Past the Tipping Point

Every four years here in the United States, we hold a national election that is billed by many as "the most important election in the history of this country." It is often framed in black-and-white terms: good versus evil, the end of our Republic, a vote for individual freedom, a titanic battle of worldviews, a triumphant return to Constitutional America, the death or salvation of "the land of the free," and so forth. In most cases, such descriptions are so much hyperbole, red-meat marketing phrases guaranteed to rev up each party's base of supporters. Usually, however, the election is not truly quite so epochal. The electorate's choice is typically between two fairly similar candidates, one politically slightly right of center and the other slightly left of center.

When previous campaign seasons have not gone their way, those who believe that America is special among the world's nations—the common usage speaks of "American exceptionalism"—have always consoled themselves with the belief that the country is still basically Christian and conservative. The pundits describe the country as still having a "silent majority" of God-fearing, fiscally cautious citizens who comprise the backbone of the nation. When the more conservative candidate stumbled, supporters could be heard to say, "He may not have won, but we are still a right-of-center country."

Not anymore.

On Wednesday morning, after surveying President Obama's electoral victory over challenger Mitt Romney, conservative author and political commentator Jedediah Bila tweeted to her followers: "I always hear ‘We are a center-right country.' No. A center-right country does not elect Barack Obama twice. Time to re-evaluate." On her blog, she expanded the thought:

Would a center-right country re-elect the man who ushered in massive government overreach into the health care system? Would a center-right country welcome an Obama Doctrine that reeks of weakness on the international stage? Would a center-right country embrace class warfare rhetoric and redistribution of wealth? Not in my book.

We can look at the famous Red-Blue County Map of the nation's voting preferences and see that, except for a seeming handful of blue (Democrat-majority) counties, the country appears mostly Republican red. This seems convincing and reassuring until the map is overlaid with population density statistics, and then the truth becomes clear: Many of the blue areas are urban centers, and others are concentrations of minorities that traditionally vote Democrat. As one blogger put it, the Red-Blue Map "fails to allow for the fact that the population of the red states is on average significantly lower than that of the blue ones. The blue may be small in area, but they represent a large number of voters, which is what matters in an election." (The Electoral Vote Cartogram also shows this.) When looked at this way, America appears to be a majority left-of-center country.

What does "left-of-center" mean? The simple Left-Right political spectrum is a gauge of several attitudes toward government. Historically, Rightists have supported traditional governmental structures (thus the conservative moniker), while Leftists have felt free to try new ways of governing (thus, the progressive label). The most common American view is that those on the Left—liberals—favor big government and more governmental control and largess, while those on the Right—conservatives—prefer smaller government in all areas of life. More important to Christians is the fact that most traditional Christians and their denominations have aligned themselves with conservative principles, whereas secularists, evolutionists, and atheists mostly support liberal views.

Since true Christians do not involve themselves in the politics of this world, one might think that the ascendance of American liberalism should matter little to us, that we can continue to practice our beliefs just as well in a left-of-center nation as in a right-of-center one. But that would be naïve. Such a view ignores the lessons of history—both recent and biblical. When a nation goes past the tipping point of morality and upholding Christian principles, the angle of decent quickly steepens and recovery becomes nearly impossible.

Why? The answer appears in the selfish disposition of base human nature combined with the law of inertia, which simply put is that "an object in motion will remain in motion unless acted upon by an unbalanced force." Human nature, desirous of self-satisfaction, will do everything it can to keep the "unbalanced force" from correcting its course. People who reject God and His Word consider themselves to have thrown off the chains of His demanding way of life and think of themselves as "free" (see Romans 8:7). God observes in Jeremiah 5:31 that people do not want to be corrected but love deceit so they can continue in their sins, and Jesus agrees, saying in John 3:19 that "men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."

In other words, human nature, influenced by Satan the Devil and his hatred of God and of good, has an inbuilt resistance to repentance. People tend not to like to reform. The repentance of Nineveh was a rare and marvelous exception, as Jonah's astonished reaction attests. God speaks of this reluctance to return to righteousness in Jeremiah 8:4-6:

Thus says the LORD: "Will they fall and not rise? Will one turn away and not return? Why has this people slidden back, Jerusalem, in a perpetual backsliding? They hold fast to deceit, they refuse to return. I listened and heard, but they do not speak aright. No man repented of his wickedness, saying, ‘What have I done?' Everyone turned to his own course, as the horse rushes into the battle."

Thus, America's lurch to the political Left is tangible evidence of her moral and religious decline. She no longer teeters on the fulcrum, indecisive, faltering between two opinions (I Kings 18:21), but she has chosen to follow her own counsel and continue to ease God and traditional morality from the culture. In the coming years, Christians can expect to find themselves increasingly marginalized and ridiculed for holding "antiquated beliefs." Religious exemptions may well begin to disappear. If the United States follows Europe's lead, among other consequences, churches will empty, religious voices will be ignored, fewer will marry, abortions will rise and even wanted children will be scarce, euthanasia will be seen as a practical option, and ultimately, life will cheapen. The decline of Western civilization, built on the foundation of Christian values, will have successfully leaped the Atlantic.

To those who have been watching it closely, the nation's trend toward liberalism has been evident for many years, but the recent election may have confirmed it as permanent and irreversible. If that is the case, the promised curses will not be long in coming (see Leviticus 26; Deuteronomy 28). It is time to make sure that God finds us faithful.

Endangering Our Children

From the September-October 2012 issue of Forerunner.

As the American mainstream continues to become more politically liberal, as recent election results indicate, long-held conservative beliefs seem to be facing increased marginalization. For instance, as minorities in the United States inch toward majority status, the conservative position on immigration—no amnesty, tightened border security, tougher punishment for illegal entry, limited welfare to illegals, etc.—is labeled "extreme right-wing," "unbalanced," and "unworkable." In the same way, fiscally conservative economic ideas are considered to be "harsh" and "partisan."

A particular area in which liberals feel especially empowered lately is homosexual rights, particularly on the subject of "gay marriage," a misnomer if there ever was one. Nine states and the District of Columbia have legalized gay marriage, while Rhode Island recognizes such "marriages" performed in other states and California recognizes them on a conditional basis. While this is hardly a majority (39 states prohibit it either constitutionally or by statute), gays are crowing and even telling conservatives to shut up and go away on the issue. As one activist put it, echoing the President's words after his 2008 election victory, "We've won."

However, objective research and empirical evidence still tilt heavily in the traditional, conservative direction. Yet, even in the face of the facts, gay and lesbian activists and their cohorts in the media feel the winds of public opinion to be so strongly on their side that they will attempt to intimidate and destroy any scientist or researcher who dares to show that the "gay" lifestyle is detrimental in any way. Lately, they have done this despite research showing that children raised in "gay households" suffer from that environment.

For instance, in July 2010, Dr. Walter Schumm, a Family Studies professor at Kansas State University, released his comprehensive study in the Journal of Biosocial Science on the effects of "gay parenting." He found that children raised by gay parents are up to twelve times more like to identify themselves as gay—58% of children of lesbians and 33% of children raised by gay men call themselves gay. Yet, only three percent of the general population is gay.

Dr. Schumm quickly felt the wrath of the homosexual lobby. He was labeled a fake and a fraud—and perhaps most biting of all politically, a "conservative plant." Though his work cannot be assailed, the personal derision sent a message to researchers that telling the truth about the many downsides of homosexuality is likely to get them publicly lampooned and pilloried.

Fortunately, fear of public ridicule has not stopped some. This past June, Social Science Research published the study of a team led by Dr. Mark Regnerus at the University of Texas-Austin. The website on their work summarizes the findings: ". . . the data suggest rather clearly that children who were raised by a parent who had a same-sex relationship were on average at a significant disadvantage when compared to children who were raised by their married, biological mother and father."

On this research, Karla Dial at CitizenLink.com writes:

According to his findings, children raised by homosexual parents are more likely than those raised by married heterosexual parents to suffer from poor impulse control, depression and suicidal thoughts, require mental health therapy; identify themselves as homosexual; choose cohabitation; be unfaithful to partners; contract sexually transmitted diseases; be sexually molested; have lower income levels; drink to get drunk; and smoke tobacco and marijuana. ("University Vindicates Mark Regnerus")

Homosexual activists and academics cried foul, calling Regnerus "homophobic" and demanding the university fire him. They lied in the media, saying that his findings were false, but could provide no proof against them. After a rigorous investigation, the university found that Regnerus' research had been conducted properly and without any kind of scientific misconduct.

Centuries—millennia actually—of experience and wisdom show that the best environment to raise children is in the home of their biological parents, each having a father and a mother. It is the family unit that God endorses. Anyone who cares about humanity, and particularly, humanity's children, should want the best for them, but not the militant homosexual lobby and their supporters. In their lust for control over what society accepts as good and moral, they are willing to condemn children to substandard lives or worse. This tells the observant that they will let nothing get in their way.

In this little slice of modern society, we see Paul's prediction of the perilous times of the last days coming to pass (II Timothy 3:1-5). If they are willing to jettison the next generation of children to enhance their political power, what else are they willing to do?

Liberalism and Legalism

Listen (RealAudio)

As our various governments become increasingly liberal, a horrifying—a word chosen with care—paradox becomes more apparent: A more liberal America is becoming less free. The conventional wisdom is that conservatism is restrictive while liberalism is liberating, but in practice, the opposite is true. While conservatives generally uphold standards to a higher degree than liberals do, they are in the main legal minimalists. Liberals, on the other hand, while they disdain moral standards—and do their best to tear them down at every opportunity—are legal maximalists. Because of this liberal trait, we find ourselves buried under an avalanche of laws, regulations, orders, procedures, and bureaucratic oversight and interference.

Many people fail to understand this aspect of the liberal mind, so it may take some explanation. The misunderstanding arises from linguistic and historical misconceptions about what "liberalism" is. Liberal is—or was—a good word. It derives from the Latin word liber, which means "free," and thus has the same root and underlying sense as "liberty." Classically, a liberal person was free in bestowing upon others; he was generous, in other words. Sometimes, his generosity extended beyond economics into more ethical areas to include freedom from prejudice on racial, ethnic, sexual, social, religious, or even national grounds. An individual could also be liberal in more aesthetic areas, depending on his attitude toward the arts, sports and entertainments, or fashion—for instance, whether he liked and promoted avant-garde artists in music, painting, acting, or poetry.

Historically, a political or philosophic liberal advocated expanding personal freedoms. For instance, the religious reformers of fifteenth-century Europe were liberals in the eyes of the Catholic Church, for they advocated stripping the Pope and his hierarchy of priests of their power and control over Christians. In a similar way, the men at the forefront of the ensuing Enlightenment campaigned for political and philosophical freedom, that is, for more democratic forms of government (as opposed to autocratic, centralized rule) and more reliance on human reason and science (as opposed to divine revelation via Scripture and church, which they considered "superstition"). Many of America's Founding Fathers, today considered quite conservative, were the "flaming liberals" of their time. They took Enlightenment ideas of liberty and put them into practice on a grand scale.

However, as political systems and cultures evolved, "liberal" slowly changed meanings. While nations have always been composed of people with a wide range of views, Western democratic nations soon developed the modern political spectrum by dividing into factions, known as political parties. Usually, the spectrum fell into two primary parts, which we call "the Right" and "the Left." Rightists desired things to remain as they were, or even to return to a standard of the past. Being advocates of the status quo, they became known as "conservatives"—they wanted to conserve or preserve the nation as it was.

Leftists, though, were not satisfied with the current state of affairs in one area or another. They desired to improve society: to better working conditions, to increase wages, to open access to wealth and privilege to more people, to raise the status of various minorities, etc. They did not want the country to stagnate, as they saw it, but to make progress in many areas of life. Leftists became known as "progressives."

So far, so good. Yet, despite being humanitarians and succeeding in many areas that needed to be addressed, the progressive spirit became poisoned through excess and evolutionary thinking. Progressives began to reach beyond merely improving society to remaking it along the lines of the then-new ideas of Darwin, Marx, and Freud. Soon, progressive parties around the world were controlled by atheists and communists who used their crude understanding of human psychology to persuade and control huge populations. The world has progressive thinking to thank for such historic movements as the Russian and Chinese communism, German National Socialism, most Third-World dictatorships, Liberation Theology, and even institutions that many people today consider more-or-less benign, like the United Nations, the World Bank, the AFL-CIO, and Greenpeace.

In the United States, with the defeat of Nazism in World War II and the advent of the Cold War, first "communist" and then "socialist" took on pejorative meanings. To be considered a communist was to be blackballed, making one's life almost unbearable and unsustainable. After a time, it was almost just as ruinous to be called a socialist, as most informed people understood that socialism is communism with a yellow happy face for a mask. Thus, in America, Leftists needed a new label, and "liberal" would work just fine—its benevolent meaning would hide a multitude of progressive ideas and programs.

Today's liberals repudiate the term because more people have caught on to their linguistic joke. But liberals they are, as their progressive ideas and voting records expose. Since their predecessors' failures to remake the world through revolution, they have decided to do the job through legal means, one law or regulation at a time. They are willing to let the nation evolve, as they believe man evolves, by increments, if need be—though they would love to see it make a progressive leap every now and then.

Thus, they have taken over the governments of this land—not the visible leadership in many cases, but the invisible bureaucracy supporting the elected leaders. There, hidden from view and in many cases shielded from responsibility, they tinker with our freedoms, slowly changing "the land of the free" into a nation in a legal straitjacket. The legal code of the U.S. is mammoth, so massive that no one can keep abreast of it any longer. Why else has the legal profession in this country exploded except that 1) there are so many laws, people are breaking them right and left, consciously or unconsciously; and 2) teams of lawyers are necessary to handle the intricacies of the law? Liberalism is killing this nation. Legalism is its weapon.

Many people think that the church of God is legalistic—or that God Himself is legalistic. That is the furthest thing from the truth! God commands His creation, humanity, to follow only ten principles of living, the Ten Commandments (Exodus 20; Deuteronomy 5). While this may be an oversimplification, He does not overwhelm us with laws or change them every few years. All of His laws fit in one, easily accessible, unchanging Book. Compared to life under human liberalism, living under God's revealed way of life is liberating!

Bloodshed Upon Bloodshed

Listen

The city of Charlotte, North Carolina, has been in mourning for the last week since two Charlotte-Mecklenburg police officers, Sean Clark and Jeff Shelton, were murdered late last Saturday night, March 31, after responding to a domestic disturbance. Witnesses say the officers left the apartment to which they had been called and encountered a young man, whom police now identify as Demeatrius Antonio Montgomery, 25. The three held a fifteen-minute conversation, and then suddenly five shots were fired, all by the suspect. Residents found the two police officers moments later, and both had been shot in the back of the head, their revolvers still holstered. No one saw how it happened, and no one seems to know why.

It has been more than a decade since Charlotte has had an officer killed in the line of duty, and many of her citizens are shocked at the brutality and senselessness of it. Early reports wondered if a recent crackdown on gang activity in the area had prompted retaliation, but police officials discounted the idea. Reports of a second suspect seen fleeing with the assailant have also been quashed. The department is being very tight-lipped regarding the investigation, perhaps to close ranks since the victims are two of its own, perhaps to safeguard its case against Montgomery, or perhaps to obscure the actual cause of the killings. The last supposition is not beyond the Charlotte-Mecklenburg police department under its current chief, Darrel Stephens, which officially denied that the Queen City had a gang problem until the last few years, despite the obvious presence of increased crime, violence, and territorial graffiti.

Nevertheless, it has been interesting to witness the reaction to this tragedy. Most people are grieved from an entirely humanitarian point of view, as they should be: Two families have suffered irreplaceable losses, and the city has lost the services of two of its finest, from all reports. Blue ribbons have proliferated all over Charlotte, pinned to lapels, tied around light poles and tree trunks, and affixed to mailboxes, car antennas, fences, and signs. Thousands paid their respects at the visitations on Wednesday and Thursday evenings, and thousands more lined the streets on Thursday and Friday afternoons to salute the fallen as their funeral processions wound their way to the cemeteries. The local television and radio stations have broadcast wall-to-wall coverage of the two funerals. Outpourings of sympathy have come from all over the nation and from as far away as the Marshall Islands.

In the past, syndicated columnist Dennis Prager has observed that, in America, conservatives and liberals view the world from two vastly different perspectives. Prager, who is a Jewish conservative, posits that the distinction in viewpoints comes down to each group's understanding of human nature, and these are informed by the sources of their fundamental beliefs. Conservatives, who are predominantly Judeo-Christian in their religion, accept the Bible's teaching that man's nature is flawed, that he tends toward evil unless he is strongly taught and influenced to choose to do good. As Jesus said, "There is none good but One, that is, God" (Matthew 19:17), and Paul echoes His Savior, quoting Psalm 14:3, "There is none who does good, no, not one" (Romans 3:12).

Conversely, liberals are overwhelmingly secular and humanistic—and many are agnostic and atheistic. They consider mankind, then, to be the pinnacle of animal life and impersonal Nature's greatest achievement. In other words, human nature, being an evolutionary development, is good and getting better as mankind advances toward its self-propelled perfection. Philosophically, the belief in the innate goodness of human nature has been a part of the liberal mind at least as long as the ideas of Mencius, Confucius, and Plato.

Applied to this unfortunate event, the conservative and liberal reactions have been typical of their worldviews. Conservative talk-radio has rung with calls for prosecuting Montgomery to the full extent of the law—that is, making sure he receives the death penalty, an option in North Carolina—and diverting funds from arts, transit, and welfare programs to hire more prosecutors and police, as well as to build more jails. Government's first responsibility is public safety, they argue, and the city obviously needs to devote more resources to cleaning up its violent streets.

A few liberals have had the temerity to speak up for the alleged cop-killer. One caller made the unfounded assertion that this is what happens when the police target certain minority segments of the community. City councilwoman and mayor pro tem, Susan Burgess, one of the most liberal people in Charlotte politics, lamented, "I keep thinking about that 25-year-old man, [Montgomery,] and I ask, where did we lose him?" Taking her comment at face value, she seems to feel more pity for the "wayward" perpetrator of a gruesome crime than for his undeserving victims. Apparently, this young man took to a life of crime through our negligence. With the right social intervention at the right time, he could have been a fine, outstanding citizen. It never seems to have occurred to Burgess that he may just be an evil person.

The Bible predicts that the nations of Israel will be filled with bloodshed as the time of Jacob's Trouble nears (see Hosea 4:2; Jeremiah 30:7). Ezekiel 7:11-12, 23 says, "Violence has risen up into a rod of wickedness. . . . The time has come, the day draws near. . . . Make a chain, for the land is filled with crimes of blood, and the city is full of violence." Charlotte is not alone among cities witnessing escalating violence and brutality, rising numbers of gangs and gang members, and increasing fear and insecurity. Unfortunately, it takes a tragedy as befell these Charlotte policemen to focus attention on the problem, but even so, questions remain. Will the community and its leaders have the vision and wherewithal to find and implement solutions? Will they have the endurance to see them through?

Perhaps the most troubling question is, with the state of society as it is, can these problems even be solved? Call me skeptical of human abilities, but God, I feel, will have to intervene to fix this mess.

Why We Homeschool

Listen (RealAudio)

Back in the early years of the homeschooling phenomenon, its advocates were largely tie-dyed, granola-munching, back-to-nature, hippie types whose primary goal was to disassociate from just about everything manmade, and certainly from Establishment institutions like the public schools. They fought running battles with local and state governments for the right to teach their children themselves, and—to give them credit where it is due—they had patchy success, especially in more progressive states like California. It is no wonder that homeschooling has the reputation, even today in some quarters, as being a far-out, counter-cultural movement.

However, somewhere about the time of the Reagan Revolution, homeschooling dramatically switched its poles, shifting from a leftist movement to a rightist one. A growing number of religious and social conservatives, frustrated with both the iron grip of liberals (read: teachers' unions and school district administrations) on the country's educational system and the cultural mayhem rising in the public schools, opted to take on the additional burden of teaching their children at home. The movement has grown far beyond anything its pioneers ever imagined.

And a burden it can be. Homeschool parents pay the same taxes for the public schools as everyone else, plus they take on the additional expenses of books, fees, supplies, and miscellaneous costs associated with education. This amounts to hundreds or even thousands of dollars each year, depending on how ambitious they decide to be. A math, science, or history textbook may cost upwards of $50, and the family must still buy teacher's guides and answer keys, and for science, microscopes, test tubes, specimens, etc. There are further outlays of cash if the child desires to participate in any extracurricular activities: art, music, or sports, activities that are usually subsidized in public schools. In addition, foreign language classes—or for that matter, any outside instruction beyond the abilities of the parents—can cost the proverbial arm and/or leg. It must also be factored in that homeschool families must function on only one salary, since one of the parents must stay at home to teach.

Beyond these expenses, it is a burden of time and energy. Homeschooling is a full-time occupation in itself. Not only is there one-on-one instruction, but there are additional activities like lesson-planning, reviewing, testing, grading, experimenting (science again), reading (lots of reading—to stay ahead of the kids!), and taking the students to this, that, and the other class. It is a blessing that, as the student ages, he is able to do a great deal more on his own and with only minimal oversight. Otherwise, the homeschool parent would simply burn out.

At this point, many a reader is probably saying to himself, "Why do it, then?" Despite the fact that homeschooling is not for the faint of heart, its rewards far outweigh the efforts.

Homeschoolers benefit both by what they avoid and by what they receive. Because they are able to assemble their own curriculum, they can steer clear of distasteful and objectionable subjects. For instance, they can (or not) study the theory of evolution in a more balanced way, comparing it with biblical creation and Intelligent Design and emphasizing their preferred understanding. Further, they can replace the oftentimes horribly inappropriate sex-education teaching with a better alternative. They can also avoid humanistic, socialistic, multicultural, and postmodern ideas that have been integrated into textbooks, teaching aids, and lesson plans by teachers, teachers' unions, and school districts. Besides these, they do not have to deal with power-obsessed administrators, holier-than-thou counselors, know-it-all teachers, and scores of undisciplined, Ritalin-candidate students—not to mention a load of perverse cultural influences.

On the flipside, those who homeschool are compensated, though not monetarily, far more than most people who have never tried it realize:

• For starters, the family becomes very close. This may seem paradoxical to those who think spending several hours each day in the near vicinity of their children would drive them to drink. Yet, the time and the shared activities and understanding bind parents and children tightly together, bridging the "generation gap" to a great degree.
• Done well, homeschooling teaches children more thoroughly than public schools do. This comes as a result of more one-on-one instruction and the ability to study a subject in depth. Public school children waste a great deal of time in meaningless activities during school hours (and in their commute to and from school), but at home, a well-organized, disciplined child uses this extra time to read or to pursue an interest spurred by his study. What is more, he still usually finishes his school day earlier than his neighbor who attends a local school!
• A homeschooled child also has a wider variety of subject fields to study than his public-school counterpart. While the public school has a set curriculum and a handful of elective courses, homeschoolers are limited only by time, money, and their communities' offerings. However, with the Internet and easy, fast transportation, they can pursue even exotic topics relatively effortlessly. Whether it is learning Sanskrit, investigating Central American archeology, or studying Australia's marsupials, homeschoolers have the freedom to explore these individual interests.

Nevertheless, homeschooling is not for everyone. Some parents just do not have the inclination or the patience required to do it well. However, it is worth serious consideration for all Christians who desire to minimize the world's influence on their children. God gives to parents the primary responsibility for educating their children, not to worldly schools: "Train up a child in the way he should go, and when he is old he will not depart from it" (Proverbs 22:6), and ". . . bring them up in the training and admonition of the Lord" (Ephesians 6:4). Homeschooling is a way to be far more involved in our children's growth into godly, mature adults.