also excel in deeds of wickedness; they do not plead the cause of the orphan, that they may prosper; they do not defend the rights of the poor. Shall I not punish these people? Declares the Lord. On such a nation as this shall I not avenge myself?
  • Jeremiah 22:3, This is what the LORD says: Do what is just and right. Rescue from the hand of the oppressor the one who has been robbed. Do no wrong or violence to the foreigner, the fatherless or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place.
  • Matthew 23:23, “Woe to you, teachers of the law and Pharisees, you hypocrites! You give a tenth of your spices–mint, dill, and cumin. But you have neglected the more important matters of the law–justice, mercy, and faithfulness. You should have practiced the latter, without neglecting the former.
  • Isaiah 58:6-7, “Is not this the kind of fasting I have chosen: to loose the chains of injustice and untie the cords of the yoke, to set the oppressed free and break every yoke? Is it not to share your food with the hungry and to provide the poor wanderer with shelter– when you see the naked, to clothe them, and not to turn away from your own flesh and blood?”
  • Jeremiah 7:5-7, “For if you truly amend your ways and your deeds, if you truly practice justice between a man and his neighbor, if you do not oppress the alien, the orphan, or the widow, and do not shed innocent blood in this place… then I will let you dwell in this place, in the land that I gave to your fathers forever and ever.…”
  • Proverbs 31:8, Open your mouth for the mute, for the rights of all the unfortunate. Open your mouth, judge righteously, and defend the rights of the afflicted and needy. New International Version: “Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.”

This one is my favorite. Many christians pretend to be righteous, but…

Proverbs 29:7, “The righteous cares about justice for the poor, but the wicked have no such concern.”

I wonder how the religious right’s “Anointed One” would measure up to this righteous measuring stick. Since Jan 20, has there been an increase in caring for “justice for the poor and the foreigner among us”? I’m just asking. If we started using “caring about justice for the poor” as our measuring stick, the person currently occupying the Oval Office might be seen as a dwarf.

In another podcast Steve asks and answers this,

How do we know that the United States is not, in general, a racist country?

  • Because of laws passed to prohibit slavery and Jim Crow.
  • Because so many black people are doing all they can to get INTO this country. (MTP: Wow! I’m not even going to dignify this one with a response.)

MTP: Wait, what? The US is not a racist country because laws were passed to prohibit slavery? Wow! What a simplistic thing to say! It doesn’t take much reading of actual history to discover just how inaccurate and simple-minded it really is. Before we get into that, I first have to say, “How noble of those white christians to outlaw slavery. Doesn’t that prove that the United States and specifically, that white christians aren’t racist?” (Please note that level of sarcasm in which that statement was made.)

But wait a minute, wasn’t it white christians who actually opposed the abolition of slavery especially in the Antebellum South? Didn’t they use the bible as their justification to maintain slavery? Oh, and by the way, Steve lives in the South. I wonder what side he would have taken had he been alive in 1864. I’m sure he would have been a staunch abolitionist, (more sarcasm).

“What many modern-day evangelicals fail to acknowledge is that many religious leaders of that era, particularly in the South, supported slavery and used scripture to justify their beliefs.”

Steve brought up the prohibition of slavery so let’s talk about it. Let me see if I have this right. According to Steve, the passage of the 13th amendment on January 31, 1865, supposedly marked the end of slavery in America, and at the same time, ended racism in America as well, proving (at least to him) that America is not a racist country. OMG, what an incredibly ignorant thing to believe. The thirteenth amendment was passed in Washington by a vote of 119 ayes to 56 nays, but its passage in no way guaranteed that emancipation would actually be recognized and upheld in the South, nor did its passage stop oppression. In fact, the opposite actually happened.

Before emancipation, black slaves had a monetary value to the slave owner. A poor white would not have been able to kill a slave without being held accountable by the slave owner for the slave’s monetary value. However, after emancipation, poor whites, who were resentful of newly freed slaves, could and did kill them by the 1,000s without any kind of accountability. In Texas, freed slaves were “frequently beaten unmercifully, shot down like wild beasts, without provocation, followed with hounds, and maltreated in every possible way.” (1)

Let’s move on to Jim Crow laws which, by the way, endured another hundred years after emancipation.

Jim Crow laws were a system of racial segregation that enforced separation of white and Black people in the United States from 1865 to the 1960s. The laws limiting the activities of newly freed slaves actually started in 1865 and were originally called “black codes.” (2) They were later named after a fictional black character from minstrel shows. This is how Jim Crow laws worked?

  • Segregation: Jim Crow laws mandated segregation in schools, parks, libraries, restaurants, and public transportation.
  • Disenfranchisement: Jim Crow laws limited Black people’s ability to vote and hold public office.
  • Intermarriage: Jim Crow laws made intermarriage illegal.
  • Public facilities: Jim Crow laws required business owners and public institutions to separate Black and white customers.

Here are some examples of Jim Crow laws in practice.

  • Black passengers were required to sit at the back of streetcars.
  • Black people were not allowed to use the same water fountains, bathrooms, beaches, or swimming pools as white people.
  • Black children attended separate schools.
  • Black people could only order takeout food from restaurants that served white people.

Steve is old enough to remember the tremulous decade of the 1960s. There is no need in this blog to remind everyone the stance taken by the South during the civil rights movement. But let’s take a page out of Steve’s Q&A strategy to shed some light on the subject.

MTP: Did southern white christians support the Civil Rights Movement headed by Martin Luther King Jr.?

  • No, historically, the majority of Southern white christians were not supporters of the Civil Rights Movement; in fact, many actively opposed it, often citing their religious beliefs to justify segregation and racial inequality. 
Key points to remember:
  • Opposition to integration: Many Southern white Christians believed that racial segregation was ordained by God and used this belief to justify their opposition to the Civil Rights Movement’s push for integration.
  • White supremacist theology: Some Southern white Christians subscribed to a theology that supported white supremacy, further fueling their resistance to the movement.
  • Fear of change: The social and cultural upheaval brought on by the Civil Rights Movement led to anxieties among some white Southerners, including Christians, who feared losing their power and way of life.

MTP: Why does Steve and other white evangelicals dislike the Black Lives Matter movement?

  1. Black Lives Matter disrupts the status quo of what our culture has decided is normal and acceptable.
    • Some people prefer to diminish or deny the reality of racial inequality saying that racism was all but resolved by the Civil Right Movement of the 1960.
  2. Black Lives Matter asks white people to confront their role in anti-black racism.
    • Like it or not, power concedes nothing without confrontation.
  3. Black Lives Matter shines a spotlight on everyday white supremacy.
    • White supremacy has allowed white privilege and anti-black propaganda to thrive even when the majority of people outwardly acknowledges racism is wrong.
  4. Black Lives Matter refuses to shut up.
    • Black Lives Matter is seen as an annoyance, because of their refusal to cease exposing, and publicly shaming the transgressions of white supremacy.

Since Steve says that the “United States is not, in general, a racist country”, I think it would be fair to ask him, as a southern white male, what his stance was in the 1960s. Did he support the Civil Rights Movement? Did he work to pass laws that prohibited Jim Crow restrictions? Or did he oppose the Civil Rights Movement? It seems clear from his writings that, for him, inequality did not and still does not exist, and that he is indeed unaware of the advantages his white, male, christian privileges provide for him.

The most concerning part of this discussion is that the likes of Steve (white evangelical christians) are now in a position of greater power. This political power adds even more status to their privilege and creates even more distance between them and those groups on the bottom of the totem pole. They are enjoying the benefits of their privilege while at the same time denying that other groups have less privilege and less equality.

The first step in solving any problem is recognizing there is one. Inequality does exist and it’s being propagated by the very people who are called to oppose it.  A large portion of Americans are in denial, and that’s not about to change anytime soon. In times like these, someone needs to speak up. Since christians cannot be counted on to do it, now is the time for other brave souls to take a stand and…

“Speak up for those who cannot speak for themselves, for the rights of all who are destitute.” 

End notes:

Thaddeus Stevens: Scourge of the South by Fawn Brodie

(1) Brodie, p. 235

(2) Brodie p. 239

May 23, 2025

It has come to my attention this week, that Persecuted Persons of Privilege Complex has reached epidemic proportion. Recently, in my home state of Colorado, legislators passed a law protecting transgender and LGBTQ members from discrimination. Several evangelical pastors told their congregations, from the pulpit, that they could be thrown in prison for speaking out against transgenders and the LGBTQ community. These courageous pastors were going to bravely stand up for God in opposition to those who were out to destroy them. How noble of them!

However, the law actually protects first amendment rights, stating that churches are exempt from the law. This fact did not deter these Persecuted Pastors of Privilege from spouting their hate and bigotry in the name of God. The first amendment still gives them that right.

These pastors were doing what christians have done for millennia. Their objective is to create an “Us vs Them” mentality, an essential ingredient for the survival of religion. Anyone who believes differently, and stands up to their bigotry, must be demonized, while (in the same breath) christians must be painted as righteous christian soldiers who are the ones being persecuted. We’ll talk more about this in future blogs.

Coming Next:

Later in his blog Steve says that advocates of Critical Theory view him as homophobic, racist, and sexist, simply because he is a member of an (imaginary) oppressing group and are seeking to violently overthrow him. He is now the persecuted one. And thus, has joined the Persecuted Persons of Privilege Club. We’ll continue with Steve’s Q&A about Critical Theory and discover more evidence that he is definitely suffering from PPPC.

 

From Where I Stand

Mar. 10, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

2 Mar, 2025

Blog

What would cause you to change your view of the existence of God?

“If there is anything that is obvious, it is that the existence of God is not obvious. Dan Barker

“Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don’t know.” Bertrand Russell

“God could clear a lot of stuff up with a five-minute press conference.” George Carlin

The Question!

Toward the end of a 2019 debate between Richard Howe and atheist Dan Barker, each of them was asked by the moderator what might cause them to change their beliefs. (1:47:50)

Dan Barker went first.

Dan, what would cause you to say that there is a God?

I will paraphrase his reply. He said that atheism is vulnerable to disproof and that atheists would immediately change their minds if they were shown to be wrong. He remarked that there are 1,000s of things that could change his unbelief in God and he gives one specific example. He quotes a passage in the bible that says whatever believers ask for, they shall receive. (It’s curious that the atheist quoted scripture, and the theist did not.)

So, Barker proposed that if the scripture were true, Howe could ask God to allow him to foresee the future and God would allow it. Barker further supposed that if God communicated to Howe that the next day, Barker’s house would be destroyed by a meteorite, and Howe communicated that information to Barker (beforehand) and it happened exactly as Howe had described it. According to Barker this would be clear evidence that he could not ignore, and which might cause him to acknowledge that perhaps he has been wrong about God. However, he concluded by saying that “so far” we don’t see that kind of evidence, and he would continue with his non-belief until there was evidence to the contrary.

Then it was Howe’s turn.

Richard, what would cause you to believe that there is no god?

His 403-word answer was difficult to understand, and impossible to paraphrase. I decided to transcribe it and let the readers decide for themselves what exactly Howe was trying to say.

Howe’s response.

“I like these questions because in my experiences in debates, and I haven’t done as many debates as Dan has, but this question comes up pretty often and so I thought about this, and because I think it’s a fair question to ask. I think there is a meaningful sense in which certain kinds of theories or beliefs about reality can be rendered meaningless if they’re unfalsifiable if nothing could count as evidence against your belief then there… at least in the scientific sense there’s really no… your belief doesn’t pick out anything. Philosophical beliefs are a little bit trickier in terms of falsification because the principle of falsifiability is itself not falsifiable. So right there we got some kind of problem. But nevertheless, I’ve thought about this and I think that what would begin to mitigate my confidence that God existed… at least, let’s say, the god that I’d think existed… the classical god of… the god of classical theism… is if somehow, I began to believe that logic really didn’t apply to reality… that contradiction… contradictions maybe could both be true… in some forms of say, mysticism. I’ve read of people who have had certain types of mystical experiences or drug experiences and they come out with this… a less of ability to… they actually… it has mitigated their belief in the rationality and the sort of normal sense of the term logic and reason that actually applies… this sort of Wittgenstein view in the early Wittgenstein and the Tractatus… he ends the Tractatus… seven propositions in the Tractatus. The last proposition is something to the effect that about which we cannot speak thereof we must remain silent… and he thought that there was this sort of, or at least some people were interpreting that, there’s sort of some kind of realm that’s beyond our ability to think logically and reasonably and we really can’t talk about it. I think I know enough of it, because Wittgenstein was getting at… to know well… whatever he thought that realm was, it bore no resemblance whatsoever to what I belief as a classical theist. So, if I came persuaded that maybe Wittgenstein was on to something as a lot of Buddhist philosophy has done, then I think that would probably begin to erode my belief in classical theism. If I could be disabused of my… my belief that life… that reality is logical.”

After reading bits of the Tractatus and finding that it did nothing to help make any sense of Howe’s response, (in fact, made it even more confusing), I decided to abide by its seventh proposition which says, “Whereof one cannot speak, thereof one must be silent”. Perhaps, Howe should have started with this proposition.

Howe’s response contained not even the slightest hint of evidence for the existence of God. This leaves us to conclude that perhaps, he has none. However, being a graduate of Southwestern Baptist Theological Seminary, he is well schooled in the area of philosophy, so that’s the hand he played.

There would be no “Does God Exist?” debates if the question were one of evidence, not philosophy.

Where’s the beef?

One would think the best way for a theist to discredit an atheist would be to provide evidence that would prove beyond all doubt that their god actually does exist. I expected that somewhere in the debate that Howe would be able to produce at least some semblance of actual evidence for his theism. But that’s not what he does. Instead, he spends the bulk of his debate time trying to school Barker in philosophy.

After listening to Howe’s big fluffy bun philosophical explanation for the existence of God, one has to ask… “Where’s the beef?”

Proof of God’s existence!

In Answering the Music Man, a gaggle of theists attempt to discredit Barker’s atheism. One of Howe’s fellow co-authors, John D. Ferrer, in his chapter, attempted to discredit “Barker’s Brand of Atheism”.

Ferrer proposes, in a rather sarcastic way, what he believes it would take to convince atheists that God actually exists. He writes, “If God dictated the Bible on live TV, ended the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet (wine), and personally moonwalked across the set of God’s Not Dead III.”

This is the evidence he believes would prove the existence of God? Really?

Ending “the California drought with forty days of raining Cabernet”? That would be disastrous; red wine stains everywhere, and not enough white vinegar in the whole world to clean it up. Moonwalking on national TV? Now that would be cool. At least we’d know where MJ ended up. What if instead of these, God ended world hunger or human trafficking, or the suffering of innocent victims caused by wars or brutal dictators? Wouldn’t godly kindness toward all mankind be more convincing to atheists like Barker and me than God doing the moonwalk on American TV?

What would cause me to say that there is a God?

After hearing both Barker and Howe’s answers, and reading the silly evidence proposed by Ferrer, I started wondering. “What would cause me to say that there is a God”. This is difficult to answer, because, like Barker, I spent decades as a bible believing christian and at this point it would be nearly impossible for someone to argue me back into the fold with apologetics or philosophy. It would take evidence; undeniable, verifiable evidence. Now the question is “what kind of evidence would bring me back into the fold?”

Some quick thoughts.

If christians would stop obsessing about protecting the unborn and focus instead, on the already born who are starving to death by the thousands each day. The World Counts website says that a child dies from hunger every 10 seconds and that poor nutrition and hunger is responsible for the death of 3.1 million children a year. Wouldn’t that be worth God’s attention?

How about if God eliminated all human trafficking? Maybe those involved in the sinister business would perhaps suddenly die from a heart attack or a stroke or something like that. Maybe God could just give them all a change of heart and they would start helping rather than hurting those who they are now victimizing.

How about if Christians would focus less on proselytizing and telling non-believers that “the wages of sin is death” and focus more on Matthew 25, “the extent you showed kindness to one of the least of these, you did it to me.” Why is something that we can see, like reducing human suffering, less important than proselytizing souls for an afterlife that we can’t see?

If God is love, why is love so noticeably lacking in church mission statements? If the God of Love is supposedly living inside christians’ hearts, shouldn’t the theology of love be more prominent in their “actions” than a theology of hate? I’m just saying.

And lastly, there is a certain (christian?) congresswoman from Colorado who is famous for her nonstop spewing of political nonsense and hate. Perhaps God could give her a change of heart… one filled with compassion and empathy so that she actually used her position to help people and reduce harm, rather than being an agent for harm. If God could pull off that miracle, I’d be back in the pew next Sunday. But don’t save me a seat.

 

From Where I Stand

Mar. 2, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

25 Feb, 2025

Blog

Freedom From Religion in Public Education

Whose rights take priority?

Do public-school students have the right to be free from religious coercion in the classroom?

Do christian teachers have the right to share their religious beliefs in their classrooms?

Depends on who you ask.

 

“There has been a great deal of discussion in recent years regarding the taboos against Christian activity on the part of teachers in public school classrooms. It is now considered unacceptable for Christian teachers to publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.” (Abounding Joy, 2005)

“As a student, you have the right to fully participate in your public education free from school-sponsored religious pressure or indoctrination. No public-school employee, including teachers and coaches, may coerce or attempt to coerce students into believing in a religion, participating in prayer, or performing any other religious activity.” Freedom From Religion Foundation

In the last couple of blogs, we’ve been critiquing a christian blogger called Abounding Joy. The first half of AJ’s blog is spent vilifying secular humanism. Even though much of what he writes completely misrepresents what secular humanists actually believe, it doesn’t stop there.  It soon becomes all too obvious that Abounding Joy has an agenda that goes much deeper than just bashing secular humanism.

Abounding Joy: It is now considered unacceptable for Christian teachers to publicly appeal to our God or to discuss our faith to our captive audiences of schoolchildren.

Yes, he really said that. As a retired schoolteacher, I am already uncomfortable with where this discourse is headed. So, I took a deeper dive into Abounding Joy and discovered that its author, a guy named Steve, was at some point, a public-school teacher. Mr. Steve claims that those villainous secular humanists have threatened his right (and his freedom) to share his religious beliefs with his “captive audiences of schoolchildren”.

Mr. Steve: But it is of critical and paramount importance that we realize the simple (and obvious) fact that Christian theism is not the only religion or belief system found in the United States. In particular, there is one other very powerful and widespread belief system (i.e. religion) in the United States called Secular Humanism.

Ah, there it is, secular humanism is a religion, and not only that, a very powerful one, which is competing for the souls of his students. Now we’re getting to the meat of his blog. By painting secular humanism as a competing religion, he has named the enemy and now he can convince his readers that christianity is under attack. According to him a secret battle is being waged for the souls of christian youth and his particular battlefield, as a christian soldier, is the public-school classroom. Those demonic secularists are keeping christian teachers from sharing their faith with their (captive audience) students. Action on the part of christians is being called for. Oh my!

Mr. Steve: Currently, the primary problem is that Christian students and teachers are frequently being expected to pretend that they are secular humanists while at school. Our goal should be for both teachers and students to have freedom to express (or not express) their beliefs…“

I’ve never heard of anyone actually pretending to be a secular humanist, but I guess it’s possible. However, I have heard of nonreligious students, pretending that they are religious in order to avoid being singled out and bullied while at school or in classrooms with teachers like Mr. Steve. This situation should definitely be avoided.

According to Steve’s website, he tells us that he earned an undergraduate degree in science: specifically, physics, math, and psychology. He followed his undergraduate science degree with a Master of Divinity in Christian Education and Theology. He also tells us that he taught math, physics, and ACT Prep in a public-school setting for 29 years. Let’s see what Steve says he would like to teach his captive audience in his math and physics classroom, but can’t, due to the prominence of secular humanism.

Mr. Steve: “How can we achieve a more equitable state of affairs? In a word, “freedom.” Our goal is an atmosphere and environment of freedom to express beliefs, for students… and teachers. You might wonder how such freedom could work out practically in a classroom.”

Actually, I was wondering how this might work out in Steve’s physics, math, and ACT prep classes. Let’s see what he thinks is appropriate for him to be able to teach in his public-school classroom.

He writes, “Now consider the situation in our public schools.

  • It’s ok for a teacher to talk about the supremacy of man, but not the supremacy of God.
  • It’s ok for a teacher to teach evolution without a Creator, but not Creation.
  • It’s ok for a teacher to quote and be an advocate for the teachings of great men, but not those of the Bible.
  • It’s ok to tell students that they must determine their moral values for themselves, but not ok to tell them that they should consider establishing their moral values on the basis of the Bible.
  • It’s ok to tell students that their goals should be to achieve academic success or financial success in this life. It is not ok to tell them of the importance of thinking in terms of eternal life.
  • It’s ok to tell students that they must feel good about themselves, but not ok to tell them that they must repent of sin.
  • Either one communicates that God exists, or one doesn’t.”

We’ll take a look at each of these statements to see if there is any legitimacy to Mr. Steve’s claim that his religious freedoms are being violated. What first comes to mind is just how any of the above statements apply to the subjects of math, physics, and ACT prep.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to talk about the supremacy of man, but not the supremacy of God.

Actually, neither is appropriate in a public-school setting. In my 25 years as a classroom teacher, with the hundreds of hours spent in faculty meetings and teacher in-services never once did anyone require us to talk about the supremacy of man. Talking about the supremacy of God was strictly taboo, as it should be.

The field of education has always been prone to fads. A new teaching strategy would come along, and faculty meetings would be dominated by the new method for the entire school year (and usually forgotten by the next). Administrators would drop into our classrooms to make sure the new fad method was being used in the classroom. Never in my 25 years did an administrator drop into my classroom to see if I was talking about the supremacy of man. But I can guarantee that if they heard I was talking about the supremacy of God, an administrator would have visited my classroom “tout de suite”. So, why is this an issue for Steve and how would he work this topic into his math or physics curriculum?

Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to teach evolution without a Creator, but not Creation.

Is evolution even taught in a physics, math, or SAT prep class? I wasn’t sure, so I asked the AI gods and this was the response.

SERI: Evolution is not typically taught in a physics class; it is primarily a topic covered in biology classes as it deals with the changes in living organisms over time, which falls under the realm of life sciences, not physics which focuses on the fundamental laws of matter and energy. 

So, while discussing the laws of matter and energy, perhaps Steve felt the need to teach creationism as well? I worked with many good science teachers who considered themselves christians and even they would have found such behavior inappropriate. By the way, The National Academy of Sciences strongly disagrees with Mr. Steve’s stance that creationism should be taught in public schools. We’ll get into that in the next blog.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok for a teacher to quote and be an advocate for the teachings of great men, but not those of the Bible.

Yes, he is correct on this one, but I don’t think he believes it to be a good thing. Without question, there are great men (and women) whose lives and writings can teach us (and our students) a great deal about math and also about physics. Once again, I just don’t see why Steve feels the need to talk about great men of the bible in his math or physics classroom.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that they must determine their moral values for themselves, but not ok to tell them that they should consider establishing their moral values on the basis of the Bible.

As someone who spent 25 years in the classroom, I can say with confidence that lecturing students about moral values was always considered tricky territory and was never once discussed in any faculty meeting. The only possible exception was to say, “Don’t do it!” Having that kind of discussion with students in a public-school classroom just wasn’t done. It’s not the job of schoolteachers to discuss moral values with students, unless of course it’s a parochial school. But to work this discussion into a public-school physics or math class is a real stretch.

Of course, we want our students of be good people, who treat others with respect and kindness. But a public-school teacher who uses his or her classroom to lecture students about establishing their moral values based on the bible is a violation and would never be appropriate.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that their goals should be to achieve academic success or financial success in this life. It is not ok to tell them of the importance of thinking in terms of eternal life.

As teachers we often times do our best to promote academic success and tell students that financial success in life correlates to the level of education achieved. Research shows that college graduates normally earn more than someone with only a high school diploma. Someone with a graduate degree usually earns more than just having an undergraduate degree. There’s nothing inappropriate about having this discussion with students. But, to lecture students about eternal life is just wrong. It was never discussed at any faculty meeting I attended, and it would be a very inappropriate to broach the subject in classroom full of students who have no other choice than to be there.

Mr. Steve: It’s ok to tell students that they must feel good about themselves, but not ok to tell them that they must repent of sin.

Once again, as teachers, we were very sensitive to how our students felt about themselves. Teen suicide was and still is a huge concern for educators all over the country and thus warrants time spent in teacher in-services. However, telling students that they must repent from sin was never one of the strategies we discussed to combat teen depression and suicide. Especially if the student’s depression was caused by being picked on (by christians) because he or she is gay. It’s dangerous to tell a gay student that their depression would go away if they would just repent of their sin and stopped being gay. Anyone who thinks that is the correct solution, shouldn’t even consider becoming a teacher.

Mr. Steve: Either one communicates that God exists, or one doesn’t.

Notice that he’s not saying that “either one communicates that God exists, or one communicates that God doesn’t exist.” By the way, neither would be appropriate in a public-school classroom. What I think he’s saying is that, in a classroom, a christian teacher has two choices. Either they communicate their believe in God or they choose to remain quiet on the subject. I would suggest that in a public-school setting the wisest choice would be to remain quiet about your personal religious beliefs. There’s nothing to stop a teacher who is a christian from sharing their faith outside the school boundaries. We’ll get more into this topic in the next blog.

Conclusion

Abounding Joy: Our country was established primarily for freedom. In public education we have moved dangerously close to establishing a state religion (based on) secular humanism. And in doing so, we have begun the process of denying freedoms to those whose belief systems are contrary to that of the secular humanists. This is an intolerable situation.

Is it just christians who are being denied freedoms? Do we really have “liberty and justice for all”? I wonder what Steve would think about allowing Muslims to share their belief systems in public schools. Aren’t their beliefs also contrary to secular humanism?  Would he support Islam being taught in public schools or would he call it an “intolerable situation”? I have to wonder if Steve believes in religious freedom for everyone or whether it’s reserved just for evangelicals.

Coming next:

Steve seems to be inflicted with PCC, Persecuted Christian Complex. Christianity has been in power for millennium. However, things have changed and christians no longer have the power to simply burn someone at the stake for heresy. Oh, how the tables have turned! How will they cope?

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 25, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

16 Feb, 2025

Blog

Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism

Is Secular Humanism a religion?

“Saying secularism is a belief system is like saying not going skiing is a hobby.” Ricky Gervais

In the previous blog we discussed a christian blogger called Abounding Joy. In an article entitled Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism, the author proposed that secular humanism is a faith-based religion. Let’s see how he justifies that claim.

AJ: Since secular humanists do not believe in God, obviously they do not believe in a Creator.

MTP: Since secular humanists do not believe in gods, obviously they would not believe in any of the creation stories from all over the world. Many of those creation stories are no less believable than the one found in Genesis. The most common variety of “special creationism” asserts that, the Earth is very young, all life suddenly appeared and was created by God or gods, no organism has changed since the creation and different life forms were designed to function in particular settings.

 

 

For example, secularists would not believe that the Mayan God Tepeu the maker and Gucumatz the feathered spirit created the world with their thoughts and created man out of corn. Neither would they believe that Yahweh create the world in six days with his words and created man out of dust.

 

 

AJ: Secularists hypothesize (in spite of strong scientific evidence to the contrary) that life simply sprang into existence, through a process of chance events. Higher life forms came into existence, they believe (again in spite of strong evidence to the contrary) through the process of biological evolution.

MTP: Some Christians hypothesize (in spite of strong scientific evidence to the contrary) that the universe, the earth and everything in it were magically created in six days by a supernatural deity around 6,000 years ago. Scientists, on the other hand, have used scientific methodology to conclude that there is strong scientific evidence to support the hypothesis that life sprang into existence through a process of chance events. Secularists believe that evolution is based on strong scientific evidence, and that higher life forms came into existence, through a very long process of biological evolution.

AJ: Secularists believe these things on the basis of faith, as many of the more honest scientists who are evolutionists have admitted.

MTP: Many Christians believe the six-day creation story as it appears in Genesis to be 100% historically accurate. This belief is solely based on faith, as many of the more honest christians who claim to be creationists have admitted.

AJ: Many scientists who are evolutionists have explained that to believe in a supernatural God is not “scientific” (in their minds). Therefore, they hypothesize evolution to explain the existence of life. They hope to find evidence to support their hypothesis, but so far, the vast predominance of evidence points to a Designer Creator.

MTP: Many people, including scientists, have concluded that to believe in a supernatural God is not “scientific. Therefore, they would also hypothesize that the creation story as found in Genesis is also not based on science. Because science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, it leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe. Scientists believe the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature. There continues to be a vast predominance of evidence that points in that direction. On the other hand, Christians explain the existence of life in supernational terms. They hope to find evidence to support their creation hypothesis, but so far, no evidence exists that points to a designer creator.

AJ: Since, to secular humanists, God does not exist, any appeal to His authority would be considered to be foolish. The only authority that secular humanists appeal to is the authority of men who are perceived to be highly educated, brilliant, and wise.

MTP: Since, to secular humanists, gods do not exist, any appeal to the authority of an imaginary god, would indeed be considered foolish and futile. It is accurate that some secular humanists are highly educated, brilliant, and wise. Unlike theists, secularists do not feel the need to submit themselves to some higher authority, such as a pastor, a priest, a prophet, or a pope. Neither would a secularist recognize the authority of a supernatural deity.

AJ: Secular humanists believe the Bible to be simply a book of human traditions and ideas. To them, it has no authority. The only writings that have authority for them would be the writing of men whom they perceive to be especially brilliant and wise.

MTP: Secular humanists rightly believe that the Bible is simply a book of human traditions and ideas. Despite what christianity teaches, the bible is not inerrant, nor infallible. It contains errors, discrepancies, and contradictions. In addition, some of the stories found in its pages are truly disturbing. Secularists believe that, like the Meditations of Marcus Aurelius, the bible contains some wisdom, but also, like the writings of Marcus Aurelius, the bible certainly has no authority to direct our lives. Secularist most certainly appreciate brilliant and wise men (and women) but would not agree that they have authority over them or anyone else. The writings of prominent secularists might be widely circulated and well read, but other secularists would not consider those writings as having authority over them.

AJ: Secular humanists generally reject the concepts of moral absolutes and of “sin.”

MTP: Secular humanists generally have strong concepts of objective moral absolutes which are not based on biblical teachings. Sin has been defined as “breaking, violating, or rebelling against God’s divine law by any thought, word, desire, action, or omission of action which leads to eventual death“. Secularists would reject such a concept that is based on offending a supernatural deity. Conversely, humanists stand for the building of a more humane, just, compassionate, and democratic society using an ethics based on human reason, experience, and reliable knowledge. They would judge the consequences of their actions by the well-being of all life on Earth.

AJ: In a situation in which Christians might see a need for repentance and forgiveness and forsaking sinful behavior, secular humanists would more likely see a need for every person to decide for himself what is right or wrong, and to try to build personal self-esteem regardless of an individual’s behavior.

MTP: Christian beliefs, which are strictly based on the bible, frequently put them in the situation where they feel guilty that they have “missed the mark” and somehow offended their God. For these offenses they must seek repentance and forgiveness for their “sinful” behavior” in order to stay in “right standing” with God. Their feelings of unworthiness are all part of a never-ending performance-based religion that often (daily) results in personal guilt and shame, rather than personal self-esteem and value. Humanists would not subscribe to such a guilt-based lifestyle, nor does their self-esteem come from pleasing a supernatural deity. Humanists would not say that every person gets to decide for themselves what is right or wrong. “It is possible to reject the religious concept of sin and still maintain strong moral values, beliefs and opinions.” *

AJ: While a Christian’s goals are determined by God and are influenced by the reality of an eternity after this life has passed, the secular humanist goals are entirely focused on this present physical existence.

MTP: A Christian’s goals are determined by the belief in an imaginary God and are influenced by “pie in the sky” stories of pearly gates and an eternity of blissful servitude. Such goals, which are not based on reality, have little or no connection to the real world, making them essentially moot and irrelevant. However, humanists derive their goals from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions. They assert that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny rather than relying on “pie in the sky” dogma. Such reality-based goals have a better chance of success in creating the “best possible life for everyone”, not just for “the chosen”.

End notes

*This comes from an essay by Phil Zuckerman entitled Atheism, Secularity and Well-Being.

Coming next:

In the next blog we’ll take a deeper dive to find out more about the author of Abounding Joy. We discovered that he spent 29 years as a public-school classroom teacher. We will look at what subjects he taught and why he believes it was his right to teach his “captive audience” about his faith in the supremacy of God, despite, of course, the first amendment.

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 16, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

10 Feb, 2025

Blog

Is Secular Humanism a Faith-based Religion?

The process of spiritual maturity is replacing lies with truth.

When I was young and still involved in a church, secular humanists were the big, bad, boogie man who we suspected would somehow corrupt us. Sometime later, I decided to find out for myself what secular humanist actually believe. What I discovered was that what I had been taught about secular humanists was mostly lies. I’ve covered that in an earlier blog. I decided to revisit this topic, and this time, we’ll see if what christians teach about secular humanists is actually true.

While researching what secular humanists believe, the Google gods directed me to a christian website called Abounding Joy (AJ). The article was entitled Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism.  Sometimes what AJ says about secular humanists is accurate, like when he says that they do not believe in supernatural gods. Sometimes his evaluations of secular humanists are based on misconceptions, and he often misrepresents what they believe. But there are also times (as we will see in future blogs) when something he says about secular humanists is an outright lie.  To be fair, we will acknowledge when he is accurate, but we will also attempt to replace his misrepresents and lies with a more accurate view of secular humanists.

But first, I must say that I fully understand Abounding Joy’s distrust of what he can’t understand. I know I was distrustful back then; we were taught from the pulpit to distrust anyone who wasn’t a part of us. My guess is that AJ has never personally met or had a conversation with someone who calls themselves a secular humanist.

Also, I am completely aware that nothing I say in this blog will change AJ’s deep seeded distrust of secular humanists. His mind is made up and he will never change. To do so would be considered treason to his tribe. The price for that could be quite high, including being shunned by his congregation. This blog is not written for him. Neither is this blog written for secular humanists. They already know what they believe.

This Blog’s for You

If you are still active in christian circles, but you’re not satisfied with all the answers you are getting to your questions, then this blog might be for you. Don’t be afraid to keep reading. Secular humanists aren’t really all that scary and neither am I.

So, let’s see if Abounding Joy is accurately representing what secular humanists believe. For the record, just about every paragraph of AJ’s blog contains some level of false statements; therefore, I’ve decided to address them one at a time for the sake of clarity.

The Preaching the Faith of Secular Humanism

AJ: Humanism is a faith-based system (i.e., a religion) whose adherents believe, among other things, that the material world is all that exists. Secular humanists believe that the highest being that exists is mankind. They do not believe in a supernatural God.

Much of this paragraph is an accurate representation of what secular humanistic beliefs. However, the glaring falsehood can be found in the first eight words.

AJ: Humanism is a faith-based system (i.e., a religion) …

This is simply not true. There is nothing about secular humanism that needs to be based on faith. Faith is the realm of religions. Humanism is not a religion. A belief system maybe, but not one that requires faith and certainly not a religion. We will show later in this blog, that secular humanism is not a faith-based system, while christianity is nearly entirely faith-based.

AJ “…whose adherents believe, among other things, that the material world is all that exists.”

What he says here is accurate. Secularists believe that the material world is all that we have certain knowledge of. Here is a quote from The Humanist Society of Western New York.

“Humanists believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet.”

No faith is required to hold this belief.

AJ: Secular humanists believe that the highest being that exists is mankind.

Obviously, for AJ his god is the highest being (based entirely on faith) and he cannot fathom the idea that anyone would not embrace his faith-based believe in God. Not being a religion, secularism would not accept such a faith-based belief.

AJ: They do not believe in a supernatural God.

I understand that just by saying this AJ and his audience are already appalled. Their bible says that the “fool in his heart says there is not God” therefore AJ mistakenly comes to the debate with a predetermined idea of how lowly secular humanists are.

To say that secular humanists do not believe in a supernatural God, is just partially accurate. It would be more correct to say that Secularists do not believe in supernatural gods (plural). In the history of civilization, mankind has created over 8,000 gods. Christians would dismiss the existence of 7,999 of those gods. A Secularism would agree with theists on that point but then would take it one step or one god further. Secularists would say that they simply believe in one less god than monotheists do.

Let’s compare

Let’s compare secular humanistic beliefs with christian beliefs and see which one is actually based on faith. For this comparison, I have chosen the mission statement from a christian college, and statements from a secular humanism website explaining their values. I will leave it up to the reader to decide which is more faith based. If you are an evangelical, you will obviously come to a different conclusion than I did. This might be an indication that you really need to reevaluate your religion.

Veritas International University offers bachelor’s and master’s degrees. The following comes from their Doctrinal Statement. (Remember, they are an institution of “higher education”.  After reading their doctrinal statement, it might be fair to ask what a degree from Veritas will actually prepare its graduates for after college.)

Veritas International University

Are these statements verifiable, or must they be taken by faith alone?

  • We believe the Bible is the Word of God, comprising the totality of Holy Scripture, is verbally inerrant in the original text, and remains inerrant, inspired, and infallible.
  • We believe in the full historicity of the biblical record of primeval history, including the literal existence of Adam and Eve as the progenitors of all people.
  • We believe God is the Creator and Sustainer of the heavens and the earth.
  • We believe the creation account as described in the book of Genesis is factual and historical.
  • We believe God created the heavens and the earth in six historic days as described in the book of Genesis.
  • We believe in a literal, worldwide flood that destroyed the earth, animal life, and the human race, except for Noah and those he took in the ark with him.
  • We believe in the origin of the nations and languages at the tower of Babel.
  • We believe that the triune God eternally exists in one essence and three distinct persons: Father, Son and Holy Spirit; that He is essentially Spirit (i.e., essentially one without parts).
  •  We believe that God is personal, transcendent, sovereign, life, love, truth, almighty, simple, timelessly eternal, unchangeable, wise, just, holy, relational, pure actuality, dynamic, infallible in all things.
  • We believe that God has foreknowledge of all future decisions and events.
  • We believe that Jesus Christ was miraculously conceived by the Holy Spirit, born of the virgin Mary, lived a sinless and miraculous life, provided for the atonement of our sins.
  • We believe the Holy Spirit is the third person of the Godhead who guides the believer into all truth.
  • We believe that man is created in the image of God; however, after the fall of Adam and Eve, all people are by nature separated from God.
  • We believe that when a person receives Jesus Christ that person is immediately born again and becomes a child of God, destined to spend eternity with Christ in heaven. Those who do not personally receive Jesus Christ by faith will spend eternity separated from God in a state of conscious torment.
  • We believe the universal church is an organic body composed of all believers, both living and dead.
  • We believe in the imminent rapture of the church and the second coming of Christ which will be physical, personal, and visible.
  • We believe there is a real personal devil of great malevolence. We believe his power is limited by God to only what God permits him to do. We believe the Devil will eventually burn in the lake of fire and brimstone.

Secular humanism

“Humanism is a joyous alternative that does not need to rely on faith for its beliefs.”

  • We believe there is no evidence a supernatural power ever needed or wanted anything from people, ever communicated to them, or ever interfered with the laws of nature to assist or harm anyone.
  • We do not accept supernatural views of reality.
  • We affirm our ability and responsibility to lead ethical lives of personal fulfillment that aspire to the greater good.
  • We believe humanism is a rational philosophy informed by science, inspired by art, and motivated by compassion.
  • We believe in the dignity of each human being.
  • We believe in participatory democracy and the expansion of the open society and standing for human rights and social justice.
  • We believe that the goals of life originate from human need and interest rather than from theological or ideological abstractions, and that humanity must take responsibility for its own destiny.
  • We believe that human beings have the right and responsibility to give meaning and shape to their own lives.
  • We believe humanism stands for the building of a more humane society through human capabilities.
  • We believe humanism is a joyous alternative to religions that believe in a supernatural god and life in a hereafter.
  • We believe that this is the only life of which we have certain knowledge and that we owe it to ourselves and others to make it the best life possible for ourselves and all with whom we share this fragile planet.
  • We believe that when people are free to think for themselves, using reason and knowledge as their tools, they are best able to solve this world’s problems.
  • We believe humans should take responsibility for their own lives.
  • We believe in a world view based on the conviction that the universe or nature is all that exists or is real.
  • We do not believe in deities, transcendental entities, miracles, life after death, and the supernatural.
  • We believe the universe to be the result of an extremely long and complex evolution under immutable laws of nature. Humanists view this natural world as wondrous and precious, and as offering limitless opportunities.
  • We believe that science cannot now and probably never will be able to explain the ultimate origin or destiny of the universe, and the lack of definite answers to these ultimate questions leaves room for reasonable people to hypothesize about the origin of the natural universe.
  • We believe humans have the freedom to give meaning, value, and purpose to their lives by their own independent thought, free inquiry, and responsible, creative activity.
  • We value the welfare of humankind — rather than the welfare of a supposed God or gods — to be of paramount importance.

This about sums it up:

“Set your mind on things above, not on the things that are on earth” Colossians 3:2

Due to the lack of any evidence for an afterlife, this life should be lived as though it’s the only one we have.

Coming next:

We will continue with Abounding Joy’s misconceptions about secular humanism.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Feb. 10, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

22 Jan, 2025

Blog

What you see is what you get! (WYSIWYG)

Reading between the lines of christian mission statements.

In the previous blog, we were exploring the mission statement of Trinity Lutheran Church, in Denver. In their 2,100-word mission statement they called themselves a confessional church and (lucky for us) they tell us exactly what that means.

What is a Confessional Church?

“A confessional church is a church that clearly tells you what it believes and teaches and does. Many churches do not have a confession of faith, or if they do have a faith statement, it’s not very long or very clear. So, you never know what you’re going to get. At Trinity what you see is what you get.”

Okay, that makes sense. By reading their mission statement anyone who might be church hunting could read their mission statement and decide whether they might want to visit or not. I agree that it’s good when a church’s mission statement says what you can expect from them. But I do not agree that the length of a mission statement automatically corresponds to its clarity. I have read dozens of church mission statements over the past several years and found some lengthy ones to be very unclear and some brief ones that state very clearly what the church is all about.

The longest one I encountered had over 7,000 words, with 28 sections covering nearly all aspects of christian life. They had rules and regulations for tithing and giving, for abstinence from all liquor or strong drink, for use of tobacco and what foods and drinks were allowed. One section called Adornment gave directions on what women were allowed to wear in public. They dictated regulations for wholesome speech, and to top it all off, a section on marriage, divorce, and remarriage. However, nowhere in their 7,000 words, did they think to include the word “welcome”.

Granted, they certainly left little to question, but what have we really learned about that congregation? By reading between the lines, we start to realize that in order to be accepted as a part of their congregation, you must subjugate yourself to the control of the church… and that means you will be held accountable for every one of those 7,000 words. That kind of religious control may be appealing for some people, but certainly not for me. (1)

The shortest mission statement I have encountered belongs to a small church called Kirk of Bonnie Brae. They needed only 136 words to express what they are all about. Read for yourself.

Kirk of Bonnie Brae

Welcome to the Kirk of Bonnie Brae! We believe that all people are children of God and are created in the image of God. We believe that welcoming all people was and is at the heart of the ministry of Jesus. We find joy in being a diverse community of faith, and welcome everyone to join our spiritual journey.

We celebrate people … of all ages, races, and ethnicities; of all gender identities and gender expressions; of all sexual orientations; of all faith backgrounds and no faith background; of all viewpoints on the issues impacting our society; of differing physical and mental abilities; who are single, married, divorced, separated, widowed, or partnered; who are well-fed or hungry, sheltered, or homeless; who wonder how a congregation could welcome all of the above. We welcome and celebrate you!

So, what do you think? With only 136 words, are you able to ascertain what kind of church they are and what you might expect from its congregation? It’s pretty clear that they are a welcoming church. The word welcome appears five times and they are very clear about who is welcome at their church; anyone and everyone! Some people (congregations) might feel uncomfortable with that level of diversity.

Trinity Lutheran is one of those congregations. The word welcome never appears in their mission statement. Since they have stated that “what you see is what you get” we must conclude that since welcome is not mentioned in their mission statement, then it is not something that is important to them. As you will see for yourself, not everyone is welcomed at Trinity Lutheran.

The Acorn and the Tree

Trinity Lutheran’s mission statement is a clear case of the proverbial acorn not falling far from the Martin Luther tree. In order to understand Trinity Lutheran, we need to understand the writings of its founding patriarch. Their mission statement directs the reader to other Lutheran doctrines such as the Orders of Creation, the Table of Duties, the Small and Large Catechism, all written by Martin Luther himself.

So, let’s take a brief look at the roots of Lutheranism in hopes that it might help us understand the workings of Trinity Lutheran. (I say brief because Martin Luther was rarely brief.) Let’s see if we can discover in the writings of Luther the reasons behind Trinity Lutheran not being a welcoming church. The following is from Luther’s catechism.

But those who refuse to learn (i.e. believe as we believe) are to be told that they are denying Christ and do not belong to Him. They are not to be admitted to the Sacrament, accepted as sponsors at Baptism, or allowed to exercise Christian liberty in any way. They should instead be simply directed back to the pope and his functionaries, yes, even to Satan himself. Moreover, their parents and superiors should refuse them food and drink, telling them that the prince is of a mind to expel such rude persons from his realm, and so on.

Ironically, his very next sentence is,

Of course we cannot, and we should not try to force the Christian faith on anyone.

Let me see if I understand this correctly. True Lutherans are directed to deny food, drink, and shelter to non-conformers and also to shun them from being included in the community (2). When this was written in the 1500s, being shunned by your community would have been a death sentence. That is of course unless the actual death sentence was to be burned at the stake. Yet it’s important that, as good christians, they don’t force their Christian faith on anyone. “And they’ll know we are christians by our love, by our love, and they’ll know we are christians by our love.”

Rather than giving you a paraphrased version of their statements, I have decided to let Trinity Lutheran to speak for themselves. It will be up to you, the reader, to decide if Trinity Lutheran is a welcoming church and whether you would be welcome or comfortable there.

Trinity Lutheran Mission Statement

Orders of Creation

(Editor’s note: The Orders of Creation is a Lutheran doctrine that describes the social structures of human existence, such as the family, state, church, and economy. The doctrine is based on the idea that God established these social domains and that they are the basic framework for human life.)

“God is a god of order. Birds cannot become pine trees. Oceans do not turn into azaleas. Boys do not turn into girls. Women do not become men.  No amount of screaming will turn the bird into a pine tree. No amount of denial will change the Atlantic into an azalea.  No social media post or politician’s speech will make boys into girls or women into men.

When we conform our thoughts and words and deeds to God’s orders, we live a better life. When we expect to get pinecones from a pine tree and to see a boy grow into a man, we find wisdom. When we expect otherwise, our foolishness leads to all kinds of destruction. (This is a thinly veiled threat.)

Marriage

Marriage has three purposes: the procreation of children, faithfulness to one’s spouse, and the symbolizing of Christ’s marriage to His church. Marriage can therefore only be between one man and one woman since God Himself has only one Bride, the holy Christian Church, and when He instituted earthly marriage in the first times of the world, He brought together just one man, Adam, and one woman, Eve. Marriage cannot be between two people of the same sex or multiple people at the same time because God did not establish marriage to be that way. We support and protect marriage so that God’s will might be honored and the children He has given us might be protected.  (Another thinly veiled threat.)

Sex and Gender

We are not free to be whatever we would like. We were made to be some things and not others, to be male or female, neither both at the same time nor the opposite at some time nor something else altogether. If we were free to be whatever we would like, we would be greater and more powerful than God Himself, and since we plainly are not gods, do not have such control, cannot even keep ourselves alive without His help every moment, we can scarcely become something we were not made to be. We might play act, but we cannot become other than He has made us to be. (3)

WYSIWYG

What does this mission statement tell us about Trinity Lutheran? Clearly, not everyone is welcome at their church. Perhaps that is the one good thing about being a confessional church. They are indeed very clear about who is and who is not welcome at their church. Members of the LGBTQ community can see for themselves what kind of church Trinity Lutheran is and choose to steer clear of that kind of religious based bigotry.

Lutheranism is so German.

As a German, Luther was greatly concerned about the need for everything to be orderly. Just look at his writings. In the Table of Duties, Luther describes and sets standards for the social structures of human existence, such as the family, state, church, and economy. The doctrine is based on the idea that God established these social domains and that they are the basic framework for human life. In the Table of Duties Luther gives instructions for Pastors, and Preachers and also for the congregation which are told to obey and submit to authority. (4)

What we see in Trinity’s mission statement is that orderliness is more important than God’s love. Imagine how uncomfortable Trinity Lutheran would be with Kirk Bonnie Brae’s mission statement.  It would put them WAY out of their comfort zone. It’s obvious that Trinity is most comfortable with an orderly world, dictated by authority/subordinate relationships. Imagine if they had to deal with a congregation the contained “all faith backgrounds and viewpoints”. That would be way too messy for them. It’s pretty clear that they are not a diverse community of faith, nor do they have any desire to be.

Remember, what you see, is what you get.

End Note:

1) Churches like this can be very legalistic. By attending a church like this, you have opened your life to constant scrutiny with multiple ways to fail. This kind of highly regulated, performance based christianity can lead to what some christians are calling Spiritual Abuse. An internet search for the phrase spiritual abuse, resulted in 225 books on the topic, with titles like, Churches That Abuse: Help for those hurt by legalism, authoritarian leadership, and spiritual intimidation, Recovering From Churches That Abuse, and The Subtle Power of Spiritual Abuse. If you’re experiencing that kind of authoritarian leadership in your church, I would encourage you to get some help and find another church.

2) Denying food, drink, and shelter to non-conformers, and shunning them from community involvement sounds like “spiritual abuse” to me. See end note one.

3) Trinity Lutheran: “We might play act, but we cannot become other than He has made us to be.”

I once interviewed a pastor who identified as gay. She told me that she played acted for decades that she was straight, but the time came when she decided to be honest with God and the rest of the world. By embracing how God had made her she felt God’s blessing on her as a gay person. It was not just okay; it was how God had made her. “This is what God wanted, she said, “this is not a mistake that we have to fix.” To read her perspective on being gay in a christian world follow this link.

4) Of all the instructions given in the Table of Duties, the one I find the most disturbing is the one written for widows. “The widow who is really in need and left all alone puts her hope in God and continues night and day to pray and to ask God for help. But the widow who lives for pleasure is dead even while she lives.”

Whatever happened to James 1:27 “This is pure and undefiled religion in the sight of our God and Father, to visit orphans and widows in their distress, and to keep oneself unstained by the world.”

Someone forgot to tell the Widow Clicquot that she was already dead when she made the decision (in opposition to religious authorities of that day) to carry on her husband’s champagne business after he died.

Coming soon: A Tale of Two Churches

After reading Trinity Lutheran’s mission statement and the writings of Martin Luther, I was about to conclude that all Lutheran churches were pretty much the same. Then I discovered Bethany Lutheran in Denver.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 22, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >

 

11 Jan, 2025

Blog

Part trois: What’s Sin Got to Do with It?

The main thing about the main thing, is to keep the main thing the main thing.

What’s the main thing?

Most christians, like Rev. Rick Warren, will say that LOVE is the main thing. However, as we have already seen in previous blogs, when we examine church mission statements, LOVE, (especially God’s love) takes a back seat to SIN, even in Pastor Warren’s church. So, with that fact in mind, let’s take a closer look at how important the concept of Sin is in church mission statements.

Got love?

Trinity Lutheran Church in Denver is a great example of the disproportionate amount of times love is mentioned when compared with how often sin is mentioned. In their 2,100-word mission statement, LOVE is mentioned only twice, (in the first paragraph) where they simply quote Mark 12:30-31.

“The Bible has two big commands that God gives us: to love Him with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength and to love our neighbors as ourselves. Everything else boils down to those.”  (34 words)

(Quick point: If “everything else boils down” to those two verses, why does Trinity Lutheran feel the need for 2,066 more words? They actually tell us why, but we’ll address that later*.)

Notice that humans are commanded to love God and our neighbor, (whoever that might be). This is something that Rick Warren echoes in chapter 22 of his simple-minded book, The Purpose Driven Life. He says, “Remember it’s all about love – loving God and loving others”. There is no mention of God’s love for humanity anywhere in Trinity Lutheran’s mission statement, nor in chapter 22 of Warren’s book. I think for believers it would be important to include God’s love in the equation, don’t you? (And I don’t mean by simply quoting John 3:16). God’s love should be the main thing, but by neglecting to include, (or even mention) God’s love on one side of the equation, christians are left with an equation that is imbalanced.

 

What you end up with is an uneven justice scale with God’s love on the left and sin on the right.

Sin becomes the main thing.

Got sin?

Trinity Lutheran might have neglected to include God’s love in their mission statement, but they certainly didn’t neglect to mention SIN, which appears 21 times and death 17 times. (These two go hand in hand in christian doctrine.) The ratio of Sin to Love is nearly 10 to 1.

This might lead some to ask, “What exactly is sin?” That’s a good question and fortunately Trinity Lutheran has done us a favor by actually defining it.  They say, “By ‘sin’ we mean every word, thought, and deed against God’s Law.” 

A quick internet search for other definitions of sin, pretty much produced the same result.

  • Sin relates to breaking or violating God’s divine law.
  • Sin is any thought, word, desire, action, or omission of action, contrary to the law of God.
  • Sin is any rebellion against God.
  • Sin is a lack of faith in God
  • Sin consists of acts of rebellion against God and leads to our death.

If you take a close look at these definitions, you will notice that all of them, without exception, say that SIN is something that offends God. This confirms what secularists have been saying for years and what I personally have come to believe since letting go of christianity . Sin is a fabricated concept invented by religions. I’m not an expert in religious studies, but it seems to me that the concept of sin is especially prevalent in monotheistic, Abrahamic religions. Christianity in general and specifically Trinity Lutheran teaches that God’s rules/laws, which are given via the bible, must be obeyed. Any word, deed, thought, action, or inaction that violates God’s divine law is considered as rebellion against God and therefore, constitutes SIN.

SIN is not universal.

Christianity also teaches that “ALL have sinned and fallen short…” and that “the wages of sin is death”. However, secularists, like me, reject that idea. We realize that the concept of sin (i.e. offending a deity) is not universal, which means, it doesn’t apply to everyone. As, I’ve said before, SIN is an artificially fabricated concept invented by religions to control its participants. Many people across the globe, do not believe that the concept of offending a deity applies to them. Me included.

After letting go of christianity, it still took me awhile to wrap my head around this concept. Our status as wretched sinners was reinforced on a regular basis from the pulpit, and much like most church mission statements, our sinfulness was addressed more often than was God’s love. The first time I heard someone (on YouTube) say that SIN is an artificially fabricated concept invented by religions, a figurative light bulb turned on in my head. So, if you are just getting started on your journey of deconversion, let me give you a comparison that might explain the concept better.

I live in Denver, and during the NFL season almost the entire city embraces the boys in Blue and Orange. Devotion to the Denver Broncos borders on a religion in these parts. But that’s also the case in just about any city that has either a college or a professional football team. (If you’ve ever been to a high school football game in Texas, you’ll know exactly what I’m talking about.) On game day, the television news reminds Bronco fanatics to dress in Blue and Orange. If you want to show your team loyalty, it’s mandatory and not doing so could be considered a sin against the NFL gods and might get you 86ed from your local sports bar.

I no longer consider myself a Bronco fan, (it’s a long story) just like I no longer a consider myself a member of the Jesus Club (also a long story). Funny thing is when I openly admitted that I no longer support the Broncos, I got the same reaction from my sports friends as I did from my church friends when I confessed that I no longer supported christianity. There was a sense that I was committing a betrayal from both groups.

Anyway, the point I’m trying to make is that since I am no longer a Broncos fan, I am no longer obliged to wear blue and orange on game day. (I don’t even own anything blue and orange.) And likewise, since I am no longer a member of the Jesus club, I am no longer obliged to believe in any doctrine that says my behavior offends some deity. If christians want to live under the tyranny of having every word, deed, thought, action, or inaction constantly judged by some distant deity, then they have that right. But to me, it sounds a bit like living in North Korea and I choose not to live like that.

Rejecting the concept of Sin is not rejecting morality.

It’s important to understand what I’m saying, and more importantly, what I’m not saying. Christians often say that by rejecting the concept of sin, secularists and atheists, have no moral base and are just giving themselves a license to sin. They say that atheists feel no guilt, no remorse for wrongdoing and therefore must be amoral. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Renown secularist Phil Zuckerman says this,

“It is said over and over again by religious conservatives: without faith in God, society will fall apart. If we don’t worship God, pray to God, and place God at the central heart of our culture, things will get ugly. For if people turn away from God and stop being religious, then crime will go up, corruption will increase, perversion will percolate, decency will diminish, and all manifestations of misery and malfeasance will predominate. It is an interesting hypothesis. Perpetually-touted. And totally wrong.”

Atheist Dan Barker writes, “Notice that biblical wrongdoing or sin is connected not with real human suffering, (or minimizing harm) but with offending a deity.” 

Defining Secular Morality

Secular morality, often associated with non-religious or atheistic worldviews, derives its principles from human reason, ethics, and humanism rather than divine authority. It emphasizes a foundation in the here and now, centering on the well-being of individuals and society. One of its fundamental tenets is the separation of moral principles from religious beliefs, highlighting that ethics can exist independently of faith.” Freethinkers International 

Love is universal

The main objective of this blog is to question why christian churches focus more on SIN then on God’s Love. As we have seen, Sin is not universal. Love, on the other hand, is universal. It’s been said that “Love is the universal language that transcends countries, borders, barriers, and differences.” It doesn’t matter the color of your skin, or where you live. It doesn’t matter if you’re rich or poor, gay or straight. Theists of all different religions experience love. Atheists experience love as well. Conservatives and Liberals both experience love. So, why is LOVE so noticeably lacking in church mission statements? God only knows. (Pun intended.)  Perhaps I should be thankful. If christian churches talked more about God’s love and less about our wretched sinfulness, I’d have to find something else to write about.

After thought

According to Trinity Lutheran’s website, their mission statement is rather lengthy (2,100 words) because they are a confessional church. And what exactly does that mean? We’re in luck, because they are going to tell us.

*What is a Confessional Church?

“A confessional church is a church that clearly tells you what it believes and teaches and does. Many churches do not have a confession of faith, or if they do have a faith statement, it’s not very long or very clear. So, you never know what you’re going to get. At Trinity what you see is what you get. What we believe drives what we say and what we do, and you can see for yourself what we believe.”

Coming Next

We’ll explore the pros and cons of being a confessional church in the next blog. We find out pretty clearly who is and who is not welcome at their church. We’ll also take a deeper look into the beliefs of Lutheranism and the teachings of Martin Luther. Boy, is that an open can of worms. We will be exploring the controversial writings of Martin Luther, including his 50,000-word essay The Jews and Their Lies, where he writes, “Therefore be on your guard against the Jews, knowing that wherever they have their synagogues, nothing is found but a den of devils in which sheer self-glory, conceit, lies, blasphemy, and defaming of God and men are practiced most maliciously and veheming his eyes on them. We should toss out these lazy rogues by the seat of their pants and then eject them forever from this country. (Germany)

Prepare yourself, it’s gonna be a bumpy ride.

 

From Where I Stand

Jan. 11, 2025

Dale Crum

<Previous Post / Next Post >