Blog

12 Jan, 2023

Blog

Why I Let Go of Christianity

Notice that I didn’t say, “Why I let go of God”. That’s a topic for another time. The issue at hand is why I let go of religion and specifically Christianity. Many people have their own “deconversion story”. This is mine.

At age 17, I had what could be called, a religious or “born-again” experience. Almost overnight my life changed, and I became what was then called a “Jesus Freak.” I started to read and study the Bible every day and I couldn’t wait to share my new found faith with anyone who would listen and to many who wouldn’t. Looking back, 50 years later, I still believe that my religious experience was somehow valid, but my view of Christianity has changed greatly since then. I have grown up and so has my view of religion.

First off, let me say that I didn’t choose to become a christian because I was afraid of going to hell. I knew nothing then about the concept of “original sin”, and had never heard of the expression “to accept JC as your personal lord and savior”. (Whatever that means!) Nobody, lead me to Christ, (as is said in christian circles). I was alone at the time of my conversion and baptism. It was beautiful and memorable and it changed my life.

At that time, all those years ago, like many teenagers, I was discontented with my life. My father had converted to Christianity when I was in the third grade, so I grew up going to church. I really don’t remember much from all those years in Sunday School, but I did remember the verse, “Behold I stand at the door and knock.” (Which, unbelievably, comes from the book of Revelations with its disputed authorship and questionable validity.) But at that moment, 50 years ago, I believed that Jesus was knocking, so I opened the door and invited him in as a friend. Little did I know how much baggage came along with that experience.

Behold, I stand at the door and knock.

 

One of the first things I did as a new christian was to actually read the bible, something I had never done before. Wanting to be the very best christian possible, I read it cover to cover multiple times in the first couple of years. However, the more I read the bible (some parts really are quite disturbing) and the more active I was in the church the harder it became to reconcile what I was learning at church with what I was learning in my higher education.

American Politician and 2012 presidential candidate Rick Santorum once told a group of supporters to stop supporting State run colleges and Universities because they were indoctrinating our young with worldly ideas. He went on to say that many children lose their faith in college. Here’s his quote

“It’s no wonder President Obama wants every kid to go to college,” said the former Pennsylvania senator. “The indoctrination that occurs in American universities is one of the keys to the left holding and maintaining power in America. And it is indoctrination. Because you know 62 percent of children who enter college with a faith conviction leave without it.”

CBS News Jan. 25, 2012

This kind of thinking drives me absolutely crazy, but I must admit, it’s what happened to me. I entered college with a faith conviction and left without it.

When someone starts to question religious dogma, christians usually attribute it to “radical secular indoctrination”, because that’s the easy explanation. But there’s more to it than that. When I got serious about college I became exposed to many different ideas, and serious thinkers. Your world view expands when you expand your mind. If it doesn’t, you’re not doing it right. I started to admire and seek out people who practiced rational thinking.

To my great surprise that form of rational thinking could not be found in my christian circles. I sought out people I admired from my church who, I hoped, would be able to discuss religion rationally. However, there was no one who was willing (or capable) of engaging in that kind of thinking. My questions were usually addressed with invalid reasoning and accompanied with memorized scripture verses. There’s a saying in christian circles, “God said it, I believe it, that settles it.” Using scripture to address my questioning was like putting a punctuation mark at the end of our conversation. It signaled that the discussion was over and nothing further needed to be said.

Back then I still believed that the bible was inspire by God and inerrant. I still wanted to be the best christian I could be, so I reluctantly accepted their explanations. It never once crossed my mind to ask the right questions. Did God really say it? How do we know? What if I don’t believe that quoting scripture settles everything?

As any student of social sciences knows, when someone begins to question the social system in which they find themselves, at first there will be increased communication between them and the group in order to provide correction to the wayward soul. However, if the person continues to question the status quo of group norms, all communication will cease. All I wanted was talk about religion rationally. However, the message was clear, questioning wasn’t allowed. I lost a lot of friends that year. Some of you can relate. And that angered me.

The next five to ten years were pretty painful. How did something that was so beautiful in the beginning turn out to be so wrong? Was it me? After all, christianity wasn’t flawed, was it? It had to be me. So, of course I blamed myself, over and over again. The messages from the pulpit also confirmed that conviction. Weekly sermons were a constant reminder of how we were displeasing God that week. I later referred to sermons as the “sin of the week”. There was always something we were doing wrong and our guiltiness was inescapable.

Fortunately, I gradually began to question what was being taught from the pulpit. Maybe it wasn’t me. Maybe it was the message. I kept that idea to myself.

I was becoming disillusioned with the empty dogma of Christianity and attended church less and less. One Sunday, on a rare visit to church, the message from the pulpit was that “in our natural selves dwells no goodness at all, that apart from Christ, our best deeds are no more attractive than soiled, puss drenched rags. Before Christ, goodness is cosmetic, badness is defining.” The pastor went to great lengths to explain that the god of the bible hates mankind but since we joined the Jesus Club, he liked us now… but just barely.

This way of thinking (original sin) is the basis for all Christianity, and I rejected it. I simply no longer believed the lie that “in our natural selves dwells no goodness at all” or that it is “humanistic error” to believe that people are basically good. I wondered if I could still consider myself a Christian.

I went away that morning thinking, “haven’t these people ever had a cat?” (You’ll notice that I didn’t say OWN a cat. You can’t actually OWN a cat.) It reminded me a joke I once heard.

German Shepherd, Doberman and a cat have died. All three are faced with God who wants to know what they believe in. The German shepherd says: “I believe in discipline training and loyalty to my master.” “Good,” says God. “Then sit down on my right side. Doberman, what do you believe in?” The Doberman answers: “I believe in the love, care and protection of my master.” “Ah,” said God. “You may sit to my left.” Then he looks at the cat and asks, “And what do you believe in?”
The cat answers: “I believe you’re sitting in my seat.”

I love cats, so that joke made me chuckle and the god I wanted to believe in would chuckle too. Don’t get me wrong, I like dogs too. Unlike cats, they’re so obedient, so loyal and so adoring. Everything a good christian should be. Cats on the other hand, by their nature, aren’t any of those things. I just couldn’t imagine that the God of the whole universe would strike down that cat because His ego needed to be stroked by adoration. After all, my feelings don’t get hurt when my cat chooses to completely ignore me, (which is just about any time she’s not hungry). I don’t feel less about her (or myself) when she refuses to obey me. I actually love that about her.

Should I hate cats because they stubbornly refuse to acknowledge that I am the master? Was I supposed to only love my cat if she behaved like a dog? What if my personality is more cat-like than dog-like? If God likes cats, could God like me? How could I believe in and serve the god of Christianity? After all, He hates me simply because I am who I am, a human.

I never went back to that or any other church.

Besides, you never see a cat at a dog park.

The final straw for me was how christians justify their treatment of the LGBT community, and their use of Leviticus 18:22 and other verses to vilify what they simply cannot understand. So, one day I was thinking about it and wondering why an omniscient god would include such incendiary verses knowing the suffering it would cause people all throughout history. Then I had an ah-ha experience. He didn’t.

For the first time in my life, I came to understand that the bible was written by men. Despite what I had been indoctrinated to believe, it was suddenly clear that it is neither inspired nor inerrant. So, with that insight, the fog that had obscured the fallacies surrounding Christianity was finally lifted, and I was freed from its tyranny. This was a turning point in my life, almost as important as my original conversion.

I always thought that I would return to church someday, and that I would be able to reconcile my world view with what was being taught in churches. It took years, (decades really) but one day, not too long ago, I simply “let go” of Christianity. I finally understood why questioning wasn’t allowed. I find it ironic that a religion which claims exclusive ownership of “the truth”, employs deceptive means to maintain it. The Christian narrative must be protected at all cost. You can’t risk allowing people to see what’s really behind the curtain. It’s impossible to still believe in an all-powerful Wizard, when you’ve seen the truth.

Recently, several people have invited me to join them at their church. I always graciously and gently tell them that I am not interested in attending church. Without failure they have responded that there would be really good music at their church. Don’t get me wrong, I still really enjoy listening to good gospel music. However, the music would undoubtedly be followed by messages so full of fallacies and subterfuge, (which were so clear to me now), that I would have to get up and leave. The music wasn’t worth the message.

As the saying goes, “The truth will set you free”.  And for me, it did.

Coming up next:

So, now what? Letting go of religion left a gap in my life. I spent half of my life believing in something that turned out not to be true. How do I fill that gap? Fortunately, I had a dream about turtles that answered that question.

What did my turtle dream teach me about letting go of Christianity? It’s simpler than you might imagine.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

9 Feb, 2022

Blog

Desperately Seeking the True Meaning of Words

In this last part we’re still exploring Scott Allen’s desperate attempt to convince Evangelicals that a toxic new religion is out to redefine words. In this part we’ll look at the intrinsic problems with a dictionary that Allen says is “built from the Bible up for a nation of free people.


Built From the Bible Up

Allen:  America’s founders understood this. Noah Webster, “the father of American education,” compiled the “American Dictionary of the English Language” in 1828 because he recognized that a nation of free people required a dictionary built “from the Bible up.” His dictionary contained a greater number of biblical definitions than any other reference volume before or since.

Noah Webster’s dictionary online has a list of over 1,000 words that are in the King James bible but are not currently in common use. It’s an interesting read, if you’re up for it. Maybe If we bring back words like abhorred, haft, bewail, or concubine we’d be a better society.

Liberty and Justice For All?

Allen: In the old dictionary, “justice” was defined as equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion. In the new dictionary, justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior. 

For somebody who is promoting biblical truth, we certainly don’t see the same level of integrity from Allen himself. Does anyone else see the problem here with the idea that in an old dictionary “justice” would be defined “as equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion”?  

Allen called the 1828 Noah Webster Dictionary a dictionary built from the bible up for a nation of free people. Let’s put this quote in the context of the times in which this dictionary was written.

A Nation of Free People?

  • January 7, 1822 – The first group of freed American slaves settle a black colony known as the Republic of Liberia when they arrive on African soil at Providence Island. The capital, Monrovia, is named after President James Monroe. (In 1824, the city was renamed Monrovia after James Monroe, president of the United States at the time. Monroe was a prominent supporter of developing the city as a place to relocate formerly enslaved Black people from the United States of America and Caribbean islands, as an alternative to abolishing the institution of slavery in America.)
  • July 4, 1827 – In New York State, slavery is legally abolished.
  • April 14, 1828 – The copyright for The American Dictionary of the English Language is registered and the book published that year by Noah Webster.
  • April 6, 1830 – Joseph Smith organizes the Mormon Church, known as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, in Fayette, New York. He published the Book of Mormon on March 26, 1830.
  • May 26, 1930 – The United States Congress approved the Indian Removal Act which facilitated the relocation of Indian tribes from the east of the Mississippi River. Although this act did not order their removal it paved the way for increased pressure on Indian tribes to accept land-exchange treaties with the U.S. government and helped lead the way to the Trail of Tears.
The Trail of Tears as painted by Robert Lindneux in 1942. More than 60,000 Native Americans were forced to leave their ancestral lands and travel to reservations thousands of miles away.

The Trail of Tears as painted by Robert Lindneux in 1942. More than 60,000 Native Americans were forced to leave their ancestral lands and travel to reservations thousands of miles away.

  • October 8-10, 1832 – The six-year campaign known as the Trail of Tears begins when Washington Irving, Henry Leavitt Ellsworth, and Captain Jesse Bean, at the Arkansas River, begin one of the first steps in the U.S. campaign to remove Indians from their homes on the east coast.
  • December 29, 1935 – The Cherokee tribe is force to cede lands in Georgia and cross the Mississippi River after gold is found on their land in Georgia, which results in the Treaty of New Echota. (After gold is found on their land? Justice served? Ralph Waldo Emerson wrote a letter to then President Martin Van Buren saying that the removal of the Cherokee people from their land was… “Such a dereliction of all faith and virtue, such a denial of justice… such deafness to the screams for mercy were never heard of in times of peace… since the earth was made.”)
  • November 7, 1837 – Elijah Parish Lovejoy (1802-1837), a native of Albion, Maine was murdered in Alton, Illinois by a pro-slavery mob while defending his right to promote the abolition of slavery in the United States. (Wonder how many Christians were in the mob.)
  • September 3, 1838 – Frederick Douglass, the future abolitionist boards a train in Maryland to freedom from slavery, with borrowed identification and a sailor’s uniform from a free Black seaman.
  • October 27, 1838 – Missouri governor Lilburn Boggs issues an order for the expulsion of Mormons from the state of Missouri.
  • February 15, 1839 – In Jackson, Mississippi, the first state law allowing married women to own property in their own names is passed. (Women wouldn’t earn the right to vote for another 80 years.)

Justice for all… white men.

Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of “justice” only applied to men and specifically to white men.

“Commutative justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man… it is a duty to do justice to every man, whether friend or foe.”

But justice only applied if the foe was a man… a white man. In 1828 the expression “do justice to every man” did not apply to Blacks, Native Americans, Asians, anyone with brown skin and obviously not to women of any colored skin.

An Erosion of Power

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

There is possibly no better example of this than Allen himself. Being a white male from North Carolina, it’s not at all surprising that he, as a person of privilege, is completely insensitive to the 1828 phrase “a nation of free people”. And when the “so-called-victims” try to liberate themselves by unmasking these untrue socially constructed realities he says they are eroding the biblical meanings of words.

Is 1828 really the time for which Allen wants us to get the “true” meaning of our words? We’re starting to see just why he is opposed to language changing to be more inclusive. There can be serious consequences for actually allowing liberty and justice “for all”. Especially for those wishing to maintain their power and privilege. So, what is Allen really afraid of?

A New Sheriff on the Block

Allen: Over the years, as this toxic new religion has begun to displace Christianity at the center of the culture, biblical meanings have been eroded, and words have been redefined. A new foundation is being laid—word by word—a foundation for a culture that is already showing itself to be intolerant, uncivil, inhumane and tyrannical.  

One doesn’t have to dive too deep into YouTube to find a plethora of Christians spewing hate speech. From where I stand, these Evangelicals are the ones who are intolerant, uncivil, inhumane and tyrannical. Why doesn’t Allen address them? Instead, he’s decided to do battle with a toxic new religion (that doesn’t even really exist). While at the same time, he ignores an even more toxic old religion in his own back yard. It’s easier to vilify some fictitious enemy than to confront the toxicity amongst your own.

Let Language Grow

An article in QuirkyScience shines a different light on how language shapes culture and how culture shapes language.

“The transference of ideas or concepts is communicated through ever-growing, ever-changing language. Language is alive. New ideas should not be shackled by old terminology. Language should expand with expanding knowledge.

This obviously is not how Allen views language.

Allen: For too long, Christians have stood by and allowed this to happen with little resistance—often uncritically adopting (and thus reinforcing) the new meanings. It is high time this come to an end. If we as followers of Jesus fail to steward the true meaning of words and language, who will? If we do nothing to resist this toxic new religion, how can we say that we love our neighbors? As Kelly Monroe Kullberg says, “Biblical truth and wisdom are the highest love for human beings.”

Highest Form of Love

Allen is suddenly trying to make this whole argument appear to be an altruistic endeavor to show that he, as a good Christian, loves his neighbor; (something that has been noticeably lacking until now). Due to the level of deception Allen uses in this article, I’m not convinced that his evangelical version of “biblical truth’ is actually true. Nor do I believe that Allen’s Evangelical version of Biblical truth is the highest form of love for human beings.

In my first draft of this paragraph I wrote that it obviously must be a very scary time for Christians, but as I thought about it, I realized that it’s not quite true. It’s not a scary time for ALL Christians. It just seems to be a scary time for Evangelical Christians and more specifically White Evangelical Christians. They’re so threatened by anyone who doesn’t believe as they do. Why?

I have Christian friends who rather than being obsessed with defending their version of the truth, they’re obsessed with God’s Love. When I have visited their church they talk about it a lot. They don’t seem to be threatened by my confessions of non-belief. Why should they be? Their favorite verse and mantra comes from Micah 6:8 “He has told you, O man, what is good; and what the Lord requires of you. But to do justice, to love kindness, and to walk humbly with your God.” Which they do. How could my non-belief threaten that?

Unlike Allen, my non-evangelical Christian friends say that for them, God is the highest form of Love. Their church’s mission statement says, “God’s love is accessible and available to everyone, everywhere. The embrace of God is an inclusive, unstoppable love that calls us to believe and bear witness to the belovedness of every human being. God’s love is eternal, always welcoming, and does not require any transaction on our part.”

Imagine…

From where I stand, it’s possible to imagine a world that’s different from the paranoia filled world created by evangelicals. Let’s not fear teaching critical theory in our schools and universities. Imagine a society of thoughtful human beings who are gaining a full and true understanding of how the world works. Imagine a group of people who understand that language is ever growing and ever changing. Imagine a language that is alive and expands as we expand. Imagine a world where new ideas are not shackled by ancient terminology and mythology. Imagine a world where you can tell Christians by their love and not by how they define words.

It’s easy if you try!

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

2 Feb, 2022

Blog

The True, the Whole Truth, So Help Me God

In part one, we saw that it was actually Allen who inaccurately redefined freedom, love and justice. Dictionaries from three different eras were pretty consistent in their definitions of these words. However, it was Allen who put his own conservative spin on these words and changed their meanings to fit his purpose.

In part two, Allen created a fictitious melodrama with a five-headed villain who is redefining words and causing serious damage to our society.

In this part we’ll see why Allen believes it’s important to recover the biblical meaning of words and to live our lives according to the true meaning of words as found in the bible.

Allen: For Christians, it is vital that we be open-eyed and discerning about the destructive ways that language is being manipulated. To do this, we must recover a biblical lexicography. “We cannot be the Church if we lose our vocabulary and the conceptual framework that makes us Christian. Nothing is more needful today than the survival of Christian culture” Christian culture survives if we understand that words have objective meanings… that are given by God as revealed in Scripture.  God is not some impersonal cosmic force, but a person, and He speaks and reveals Himself to us.

“Objective meanings that are given by God”? Now there’s conflict of terms right out of the gate. What if I don’t believe that God is person? Am I rejecting an objective truth? But finally, we’ve come to the root of Allen’s proposed dilemma. We need to restore the true meanings of words that God originally assigned to them. Now, how does Allen propose we do that?

Another Christian writer named Elizabeth Youmans supports Allen’s premise that words are God-given. She writes, “Therefore, is it surprising that the enemy would target language to dumb it down and rob and pillage us of a biblical vocabulary? When words are defined biblically, they help us think and reason… and free us from secularism.”

There’s that fear of secularism again. I was curious about this so I emailed Dr. Youmans and asked three questions. Who is the enemy? What is a biblical vocabulary and how can it be robbed and pillaged? What does it mean to define words biblically? She responded by sending me the entire text of what transpired in the Garden of Eden as found in Genesis. But that’s a topic for another blog.

Words Are A Gift

Allen: The written Word of God has come to us through the Jewish nation. Most of our best words, in fact – new, adventure, surprise; unique, individual, person, vocation; time, history, future; freedom, progress, spirit; faith, hope, justice – are the gifts of the Jews.

Is anyone else’s crap detector going off right now? I’m not a linguistic historian, but I can say with confidence that the words he calls “gifts of the Jews” are not uniquely Jewish.

We have a vague dastardly new villain that is trying to destroy our language to control us, but on the other hand we have heroes to save us, and it starts with the Jews because they gave us our best words.

Anyone want to venture where this discussion is headed.

Allen: These (Jewish) words are gifts—priceless gifts to the whole world. Yes, they were given through the Jewish people, but their ultimate source is God,

What a Surprise!!!

Serious Consequence of Redefining Words

“The Word” who became flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). This is why we are not free to redefine words like freedom, love, justice, and many more without serious consequences.

The concept of “The Word” (Logos) becoming flesh and dwelling among us is a very Greek idea that goes back to the age of Plato. The fact that it made its way into the New Testament is a tribute to Greek philosophers and their influence on whoever wrote the book of John. But that’s a topic for better scholars than me.

So what are those serious consequences?

When the Judeo-Christian roots of Western civilization are rejected, the result will inevitably be a loss of human freedom, tyranny, and bloodshed. This is a lesson we urgently need to heed in our time.

There we have it. The serious consequences of rejecting the Biblical definition of words are “loss of human freedom, tyranny, and bloodshed.” Oh my! Looking at this historically is it really accurate for Allen to suggest that American history is void of slavery, tyranny and bloodshed? That just seems far fetched. Anyway, I’m sure if we keep reading, he will give us the solution to our pending doom.

The solution

Allen: Our task is to deeply understand the true meaning of words, and order our lives accordingly. Not only this, we need to speak the true meaning of words to the broader culture.

The true meaning of words? Excuse the pun, but what does he mean by that? Does anyone want to guess where Allen suggests we find the true meaning of words? Keep reading and it will become clear that for Allen, Christians hold the ultimate truth and that their truth must be shared with the broader culture so it can be accepted and obeyed by all.

In These Trying Times

Allen: In these trying times, this will lead to conflict. We must be gracious, kind, and compassionate, yet refuse to be silenced or pressured into going along with false definitions. There is probably no more powerful way of being salt and light at this moment in history.

What does he mean by “in these trying times” and “at this moment in history”? Once again Allen is being vague and for a reason. It’s a dog whistle for Evangelicals everywhere who would understand this reference to be from the book of Esther.

“If I continue to remain silent my family and I will be wiped out.  Perhaps I was put here for Such a Time as This!”  (Paraphrase of Esther 4:14)

This storyline has been used by believers since the time of Esther. Their lives and their families are in danger from some vague evil that is out to destroy them. Apparently, this new evil villain is out to spread false definitions. Oh dear!

Allen: Words are not empty vessels to be filled with whatever meaning we wish. They are not tools to be manipulated to acquire power. Words are precious conveyers of reality. They need to be treasured, conserved, embodied, and passed down to future generations. God’s Word is the North Star that guides us into all truth.

What is Truth, Dammit?

Jesus said “everyone on the side of truth listens to me (John 18:37).”

Allen, neglected to add the next verse, Pilate said to him, “what is truth?” There is no recorded answer from Jesus. Not to worry, Allen is about to answer that question for him.

So Allen, what is truth?

Allen: God’s Word is the only sure foundation for free, flourishing societies. The church is the repository and steward of the truth. We contribute to building flourishing communities as we understand, and order our lives according to, the true meaning of words. This should begin in our families and churches, but also in our interaction in the public square.

Onward Christian Soldiers

We have been blessed by God to be a blessing, and there is no more powerful way we do this than by how we use and embody language.

This conjures up a rather comical image in my mind of a Christian soldier but rather than carrying a shield and sword he’s carrying a dictionary, but not any dictionary, as we shall see it, it needs to be an 1828 Noah Webster dictionary. So as the song goes, Onward Christian Soldiers marching off to war… with an 828-page dictionary.

 

I can imagine a conversation like this in the “broader culture”.

Man: (Speaking to a woman) I really love you!

Woman: I really love you too!!

Christian Soldier: Hark, I couldn’t help but heareth thy professions of love one to another. It is important that both of ye are sure what thou really mean by “love”. (So, he begins to read Noah Webster’s definition of love… all 453 words.)

Man: Come on Babe, let’s go. This guy’s a twit.

Woman: Good idea. Let’s get away from this dweeb.

Christian Soldier: Verily, I say unto thee, those words are not found in my dictionary. I adjure you in the name of free men everywhere and to avoid tyranny and bloodshed you must refrain from using unauthorized non-biblical vocabulary.

Man and woman walk away muttering something under their breath.

Christian Soldier: Hark, I heareth that… and I’m not sure what thou hast suggested is even possible.

Salt of the Earth?

We must refuse to be silenced or pressured into going along with false definitions. There is probably no more powerful way of being salt and light at this moment in history.

Have to wonder how he supports this idea biblically. Whatever happened to “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples, if you love one another.” Can’t find anywhere in the bible where it says, “By this everyone will know that you are my disciples… how you use and embody language.”

The irony of Allen’s argument is that in an attempt to disseminate his understanding of the truth he is using deceptive means. It was he who changed the true meaning of love, freedom and justice to his fit his own purpose. Now he’s altering the spirit of scripture to make “false definitions” the most important issue for Christians. Not a surprise though as this kind of deception has been going on since the first century. New Testament scholar Bard Ehrman in his book Forged says “The use of deception to promote the truth may well be considered one of the most unsettling ironies of the early Christian tradition.” And so it continues 20 centuries later. At least it’s a longstanding tradition in Christianity.

If Allen wants to be taken seriously by anyone other than evangelicals, he needs to stop ranting about some fictitious melodrama that is not even mentioned once in the bible. Then he should roll up his sleeves and get to work solving some real-life problems like poverty and human suffering that are mentioned again and again in the bible. Nonbelievers don’t want to hear what he thinks is important for Christians. We want to see how his beliefs make a real difference in the world.

Consider these words of Edgar Guest

I soon can learn to do it if you’ll let me see it done;

I can watch your hands in action, but your tongue too fast may run.

And the lectures you deliver may be very wise and true,

But I’d rather get my lessons by observing what you do;

For I might misunderstand you and the high advice you give,

But there’s no misunderstanding how you act and how you live.

One good man teaches many, men believe what they behold;

One deed of kindness noticed is worth forty that are told.

Who stands with men of honor learns to hold his honor dear,

For right living speaks a language which to everyone is clear.

Though an able speaker charms me with his eloquence, I say,

I’d rather see a sermon than hear one, any day.

Coming next: Built From the Bible Up?

In the final part of this series we’ll take a closer look at Noah Webster’s 1828 dictionary. According to Allen, it is a dictionary build from the Bible up. But there are some serious issues with this dictionary that Allen considers essential for a nation of free people.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

26 Jan, 2022

Blog

The Five-Headed Beast

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

Allen’s words are in bold.

The new religion is a five-headed beast.

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

The Five Heads of the Beast

Secularism

So, what is Secularism?

Separation of religion from state

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

Religious Freedom

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

Secularism is about democracy and fairness

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

 

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

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

Atheism

Atheism is a lack of belief in gods.

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


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

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

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

Post Modernism

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

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

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

However, Allen does indeed believe in objective truths.

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

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

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

Marxist Social Analysis

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

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

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

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

Critical Theory

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

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

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

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

Nietzschean Will to Power

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

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

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

Important questions for Allen.

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

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

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

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

What a surprise!

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

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

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

Coming next:

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

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum

13 Jan, 2022

Blog

Redefining Words

Much is being written these days about the phrase Whoever Controls the Language Controls the Culture. There seems to be a lot of concern in Evangelical circles that Christianity is being pushed out of its place at the center of culture by some sinister new religion that is out to destroy our society by redefining words.

One such writer is Scott Allen who I discovered while doing research about the phrase “He who controls language controls the culture”. Other Christian writers have also written about this topic. I will address them in other blogs. But first, Let’s see what Allen has to say. Allen’s writings are in bold.

First, a short introduction to Scott Allen from Wikipedia

On November 4, 2014, Allen was elected to the Wisconsin State Assembly. He serves in Senate District 33, Assembly District 97. In 2015, Allen recorded a “Christmas message” for the Wisconsin Assembly Republicans’ YouTube channel. In that video, he proselytizes, “For those who may watch this who are not Christians, I invite you to consider the hope offered by the Prince of Peace,” and he quotes the Bible: “We are not of those who shrink back and are destroyed, but of those who believe and are saved”.

Satan is redefining words.

Allen: In part 1 I argued that a new religion has taken root in the West, and it advances by redefining words — vacating them of their true meaning and hijacking them to serve new purposes. This is a powerful tactic. We can already begin to see how the redefinition of a single word—marriage—is leading to massive social and cultural repercussions. But we are not talking about a single word. We are talking about an entirely new dictionary.

I guess we can see where this is going. Allen says that the true meaning of words has been hijacked and changed over time. I have serious doubts that this claim is true. To illustrate that he might be in error I have used three different dictionary sources from three different eras. By comparing the actual definitions from different eras we can see if words really have been stripped of their original meaning over time. Plus, I’m not sure what Allen is referring to when he says, “true meaning” of words.

Defining Marriage

Let’s look at the word “marriage”, since Allen brought it up first. Older dictionaries do say that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. However, online dictionaries simply say that “marriage is the relationship that exists between two people who are united as spouses”.

From where I stand, this might simply be a case where language is changing to be more inclusive. Not sure why being more inclusive is seen as controlling culture or why it’s so threatening. In addition, I’m wondering how it would “lead to massive social and cultural repercussions” as Allen claims. Also, who gets to say “what” the true meaning of a word is? Does Allen have the dictionary that has the “true” meaning of all words? He believes he does, as we shall see in part two.

Also, Allen doesn’t say what old dictionary he’s quoting, but later in his article he says that Noah Webster’s 1828 edition is a “dictionary built “from the Bible up”. So, I’ll reference that one first.

Defining Love

Allen: We could look, for example, at the word “love.” In the old dictionary, love meant to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings. In the new dictionary, love is nothing more than strong feelings or emotions.

Allen’s take on the meaning of love is humorous. In the old (Christian) dictionary love meant to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings. How virtuous! How Noble! One can almost hear the trumpets playing… DUM, DA, DA DAAAAA. But in the new (Humanistic) dictionary love is nothing more than strong feelings or emotions. How unprincipled. How ordinary. In contrast you can almost hear the last bit of air being squeezed out of bagpipe as those words are read. It seems that Allen might be taking some liberties of his own while summarizing how older and newer dictionaries define certain words. But back to the meaning of love.

Noah Webster’s definition of love is pretty wordy (453 words). If you feel the need, you can follow the link and read it for yourself, but I’ll just summarize it for you. It gives examples of things we could love. For example, I love my wife and I love my morning cup of coffee because they give me pleasure. It also says that Christians love their bible and that we should love God above all things. (Now would that be an objective or subjective definition of love?)

However, what you won’t see in Webster’s definition of love is what Allen says it contains, “to seek the greatest good of another person, even an enemy, and to take action accordingly, regardless of one’s feelings.” I’ll let you decide for yourself.

Dictionary Comparison of Love

  • (Noah Webster’s 1828) verb transitive luv. 1. In a general sense to be pleased with; to regard with affection, on account of some qualities which excite pleasing sensations or desire of gratification. We love a friend, on account of some qualities which give us pleasure in his society. We love a warm room in winter. The christian (sic) loves his Bible. In short, we love whatever gives us pleasure and delight, and if our hearts are right, we love God above all things. 1. noun An affection of the mind excited by beauty and worth of any kind, or by the qualities of an object which communicate pleasure, sensual or intellectual. It is opposed to hatred. We speak of the love of whatever contributes to our pleasure or supposed profit. The love of God is the first duty of man.
  • (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) profoundly tender, passionate affection for another person 2) a feeling of warm personal attachment or deep affection 3) sexual passion or desire 4) a person toward whom love is felt
  • Merriam-Webster Online:  1) strong affection for another arising out of kinship or personal ties 2) attraction based on sexual desire: affection and tenderness felt by lovers 3) affection based on admiration, benevolence, or common interests 4) warm attachment, enthusiasm, or devotion.

Defining Freedom

Allen: In the old dictionary, “freedom” was defined as the ability to choose the good, right and true.  In the new dictionary, freedom is defined as the ability to do anything I want, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone.

Hmmm, once again we’re seeing a bit of dishonesty from Allen as he takes more liberties with the language of definitions. Not even Noah Webster mentions “the good, the right and true”. I’ll let you read and decide for yourself.

But before we move on, we really must address Allen’s new age definition of freedom. In the new dictionary, freedom is defined as the ability to do anything I want, so long as it doesn’t harm anyone. Let’s see, what might he mean by that? Does a person have the freedom to love whomever they want, as long it doesn’t harm anyone else? I’m going to go out on a limb here and say that Allen would probably not approve of that kind of love.

Dictionary Comparison of Freedom

  • (Noah Webster’s 1828) 1. A state of exemption from the power or control of another; liberty; exemption from slavery, servitude or confinement. freedom is personal, civil, political, and religious. 2. Exemption from fate, necessity, or any constraint in consequence of predetermination or otherwise; as the freedom of the will. 3. Any exemption from constraint or control.
  • (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) the state of being free rather than in confinement or under physical restraint. 2) exemption from external control. 3) the power to determine action without restraint, 4) personal liberty as opposed to bondage or slavery.
  • Merriam-Webster Online:  1) the quality or state of being free: such as 1a) the power to do what you want to do: the ability to move or act freely, 1b) the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action 2) liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another, 3) the quality or state of being exempt or released usually from something unpleasant, painful, or unwanted

Defining Justice

Allen: In the old dictionary, “justice” was defined as equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion. In the new dictionary, justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior. 

Does anyone else see the problem here? Noah Webster’s 1828 definition of “justice” never mentions “equal treatment regardless of race, sex or religion”. Think about it. But we’ll come back to that in the next part.

Notice Allen’s new definition of justice. Justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior.  This is a below the belt shot at the less fortunate. The subtle implication is that the poor want to be given everything, and don’t want to work hard for it like he did. Expressing disapproval of those slackers is something that would resonate with his readers. But that’s not the point. The issue at hand is how dictionaries actually define justice. You will not see “justice is equal outcome, regardless of personal action or behavior” in any of the following definitions?

Dictionary Comparison of Justice

  • (Noah Webster 1828) 1. The virtue which consists in giving to every one (sic) what is his due; Distributive justice belongs to magistrates or rulers, and consists in distributing to every man that right or equity, deciding controversies according to the laws and to principles of equity. Commutative justice consists in fair dealing in trade and mutual intercourse between man and man. 2. Impartiality; equal distribution of right in expressing opinions; it is a duty to do justice to every man, whether friend or foe.
  • (Random House 1987 hard cover) 1) The quality of being just, righteousness, equitableness or moral righteousness. 2) rightfulness or lawfulness 3) the moral principle determining just conduct 4) the administering of deserved punishment or reward
  • (Merriam-Webster Online) 1) the maintenance or administration of what is just especially by the impartial adjustment of conflicting claims or the assignment of merited rewards or punishment 2) the quality of being just, impartial, or fair 3): conformity to truth, fact, or reason

Oh, we got trouble…

Just like Harold Hill in The Music Man, Allen is creating a trouble where none actually exists. It seems a bit silly to say that we are in grave danger not because of the hatred or the lies or the corruption that permeates our culture. We’re in grave danger because the “true” meaning of words are being changed. From where I stand it seems that Christians really love this kind of melodrama So much so, that it’s been around for centuries. An evil enemy is changing our language to destroy us? Really? It’s clearly not happening. But don’t take my word for it and don’t take Allen’s.

Pick up an old dictionary (if you can find one) and look for yourself.


At the 3:50 mark in the video you’ll see that even the citizens of River City were plagued with new vocabulary.

Music Man: “I need some ideas if I’m gonna get Christians out of the serious trouble they’re in.”

Man: “Christians ain’t in any trouble.”

Music Man: “We’re going to have to create some. We must create a desperate need in Christians…”

Oh, you got trouble… with a capital T that rhymes with V and stands for Vocabulary.

Coming next: A Five Headed Beast

In part two, we’ll see that the sinister villain that is out to destroy our society by changing the true meaning of words, is a five headed beast.

 

 

From Where I Stand

Dale Crum