News Intelligence Analysis
Is It “The End of Christian
America”
or the Beginning of The Pilgrim’s Progress?
By Katherine Yurica
April 20, 2009
[Editor's Note: On April 20, 2009, corrections were made to the original essay: a parenthetical phrase was added and footnotes 10 through 14 which were inadvertently omitted, were inserted. On April 21, 2009, additional revisions were made to the essay.]
“Evangelical Christians have…believed that the United States should be a nation whose political life is based upon and governed by their interpretation of biblical and theological principles. If the church believes drinking to be a sin, for instance, then the laws of the state should ban the consumption of alcohol. If the church believes the theory of evolution conflicts with a literal reading of the Book of Genesis, then public schools should tailor their lessons accordingly. If the church believes abortion should be outlawed, then the legislatures and courts of the land should follow suit…. The [religious] right longed to engineer a return to what it believed was a Christian America of yore. But that project has failed, at least for now.”
Jon Meacham, “The End of Christian America,” Newsweek
Powerful political movements usually fade away when riled up supporters tire and slowly return to their normal lives. That’s why savvy political theorists keep stirring the pot, mixing in new issues and variations, turning up the heat and causing the pot to boil over, not just once, but over and over again. That’s why Dominionism isn’t really dead—it’s just simmering down, readying itself for the next battle.[1] Even James Dobson, the founder and former head of Focus on the Family, which is perhaps the single most influential religious-right organization in America, anticipated the prospect of a long-term religious and cultural war while admitting temporary defeat:
“We tried to defend the unborn child, the dignity of the family, but it was a holding action. We are awash in evil and the battle is still to be waged. We are right now in the most discouraging period of that long conflict. Humanly speaking, we can say we have lost all those battles.”[2]
Nonetheless, Newsweek published a well written, brilliant, but flawed piece, in that it prematurely assumes the Christian religious-political movement has arrived at a “failed” crossroads when in fact, it is growing into a worldwide phenomenon. Titled “The End of Christian America” and dated April 13, 2009, Jon Meacham’s article makes it clear that “rumors of the death of Christianity are greatly exaggerated.” However, he apparently accepted the latest statistics that show fewer people think America is a “Christian nation” along with the fact that the percentage of Christians is shrinking from 86 percent in 1990 to 76 percent now, which is taken as the harbinger that predicts the end of the dream that would establish an American Christian state.
Aside from the question of whether Dominionism is now dead or not, there is something else buried in the title of Meacham’s article that reminds me of the personifications found in John Bunyan’s allegory, The Pilgrim’s Progress, especially in the struggles of the main character, “Christian” (who also represents all Christians). The book is regarded as one of the most significant works of English literature and has been translated into more than 200 languages, and has never been out of print![3] Bunyan’s allegory itself implies, if it does not specifically foretell, the disastrous result of our present day marriage of religion and politics: it reveals a natural divide between the two, and conclusively demonstrates that one of the earliest founders of the Baptist faith believed and taught the twain must never blend!
Bunyan succeeds in separating the church from the state in his book by cleverly identifying and separating the spiritual world, which Christian seeks, from the carnal or political one he is tempted to join. Bunyan separates the two worlds by using clever labels in the technique known as personification. But the reader should be aware of how words were used in the seventeenth century, and the best place to look is in the King James Version of the Bible published in 1611, which was as much as sixty-four years before John Bunyan published Pilgrim’s Progress.
In order to understand Bunyan’s allegorical meaning of the word “carnal,” for example, the reader should be aware of four statements made by St. Paul from the King James Version (KJV):
1) “To be carnally minded is death; but to be spiritually minded is life and peace.” (Romans 8:6).
2) “The carnal mind is enmity against God.” (Romans 8:7)
3) In First Corinthians 3: 1-4, Paul rails against Christians, accusing them of being carnal, for politicizing the church leadership by lining up behind one of two leaders.
4) “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war after the flesh (For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal…” 2 Corinthians 10:3-4.
In the Greek, carnal means “fleshly” or “flesh” as opposed to something “spiritual.” And in our modern Webster’s Third New International Dictionary, the word carnal still maintains its seventeenth century religious sense among the more modern definitions—it means: “unspiritual,” “temporal,” and “worldly.” The word “worldly” in turn also sheds further light on carnal: “interested in or concerned with the enjoyments of this present existence: devoted to the world and its pursuits: characterized by interest in and concentration on practical and immediate affairs and concerns…and indifference to matters spiritual.” With this in mind, we can look at Bunyan’s work.
Pilgrim’s Progress is about Christian’s arduous journey to the Celestial City, which is hindered by all kinds of obstacles, including advice from politically minded characters like Mr. Worldly Wiseman, a resident of a town called Carnal Policy, which Bunyan’s narrator described as “a very great Town.” In fact, Mr. Worldly Wiseman persuaded Christian to go out of his way to seek the help of Mr. Legality who lived in the City of Morality where Christian would meet “with much safety, friendship and content.” Mr. Worldly Wiseman also assured Christian, that Legality’s city had unoccupied houses, “one of which thou mayest have at reasonable rates” and Christian was assured, “thou shalt live by honest Neighbors, in credit and good fashion.” (Emphasis mine.)
What more could a good Christian desire? Here was a great town—even two great towns—ruled no doubt by upright and honest men, where moral issues were so important that one city was named for its excellent “morality” and the other for its far-reaching political policies.
Not surprisingly, the idea of living in a completely moral environment tempted Christian as it tempts Christians in today’s world who also dream of living in a city ruled by pure and honest men who are dedicated to establishing moral standards and imposing biblically “correct” legal standards of conduct. In fact, a number of religious right Dominionists, including Ken Blackwell, Sarah Palin, Bill Gothard, and Mike Huckabee have all been and or are presently working to build moral cities, towns and states in complete agreement with the founders of Bunyan’s City of Morality, only the label is different: instead of calling them “Cities of Morality” our present day transformed cities are called “Character Cities” and “Character States.” The parallel to Pilgrim's Progress is astonishing. [4]
However, John Bunyan clearly intended to show the true nature of political involvement: regardless of its lofty goals to enact only what is claimed to be “biblically correct” legislation, it was and still is a carnal activity that courts worldly and not spiritual power. Although Bunyan does not say so directly, his text assumes the existence of town authorities—appointed or elected—who necessarily created and administered Carnal Policy’s and the City of Morality’s budgets and laws—laws that necessarily encompassed the moral standards of their time and place, but which also represented nothing less than a clever act of legerdemain: the nimble switching of the carnal for the spiritual and selling the phony for the real goods.
Today’s world differs little from Bunyan’s. Consider this: authorized by the most popular and politically correct of churches, the following moral positions are either wished for, proposed or already enacted into legislation, accompanied by an outcry against them: fornication, blasphemy, cheating, same sex marriage, lying, the scientific theory of evolution, drinking, drugs, the scientific concern with global warming, abortions, the ordination of women, female vocalization in churches, homosexuality, masturbating, married women refusing to submit to the “headship” of their husbands, lewdness, failure to display the ten commandments in the public square, failure to prosecute any woman who aborts or miscarries a “snowflake baby,” (otherwise known as an impregnated fertilized egg cell, which is deemed a human being), failure to issue a death certificate for miscarried eggs, gambling, adultery, socialism, and pornography. This is of course, not an inclusive list of all the offensive acts and crimes regarded as “religiously correct.” But is it really heaven on earth?
There is one other thing. We ought to understand that Bunyan’s allegorical Morality City necessarily insured universal compliance to its moral laws and it necessarily enforced those laws! Confronted with this dynamic prospect, Christian couldn’t resist the invitation. To him, the existence of a moral city was a sign that holiness had come down to earth, and so off he went to find Mr. Legality in the City of Morality.
The effect of Christian’s experiences, his sufferings and fears and missteps are so pertinent, Pilgrim’s Progress emerges as a modern day warning to readers to be wary of disguised fakers who hide behind robes blazoned with the semblance of moral uprightness, crowned with the current ruling politico-religious-endorsement, while urging others to adopt the slippery ways of Carnal Policy and Legality, and live in a private homeowner’s association filled with only moral and decent people!
Keep in mind that Bunyan, a Baptist, knew all about the City of Morality. Indeed, he wrote Pilgrim’s Progress in one of two prison terms (either in 1660 or in 1675) when he was incarcerated for the criminal offense of “non-conformity” along with Quakers and all ministers of non-Anglican houses of worship. Non-Anglican ministers were forbidden to preach—indeed, everyone had to conform to the one true Church of England as a matter of law.[5] The Anglican Church said, “Everyone must come!” whereas Jesus said, “Whosoever will may come.” Yet the forcing of compliance with today’s religious political agenda is precisely the goal of operation of America’s religious right movement whether or not their religious positions are biblically justified or not. Christianity has nothing to do with their movement, but their movement has everything to do with raw political power.
Christian of course, finally acknowledged his folly in allowing Mr. Worldly Wiseman to lead him astray, “I am sorry I have hearkened to this man’s counsel,” he said in repentance. And indeed, the Evangelist warned Christian, “Mr. Worldly Wiseman is an alien, and Mr. Legality a cheat…” whose purpose was to turn Christian and others away from the true path of understanding—away from the narrow gate. As Bunyan said it:
Out of their way they go, and pay for ‘t dear;
For Master Worldy Wiseman can but shew
A Saint the way to Bondage and to Wo.”
Bunyan cleverly juxtaposes the true against the false—and poor Christian is torn between those who pretend and those who are sincere. He cannot spot the deceivers readily. Also Bunyan makes it clear that the path that leads to destruction is broad and heavily traveled, but the way to the Celestial City is narrow and few find it. As the Scripture points out:
“Enter in at the narrow gate; for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be who go in that way; Because narrow is the gate, and hard is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” Matthew 7:13-14. (KJV, Scofield edition)
The lesson for our broader society cannot be ignored: success in the religious world today, demands that a church must appear to be unpopular with the world—but at the same time it must also assert its authenticity. Thus in order to succeed, a politically active church will wrap itself in special garments. It will wind itself around and around in biblical authority and call attention constantly to its commitment to the Bible. However, it believes it need not be actually rooted in the Bible and that it can invent non-existent biblical positions—as long as it preserves the appearance of being biblical! It seeks to create the image of an embattled hero who is valiantly fighting for the right and moral positions of the church against overwhelming odds (which is highly questionable since 76 percent of the population is hardly a minority). Nevertheless, the religious right often claims that it is fighting for the very foundation of religious freedom and integrity! It seeks to appear to be a minority struggling for survival and battling bravely against the superior numbers of the “evil world” led by purveyors of a “false” or “liberal” or “decadent” church movement, which can be easily labeled—as a modern or postmodern or post-Christian worldview. In this way the lines are blurred and Christian soldiers rally to their stations to fight for the “true church” and believe they are the moral and chosen few! As the late Jerry Falwell put it, “To be successful as a pastor, you have to keep a good fight going all the time!”
Since nothing rallies the Christian troops so much as a prediction of the imminent death of the great and glorious American Christian nation, Newsweek’s article feeds a propagandistic goal. In that regard it is a masterpiece!
My quarrel with Newsweek is mainly with its title rather than most of the substance of the article plus this salient fact: Jon Meacham didn’t interview anyone from the religious left to balance or counter the view of the religious right. Meacham could have interviewed the Rev. Barry W. Lynn, the Executive Director of Americans United who, for example, made the following observation following the presidential election in November 2008:
“Religious Right forces did everything in their power to demonize Barack Obama, but it didn’t work. James Dobson, Tony Perkins, Richard Land and Company did everything but declare Obama the Antichrist…The majority of white evangelicals voted predictably Republican. The Religious Right is not dead. Those of us who value church-state separation must remain on the alert to counter the Religious Right’s next gambit.”
But Meacham’s article, which makes the assumption that we are looking at the end of “Christian America,” rises solely from the fear and misapprehensions and or the possible propagandistic tendencies of the only man he interviewed on the topic—the president of the Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Indeed, R. Albert Mohler, Jr., a rising luminary in the world of the religious right (or the dominionist political movement), who spends his time sitting in the lofty back rows of power, where from his advantaged seat, he participates in modern-day religious political machinations, and secretly and quietly wields his wand of power. No humble monk was speaking here.
Newsweek, apparently taking their lead from Mohler, based the article’s title on a 2009 American Religious Identification Survey, which according to Meacham, depressed Mohler as it revealed that the number of Americans who claim no religious affiliation has risen from eight to fifteen percent since 1990 or a rise of seven percentage points that came close to doubling the numbers of the uncommitted. Notwithstanding Dr. Mohler’s reaction and Meacham’s reporting, considering the militant way the religious right has conducted itself over the last twenty years, one is surprised that the number of defectors isn’t higher!
But Albert Mohler may have sunk to even lower levels of despondency, or in allegorical terms, floundered in the “Slough of Despond,” the miry swamp in Bunyan’s allegory, because the survey also showed that the Northeast emerged as the new “stronghold of the religiously unidentified.” This honor had previously been bestowed upon the Pacific Northwest! However, Albert Mohler saw this revelation as something cataclysmic: It was nothing short of the “cracking” of “the historic foundation of America’s religious culture.”
Mohler went on to further describe the breaking down of civilization, “A remarkable culture-shift has taken place around us…. The most basic contours of American culture have been radically altered. The so-called Judeo-Christian consensus of the last millennium has given way to a post-modern, post-Christian, post-Western cultural crisis which threatens the very heart of our culture.” Mohler wants his readers to believe that since 1945 “it does look like a whole civilization has passed.” But in another quote, he mixes the church’s teachings inside its sanctuary with the church’s desire to impose its views upon the entire nation. He wrote:
“The Church which proclaims that adultery, premarital sex, and homosexuality are inherently and unquestionably sinful will quickly discover what it means to be cut off from the cultural mainstream. The preacher who takes on the divorce culture and takes his stand for the enduring covenant of marriage will run into direct confrontation with society’s attraction to ‘open marriage’ and what some now describe as ‘serial monogamy.’”[6] (Emphasis added.)
How can a church that proclaims that adultery is sinful in its sermon on Sunday morning be cut off from the cultural mainstream when the cultural mainstream doesn’t even know what the pastor preaches in his church? This suggests that Dr. Mohler’s target is not to warn the churches of an impending cold shoulder from the press if they preach against adultery, premarital sex and homosexuality, but rather to create the appearance of consistent media rejection or a cultural cut off, and thus plant a new kind of persecution seed that will help create opportunities for further media attention, which of course is the ultimate goal. For no one can change public opinion without media access and no one can hope to change the laws of the United States to coincide with the churches’ litany of sins without access to public airwaves.
Contradictorily, notice that Mohler’s positions on these “sin” issues did not deter the Newsweek editors from giving him a front and center place in their article. Nor did it stop the mainstream press from quoting him frequently. Mohler admits that he is “widely sought as a columnist and commentator and that he has been quoted in the nation’s leading newspapers, including The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, The Washington Post, The Atlanta Journal/Constitution and The Dallas Morning News and that he has appeared on CNN’s “Larry King Live,” NBC’s “Today Show,” and “Dateline NBC,” ABC’s “Good Morning America,” “The News Hour with Jim Lehrer” on PBS, MSNBC’s “Scarborough Country” and Fox’s “The O’Reilly Factor.” [7]
I can hear Alice in Wonderland saying, “I wish I could be so cut off from the cultural mainstream, and at this distance too!”
I was not surprised as I began to read through Mohler’s various commentaries published on the web, when I found opinions that distinctly echo the ideas of R. J. Rushdoony, the founder of Christian Reconstructionism, (and the modern day personification of Mr. Legality.) For example, Rushdoony wrote: “The women who gain by equal rights are those clearly who are hostile to Christian law.”[8]
Like Rushdoony, Mohler does not believe in egalitarianism, particularly for women and sees it as a threat to the churches, and “a new path into theological liberalism.”[9] Naturally, with this exegesis, he is against the ordination of women (though the Southern Baptist Convention ordained women prior to the religious right takeover of the denomination.)
Mohler is also dismayed at “liberals” who “reject male headship in marriage.” He cites 1 Corinthians 14:34-35 as authority that women must keep silent in the churches, while ignoring that St. Paul authorized “all” congregants to prophesy, which means, for better or worse, speaking in the churches, which in turn strongly suggests that St. Paul may have had something else in mind in the 1 Corinthians passage.
For example, in 1 Corinthians 14:31, St. Paul asserts, “For ye may all prophesy one by one…” (Emphasis added.) But in verse 34 he appears to make a contradictory statement: “Let your women keep silence in the churches, for it is not permitted unto them to speak, but they are commanded to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn anything, let them ask their husbands at home; for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”
Is it possible that St. Paul is telling women that they must not ask questions of their husbands during a church service and must wait until they get home? After all, only men were literate during St. Paul’s time. Women’s universal illiteracy also explains 1 Timothy 2:11-12, where Paul states, “Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” (Emphasis added.)
Obviously, if women could not read and write during Paul’s era, they were not qualified to teach literate men. However, in 1 Corinthians 11:5, Paul wrote: “But every woman that prayeth or prophesieth with her head uncovered dishonoreth her head...” This verse again clearly asserts that women prayed and prophesied.
However, the issue is deepened when St. Paul wrote to the Corinthian church (1 Cor. 12: 27): “Now ye are the body of Christ, and members in particular. (v. 28) And God hath set some in the church: first apostles, second prophets, third teachers; after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues. (v.29) Are all apostles? Are all prophets? … (v. 31) But covet earnestly the best gifts…” (Quotations are from the KJV, Scofield edition.)
The issue is—did God exclude women from the body of Christ or are they also baptized into one body? If women are not in the body of Christ then they are necessarily excluded from church membership, leadership and all church participation. Under the exclusionary interpretation, the present day Southern Baptist Convention and R. J. Rushdoony are correct—women must be excluded; they are not saved by grace, they are not new creatures in Christ Jesus, and they should therefore never attend a church again. This means the Gospel is either universal or it is exclusive—it cannot be both. There can be no justification to forbid educated women from not only teaching the unlearned, (including unlearned men) but also leading as ordained pastors—unless of course, the SBC also insists that the Bible really should be interpreted to mean that ignorance must trump knowledge for the sake of something so fragile as male ego.
Nevertheless, Mohler asserted that women could not hold positions over men, either in the home or in the church. And he dramatically cries ‘wolf’ again by repeating his fearmongering, “Nothing less than the future of the Christian church in North America is at stake in this controversy.” [10] He then summarized a series of steps that follow “theological liberalism.” (Emphasis mine.)
“First, biblical inerrancy is abandoned. Then, in turn, the denomination endorses the ordination of women, rejects biblical teaching on male leadership in marriage, sidelines pastors who are opposed to the ordination of women, approves homosexual conduct as morally valid in at least some cases, ordains homosexuals, and elects homosexuals to ‘high leadership positions in the denomination.’”[11]
Thus unless women are subordinate to men—homosexuals will take over every church in America! Poor Dr. Mohler, his logic winds up endorsing a logical fallacy, which certainly is no testimony for his “authenticity,” but makes Mr. Worldly Wiseman and Mr. Legality seem reasonable.
Mohler not only is against “abortions” or elective terminations in pregnancies, but he actively supported a 2007 California Senate Bill 850 that was facing strong opposition. It originally required birth and death certificates for stillborn babies, which in turn, raised the question of how “stillbirth” is defined. The bill, according to the Vice President of Planned Parenthood, Yali Bair, could have had unintended effects. For example, unless the wording was clear, the bill could include all miscarriages and all elective terminations as “births and deaths” of humans, which Mohler argued was appropriate, and for which he demanded funerals, burials and cremations. [12] (The bill, however, was amended to alleviate Planned Parenthood’s concerns and was passed.)
Mohler also seems bent on denigrating other Christians who disagree with him. He harshly criticized Bob Edgar, [13] who was then serving as the General Secretary of the National Council of Churches, for pointing out “The Bible mentions abortion not once, homosexuality only twice, and poverty or peace more than two thousand times.” While admitting the Bible is silent on “surgical abortion,” Mohler falsely asserted the Bible “speaks clearly…to the priority of protecting unborn life.” (Of course he asserts this without citing verses because there are none.) He also asserted that “the Bible addresses” homosexuality “in numerous passages.” Again, without citing those passages, and here he is correct—there are more than two—maybe as many as three!
Next, Mohler took up his cudgel against Edgar on global warming, writing: “Edgar is quite certain that the Bible does not reveal an explicit command by God against homosexuality, but he is confident that God has a position on global warming.”
Then Mohler wrote, “Edgar dismisses the theory of Intelligent Design and the claim by ‘biblical literalists’ that the earth is less than six thousand years old.” Quoting Edgar:
“Let me just say here that I believe God is an ‘intelligent designer,’ and that’s why God ‘intelligently designed’ the theory of evolution.”
Mohler responded, “That statement is cute, but it cannot be taken seriously.”
In an astonishingly revealing article Albert Mohler exposed “the irreducible obstacle of biblical authority.” He asserts, “At the foundational level, the Bible makes a ‘totalizing’ claim to truth,” explaining “this means that the Bible claims to present absolute and non-negotiable truth that effectively trumps all other authorities.” He wrote, “From beginning to end, the Bible undermines the modern secular worldview at its very foundation.” In fact, Mohler cites the definition of “theological liberalism” as “a system of thinking that denies the complete truthfulness of the Bible as the Word of God and denies the unique and absolute authority of the Bible in our lives.”[14]
Mohler makes something very clear—something he doesn’t want Christians, Americans and the nations of the world to know: He who controls the Bible, controls the world!
Endnotes:
[1] See my article on the Definition of Dominionism.
[2] Alex Spillius, “U.S. Religious Right Concedes Defeat,” Telegraph, April 10, 2009 at: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/5136050/US-religious-Right-concedes-defeat.html
[3] John Bunyan, The Pilgrim’s Progress, W. R. Owens, ed., Oxford World’s Classics, Oxford University Press, 2003, xiii.
[4] See the following article by Katherine Yurica:
"Blackwell’s Un-American Scheme: Under the Guise of “Character and Civic Renewal” Ohio State Foists a Religious Moral Code upon Its Citizens at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/BlackwellsUnAmericanScheme.html
And see also “Cult of Character: How the 'secular' Character Training Institute is working to build evangelist Bill Gothard's vision of a First-Century Kingdom of God--one city, one state, one school board, one police force and one mind at a time, By Silja J.A. Talvi January 9, 2006 at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/CultOfCharacter.html
Also along the same lines, instead of creating cities and states into political units of morality, see Katherine Yurica’s article that reveals the conversion of the U.S. Military into a “morally correct” unit in “How Dominionists are “Infiltrating the U.S. Military” at: https://www.yuricareport.com/Dominionism/InfiltratingTheUSMilitaryGenBoykinsWarriors.html
[5] Will and Ariel Durant, The Age of Louis XIV, (New York, Simon and Schuster), 1963, at pages 207-212.
[6] Albert Mohler’s Commentary, “Transforming Culture: Christian Truth Confronts Post-Christian America,” R. Albert Mohler, Jr. Articles at: http://www.albertmohler.com/article_print.php?cid=1
[7] From Albert Mohler’s Bio at: http://www.albertmohler.com/bio.php
[8] Rousas John Rushdoony, The Institutes of Biblical Law, The Presbyterian and Reformed Publishing Company, Craig Press, 1973 at page: 208 and see p. 100.
[9] See Albert Mohler’s Commentary, “A New Path to Theological Liberalism?” October 23, 2006, at http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_print.php?cdate=2006-10-23
This article is a review of Evangelical Feminism: A New Path to Liberalism? By Wayne A. Grudem, which Mohler heartily recommends, “Get this book quickly—and read it with care.”
[10] Ibid.
[11] Ibid.
[12] Albert Mohler, "Wrenching Politics" Concerning Stillborn Babies? A Sad, Sad, Commentary on Our Times," at: http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_print.php?id=918
[13] Albert Mohler, "The Road to Nowhere-Middle Church," October 3, 2006 at: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-10-03
[14] Commentary by R. Albert Mohler, Jr. “A New Path to Theological Liberalism? Wayne Grudem on Evangelical Feminism at: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_print.php?cdate=2006-10-23
See also Dr. Mohler's radio show at: http://www.albertmohler.com/radio_show.php?cdate=2007-10-22
And see Dr. Mohler's commentary archive at: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_archive.php
See Dr. Mohler on the SBC Takeover Account at: http://www.albertmohler.com/commentary_read.php?cdate=2006-06-14
http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=1
http://www.albertmohler.com/article_read.php?cid=2
Send a letter
to the editor
about
this article
On Defining “Dominionism”
and “The Cultural Mandate”:
Is it A New Anti-Christian Religion?
By Katherine Yurica
May 1, 2009
Some years ago I felt the term
“religious right” was
accurate enough for describing a large segment of
the church world’s involvement in American “conservative”
politics, but it seemed inadequate as a term when one
struggled to understand the theological underpinnings
that were driving the movement. In fact, it became obvious
that a new religious doctrine was being taught that
urged Christians “To take back America!” not just as
a political objective but also as a theological and
religious necessity.
NEW: Forward to the Past—
An Explanation of How We
Became What We Are
(Which includes, ‘The Arrest
of Professor Christian Mostly’)
By Katherine Yurica
June 5, 2009
The name of the game was “Bible
Roulette,”
and it was the greatest religious political
gamble of all time. A Swiftian political satire
that takes the reader to the future to look
back on the past.
See Ken Blackwell on Hardball
Christopher Hitchens was a guest
on Hardball along
with Kenneth Blackwell, from the Family Research
Council, to discuss Newsweek's recent cover story
titled "The End of Christian America." The story highlighted
a poll showing that while 62 percent of Americans considered
the U.S. a Christian nation, a staggering 68 percent say
religion is losing its influence on American life.
Dominionism Directory, Religious Right
Articles
by Katherine Yurica
See Damon Linker's Excellent Article:
All
Good Things
Blackwell’s Un-American
Scheme:
Under the Guise of “Character
and Civic
Renewal” Ohio State Foists a Religious
Moral Code upon Its Citizens
by Katherine Yurica
J. Kenneth Blackwell has stepped
to the
forefront of the American culture wars. He has
posted his official endorsement of a 20-point
religious moral code claimed to be “a shared
vocabulary of character-building ethics” on Ohio’s
official Secretary of State web site. Blackwell
wrote, “Character is the cornerstone of American
citizenship. And good citizenship is the foundation
of community. But to a lot of people, civic renewal
means the opportunity to not only religionize our
government, but, as we shall see, to create a new
religion that is decidedly not Christianity. Instead,
it is an opportunity to convert our citizens into docile
followers of
a new authoritarian rule.
(Includes a linked glossary of
definitions of terms
plus parallel columns
that compare the text.)
Blackwell's Scheme:
Ohio State's Religious-Moral
Code Deciphered
In Parallel Columns
Annotations
by Katherine Yurica
Blackwell's Scheme:
Glossary of Terms
From Ohio State's
Religious-Moral
Code
See also "Cult of Character" by Silja J. A. Talvi
Faith Under
Fire, Part 1
Gothard Juvenile Center Investigated
By Karen Hensel
The News 8 I-Team first broke
the news that
a faith-based juvenile center in Indianapolis has
changed its policy on spanking. The policy
changed to "no spanking" after the mother of a
10-year-old girl who spent the last 10 months
in the center
complained.
Faith Under
Fire: Juvenile Center
Investigated
Station WISH-TV Indianapolis
Indiana Directory of Investigative
Articles
From the outside, the
Indianapolis Training
Center has all the appearances of an upscale
hotel. But insiders say what drives the center
is a combination of faith and fear. Follow this
continuing News 8 I-Team investigation.
Scroll down to
read the latest stories.
Back
to The Yurica Report Home Page
Copyright © 2009 Yurica Report. All rights
reserved.