Christianity in Today's AmericaTweet
Posted 4/17/14 at 9:44 AM | Michael Youssef
Much of the world will be celebrating Easter this week. Unfortunately, in the West, secular humanism has relegated the Christian Easter to mere “Easter bunnies” and “Easter eggs.”
That degeneration can be closely linked to Western society’s replacement of “thinking” with “feeling.” We have replaced the thermostat with the thermometer. We have given up on rigorous intellectual debate of facts and irrefutable truth and replaced it with “that’s fine if that’s how you feel about it.”
Perhaps the trend is no clearer than when the media—and consequently, the man on the street—expresses an opinion on the resurrection of Jesus Christ.
In the past, people either accepted or rejected Christ’s resurrection as a fact of history. But in today’s post-modern culture—where most of the “thinking” takes place between the nose and the chin—people are apt to say, “Jesus rose from the dead? So what?” FULL POST
Posted 4/4/14 at 11:47 AM | Michael Youssef |
While many pundits lament the fact that the Obama/Kerry foreign policy is timid, confused, and easily intimidated by strongmen like Vladimir Putin, I submit that it is best compared to a mediocre schoolyard bully.
A mediocre bully is the weak kid who attempts to project strength by picking on those weaker than him. He spews all sorts of threats (i.e., sets “red lines”), but he immediately backs down when a bigger bully shows up.
Why? The mediocre bully knows he’s no match for the stronger one, so he avoids going “mano a mano” with him.
A perfect example of that is when the U.S. State Department’s Marie Harf recently reacted to the decision by an independent Egyptian court to sentence 529 criminals and terrorists to death. Ms. Harf described the decision as “unconscionable” and threatened that the sentence would impact future American aid.
Unfortunately, it’s all too easy for the State Department to forget what those terrorists did: FULL POST
Posted 3/25/14 at 10:42 PM | Anthony Horvath
Today’s headline on the Drudge Report did not surprise me in the slightest:
ABORTED BABIES INCINERATED TO HEAT HOSPITALS
The article linked to is this one in the Telegraph:
Aborted babies incinerated to heat UK hospitals:
The remains of more than 15,000 babies were incinerated as ‘clinical waste’ by hospitals in Britain with some used in ‘waste to energy’ plants
I had a variety of thoughts hit me simultaneously and in quick succession. I have read stories about abortionists tossing out sacks of aborted babies. I am aware of the use of fetal materials derived from aborted children to create vaccines. I know that there are companies using fetal remains to do experiments to perfect the taste of foods. (This link gives a good overview of both of those examples). Those are things already happening. Then, there are ‘bio-ethicists’ such as Jacob Appel proposing that women purposefully sell the parts of their aborted children on the open market; his article doesn’t speak to the ethics of, perhaps, a woman conceiving for the express purpose of financing her way through school by selling off the body parts of of her offspring. FULL POST
Posted 3/7/14 at 1:15 PM | Michael Youssef
A segment of the American public must be yelling expletives whenever the results of our apparently incoherent foreign policy show up on their TV screens. Many can only react to our dealings with Syria, Iran, Libya, Israel, and now Russia with bewilderment and anger.
The news outlets that are balanced keep replaying the words of Sarah Palin and Mitt Romney, four years apart, predicting Russia’s intentions toward Ukraine. Watching those statements leaves us baffled as to why the mainstream media lampooned them when they accurately and perceptively anticipated Russia’s deviant move.
But let me explain what’s going on. It does make sense if you understand the perspective:
Obama/Clinton/Kerry, et al, represent a segment of society with a worldview that churns the stomach of anyone with a Judeo-Christian worldview. Their worldview was known in the 20th century as “secular humanism.” Now it is called “progressive ideology,” but the only thing progressive about it is its name. FULL POST
Posted 2/28/14 at 11:55 AM | Michael Youssef |
Regular readers of my column know that I usually don’t use the words “conservative” and “liberal.” Why is that?
Because those words in today’s lingo—like the words “love” and “democracy”—can mean almost anything you want. Unlike past times when precision in meanings was important, we have now produced a generation that no longer understands the historic or political meaning of those words.
Within the population of the confused, however, my greatest disappointment is held for those who describe themselves as economically conservative, but socially liberal. But do they even know what that means?
On the economics side, this is what I think they mean:
On the social, or moral, side, I think it normally boils down to two issues:
However, there’s a major problem in trying to fit those two sides together. In God’s economy, total acceptance of Judeo-Christian morals has usually accompanied true blessings and economic prosperity. FULL POST
Posted 2/25/14 at 8:32 PM | Anthony Horvath |
I was reading CS Lewis’s The Four Loves and came across the quote below. Obviously, Lewis is not specifically addressing universal health care or liberalism or the question of using the government to administer love. Even Christians can be found thinking that it is a noble expression of a loving society to have the government do the loving… and this with no apparent thought to the actual effect that this ‘loving’ will have on the people ‘loved’ and the attitude it fuels in the people-government doing the ‘loving.’ The most important thing seems to be that, well, people’s intentions are good, and it’s better to do something rather than nothing. Here is the quote:
This [is] Gift-love, but one that needs to give; therefore needs to be needed. But the proper aim of giving is to put the recipient in a state where he no longer needs our gift. We feed children in order that they may soon be able to feed themselves; we teach them in order that they may soon not need our teaching. Thus a heavy task is laid upon this Gift-love. It must work towards its own abdication. We must aim at making ourselves superfluous. The hour when we can say “They need me no longer” shall be our reward. But the instinct, simply in its own nature, has no power to fulfil this law. The instinct desires the good of its object, but not simply; only the good it can itself give. A much higher love- a love which desires the good of the object as such, from whatever source that good comes- must step in and help or tame the instinct before it can make the abdication. And of course it often does. But where it does not, the ravenous need to be needed will gratify itself either by keeping its objects needy or by inventing for them imaginary needs. It will do this all the more ruthlessly because it thinks (in one sense truly) that it is a Gift-love and therefore regards itself as “unselfish.” (pgs 50-51) FULL POST
Posted 2/20/14 at 4:21 PM | Michael Youssef
It is easy to question Hillary Clinton’s competence during her tenure as Secretary of State. U.S. relations with Russia have deteriorated, Iran and North Korea have not been restrained, and Syria has fallen into chaos.
And as far as blunders go, it’s hard to compete with her revealing congressional testimony about the reason for the Benghazi attack, during which she heartlessly asked, “What difference does it make?”
But her greatest blunder was failing to recognize the Muslim Brotherhood of Egypt for what it was: a terror organization.
The Muslim Brotherhood is just like its kissing cousin, Hamas. Their definition of democracy is: one man, one vote, one time. After the first election, you’ll never see another.
Clinton’s unbridled support for the Brotherhood leader and now-disgraced former Egyptian President, Mohamed Morsi, was inexcusable. A freshman in Foreign Policy 101 would have seen through the charade that led to her historic miscalculation. FULL POST
Posted 2/7/14 at 11:47 AM | Michael Youssef |
You better believe it!
Sure, if you only equate persecution with those who are burned alive inside churches like Islamists do to Christians in Nigeria, then we are not.
If you mean persecution only applies to those who are beheaded with a dull-edge sword as Islamists do to Christians in Syria, then again, no.
If you mean it is only about crucifying people alive as Islamists do to Christians in Pakistan and elsewhere, then that doesn’t apply either.
The subtler persecution of Christians in America, which began mildly with the media mocking Jimmy Carter’s “born again” claim, has escalated rapidly in the last five years.
If Christians in a social gathering, or on the Piers Morgan show, say they believe that Jesus is the only Savior and Lord, they will incite the most venomous verbal attack. If Christians speak out against Islamism or the celebration of homosexuality, they will be attacked with labels such as “Islamophobe” or “homophobe”—words manufactured by two groups that would normally hate each other, but join forces for the purposes of eliminating the true Christian point of view. FULL POST
Posted 1/24/14 at 11:51 AM | Michael Youssef |
For twenty years, Mr. Obama drank from a particular brand of religion—Liberal Christianity. To be sure, most Bible-believing Christians would not consider that brand to be Christianity at all. But liberal Christians would consider their brand to actually be the enlightened one.
Over time, Liberal Christianity has developed a humanistic understanding of what the Christian faith is about. They claim that Christians who still believe the Bible is God’s perfect self-revelation are stuck back in the 1st century. Society has evolved, they say. And because society has evolved, God must be evolving also. After all, why else would He allow such change to occur?
Thus, people who take the Bible as the absolute truth for all time are branded as rigid and unenlightened.
Not surprisingly, such liberal thinkers have similar views about the U.S. Constitution. They claim that our founders never intended for the Constitution to be absolute for all time; it was only relevant for their time period. Therefore, it ought to be modified or done away with. FULL POST
Posted 1/16/14 at 5:05 PM | Michael Youssef
The media always misses the big stories of historic proportion. Only years later do they reluctantly admit it.
Here are some examples of globally-significant stories that the anti-Christian mainstream media deliberately lost in the shuffle. The stories have to do with events in Egypt during the last few years—events that I am very familiar with.
It is impossible to ascertain whether they refuse to report these stories because of their anti-Christian bias, or because the stories run contrary to the narrative propagated by the current White House. Either way, the omissions are no accident.
The Egyptian Revolution of January 2011 was fully covered—every media outlet had reporters on the ground in Tahrir Square. It was a story that executive producers in New York and London could embrace with gusto: Masses of people demonstrating against a secular dictator. FULL POST