Tag: Socialism

15 June, 2015

The Christian Alternative to Humanistic Moralism

Ephesians 4:28 (ESV)

²⁸ Let the thief no longer steal, but rather let him labor, doing honest work with his own hands, so that he may have something to share with anyone in need.

Aside from 2:11, this is the first set of imperatives in Ephesians, and there are many from here to the end of the book. 4:25 may represent the actual “practical” section of the book more than 4:1.

Note also that this section begins the practical application of 4:17-24: for example, the thief, in taking off the old self and being renewed, puts on something else. Also, the thief, rather than being merely reformed in his behaviour, goes further than the world does (in merely desiring him to cease stealing), but employs himself, and that for the good of others. Humanistic thinking is satisfied with the former thief’s employment to cease to be a burden to society, but a thief renewed in the spirit of his mind will employ himself beyond that to be benevolent to others. This stands, therefore, in sharp contrast to humanistic schemes of charity and benevolence. The one seeks only a an outward change to a minimum standard; the other demonstrates the outworking of a new creation.

It may also be noted that the thief is encouraged to work, not simply to supply his own needs, but to share with those in need. The common word for “give” (didomi) occurs almost 700 times in the New Testament. But there is another form of this word, “to share” (metadidomi). This form occurs five times in the New Testament and is variously translated, “contribute, impart, share.”

This is the kind of application that is true Christianity, and not religious moralism.

The idea that the thief should work so that his earnings may be confiscated by the state (taxed), to be given to others, is foreign to the New Testament order. Sharing is not of compulsion, but is the action of a renewed heart toward one in need. The one who shares is in the position to see a need, and act upon it out of love; the state is unable to determine the difference between true need and sloth, and is too willing to give the property of others to those who are not in need. To often Christians mistakenly view compassion outsourced to the state as real compassion, when this is actually foreign to the teachings of Christ and the Apostles. –SJ

30 April, 2015

Blogging the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum: 12 things you must know

Many parents are shocked to learn what has been happening in their children’s schools. This situation, however, was many years in coming. Scott Masson has a very good video here.

My purpose in this entry is to simply make 12 concise statements about the Government of Ontario and its view of you and your children. Once you know these things, you may plan accordingly.

The Government of Ontario does not see your children as really yours. The children you birthed or adopted belong to the state, which determines what is best for your children in health, education, and their general welfare. At best, parents are seen as “co-parents” with the state.
The Government of Ontario determines what is fact and truth in matters of sexuality.
The Government of Ontario will state that their view of sexuality is based upon scientific fact. This is not true. It is based on a collection of theories that express the strong desires of a few people.
It has been decided that homosexuality and transgenderism, and the vast varieties of experience brought for by these orientations, are as normal and correct and right and true as heterosexuality.
The actions of non-heterosexuality good, even if it includes what has been for years considered sodomy.
These orientations and behaviours are not to be avoided, cured, treated, pitied, or restricted; rather, they are to be embraced and accepted as fully as heterosexuality.
Children must decide for themselves what is right, and parents, religion or tradition may or may not be a part of this decision.
Non-heterosexual orientation may occur at any time in a person’s lifetime, including the preschool age.
Gender is not sex. The sex you were born with is not necessarily your gender. This is called “gender fluidity.” Your child’s gender may be “fluid,” and you as a parent have no right to interfere with it.
When your religious views contradict those of the government, which will occur most often in school, your religious views must yield to those of the government.
Historically, the family is the place of nurture and education, health and wellbeing. The state sees the schools and other state institutions as superior to the family. The state sees the traditional family is a its competitor. This curriculum is a part of the Government of Ontario’s attempt to effectively destroy the traditional family.
Individuals do not have rights, only groups have rights, and those groups must be approved by the state. You, your child, and your family have value only as they contribute to society, and society that is worthy is determined by the state.

29 April, 2015

Blogging the Revised Ontario Sex-Education Curriculum: the experiment is over.

Public education, which I define as taxpayer funded, government controlled, and compulsory, is a very recent development in Canadian history. What is also clear, that given the backdrop of human civilization, taking education from the home, church, or synagogue and placing it in the hands of the government has a very short history. As an experiment, we may see that it has largely failed.

I believe that public education, as presently defined and practised, is an experiment that must end. It has not produced the fruits that parents desire, and all too often has produced children who are more indoctrinated in the will of governments rather than educated for critical thinking and moral knowledge.

Anyone who calls to end the present system will be met with charges that he is anti-education. It must be kept in mind, however, that education and school are not the same thing. Public school and church academy are not the same thing. There are a variety of means to educate, but the family is primarily responsible. So insofar as public education now seeks to pit child against parent, it is time for the parents to once again take full control of their children’s education. Those who doubt this is true should remember that in 2001, parents were given a tax break in Ontario if they paid tuition to a private school, whether or not that school was religious or not. The Liberal Government does not believe in competition in forming young minds, however, and quickly cancelled the tax deduction when they came to power.

The problems we face today have been very long in coming. Public education has, from its beginning, been against a Christian worldview, and therefore set against Christian families. The moralistic lessons that were once taught in public schools gave false sense of security to religious parents. That day is past, and the mask is off.

Homeschool or private school: your children are your responsibility.

Please read this quote, then be sure to make note of when it was written. Could it be that we’ve been in this struggle much longer than we first thought?

“The whole development of modern society has tended mightily toward the limitation of the realm of freedom for the individual man. The tendency is most clearly seen in socialism; a socialistic state would mean the reduction to a minimum of the sphere of individual choice. Labor and recreation, under a socialistic government, would both be prescribed, and individual liberty would be gone. But the same tendency exhibits itself to-day even in those communities where the name of socialism is most abhorred. When once the majority has determined that a certain régime is beneficial, that régime without further hesitation is forced ruthlessly upon the individual man. It never seems to occur to modern legislatures that although “welfare” is good, forced welfare may be bad. In other words, utilitarianism is being carried out to its logical conclusions; in the interests of physical well-being the great principles of liberty are being thrown ruthlessly to the winds.

The result is an unparalleled impoverishment of human life. Personality can only be developed in the realm of individual choice. And that realm, in the modern state, is being slowly but steadily contracted. The tendency is making itself felt especially in the sphere of education. The object of education, it is now assumed, is the production of the greatest happiness for the greatest number. But the greatest happiness for the greatest number, it is assumed further, can be defined only by the will of the majority. Idiosyncrasies in education, therefore, it is said, must be avoided, and the choice of schools must be taken away from the individual parent and placed in the hands of the state. The state then exercises its authority through the instruments that are ready to hand, and at once, therefore, the child is placed under the control of psychological experts, themselves without the slightest acquaintance with the higher realms of human life, who proceed to prevent any such acquaintance being gained by those who come under their care.

J. Gresham Machen, Christianity and Liberalism, New Edition. First published: 1923. (Grand Rapids, MI; Cambridge, U.K.: William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company, 2009), 8–10.