Month: October 2016

Eric Metaxas Uses Odd Term – Fascistic Globalism – Twitter Howls

If it hasn’t happened already, this may be Eric Metaxas jumping the shark.


I can’t respond any better than the numerous commenters who are really taking him to task. Click the tweet and read the comments.
Before a couple of months ago, I did not follow Mr. Metaxas and so I can’t tell if this was coming or has recently shown up perhaps in relationship to Trumpism. In any case, I hope it is a curable condition.
On the term “fascistic globalism,” my impression is that it is a far right term with a less than admirable pedigree. It often is written “fascist globalism” and appears on numerous alt-right and far right websites. One has to wonder what well Metaxas is drinking from.
Here is on example of a use of “fascist globalism from the conspiratorial Centre for Globalization Research.

The NATO Treaty, therefore, is, from its inception, a Treaty against Russia. It is not really – and never was – a treaty against communism. The alliance’s ideological excuse doesn’t hold, and never was anything more than propaganda for a military alliance of America and its allies, against Russia and its allies. Consequently, the Warsaw Pact had to be created, on 14 May 1955, as an authentic defensive measure by Russia and its allies. This had really nothing to do with ideology. Ideology was and is only an excuse for war – in that case, for the Cold War. For example, a stunningly honest documentary managed to be broadcast in 1992 by the BBC, and showed that the US OSS-CIA had begun America’s war against «communism» even at the very moments while WW II was ending in 1945, by recruiting in Europe ‘former’ supporters of Hitler and Mussolini, who organized «false flag» (designed-to-be-blamed-against-the-enemy) terrorist attacks in their countries, which very successfully terrified Europeans against ‘communism’ (i.e., against Russia and its allies). As one of the testifiers in that video noted (at 6:45), «In 1945 the Second World War ended and the Third World War started».
The ‘former’ fascists took up the cause against «communism» but actually against Russia; it wasn’t democracy-versus-communism; it was fascists continuing – but now under the ‘democratic’ banner – their war against Russia. This operation was, until as late as 1990, entirely unknown to almost all democratically elected government officials. The key mastermind behind it, the brilliant double-agent Allen Dulles, managed to become officially appointed, by US President Eisenhower in 1953, to lead the CIA. Originally, that subversive-against-democracy element within the CIA had been only a minority faction. Dulles had no qualms even about infiltrating outright Nazis into his operation, and his operation gradually took over not only the US but its allies. His key point man on that anti-democracy operation was James Angleton – a rabid hater of Russians, who was as psychopathic an agent for America’s aristocracy as was Dulles himself. But the CIA was only one of the broader operation’s many tentacles, others soon were formed such as the Bilderberg group. Then, the CIA financed the start of the European Union, which was backed strongly by the Bilderbergers. This was sold as democratic globalism, but it’s actually fascist globalism, which is dictatorial in a much more intelligent way than Hitler and Mussolini had tried to impose merely by armed force. It relies much more on the force of deception – force against the mind, instead of against the body.

Are we to understand that Obama and Clinton are dictatorial in a much more intelligent way than Hitler and Mussolini?
Now think about Trump’s glowing words about Russia and his halting support for NATO and then remember that Metaxas has become quite the Trump apologist of late. It appears that Metaxas may be moving toward the conspiratorial far right in more than just his support for Trump.

Full Statement from Life Christian University President Douglas Wingate on Earned PhDs

Recently, Christian Today posted an article about mega-evangelist Joyce Meyer’s and self-styled historian David Barton’s PhD degree from Life Christian University. In it, LCU’s president Douglas Wingate was quoted in support of his school’s work. I have obtained the entire statement and am posting it here.
I began looking into LCU when David Barton posted a video boasting about having an earned doctorate. The next day he removed the video and has not mentioned his PhD since. Although Barton points to the diploma while on camera, the identity of the school is hidden by one of his honorary degrees. Through enlarging the screen, I was able to determine that the source of the degree is LCU. In this statement, Wingate confirms the source of the degree. Given the statement Wingate provided, the description of the degree as being earned doesn’t seem accurate.
For background on the issue click here, here, here, here, here, here, and here.

Life Christian University’s position on earned, matriculated and honorary degree’s (sic)
Life Christian University is a ministry education institution that is designed to provide training for future ministers who desire to “rightly divide the word of truth” as described in the original doctrines of the New Testament. Though many professing Christians assume that their positions reflect what the Bible teaches, if they alter the operation of the Church and it’s theology in any fashion that does not resemble the miracle power and glory of the first century church, they are missing much of what is available to the born again believer.
Because of this disconnect with much of modern Christendom, LCU receives criticism from parts of the Church, and certainly from the unsaved people of the world system who criticize Christian academics altogether. Life Christian University is not moved for a moment by any criticism from those who simply do not qualify to comment on our beliefs and practices due to their spiritual ignorance, but we validate every position we teach through deep study of the Word of God, without religious influence.
For those who question the legal status of our operation, Life Christian University is exempt from licensure in the state of Florida, but does submit to the laws governing religious institutions with annual verification of compliance with the Commission for Independent Education, a division of the Florida Department of Education. Within this structure LCU provides ministry education in various spiritual disciplines for earned degrees at its main campus in Tampa, Florida and through licensing its curriculum to educationally qualified remote locations in various churches throughout the US and many foreign countries. LCU also offers an online program delivered from the main campus faculty, and available to anyone through the cyber-world who can access our web site and study in English. Our first course is free and available for anyone to view and listen to the lectures and read the free online textbook. Enrollment is not required in order to study the first course.
It seems that questions have arisen concerning various well-known ministers of the Gospel who we refer to as Distinguished Degree holders. These ministers are not graduates of LCU but are those for whom we recognize the comparable academic work in their published teaching materials, many of which we use as texts in our university, and we have matriculated degrees for their work. As with any regularly enrolled student, when we do an assessment on the former education that a student desires to transfer into LCU, we consider any former Bible School credit, liberal arts school credit, Bible School teaching credit and Published Works credit. It is a common practice for even secular liberal arts institutions to offer Life Experience credit.
When a minister has enough credit beyond their customary transfer credit, LCU is able to matriculate degrees for each of the various levels of credit. The first degree is the Bachelors degree, then the Masters degree, then the Doctor of Ministry degree and finally the Ph.D. The necessary credit hours of study that match these degrees is 120 credits of undergraduate study for the Bachelors degree, 36 credit hours of graduate study for the Masters degree, 15 hours of post-graduate study plus a 30 credit dissertation for the D.Min. and 15 hours of post-graduate study plus a 30 credit dissertation for the Ph.D. Again, these degrees may consist of transfer credit, and previously published works. This work, of course, must be for that which falls into the disciplines traditionally offered by the university, but an exception can be made for some work that is outside of, but related to those disciplines. One such discipline would be in Christian American History, which falls into the category of Modern Church History. All of the candidates work is thoroughly examined before credit is awarded and it is clearly identified on their transcript. That is certainly the case with Dr. David Barton, whose work in comparison to the revisionist historians, make them look completely foolish.
Some unsaved liberal academics are drastically opposed to our methods of assessment for earned degree credit, but they need only to concern themselves with their own anti-Christian and often Anti-Christ secular schools, which LCU has nothing in common with. Unfortunately in America, many of these institutions were founded as colonial seminaries, and early American seminaries. It is a tremendous blight on our nation that these secular education institutions have fallen so far from the grace of God, and are now tools of the enemies of God. The pendulum seems to have swung from godliness all the way to demon possession.
When critics complain about the independent, non-government accreditation that we have obtained, as opposed to secular government accreditation, my question is, “Why should the ministry education institutions subject themselves to unbelievers for academic oversight about education that they are absolutely ignorant of?” You wouldn’t ask a prostitute for their opinion on whether or not a virgin should remain pure until she is married. Neither should we subject ourselves to the scrutiny of the spiritually ignorant.
We do not offer any liberal arts in our programs, nor are we in competition with any liberal arts institutions, and therefore do not receive any government monies for our educational programs. In a way you could say we also believe in the separation of church and state. We simply believe that the state should not be involved in the church’s ministry education. In reality, since the first institutions of higher learning in America originated in the church, it seems that the liberal arts institutions should have to come to the church for accreditation. It would certainly change things if they had to meet our standards of spirituality and morality.
Finally, LCU does offer Honorary Degrees to some highly experienced ministers who do not have the formal education, but certainly have the equivalent ministry education, obtained on their own in a non-formal setting. A few of our distinguished degree holders fall into this category. The degrees that they have received are customarily the Doctor of Divinity degree, or Doctor of Sacred Music degree.
In answer to the question about whether we should change the status of our matriculated degrees to honorary degrees, the answer is emphatically, no. It is simply imprudent to compare apples to oranges, and the function of ministry education institutions do not compare to the lower forms of education offered in the secular liberal arts institutions. Those institutions should simply continue doing what they do, and we will simply continue doing what we do.
One day we will all stand before the judgment seat of Christ and be face to face with Jesus himself. Believers will stand before him to receive our rewards for faithfulness to His call on our lives, and unbelievers will face him as Judge, jury and executioner. Then all of these questions will be eternally put to rest.
In his service for a quality, spiritual education,
Dr. Douglas J. Wingate
President and Founder

Wingate claims that Barton’s work in “Christian American History” falls under the category of “Modern Church History.” Wingate has to do this because LCU is only allowed to give degrees which have a religious word in the name and train people for work in the church. I would like to see Barton’s LCU transcript to see what experiences and books were counted as credits. Was The Jefferson Lies counted? How about Original Intent? Barton means these books to make authoritative claims about American history without any reference to religious vocation.
One reason religious schools are exempt from licensing as post-secondary schools is because they are training people to perform religious functions. The state rightly allows churches to determine what training is needed to perform religious duties. However, Barton claims he has an earned degree while purporting to do the work of a historian. If he claims his degree is in some kind of history, a strong case can be made that LCU has gone beyond what it is allowed to do.
In any case, religious or not, the claim that the “Distinguished Degree Holders” have earned degrees is preposterous and misleading. Wingate isn’t fooling anyone. It is time to stop the charade.

Let's Say No to God Mandated Voting (UPDATED)

Eric Metaxas has run into some opposition to his efforts to make God into a vote monitor. Last Wednesday he posted an op-ed in the WSJ which brought God to his side. Then this week, he has been tweeting up a storm about it (He deleted the first one sometime early on 10/18).


Reaction hasn’t been bullish.
Today, Jonah Goldberg at NRO responded. Here’s the big finish:

And that is what I find so galling about Metaxas’ argument. I always thought that the role of conscience in Christianity is to treat it as something of great value and importance. Yes, as Catholics teach, it must be rightly formed through reason. A poorly formed conscience can lead to poor decisions. But conscience also speaks to us from a plateau above mere reason. In Metaxas’s formulation, conscience has been reduced to a kind of virtue-signaling vanity, or maybe the sin of pride. “Don’t listen to your conscience because God wants you to vote for Donald Trump” is a weird argument coming from anybody. But it is downright bizarre coming from the moral biographer of Wilberforce and Bonhoeffer.

I also find Metaxas’ argument galling.
Also today at the Weekly Standard, a more subdued response was offered by Virginia Hume who imagines what God is telling Metaxas:

God would never want us to seek a third option, no matter how far-fetched. He wouldn’t suggest we wake up and turn toward a good man, who also happens to be running. Turns out God is an old-style politico. “Those independent bids never work. Gotta suck it up,” He says, maybe in a Boston or Chicago accent. The only option God sees is supporting the political equivalent of putting something in the microwave just to see what happens.

Given that it is Metaxas, I am guessing his God has some variation of a New York accent.
Some tweeters of note have also weighed in.


and


and


UPDATE: Eric Metaxas posted a clarification of his tweet concerning Evan McMullin on his Facebook page. Apparently, Metaxas responds to celebrity writers but blocks his lesser twitter followers for doing the same thing Jonah Goldberg did (see above for citation to Goldberg’s article).

The following article in @NRO by the estimable Jonah Goldberg misunderstands what I meant in my tweet — but that is more than half my fault because I can now see how the tweet might be confusing. I was making a perhaps obscure theological point having to do with the idea that fig leaves in Eden were used for a good reason, but ultimately they didn’t do the job. Not in God’s eyes. In other words, Adam and Eve knew they were naked, so they made aprons of fig leaves — but God made clear that was not sufficient. Blood needed to be shed. (Which, incidentally, prefigures Jesus’s death on the Cross.) So He supplied them with the skin of animals, innocent animals that were killed. So I OF COURSE support people following their consciences, but I’m implying — ineffectively, I realize now — that the fig leaves of voting for a third party candidate SEEM to do the job, but fail. And as in Eden, God is not fooled. But I realize this came across as though I was saying these people were TRYING to fool God. On some level Adam and Eve were, but I don’t think people voting for Evan MacMullen are, so my tweet really failed to do the job — as tweets seem rather often to fail — and I’m sorry about that. Also, using a fig leaf is a kind of fussy religious act that fails, because it implies that we can do something that we cannot. God has to do that something. And I was implying that religious people were voting for Evan MacMullin to feel good about themselves, which I do think in many cases is true. But that’s a far cry from them trying to fool God. I’m sure this has failed to explain my dumb tweet, but I thought I owed Jonah and all the others who were baffled by it some kind of explanation. My apologies for the confusion. Blesssings!

Metaxas still thinks McMullin voters are doing so to “feel good about themselves,” in other words for some kind of selfish reason. How insulting. My vote for McMullin will be cast because I think he is a good candidate and because I think we need alternatives to the two party system.
I keep trying to grasp how voting for president is in any way like Adam’s and Eve’s fig leaves. The only way I can get anywhere close is if Metaxas starts with the premise that voting for McMullin is some kind of “fussy” self-centered act which is morally inferior to his act of voting for Donald Trump. This explanation doesn’t clarify, it only confuses and offends. It makes his act righteous and mine a deficient moral act of self-deception.
Go back and try again.
UPDATE (10/18/16) – More rebuttal has come the way of Metaxas. First from David French at NRO:

When Metaxas votes for Trump, and when I write in my choice, we’ll both be voting for losing candidates. The difference is that my choice will be fit for the presidency and possess the character and temperament to lead the greatest nation in the world. His choice will not. I’ll be calling on Christians to support a candidate who possesses real integrity. He will not. He’s throwing away his vote on a corrupt, opportunistic demagogue. I am not.

And then comes Bonhoeffer scholar Charles Marsh with this catchy and provocative title: Eric Metaxas’ Bonhoeffer Delusions.

Likening the Third Reich to a Democratic administration would not be surprising from the obstreperous right-wing crusader Ann Coulter, who appears regularly on “The Eric Metaxas Show.” But Metaxas, who purports to be a winsome, irenic apologist for the Christian faith, in the fashion of his friends Tim Keller and Os Guinness, blindsided some evangelicals in proclaiming that a Hillary Clinton victory in November portends the vanquishing of the Republic—and that taking Bonhoeffer seriously in our time means voting for Donald Trump.

You must read the rest.

Thomas Jefferson and Benjamin Rush on Electing God's Man

Yesterday, Eric Metaxas referred his dwindling Twitter followers to read an article comparing Donald Trump with Samson. Roughly, the narrative casts imperfect Trump as a modern day imperfect Samson from the Old Testament. According to the article, we should accept Trump as an imperfect man God can use in the same way God used Samson.
I submit that casting a vote in terms of God’s will is misguided both religiously and politically. I was reminded of Benjamin Rush’s exchange with Thomas Jefferson on a similar point just after Jefferson was first elected president. Below is an segment from my book with Michael Coulter on Jefferson which features Benjamin Rush.
From Getting Jefferson Right:

On August 22, 1800, Jefferson’s friend and fellow signer of the Declaration of Independence, Benjamin Rush, wrote to Jefferson asking for a clarification of his religious views. At their last meeting, Rush had extracted a promise from Jefferson to read William Paley’s book, A View of the Evidences of Christianity. In addition, Jefferson apparently promised to explain his “religious Creed.” As of that writing, Jefferson had not complied with the request.
Rush wrote:

You promised me when we parted, to read Paley’s last work, and to send me your religious Creed.–I have always considered Christianity as the strong ground of Republicanism. Its Spirit is opposed, not only to the Splendor, but even to the very forms of monarchy, and many” of its precepts have for their Objects, republican liberty and equality, as well as simplicity , integrity and Economy in government. It is only necessary for Republicanism to ally itself to the christian Religion, to overturn all the corrupted political and religious institutions in the world. I have lately heard that Lord Kaims became so firm a Beleiver in Christianity some years before he died, as to dispute with his former disciples in its favor. Such a mind as Kaims’ could only yeild to the strongest evidence, especially as his prejudices were on the other Side of the Question. Sir John Pringle had lived near 60 years in a State of indifference to the truth of the Christian Religion.–He devoted himself to the Study of the Scriptures in the evening of his life, and became a christian. It was remarkable that he became a decided Republican” at the same time. It is said this change in his political principles exposed him to the neglect of the Royal family, to whom he was Physician, and drove him from London, to end his days in his native Country (p 318) [144]

Apparently, by telling him of those who converted to Christianity later in life, Rush hoped to convince Jefferson that it was not too late for Jefferson to turn to orthodox Christianity. Jefferson wrote back on September 23, 1800 saying that time constraints had prevented him from honoring his pledge. Jefferson had been thinking about it and wanted to have adequate time to write a complete answer. To Rush, Jefferson wrote:

I promised you a letter on Christianity, which I have not forgotten. On the contrary , it is because I have reflected on it, that I find much more time necessary for it than I can at present dispose of. I have a view of the subject which ought to displease neither the rational Christian nor Diests, and would reconcile many to a character they have too hastily rejected. I do not know that it would reconcile the genus irritabile vatum( 2) who are all in arms against me. Their hostility is on too interesting ground to be softened. The delusion into which the X. Y. Z. plot showed it possible to push the people; the successful experiment made under the prevalence of that delusion on the clause of the Constitution, which, while it secured the freedom of the press, covered also the freedom of religion , had given to the clergy a very favorite hope of obtaining an establishment of a particular form of Christianity through the United States; and as every sect believes its own form the true one, every one perhaps hoped for his own, but especially the Episcopalians and Congregationalists. The returning good sense of our country threatens abortion to their hopes, and they believe that any portion of power confided to me, will be exerted in opposition to their schemes. And they believe rightly: for I have sworn upon the altar of God, eternal hostility against every form of tyranny over the mind of man. But this is all they have to fear from me: & enough too in their opinion, & this is the cause of their printing lying pamphlets against me, forging conversations for me with Mazzei, Bishop Madison, &c., which are absolute falsehoods without a circumstance of truth to rest on; falsehoods, too, of which I acquit Mazzei & Bishop Madison, for they are men of truth.– But enough of this. It is more than I have before committed to paper on the subject of all the lies which have been preached or printed against me. [145]

Jefferson does not address Rush’s proselytizing but instead described his frustration with his critics and his opposition to establishment of Christianity “through the United States.” Rush then wrote back on October 6, 1800 in order to clarify his views on religion and the state.

I [Rush] agree with you [Jefferson] likewise in your wishes to keep religion and government independant of each Other. Were it possible for St. Paul to rise from his grave at the present juncture, he would say to the Clergy who are now so active in settling the political Affairs of the World: “Cease from your political labors-your kingdom is not of this World. Read my Epistles. In no part of them will you perceive me aiming to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a throne. Christianity disdains to receive Support from human Governments.” From this, it derives its preeminence over all the religions that ever have, or ever shall exist in the World. [146] (emphasis added)

Throckmorton, Warren; Coulter, Michael (2012-05-01). Getting Jefferson Right: Fact Checking Claims about Our Third President (Kindle Locations 2267-2328). Kindle Edition.

Rush told Jefferson that St. Paul did not aim “to depose a pagan Emperor, or to place a Christian upon a throne.” What this suggests to me is that these two founders did not believe Christianity needed help from a human leader. In the case of Bonhoeffer, he was trying to save lives and I believe he was right in that. However, to equate stopping Hitler with stopping Hillary, as Eric Metaxas regularly does, diminishes (unintentionally I believe) the Holocaust.
 

Eric Metaxas, Donald Trump, and Samson

Election season just makes everybody a little silly. Like this:


Metaxas linked to an article that makes a case Trump is like Samson.

He doesn’t drink wine, he has a tendency to lie, he has a weakness for women and his hair is sort of a big deal. No, I’m not talking about Donald Trump.
I’m referring to Samson, God’s appointed judge over Israel.

I don’t know who wrote this but I suppose it could be a spoof. I am pretty sure Metaxas takes this as some kind of serious commentary.

According to Scripture, the kings of ancient Babylon and Persia – Nebuchadnezzar and Cyrus – believed in God. One sinned mightily on numerous occasions; the other was “appointed” by God. Both served God’s purpose of preserving His people.
Of course, as disciples of Christ, we should all be striving to appoint leaders who are morally upright and sound in spirit. Our mission in life is to bring sinners to Jesus, so it would be nice to have a righteous ruler who loudly echoed our message. But what about Samson? He turned to the Lord in the closing moments of his life, but where was his godly and spiritual example – as judge over Israel – the other years of his life?
Donald Trump is a sinner.
Donald Trump is not perfect.
Donald Trump is not a great spiritual role model.
Check, check and check. Now let’s look at his policies:

Yes, now let’s look at his policies.
He wants to open up libel laws to make it easier to sue reporters
He wants to sharply limit free trade
He wants to penalize American companies who make things overseas and sell them in the U.S.
He has advocated torture and wants to change laws to allow torture.
He wants to create a deportation force to round up 11 million people costing the economy 300 billion.
He wants to lower tax rates on the wealthy without commensurate relief to middle income earners.
And so on…