The trend has been noticeable over the past few years, particularly in popular books, television shows, and movies, but also in the culture at large. It runs something like this: The story contains a character or a group who are on the cutting edge of some scientific or social breakthrough, and the new idea or discovery is so revolutionary that news of it is generating controversy. The hullabaloo usually centers on the fact that the "amazing" innovation challenges traditional or religious beliefs. At some point, the genius inventor/discoverer/creator usually makes a snide comment to the effect that only the howling fundamentalist Christians cannot see how wonderful his breakthrough really is, as if Bible-believing Christians are the last of the Luddites.
It may be a gratuitous laugh-line—or it may be a well-aimed blow designed to undermine Christian confidence in the rationality of their beliefs. Whatever the motives, ridicule of Christians and the biblical teachings they believe is on the rise, and of late, it seems to have sharpened its edge. Christianity is under attack, putting those who adhere to the Bible in the crosshairs for simply holding fast to the words of Scripture.
This is nothing new. Christians have been persecuted for their beliefs since Jesus Christ Himself suffered a martyr's death in Jerusalem. In fact, we could take it further back, as the prophets who were killed for speaking the truth that God revealed to them died for the same beliefs—even all the way back to Abel, who was murdered because he pleased God by following His instructions regarding sacrifice (Genesis 4:4). "Because the carnal mind is enmity against God" (Romans 8:7), carnal people lash out at those who are trying to transform their lives to please Him. The apostle Peter tells us that we should not think it unusual to be "reproached for the name of Christ" (I Peter 4:12-14).
When we think of persecution, we often reflect on the types of persecution that are mentioned in the Bible or that have been recorded by historians. The persecutions of Nero and some of the other Roman emperors are legendary, particularly some of the more gruesome ones like crucifying churchmen in mockery of Christ, covering Christians in pitch and burning them to light the emperor's garden parties, and pitting hymn-singing believers against ravenous beasts before large crowds at the Coliseum. These are the kinds of persecution that "get the headlines," as it were, but conditions do not need to mount to this point to be considered persecution. Historically, a great deal of Christian persecution has been "mere" mockery of belief that ratchets up to far more serious physical oppression over time.
Just a few weeks ago, Christianity was in the media spotlight because of the controversial contraception mandate attached to Obamacare. The Catholic Church in particular was held up to ridicule because of its rigid stance against all forms of contraception. The typical secular view—which is the direction most persecution comes from these days—is mocking disbelief that a modern institution could advocate such Dark-Age notions. Society, they argue, has moved far beyond the confining sexual strictures of traditional morality, and Catholics should get with the program. Mostly, they blame the Church's narrow-minded "conservative hierarchy" for maintaining a doctrine that most parishioners ignore and/or would like the Church to change.
Yet, it is not just Catholics who are swept up in the ridicule because the Obamacare mandates in this vein also include coverage of abortions and the use of abortifacient contraceptives (contraceptives that essentially abort an embryo soon after conception), which the majority of Bible-believing Christians oppose. Since sexual freedom and abortion rights and methods are the spear point of the progressive assault on traditional values, any opposition to them by Christians makes them fair game for put-downs, derision, and low-blows (the lower the better, to their way of thinking).
One of the newest television shows on ABC targets "Good Christian" women. It is titled "GCB," an acronym that uses a slur to demean more than half of this country's professing Christians. The entire show is based on the assumption that all Christians—but especially Christian women—are hypocrites who use their faith as a screen to conceal their underhanded deeds and sexual profligacy and to maintain their reputations among their just-as-phony peers. As Media Research Center president, Brent Bozell, writes in a March 9, 2012, column:
As anyone could have predicted, ABC is clearly pitching "GCB" as a replacement for the dying soap, "Desperate Housewives," merely adding the Texas-Christian angle to make the plots extra-scandalous. Hollywood seems to think everyone is a selfish and cynical hypocrite. But not everyone lives in a gaudy piranha bowl like they do in Tinseltown.
Undoubtedly, a great many Christians are hypocrites, but the show gives the impression that all Christians behave just as badly as everyone else. Thus, the producers want viewers to think that, as a belief system, Christianity is as corrupt as any other.
In this nation, Christians are still protected to a certain extent by the Bill of Rights; we still have the freedom to worship as we choose. On the other hand, secularists have the freedom of speech, and they have made sure that they control most of the outlets for getting their views into the mainstream of thought. As the years unfold, they will continue to do whatever they can to undermine Christianity because its teachings hold up a standard that they cannot abide and to which they will not submit.
But take heart! Just last Saturday, atheists held a rally in Washington, DC, which they had advertised would be "the largest atheist event in world history." Renowned atheist and biologist Richard Dawkins was headlined to speak before the vast throng, and sometime before the event, he had advised in The Washington Post that people should stay away if they lacked the wisdom to crawl "from the swamp of primitive superstition and supernatural gullibility." Yet, when noses were counted on the day of the rally, only "several thousand" had bothered to attend. Not even the major networks showed up—nor the Associated Press or The New York Times!
While we can grumble about the way Christians are portrayed in the media, we must realize that our persecution is, for the time being, quite light (see II Corinthians 4:17; Hebrews 12:3-11). Over the next years, it will probably worsen, perhaps imperceptibly at first, but we will know we have reached the tipping point when government begins to persecute believers. Realistically, we have a way to go to equal the terrible persecutions that our forefathers in the faith endured, so we can thank God for His abundant mercy toward us.
Kathleen Sebelius, U.S. Secretary of Health and Human Services, announced on January 20, 2012, that, as part of preventive health services for women, all health plans must provide no-cost coverage—including deductibles and co-payments—for all contraceptives and sterilization procedures approved by the Food and Drug Administration. Her announcement ignited an immediate furor from conservatives and Catholic groups complaining that this regulation—part of Obamacare—impinged on their first amendment right to religious freedom.
Besides the fact that it is against Catholic teaching, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops argued that contraception is not basic healthcare but "an elective intervention that stops the healthy functioning of healthy women's reproductive systems." Conservative commentators railed that requiring taxpayers to fund contraception is essentially forcing citizens to pay other people to have sex.
Not long thereafter, the Obama administration granted religious institutions an exception: An employee of such an institution that does not provide reproductive healthcare can seek it directly from the insurance company at no additional cost. On March 1, the Democrat-controlled Senate rejected 51-48 a proposed amendment to the healthcare law extending this exception more broadly.
The absurdity of the contraception mandate was revealed on February 16, when Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center graduate student, was asked to speak before the House Democratic Steering and Policy Committee (not a formal Congressional hearing). She argued that religious institutions, even those with moral objections, should provide free contraception in their health insurance. She claimed that birth control could cost $1,000 per year (or as she specifically said, $3,000 over three years), stating that four out of ten of the university's female students suffered financial hardship because the student health insurance plan does not cover it. Many low-income students must go without contraceptives, she averred, because the women's free health clinics cannot meet the need.
Critics like Rush Limbaugh pummeled Fluke on the air, highlighting the ridiculous nature of her claims, especially the cost of contraception. As Cathy Cleaver Ruse, a Georgetown Law graduate, wrote in an opinion piece in The Wall Street Journal:
But an employee at a Target pharmacy near the university told the Weekly Standard last week that one month's worth of generic oral contraceptives is $9 per month. "That's the price without insurance," the employee said. (It's also $9 per month at Wal-Mart.)
. . . Should Ms. Fluke give up a cup or two of coffee at Starbucks each month to pay for her birth control, or should Georgetown give up its religion? Even a first-year law student should know where the Constitution comes down on that.
Limbaugh ran afoul of the media after he used terms to describe Fluke that he later regretted saying and apologized for. However, his outburst was enough to alter the angle of the debate. Jesse Ferguson, spokesperson for the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, complained, "Rush Limbaugh has come to Republicans' defense in their war on women." Fluke herself opined in a statement on March 1, expanding the field of those attacking "all women":
Unfortunately, numerous commentators have gone far beyond the acceptable bounds of civil discourse. No woman deserves to be disrespected in this manner. This language is an attack on all women, and has been used throughout history to silence our voices. The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women's health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.
That same day, The Washington Post ran a guest editorial by Susan Brooks Thistlethwaite titled "All about Eve: The Christian roots of the GOP's war on women." She writes:
This attack on women is, and I am grieved to say it, driven by a particular Christian theological perspective that denigrates women and holds them responsible for sin, particularly sexual sin.
GOP politics today is, in fact, all about Eve.
The GOP war on women will continue precisely because of the conservative Christian theology that drives wedge politics in a campaign season has a fundamental contempt for women and their equal dignity and worth.
We in the church of God realize that it is not all Eve's fault. In I Timothy 2:14, Paul clearly writes that Eve sinned because she was deceived and implies that Adam sinned willingly (see Genesis 3:6). Further, the apostle states in Romans 5:12 that "through one man sin entered the world," and he repeats this in verses 15, 17, 18, and 19, naming Adam as the sinner. Thus, a "Christian" theology that puts women down for "Original Sin" is not based on biblical teaching.
The Bible consistently teaches that it is the man's responsibility to set the moral tone in his marriage and family, which Adam failed to do. This morality in relationships begins even before marriage. A young man looking for a wife must be scrupulous in his courting of a young woman, keeping the seventh commandment firmly in mind (Exodus 20:14).
And this brings us back to the controversy over the contraception mandate. Americans are embroiled in this argument because of promiscuity—illicit premarital sex by both men and women. The sexual revolution has borne more bitter fruit, this time endangering one of the fundamental freedoms granted to citizens by the Bill of Rights: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." It has become evident that a large segment of the American population values their sexual freedom more highly than their religious freedom—to the detriment of those of us who do not.
Jeremiah 13:26-27 confirms this as a sign of the end, as God promises destruction: "Therefore I will uncover your skirts over your face, that your shame may appear. I have seen your adulteries and your lustful neighings, the lewdness of your harlotry, your abominations on the hills in the fields. Woe to you, O Jerusalem! Will you still not be made clean?"
Unfortunately, at this point, national repentance seems unlikely. Is it not ironic that, in a country that values freedom so much, a kind of liberty—libertinism—could be so instrumental in bringing it down?
