No Offense

by Dr. Dean Curry. Evangelicals have grown not only more tolerant, but also more tolerable. Is it possible, however, to be too inoffensive? One can possibly anticipate the conclusion to be reached, but the way Dr. Curry gets there certainly increases it's force. Read more challenging stuff like this at the evangelical portal of www.patheos.com.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Recent controversies surrounding Jim Wallis's "What Would Jesus Cut?" campaign, as well as Rob Bell's new book Love Wins, are more evidence that today's evangelicalism is notably different than yesterday's evangelicalism. The markers of contemporary evangelicalism are harder to generalize about than they were thirty or forty years ago. Whether the issues involve theology, politics, or personal morality, today's evangelicals are more diverse in their viewpoints and less likely than their predecessors to draw non-negotiable lines in the sands of culture.

University of Virginia sociologist James Davison Hunter alerted us to these significant changes way back in 1987 in his book, Evangelicalism: The Coming Generation. While Hunter's most recent book, To Change the World, has received considerable attention among Christians, revisiting his earlier work with nearly a quarter-century of hindsight is an especially enlightening experience, and not just because the author was so spot on in plotting the trajectory of American evangelicalism. Drawing upon an early 1980s survey project that targeted "the coming generation" of evangelical leaders—i.e., students at evangelical colleges and seminaries—Hunter anticipated, among other things, that a social agenda would slowly supplant traditional evangelical spiritual concerns. Regarding this shift, Hunter concluded in 1987 that "the significance of this trend is highlighted by the precedent set by liberal Protestant theology in the twentieth century, where the Social Gospel achieved proportions unintended by its original advocates."

Apart from his prescience in this area, Hunter's analysis is perhaps most useful in helping us understand the reasons for change within evangelicalism. Of particular note is Hunter's insightful parsing of the dimensions of "civility," one of modernity's unassailable innovations. The essence of civility is tolerance, arguably the primordial concept of our post-modern age, and a habit now widely embraced by evangelicals. But there is another dimension to civility that Hunter identifies as the inversion of tolerance, namely tolerability, and it is this side of civility that Hunter argues is key to understanding the dynamics of transformation that have taken place within American evangelicalism.

The ethic of civility requires not only that individuals be tolerant of others; it also requires that they must be tolerable to others. The implications of this ethic of "studied moderation" are clear: "Convictions are to be tempered by 'good taste' and sensibility. It is an ethic which pleads 'no offense.' The greatest breach of these norms is belligerence and divisiveness; the greatest atrocity is to be offensive and thus intolerable." The appropriation of both dimensions of civility—tolerance and tolerability—is a major reason why the boundaries of evangelical beliefs have become increasingly fuzzy and uncertain. Besides being tolerant of others, "the critical dogma is not to offend but to be genteel . . . in social relations," with the consequence that the contents of traditional evangelical theology and ethics that are offensive in the prevailing cultural zeitgeist are deemphasized. "Anything," writes Hunter, "that hints of moral or religious absolutism and intolerance is underplayed." Indeed, having appropriated civility as a central component of Christian theology, evangelicals face "tremendous social constraints to be less strict, less fanatical, more open-minded, and so on."

It is difficult, of course, to generalize about a sub-culture as large and diverse as American evangelicalism. But anyone familiar with the landscape of contemporary evangelicalism has to be struck by the precision and accuracy of Hunter's 1987 analysis. In fact, when reading Hunter's 1987 book, one has to remind oneself that he was writing a piece of academic sociology, not a prophetic tome. Hunter's 1980s "coming generation" of evangelicals is American evangelicalism today: From the evangelical families in the pews, to the evangelical bloggers, para-church leaders, college professors, and pastors. And true to Hunter's map, among a growing number of these evangelicals, especially their leaders, old, time-worn themes such as hell, homosexuality, abortion, and cultural line-drawing are only faintly heard, while less offensive, genteel themes that often reflect a soft universalism, attention to an agenda of social justice concerns, and an aversion to "offensive" line-drawing are privileged.

It is, to be sure, more complicated than that. And yet, those who care about maintaining the historic boundaries of orthodoxy would be wise not to ignore Hunter's conclusion that although "the evangelical life-world . . . has not gone as far as the modernists in Protestantism, the process is identical."

=====
Dean C. Curry is director of the College Honors Program and professor of politics at Messiah College.

10 Reasons Why the New 2011 NIV Is Bad for Women

Being male, if I wrote this I'd probably be in big trouble. Maybe I will be anyway, especially in openly saying that I agree with Mrs. Kassian; agreeing that is except where she says, "Undoubtedly the publishers had good intentions," but I will refrain from weakening her good article by any further curmudgeonry. Please do read her analysis. 

By Mary Kassian - The new gender-inclusive NIV was published earlier this year. It contains thousands upon thousands of changes to the Bible's male-gendered language. Having a gender-inclusive Bible appears to be the latest trend amongst cutting-edge, cappuccino-slurping Christian hipsters. Don't get me wrong. I like to be hip. And I enjoy cappuccino as much as the next person. But my biggest beef with gender-inclusive Bibles is that they lack doctrinal precision. If you mess with the words, you mess with the meaning. Respected Bible scholars have explained why inclusive translations such as the New International Version (NIV), New Revised Standard (NRSV), and Common English Bible (CEB) are deeply flawed. If you haven't yet considered their arguments, you might want to check out these Gender Neutral Bible Articles. 

Notwithstanding the doctrinal imprecision and blatantly politically-correct translating agenda, there are additional reasons why I dislike gender inclusive Bibles. Undoubtedly the publishers had good intentions, and genuinely wanted to help women, but in my mind, a gender-inclusive Bible is BAD for women. Really, really bad for women! I react to people reading from the new, gender-inclusive NIV the way I react to nails scratching down a black board.  

Here are ten reasons why:

1.  It obscures the profound symbolism of gender:

Gender has a profound, cosmic meaning. God created manhood, womanhood, marriage and sex to put the love story of Christ and the Church on display. When we mess with the Bible's gender language, we obscure gender's symbolism. We make truths about God and the gospel more difficult to understand. 

2. It exalts gender above that to which it points: 

Changing the Bible's gender language implies that the Bible's gender language is about us. It's not. The Bible is ultimately not about male and female—it's about Jesus, the Son of Man and Son of God. The Bible does not use predominantly male gendered language to exalt men; it uses it to exalt THE man who paid the ultimate price to redeem His Bride. 

3. It diminishes the unique beauty of womanhood:

Blurring the Bible's gender language contributes to the blurring of gender distinctions. It diminishes and devalues the unique role and beauty of womanhood. 

4. It is less inclusive of women:

Gender inclusive Bibles cast women as "other" rather than part of the collective whole. God collectively named male and female "man" (Hebrew: ‘adam. See Gen. 5:2) to indicate that male and female would share a common condition for which He would provide a common answer. Because both male and female are ‘adam, both are equally represented by the first man, Adam. Both are fallen and in need of a Savior. The good news of the gospel is that both are also equally represented by the Second Man—the Last Adam—Jesus Christ. When God named male and female ‘adam, he had the Last Adam in mind. So when, in order to appease modern sensibilities, we change "man" to something we think is more inclusive," we diminish the theological meaning and exclude woman. If woman is not specifically identified as "man" then how can she be represented by the first man, Adam? What's more, how can she be represented by the Second Man, the Last Adam, Jesus Christ? Gender inclusive Bibles are supposed to be more inclusive of women, but pardoxically, the language theologically does the exact opposite. It excludes women from the collective whole. 

5. It demeans women:

Gender inclusive Bibles imply that women are too stupid to figure out that in the Bible, the words "man" and "brothers" are inclusive terms. The male translators have to fix the words for us, since we're not theologically astute enough or bright enough to get it on our own. Quite frankly, I feel like gender-inclusive Bibles insult a woman's intelligence. 

6. It patronizes women:

Poor little girls. The translators need to change the words of the Bible so our feelings don't get hurt. Boo hoo. Women are so easily offended.  Sorry, . . . but changing the words of the Bible because you think some women might be offended by its language is downright patronizing. 

7. It calls God's attitude toward women into question:

Making changes to gender language is based on the premise that God ought to have given gals and guys equal air time. Trying to minimize the discrepancy suggests that God didn't care enough about women to take our feelings into account. The natural conclusion is that He obviously loves his boys more than He loves his girls. The conclusion is wrong. And the premise is wrong. 

8. It calls God's wisdom into question:

Poor God. His bad. He needs our help. He wasn't smart enough to get the words right. He obviously isn't as enlightened as people living in the new millennium. We have to step in and update His image, to make the Bible more palatable to woman's modern sensibilities. 

9. It encourages further changes to Scripture:

I know of at least one Muslim that is aghast that Christians would have the audacity to tamper with the wording of our Holy Book. And since we're audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for humans, it won't be long till we're audacious enough to tamper with gender wording for God. Translators will undoubtedly feel the need to update God's names so that HE becomes more gender inclusive. Terms like "Mother-Father God," "Jesus, child of woman and man," "Great Source of Being in the Sky" and our "God-Goddess" communicate the concept of a gender-inclusive deity much better than the male-gendered language of the Bible. Don't be naive. I've studied feminist theology long enough to know that naming self leads to naming the world leads to naming god.  It's audacious indeed! 

10. It leads women away from truth:

I care about women. Deeply. I long to see them experience healing and wholeness in Christ Jesus. I do them a disservice when I apologize for the Bible, fail to embrace its unvarnished beauty and power, and shrink back from sharing the Words that are perceived by some as foolishness and a stumbling block, yet are actually the power and wisdom of God for righteousness and sanctification and redemption. I fail women when I try to make God or His Word more palatable. I empty the cross of its power (1 Cor. 1:17-30).   

Gender and gender language is important. It touches on the essence of a woman's identity, the essence of the character of God, and on the essence of the gospel. We get things so very wrong when we think we can improve on the Bible's teaching on gender or the gender language it uses. The big picture informs us that from the very beginning, God's plan for gender has very little to do with us and very much to do with Him. And we need to trust that even if we don't fully understand them, the words, images and means He has chosen to display His glory are not only right, they are also good. Very good!  And also very good for women!

A Battle Worth Fighting

I understand that language changes over time, and that translation is not always an easy task. But I am saddened that Christians seem so eager to jump on the cultural bandwagon to update God's Holy Book with inclusive language. I don't think they realize what is at stake. I have had students struggle with understanding concepts about God because their native language did not lend itself to translating/expressing the gendered concepts that exist in the original languages of the Bible. We will lose something very critical and essential if we lose the linguistic concepts afforded us by the gendered nature of English. Retaining gender distinctiveness in our language is a battle worth fighting. There is a great deal at stake.

So ladies, please don't jump on the gender-inclusive Bible bandwagon. Be hip. Be courageous. Be politically incorrect. Insist on a Bible that acurately translates gender language- like the ESV, Holman Christian Standard, or  New America Standard.  Because in the end, inclusive language, and inclusive language Bibles, are very, very bad for women. 

Mary Kassian is an author, speaker and professor of women's studies at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary in Louisville, Ky. This column first appeared on her website, GirlsGoneWISE.com. Born and raised in Canada, she lives with her husband in Edmonton, Alberta.

What the “Word of Faith” Movement Is Saying

I believe that the "Word of Faith Movement" is an heretical plague. ReceiveTheWORD has addressed this in the past so I will just add the following from The Kairos Journal of Thursday, June 30, 2011.

Consider the following scenario. What if someone approached you and told you that “words are the most powerful things in the universe” and that the “natural world” could literally be reshaped by the words that you speak? What would you call such a person? To what worldview would he subscribe? You might rightly think that the person is a postmodernist—someone who does not believe that there is an objective reality that is fixed and unyielding. Or, you might conclude that he practices some form of mysterious Eastern religion that considers the world to only be an illusion. But such guesses, as good as they are, would both be wrong.

So just who might this stranger be? The answer in this case is perhaps shocking: he is a Christian pastor from America who probably appears weekly on a national television broadcast, sponsored by a station near you. Adherents to what is known as “word of faith” theology, these pastors or evangelists do not belong to any one denomination or organization. But this loose-knit group is characterized by three common themes in their teaching.

1. Physical healing. The belief that physical healing from sickness and disease is available at all times to believers takes on a radical new meaning in the hands of the “word of faith” teacher. Citing passages such as Isaiah 53:4-5 (“by His scourging we are healed”) and Matthew 8:16-17 (“He Himself took our infirmities”), preachers such as Kenneth Hagin and Kenneth Copeland suggest that faith always brings about physical healing. Most of them take the position that physical suffering is evidence of a lack of faith and cannot be God’s will for a Christian. A sick person is thus ultimately to blame for his own infirmity.
2. Promise of Wealth. A related teaching to the first claims that financial prosperity is acquired by following a simple formula. Citing Mark 10:29-30 as their proof text, “faith” teachers say that the Bible promises Christians a return of a hundred times on any amount of money “sown in faith.” Kenneth Copeland tells his followers that “Every man who invests into the gospel has a right to expect the staggering return of one hundredfold.” This principle has become a centerpiece of the television appeals of leading members of the movement including Frederick Price, Paul Crouch, and Benny Hinn, among others.
3. “Positive Confession.” The third, and perhaps most shocking, tenet of the word of faith teachers is the doctrine of “positive confession”—an idea which really encapsulates the first two mentioned above. Charles Capps, a former farmer who claimed he received the doctrine by direct revelation, popularized this teaching. Capps asserts that a person’s words literally construct the fabric of reality. “The natural world,” he avers, “is to be controlled by man speaking God’s words. . . . [they are] creative power.” As such, any negative language that a person speaks may usher in that reality. They should never say, “I’m not feeling well,” or else sickness and disease will actually come upon them. Capps’ teaching has been widely accepted in word of faith circles, but it has been retranslated into a new and even more popular format through the preaching of Joel Osteen. In his multi-million seller, Your Best Life Now, Osteen adapts positive confession to include the elimination of negative thoughts and words as a way of activating the power of God.

Why have the “word of faith” teachers attracted such large audiences? Obvious answers include the American penchant for greed and selfish lifestyles. But before critics too quickly (even when rightly) judge the movement and its followers for its serious errors, they should engage in a bit of self-analysis. Perhaps one of the reasons so many Christians are looking to aberrant doctrine stems from the fact that they possess the deep sense that the power of God is missing from the churches they have been attending all of their lives. Heresy hunting is not enough. Defenders of orthodoxy must believe in and practice a religion that is supernatural, or else they run the risk of turning the living church of the Lord Jesus Christ into yet another dead institution of the modern world.

Would Jesus Use Facebook? Probably.

With a predictably mixed response to yesterday's blog post I am encouraged with the following from the writings of A. W. Tozer. It reminds me that there are indeed things that matter and then there are things that don't matter at all. What I said yesterday, and maintain today, is that for ME, social networking represents one of the choices to be made in "our painfully intricate civilization". And for ME it is one of those things that "unless [I] get out from under them, they will crush [me] body and soul." After all is said and done, the question, "Would Tozer use Facebook?" or for that matter, "Would Jesus?" might well be answered, "ummmmm . . . probably."

Here's the quotation from Failure and Success: The Things That Matter.

...that you may approve the things that are excellent, that you may be sincere and without offense till the day of Christ, being filled with the fruits of righteousness which are by Jesus Christ, to the glory and praise of God. --Philippians 1:10-11

In life there will be found certain great fundamentals, like pillars bearing up the weight of some mighty building....

The wise man will simplify his life by going to the center of it. He will look well to the foundations and, having done that, he will not worry about the rest.

Life as we know it in our painfully intricate civilization can be deadly unless we learn to distinguish the things that matter from those that do not. It is never the major things that destroy us, but invariably the multitude of trifling things which are mistakenly thought to be of major importance. These are so many that, unless we get out from under them, they will crush us body and soul....

Every believer as well as every minister of Christ must decide whether he will put his emphasis upon the majors or the minors. He must decide whether he will stay by the sober truths which constitute the beating heart of the Scriptures or turn his attention to those marginal doctrines which always bring division and which, at their best, could not help us much on our way to the Celestial City. The Next Chapter After the Last, 11,14.

"Oh God, we are so inundated with distracting things and clamorous voices. Deliver me today from the trifling things and help me to spend every minute of the day on 'the things that matter.' Amen.

[Anti]Social Networking

I begin here to list reasons I no longer use Facebook. I think these would apply to Twitter, MySpace and other social networking instruments although I have never used them. In any case, this is my own list (not a judgement on anyone else) although it could possibly help to guide - and even guard - others.

1. James 4:14  - For what is your life? It is even a vapor that appears for a little time and then vanishes away.  Computers can take over one's entire life and all too easily. I know enough about myself to be wary. I don't need an easy reason to spend more time at the computer. Somehow I think that, Life consisteth not in the abundance of [Facebook Friends] one possesseth (loose paraphrase of Luke 12:15).

2.1Cointhains 10:23 and 6:12 -  All things are lawful for me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but all things edify not.  All things are lawful unto me, but all things are not expedient: all things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. Facebook is for me - and others - but certainly for me, habit-forming if not addictive. And, "that which I cherish is either an idol or an offering." Two issues here: lack of discipline and idolatry.

3. John 3:30 -  He must become greater and greater, and I must become less and less. For me, Facebook is too easily the gasoline that ignites the spark of self - "me, myself, and I". As Josh Harris put it:  " I found that [Facebook] encouraged me to think about me even more than I already do–which is admittedly already quite a bit. Without any help from the internet I’m [already] inclined to give way too much time to evaluating myself, thinking about myself and wondering what other people think of me. If that egocentrism is a little flame, than Facebook for me is a gasoline IV feeding the fire. I need to grow in self-forgetfulness. I need to worry more about what God is thinking of me. I need to be preoccupied with what he’s written in his word, not what somebody just wrote on my “wall.”

4. If our brains really do have plasticity and are molded in their processes by the tools that we use, then I certainly don't need something else that has me thinking in "sound bytes" and short little bursts of data. Most media and the internet have retooled our minds - rebooted our mental hard drives - so that we neither concentrate nor contemplate as we have and ought. (Nicholas Carr. The Shallows.  Neither do we do it nor can we even if we try. Try sitting down and reading a book for two hours or even an hour or even 15 minutes without squirming and itching to check email or in this case, Facebook. I am conscious that having put this on my blog, you will be one of the few that have read this far - skimed it maybe, but not read it - simply because it's too long and most cannot concentrate that long.

5. Ephesians 5:3, 4 - . . . let it not even be named among you, as is fitting for saints; . . . nor foolish talking, nor coarse jesting, which are not fitting, but rather giving of thanks. Unless every "Friend" is oriented to Ephesians 5 and Philippians 4:8 very few set as a benchmark for their posts, "think on these things". Meaning then that it can be and often is a magnet for the filthy and the foul; at the least, inanity, shallowness, superficiality, baloney becomes characteristic. Whether writes it himself or invites or  engages in such himself, it is still difficult to police, ignore, or hide others.

6. I resist redefinition of English words and phrases - "friend" for example. Someone has written: "As the saying goes, you are lucky if you have two friends who you can completely trust. Most people on Facebook have over a hundred "friends". By using the term to apply to every most casual acquaintance, we devalue its meaning and encourage fleeting superficial relationships. Friends are about quality, not quantity. Facebook friends accumulation is like checking who caught more fish." Someone has identified a significant number of people with this concern. It is called a fear of an Orwellesque Deterioration of Language. But on top of this, English teachers are tearing their hair out at what texting has done to a young person's ability to spell. And that pales next to other linguistic atrocities. Every time I turn around another noun has been turned into a verb - sourced, if you will. Tell me that this does not impact our language, and I've just referenced two examples (or is it three)?

7. True communication is multi-level and one of those levels is the non-verbal level. They say that 80% of communication happens through body language and facial expressions. I miss out on all that with you if you are just a Friend on Facebook..

8. I have seen the incredulity and felt the scorn of those who learn of my general aversion to the Net and to Facebook especially. And people actually get mad at me - or think I am some nutty Luddite - because I try not to check my email out of the office. This kind of thing confirms my suspicions, hardens my resistance, and prove at least to me how questionable the whole thing is.

9. If nothing else, I would have questions about Facebook because of the circumstances under which it was created, the reasons it was created, and the kind of person who created it. Can any good thing come out of that moral and misogynistic mishmash? At what point was it suddenly redeemed? Did I miss something?

10. Bottom line: the charge from Proverbs 4- Guard your heart above all else, for it determines the course of your life. 


Is Google Making Us Stupid? An article in The Atlantic by Nicholas Carr

Bonhoeffer Redux

It is the 65th anniversary year of the Nazi execution of Detrich Bonhoeffer. He died by hanging on April 9, 1945 at the Flossenburg Concentration Camp  for his part in a plot to assassinate Hitler. He was 39.

Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy (April 2010, Thomas Nelson), by Eric Metaxas, was selected by World Magazine as Runner-Up Book of the Year. You can read my earlier blog entry: Bonhoeffer: A Conscience Captive to the Word of God.

This is without a doubt in the list of the top five books that I have ever bought or read.

See the World Magazine review at

http://www.worldmag.com/articles/16863. 

 I hope you will buy it also. 

Bonhoeffer - A Conscience Captive to the Word of God

Now I know better, my early training notwithstanding. How I regret having never questioned the then prevailing notion that Dietrich Bonhoeffer was one of the theological bad guys - not only was he supposedly suspect as to orthodoxy but actually an enemy of the Gospel. Thankfully, it is not too late to profit from the life and writings of this man of God.

Truly, if ever a man spoke with a "conscience captive to the Word of God" (M. Luther) - it was Bonhoeffer: Pastor, Martyr, Prophet, Spy. This is the title of the very revealing and moving new book by Eric Metaxas (also the author of the seminal Amazing Grace: William Wilberforce and the Heroic Campaign to End Slavery).

Metaxas' work is sorely needed, not just for me but for so many others who have been misinformed. Bonhoeffer dared to criticize the politicized cultural "Christianity" of Hitler's Germany (primarily the unbiblical "religious" legalism, fomalism, and Nazi compromise). Metaxas emphasizes - and proves - that Bonhoeffer was not, as some have said, a liberal Christian opposing genuine Christianity. Unfortunately, some English-speaking interpreters of his German letters have unjustly distorted his prison-letters and taken certain phrases -- such as "religionless christianity" -- out of context. To see his genuine love for the whole, unabridged Word of God, please see Bonhoeffer's little booklet, Life Together. 

Kevin Williamson wrote in the Wall Street Journal: "Bonhoeffer’s is a story that the most imaginative novelist could not have invented." I can tell you that it actually does read like a novel while also opening up that darkest of times; after all these years his descriptions still stretch credulity: How could these things have ever happened? How could such people exist in a civilized world and how could so many have been deceived? And how is it possible that so many died the grisley and horrific deaths that they died?

But more to the point, how could such a man as Bonhoeffer come to be? And how could he - or anyone - stand as he did against the tidal wave of National Socialism? He was often alone, and very often at odds with the Nazi controlled German Christians Church, misunderstood and doubted even by his own Confessing Church?

This is a book that is "unputdownable", but one that you eventually do have to stop reading, if only because it is well-over 500 pages long! But 500-plus gripping and inspiring pages they are. And besides that, with mind and emotions in overload, the only thing that one can do sometimes is set it aside. For me that was often to turn to the Word of God, to meditate, and to pray.

Bonhoeffer's best known work is The Cost of Discipleship. In the beginning of the 1963 Macmillan paperback edition there is a "Memoir" written by G. Leibholz." In it he describes Bonhoeffer's faith and martyrdom. Here is an edited version which includes some quotations directly from Discipleship:

Memoir

"In his hearing before the Gestapo during his imprisonment, defenseless and powerless as he then was, only fortified by the word of God in his heart, he stood erect and unbroken before his tormentors. He refused to recant, and defied the Gestapo machine by openly admitting that, as a Christian, he was an implacable enemy of National Socialism and its totalitarian demands toward the citizen—defied it, although he was continually threatened with torture and with the arrest of his parents, his sisters and his fiancée… In 1944, when friends made an attempt to liberate him and to take him to safety abroad, he decided to remain in prison in order not to endanger others.

"The last service which Dietrich Bonhoeffer held on the day before his death... 'moved all deeply....' Every Nazi inflicted death was calculated to be gruesome; Bonhoeffer's was no different when stripped naked he put his head in a noose of piano wire. "Bonhoeffer, who was never tried, went steadfastly on his last way to be hanged, and died with admirable calmness and dignity. God heard his prayer and granted him the 'costly grace'—that is, the privilege of taking the cross for others and of affirming his faith by martyrdom."

"How can a man wax arrogant if in this life he shares the suffering of God?" 

"Both modern liberal theology and secular totalitarianism hold pretty much in common that the message of the Bible has to be adapted more or less, to the requirements of a secular world. No wonder, therefore, that the process of debasing Christianity as by liberal theology led, in the long run, to a complete perversion and falsification of the essence of Christianity...." 

A Christian must be prepared, if necessary, to offer his life for this. Thus all kinds of secular totalitarianism which force man to cast aside his religious and moral obligations to God and subordinate the laws of justice and morality to the State are incompatible with his conception of life.…"

"The life of the spirit is not that which shuns death and keeps clear of destruction: rather it endures death and in death it is sustained. It only achieves its truth in the midst of utter destruction."

"In a modern dictatorship, however, with its subterranean ubiquity and all-embracing instruments of oppression, a revolt means certain death to all who support it. ... The future in modern society depends much more on the quiet heroism of the very few who are inspired by God. These few will greatly enjoy the divine inspiration and will be prepared to stand for the dignity of man and true freedom and to keep the law of God, even if it means martyrdom or death--

"… because they 'look not at the things which are seen, but at the things which are unseen; for the things which are seen /are temporal, but the things that are unseen are eternal." [2 Cor. 4:17-18, 33-34]

"Jesus invites all those that labor and are heavy laden, and nothing could be so contrary to our best intentions, and so fatal to our proclamation  as to drive men away from him by forcing upon them man-made dogmas. If we did so, we should make the love of Jesus Christ a laughing-stock to Christians and pagans alike."

----------------------------------

Please read the book. I would loan you mine but I got it at the library.