Very few politicians are morally pure.

OK. None of them are.

And, while we’re at it, neither are any of us.

Every single one of us is described by the following verse:

“For there is not a just man upon the earth, that doeth good, and sinneth not.” (Ecclesiastes 7:20)

A sobering thought.

So, what’s the point?

That it is very hypocritical for the cultural, political, and religious Left to claim to have some special corner on morality.

Or that the politicians they support have greater moral character than anyone on the Right – that they hate. And whom they reject on supposedly “moral” grounds. 

That is simply laughable. And even tragically naive on their part.  

But the Left does this consistently. As it runs headlong into increasingly immoral positions in virtually every cultural and political area. 

Unless . . .UNLESS . . .  they have decided to redefine what “morality” actually is.

In other words, they use the same words that the vast majority of people use. But their own definitions of those words are entirely different. 

Conclusion: It’s not your dad’s dictionary anymore. 

Welcome to the Age of Uncertainty

A blatant example of this “Re-Definition” comes to mind. 

Humorously, yet sadly, President Clinton, long ago, in his hearing on his alleged sexual encounter with one of his interns, made a reply that stunned a lot of us. His defense was based on the language that was used in the questions posed to him. He said that his alleged “encounter” depended upon what the meaning of “is” is.  

Wow. 

I mean, Wow! 

And I’m not here to discuss former President Clinton and what he did or did not do. Just his method of defense. 

My point is not about whether he did or didn’t do a thing. It is based on his view of the nature of reality. 

I think he really started something there. In fact, I think he started a lot of “somethings” there. 

It was like questioning whether we are alive or whether we are all simply living in a dream. As in “Row, row, row your boat …”

But the really amazing thing about all this is that he dared to put his Postmodern philosophy right out there where everyone could see it.

While not saying it in so many words, he was boldly lifting up the idea that your truth is your truth and my truth is my truth. And that no one can really know for sure what is real or what is true

… and on and on and on that goes. 

In other words, welcome to the Age of Total Uncertainty.

So, a vacuum was created. A vacuum of truth. 

And something had to rush in to fill that void. 

Enter stage left: a new definition of morality. 

Re-Defining Morality from a Humanist Perspective

This new morality is based upon a Humanistic, religious belief system. 

Which is based on a very loose view of truth, morality, and love.  

Now, the reason this is on my mind is due to an online article I responded to recently. Which is very rare for me. I’ve probably done that 4 or 5 times in my whole life. 

Generally, I don’t care about the endless streams of opinions that are out there. Some are good. But most are bad. And every last one of us has an opinion. 

There is no end to opinions. 

And I’m not going to tell you where I read this article or the magazine or the website. It doesn’t matter. 

The gist of all this is that I got a lot of blow-back from other readers who exploded because I used the terms “Christian” and “Conservative” in my comment. And I didn’t use those terms in any kind of mean or nasty or in-your-face way. I was just identifying my general position for clarification. 

I do that because I think it is more honest that way. So that people know my general position going in. 

But that was all it took. Those words, by themselves, must have been some kind of a trigger that I was not really thinking about when writing my short response. 

Then I got a hateful lecture from many people about how immoral I am. 

Which leads me to a point worth considering. 

That something has changed, not only in the culture but also in the church.

A New Humanist Gospel 

What I’m talking about is the Bible church as a whole. It seems that there is a new idea about what morality is. And those things which now have more weight than others in what we call the “Christian life”.

In other words, the priority that the modern Bible churches place on various aspects of the “gospel”. 

Today, it’s not about the plain, simple morality of the past.

No. Now it has to do with how well a Christian fulfills the popular Humanist principles. Or how well a Christian fulfills the popular Evangelical interpretation of the Sermon on the Mount. 

The Old Mainline Gospel 

Growing up in mainline United Methodism, I heard the Sermon on the Mount preached about a thousand times. Along with many of the parables that were likewise used to browbeat the congregations into “loving” each other. You know what I mean. To love mankind. And to love all people, the Brotherhood of Man, etc. 

Which, on the surface, that is not wrong. It’s just dishonest.

Because my UMC church, along with the vast majority of other churches, believed in a gospel that was not biblical. They believed that how we love one another is what gets a person into heaven. Though they didn’t generally come right out and put it that way. 

The crux of the matter was a de-emphasis on what a person believed.

A de-emphasizing of one’s personal experience of salvation, being born-gain, and of repentance from sin. Instead, churches emphasized that how a person fulfilled the Golden Rule defined what a person is before God. As in how loving he is.

And not really on what he believes. 

And not on his morality so much. At least not in relation to Traditional morality. 

Most of my denomination, at that time, had started out as culturally Conservative. But, over time, it moved to the Left. Which is where most all the seminaries certainly were even at that time. And toward which the local bodies increasingly moved over the years. 

Essentially, all of the mainline denominations were re-defining morality way back in the 60s. Which was a symptom of their movement away from biblical truth toward a “Social Gospel”. Or, to say it another way, their leaven of compromise corrupted more than just their own denominations. 

Instead, their biblical unbelief spread to the mainstream Evangelical denominations as ecumenical associations, para-church ministries, cooperative evangelistic crusades, and many other types of “fellowships” emerged. As Evangelicals wanted to appear more tolerant of the differing Traditions and doctrines of their “brothers in Christ” who also claimed to love Jesus and follow the Bible. 

So, let’s jump forward in time . . . 

Biblical Morality and Belief has been Replaced with Humanist “Love”

The Evangelical church has shifted its emphasis to fit in with the culture as a whole. And, consequently, has chosen to focus more on loving acts of service, fellowship, and tolerance toward the culture. As opposed to faithfulness in biblical truth and doctrine. 

That tolerance may not always be seen as an overt acceptance of immoral behavior – such as abortion, homosexuality, trans-sexuality, sexual intercourse outside of marriage, etc. But more in how it has chosen not to really preach against such things anymore.

To set those things on the back burner. To focus less on biblical doctrine and more on social involvement or social engagement. 

As in meeting the needs of the culture. Which includes poverty, hunger, homelessness, immigration issues, war, economic issues, racial issues, and an assortment of “rights” that the culture focuses on. 

These things have shifted the priorities of the Bible churches. 

The result is that the church is no longer emphasizing, above all else, the lost condition of men.

That terrifying condition has become secondary. Instead, they have chosen to “win the culture” by a kind of “bribery”. 

The church has chosen to meet the needs of the culture “where they are”. And, in return, the church has gambled that the people in the culture will then come to church and hear the gospel message of salvation by faith in Christ. 

It’s all a newfangled version of the old “soup-kitchen” method of evangelism. Meet a need – preach a sermon. 

The world has been watching as the church has done this, by the way. They have seen the church’s weakening position in so many areas. With its increasing abandonment of biblical inerrancy and a literal interpretation of biblical historical accounts. 

In other words, a weakening of its position on biblical authority and accuracy. 

The world has likewise observed the church’s “buy-in” of their Progressive religious methods in “doing church”.  

And as a result, the Left now presumes to preach its false gospel to the church! 

The lost, telling the church how to be right with God. 

Telling us what morality now is. And how we do not, supposedly, meet the “moral” standards that Jesus taught in the Sermon on the Mount. 

And how “love” and Humanistic acts are what really define what a Christian is, and not one’s biblical faith and repentance from sin to Christ. 

Image by ReligionsInTheRaw from Pixabay