Home » Posts tagged 'worldview'

Tag Archives: worldview


What Does It Mean?

Wedding RingsIt is no secret that those who hold to the traditional classic Christian consensus on issues involving human sexuality, marriage, and family life are extremely unpopular these days, especially in the media and political arenas, in which the biblical, patristic, and orthodox consensus is frequently demonized and ostracized.  Faithful Christians (and others who hold to other traditional worldviews/ethics) are considered to be “bigots” or “purveyors of hatred” for not compromising with the modernist and politically correct definitions of love and freedom.  So how does this take place and what does it mean? How should faithful Christians respond?

These ideas are usually couched in high-sounding language of “equality,” “tolerance,” and certain libertarian ideas (it doesn’t hurt anyone right?).  Those who oppose are immediately labeled as “homophobic” (implying that one has a psychological disorder), “intolerant” (with tolerant = endorsement), or “anti-progress” (progress is inherently good).  As discussed in several other places on this site, this tactic is a favorite for the modern chauvinist, and involves even deeper philosophical assumptions that come out of late modernity.   Two articles that have recently been published from different orthodox Christian traditions help shed light on this, and should help those struggling with how to articulate why this is important, and also help those who think the historic-living church is wrong.

The first article is by Reformed Baptist pastor Jonathan Leeman who specializes in political theology, and discusses the nature of what it means to be human, and how those who argue for “marriage equality” are actually making a dehumanizing argument.  Those who argue for it are actually at root arguing for a sort of determinism, in which one’s behavior or tendencies define what it means to be human.  The Christian worldview offers something much deeper, and much more liberating than this sort of behavioristic naturalism:

“There are several assumptions behind the idea that a person with same-sex attraction might say “I am a homosexual” in the same way someone might say “I am a male” or “I am black.” First, one assumes that homosexual desires are rooted in biology and therefore a natural part of being human. Second, one assumes that our natural desires are basically good, so long as they don’t hurt others. Third, one assumes that fulfilling such basic and good desires are part of being fully human.

All the talk about “equality” depends upon these foundational assumptions about what it means to be human.

Marriage then becomes an important prize to be won for people with same-sex attraction because, as the oldest and most human of institutions, marriage publicly affirms these deep desires. Everybody who participates in a wedding—from the father who walks a bride down an aisle, to the company of friends, to the pastor leading the ceremony, to the state who licenses the certificate—participates in a positive and formal affirmation of a couple’s union. It is hard to think of a better way to affirm same-sex desire as good and part of being fully human than to leverage the celebratory power of a wedding ceremony and a marriage.

Make no mistake: The fundamental issue at stake in the same-sex marriage debate is not visitation rights, adoption rights, inheritance laws, or all the stuff of “civil unions.” Those are derivative. It is fundamentally about being publicly recognized as fully human.

Biblically minded Christians, of course, have no problem recognizing people with same-sex attraction as fully human. There are members of my church who experience same-sex attraction. We worship with them, vacation with them, love them. What Christianity does not do, however, is grant that fulfilling every natural desire is what makes us human.

Christianity in fact offers a more mature and deeper concept of humanity, more mature and deep than the person engaged in a homosexual lifestyle has of him or herself.”

The full article is well worth the read, and also discusses why faithful Christians cannot participate in this sort of revisionism: “Love and the Inhumanity of Same-Sex Marriage”

The second article is by a Roman Catholic priest, Rev. Marcel Guarnizo in response to a famous media personality, who discusses the sort of argument in the public sphere involving reason and law and those who claim “I don’t care” or “it doesn’t hurt anyone.”  One of the most dangerous things about this cultural debate is the inherently subjective nature of creating classes and categories based on behavior and tendencies, rather than actual objective realities.  In other words:

“The problem here is that if non-normative tendencies become the criteria for constitutional or state law, law itself will become biographical. This atomization of law, culminates in the inability for us to have fundamental rights, as human beings. Things are institutionalized after centuries in law and custom, because they are recognized as normative, and, in the case of marriage, as a good for society. The legal institution of marriage is the normalization of that which is de facto normative in man. Marriage institutionalized in law and by religion is the proper effect the fruit of a normative tendency in man. Heterosexual, monogamous unions were not simply admitted into the marriage franchise (to which others now seek entry), it is rather the author that produced marriage as we know it. They have as it were, authorship rights over marriage since they produced the institution.”

“Creating institutions in law and possibly at a constitutional level, using non-normative tendencies (which are many and vary greatly in our society), as the justification is unreasonable and theoretically unsound. Equality under the law in this sense is already being assaulted by post-modern philosophy, as unfair. Precisely for this reason, “the notion of “equality under the law,” is now seen by many as failing to address the biographical preferences and tendencies of all kinds of biographical groups in society.  If we continue down that path, there will be no end, except the end of what we now know as the rule of law. It is unreasonable to legislate on constitutional order in this fashion.”  Full article: A Response to Bill O’Reilly on Homosexuality and Marriage

It is important to note that both the Baptist and the Roman Catholic are passionate about (and the articles include this) reaching those who struggle with this in love, and that the church should not simply “shut out” those for which this is a real struggle.   In fact, it is love and concern for those struggling on this, and society as a whole, why these were written (and why I am writing).

After reading both articles (please don’t comment without doing so), what should the Christian response be? How active in the public sphere should Christians be in contending for the Christian worldview in love?durham Cathedral


Better Than I Could Say It…

ImageIf there was ever a quote describing the often bewildering problems Christianity is experiencing in the West, this profound statement from Donald T.  Williams in Touchstone Magazine (Highly Recommended) accomplishes much more than I ever could:

“Faithful Christians with intellectual integrity seem increasingly to find themselves caught between two extremes. On the one hand are Fundamentalists who do not so much claim to have the correct interpretation of Scripture as deny that they are interpreting it at all. On the other hand are Christians influenced by postmodernism, who seem to think that, because everything is interpreted, it is not possible ever to have moral certainty about what the correct interpretation is. To confuse “Thus saith the Lord” with “Thus say I” or to be unable to say “Thus saith the Lord” anymore at all: surely these are not acceptable alternatives. Faithful Christians should steer between them as the Scylla and Charybdis that they are.” – Donald T. Williams, Touchstone Magazine  

The Loss of Benedict XVI as Bishop of Rome (and the future)

I will be honest from the outset, I admire Benedict XVI (or Herr Ratzinger if you prefer) greatly.  This may surprise some of my evangelical/fundamentalist brethren, but let me encourage you to cast aside the polemical blinders for a second, and take a look at one of the great theologians and Christian leaders in modern times.   A Christocentric, Scripturally adept, and thoughtful theologian who is also an accomplished Mozart pianist and one who understand the worldview shifts going on in the West better than most.  Anyone who publicly warns against the “tyranny of moral relativism” gets my attention.  This is who Benedict XVI is, and as such, he represents the best of the Roman tradition, and is to be applauded.  His trilogy on the life of Christ called “Jesus of Nazareth” should be read by all Christians, and in the words of one confessional Lutheran, the work is a victory for “Mere Christianity.” His defense of what has always been taught about life, marriage, and other moral issues are often stronger and more persuasive than some of the “playing nice” stuff that comes out of American evangelicalism in particular.

Now as one who is not in communion with the Bishop of Rome (Pope) over several areas of theological disagreement (with the Roman church in general), but who is tradition-minded, creedal, conciliar, and sacramental Western Christian, I am choosing to focus on the “Mere Christian” perspective, and wish more would do the same as the West becomes increasingly secularized.  A fundamental Baptist, confessional Lutheran, continuing Anglican, and traditional Roman Catholic have far more in common than they do apart, especially in a culture of increasing secularism and hostility to the Christian worldview.  Benedict was (and still is) an ally in this regard.  We can only hope and pray his successor shares the same willingness to challenge the secularizing of the West.

But rather than continue praise his merits as a leader, scholar, and yes, fellow Christian, I thought I would demonstrate what Christians in other traditions have written about him, to show that I am not alone in this thinking, but rather a little late to the party!  First, consider this article by Baptist theologian Timothy George at Beeson Divinity School:

Benedict XVI: The Great Augustinian

To quote George:

“Soon after Benedict emerged as the surprise choice of the most recent papal conclave in 2005, I wrote an essay on why Evangelical Protestants, among orthodox believers of all persuasions, should be pleased at his election. I summarized the promise of his new pontificate in five points. I emphasized that:


• he takes truth seriously, an antidote to what he called on the eve of his papal election “the dictatorship of relativism”;

• his theology is Bible-focused, building on the declaration of Vatican II that “easy access to sacred Scripture should be provided for all the Christian faithful”;

• his message is Christocentric, boldly asserting that Jesus Christ is the divine Son of God and the only Redeemer of the world;

• he is a fierce champion of the culture of life, advocating for the most vulnerable members of the human community, the children still waiting to be born.

To these four items I added a fifth: Joseph Cardinal Ratzinger is an Augustinian.”

Read the whole article here. 

For another perspective which I alluded to above, a confessional Lutheran professor shares his thoughts, and says that “But, as a frail and exhausted man stricken in years now passes into the annals of history while remaining for a while alive on earth, I express my appreciation, admiration, sympathy, and prayers.” 

If you aren’t praying already for the Cardinals gathered in Rome to select a new leader, you should be.  There are many goats in the Roman church who want to compromise with the world and “change with the times,” and the media of course wants to choose someone who is politically correct.  Like any Christian tradition, Roman Catholic, Protestant/Evangelical, or Orthodox, there are many forces for ill both within and without, as the Great Realignment continues.  So pray!   Any other perspectives you would like to offer?

Grazie Santità!

The Great Realignment

“This is not the protestant/catholic divide; it is not the evangelical-charismatic vs. mainline divide. It cuts across all communities in the West, even affecting the Orthodox and Roman Churches in some degree…It is creating a massive realignment within Christianity; those who hold to the traditional Scriptural and patristic Faith and discipline of Orthodox Catholicism; and those who reject it, criticize it, and I will add, as you well know, persecute it…There is a radical cultural shift away from traditional Christianity, toward something unrecognizable.”
– Metropolitan Jonah of the Orthodox Church in America (OCA), addressing the assembly of the Anglican Church in North America (ANCA). 

What is happening to the church in the West?  To summarize Metropolitan Jonah, church_ruinsan apostasy is taking place, where good portions of people claiming to be Christian are utterly compromising with the post/anti-Christian western world, to the point of claiming God endorses sin as part of his design, and denying the exclusive truth that is the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus and everything that entails.  While heresies have always plagued the church from the very beginning (Gnostics, Arians, etc…), the wholesale rejection of the classic Christian ethic on issues such as the family, sexuality, life, and evangelism is new in the history of Christianity.  It is an interesting time when the “global south” or “third world” has to call out Christians and church bodies that previously evangelized them!

This split has its roots in some of the “higher criticism” that came out of the misnamed “Enlightenment” of the 18th century, and the radical break with traditional Christianity in academic circles in the 19th century.  In fact, this conflict would come to a head in the 1920’s-30’s “fundamentalist vs. modernist” controversy that affected all of the major Christian communities in the United States.  While the “modernist” group early on compromised on essential parts of the Christian faith (such as the Virgin Birth, bodily Resurrection of Christ etc…), there was enough residual Christian worldview and Western culture that the shift wasn’t as noticed in the overall culture until later on in the 20th century, when the invention of “new theologies” and the rise of ultramodern/postmodern thought came to the fore.  While the following chart is not absolute by any means (thank God for the faithful still remaining and trying to turn things around, and every faithful group has goats), it does demonstrate where the general trends are in the different Christian traditions, and what groups are at least attempting to be faithful to the “traditional Scriptural and patristic faith” as Jonah put it (for brevity, I will focus on three traditions in the U.S.):

Confessional/Traditional/Orthodox   —- Modernist/Compromising
Anglicans                                                         Anglicans
Anglican Church in North America                       Episcopal Church
Orthodox Anglican Church
Continuing Anglican Groups

Lutherans                                                                     Lutherans
Lutheran Church-Missouri Synod                    ELCA (Evan. Luth. in America)
Wisconsin Evangelical Lutheran Synod
American Association of Lutheran Churches

Presbyterians                                                Presbyterians

Presbyterian Church in America (PCA)                  Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.)
Orthodox Presbyterian Church
Bible Presbyterian Church

Christchurch 2011 - St Johns Anglican ChurchWith very little variance, those on the right-hand side tend to take a “progressive” and “new” view on things such as women in ministry, sexuality, abortion, euthanasia, liberation theology, and the like.  The biblical text is considered “important,” or “central,” but modern chauvinist readings of the text and “alternative theologies” are accepted or even encouraged.  The classic consensus of the church (based on the Scriptures, the fathers, the ancient councils and creeds etc…) are given historical value, but are not part of an active, living and breathing faith handed down since the beginning.  This allows them to engage in politically correct sociopolitical actions, and to change theology on the whims of cultural trends.  Those who actually maintain the faith handed down are branded “(prefix)-phobic, patriarchal, oppressive, unloving” and many other favorite pet-labels of the modern chauvinist.

By contrast, those on the left hand side almost always subscribe to a confession of faith that is considered normative and binding on believers everywhere (all three include the ancient councils and creeds), and maintain the biblical (as the actual inspired word of God) and natural law positions on sexuality, family, etc…The Roman Catholic and Eastern Orthodox traditions officially maintain what has always been taught on these issues like those on the left-hand side, but there is much rebellion in the ranks of the average congregant and some of the lower clergy, as Jonah notes above, meaning the most tradition-minded churches are not immune.

The Great Realignment is taking place, so where do you stand?  One encouraging development has been a renewed interest in the consensus-bearing era of the church (first 700 years or so), as a way of Christians expressing a common heritage.  Other developments include faithful Christians joining together in statements such as the Manhattan Declaration, or in visual support such as that of Metropolitan Jonah to the faithful Anglicans.  We should also pray for those who have been seduced by the post-Christian west to return to the faith handed down, and for those faithful who remain within to try to work for renewal.  Kyrie Eleison!

Hill of Slane Ruins-Ireland

Hill of Slane Ruins-Ireland

(Let us hope and pray that the new Pontiff of the Roman church is firm, faithful, and addresses these issues head on). 

A Challenge To Read

A fantastic initiative is taking place in an online community, and I heartily recommend to those of you reading this to participate.  It is simply called, “Read the Fathers,” and can be found at readthefathers.org.  By dedicating yourself to reading just 7 pages a day, you will become familiar with the great treasures of early Christianity, and deepen your faith and worldview in the process.  Here are just 5 reasons in no particular order of why I hope many do this:

1. You Will Know Your Family History.  Many Christians from a variety of traditions often refer to “our church family” and point out the frequent family language used throughout the Scriptures.  There is of course nothing wrong with this, but the view of family here is often limited to one’s local congregation.  Our family is MUCH bigger than this, and includes those who have gone before us (and are still alive in Christ).   In an age when orthodoxy is mocked and every opinion considered equally valid, reading and studying the fathers will show how temporal much of what passes for modern trendy theology and church is.

2. You Will Be Inspired.  If as a Christian you do not weep at some point while reading the Martyrdom of Polycarp, you are doing it wrong.  And this is only one writing.  When you see these ancient Christians stand up to emperors, conquer the flesh, encourage the struggling, persevere through suffering, and do their best to live authentic Christian lives, it will make you want to “go and do likewise.”  This will also help you put our current situation in the West into perspective.  Speaking of the West…

3.  Restoring the West.  It is almost cliché to mention the decadence of the West, but the fact of moral, spiritual, and cultural decline is ever-present. One great way to help reclaim the culture is to rediscover our roots.  What is great about western civilization is founded on the Judeo-Christian and Classical traditions, and the church fathers were steeped in both.  Our own heritage is counter-cultural today, and one must be familiar with it in order to take action and educate others to “stem the tide.”  This is one way in which we can truly create culture, rather than just whine and complain about it.  Read Gregory the Theologian’s Poetry and set it to music if you must!

4.  It Will Help You Read the Scriptures.  As theologian Thomas C. Oden puts it, “The history of the church is a history of exegesis.”  The fathers knew the Scriptures extremely well (many had huge portions memorized), and many were active pastors teaching the Scriptures to their flock.  Reading how John Chrysostom teaches on Matthew, or how Gregory the Great deals with Job, will force you to dig into the text, and better understand the Scriptures yourself.  Even if you disagree with a conclusion, you will have to know why you disagree, meaning you are contending with Holy Scripture the entire time. The Holy Spirit has been with the church since Pentecost, so why not read how the Spirit guided what became some of the most foundational received doctrine in Christendom?

5.  It Will Help You Be Disciplined.  Self-denial and discipline, especially of the mind, are not popular in today’s entertainment and consumer driven culture.  We may admire those who are able to exhibit such behavior, but we rarely do anything ourselves.  By committing to do this in community, with a schedule and seeing how others respond, you will be amazed at how little time you will have for frivolous things.  In fact, if reading the fathers caused more Christians to get rid of most Christian self-help books based in individualist pop-psychology, many pastors would be in trouble (in a good way).  In a very real sense, reclaiming our classic Christian heritage could go a long way in regards to renewal in the church.

There are many other reasons for doing this, such as the reasons provided here at the Pocket Scroll.  He also has a great list of ways to NOT read the fathers, which I also recommend checking out.   The website has links to all of the works for free online in late 19th century editions, and also provides some recommendations for other more modern translations should you need them.  So, I challenge all of you to join me, just 7 pages a day, in participating in the community of saints.

Torment of St. Anthony, Michelangelo

Meat, Fat, and Bone (Faith as a Piece of Meat)

“That in doctrine and ceremonies nothing has been received on our part against Scripture or the Church Catholic.”Augsburg Confession

(This a bit of fun with an extended metaphor of mine.  Like any metaphor it isn’t perfect, but I hope it illustrates an important point).

Imagine for a moment that you have a cut of meat.  This cut includes meat, fat, and a large bone (perhaps a t-bone stake for my western American friends).  Now these three elements in the cut can vary greatly in proportion, and these proportions can greatly affect the taste, cooking, and perception of the meat.

So where am I going with this? It is my contention that the idea of “reformation” at its best is trimming the fat.  In the late medieval church, the “fat” part of the cut of meat was obscuring the meat and bone, and many of the leaders of the church were so focused in on the fat part that the meat and bone were being neglected or confused.  Notice however that the cut of meat still exists, and that the gospel is still present, even if the fat has gotten in the way.  Fat can be a good thing.  It can add flavor, complement the meat and bone, and for those who have had “good fat,” one absolutely misses it when it is gone.  This idea of “trimming the fat” is exactly what I think what most Lutherans and a good portion of Anglicans were doing.  Both were attempting to cut away the excess fat, but as a whole were naturally conservative, trying to maintain the classical Christian tradition (especially the councils, creeds, and liturgy).  This attitude is reformation at its best, a calculated and cautious response to the abuses of the age, and a call to the sources (Scripture, and the classical consensus).   There is nothing new being taught, as reflected in the quote from the Augsburg Confession above (the emphasis on the “One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic Church” found in the Anglican tradition is similar).*

This can be contrasted with what one might call more “radical” types of reformation, so much so that some groups even argue for some form of “restoration.”**  Many of these groups are so paranoid about the fat part that they overreact, cutting away not only the good fat, but parts of the meat as well.  In fact, some pride themselves in creating theologies that define themselves by their avoidance of fat.  Some are perhaps left with a bone and little else.  Now this may be the correct bone (i.e., the gospel is still present), but it is such a limited and stunted view of the life of the church that they are missing out.  Many of these groups can be seen making statements like “we don’t preach the creeds here, we only preach the bible” (as if somehow one excludes the other), or “we don’t do what the Catholics do,” or “I like Luther, but he didn’t go far enough.”

Please don’t misunderstand, many that I know from this mindset do live exemplary lives, and know the Scriptures in ways that should make any orthodox Christian applaud.  But there is something inherently troubling when entire groups of Christians so divorce themselves from the historical church that the gospel is ONLY the bone, and anyone that disagrees “isn’t reading their bible.”  The blood, sweat, and tears that were shed over centuries to pass down to us a living breathing faith, is ignored because “it isn’t in my Bible” (usually based on a certain set of presuppositions going in).   Many fail to see that 19th century revivalism is NOT the norm for Christians everywhere and for all time, and that reading post-Enlightenment ideals of “democracy” into the church creates a myriad of problems.  When this occurs, those in the Roman and Eastern Orthodox traditions are absolutely correct when they accuse Evangelicals of having “millions of little popes.”

Augsburg Confession

So as we approach both Reformation Day and All Saints Day (and yes, we should keep observing the latter, along with the calendar in general), remember and honor all the great Christians that existed (and are alive today!) before the reformation, and for most of my Protestant friends, that means the Christians that lived between 500 and around 1200 in particular.  Unless of course you believe the church disappeared for 700 years and Christ lied when he said, “…I will build my church and the gates of Hades (Hell) will not prevail against it” (Matt. 16:18).

* For an interesting take on some Anglican heroes, the pocket scroll has a good post (and he shares my sentiments I believe at the end).

** This is the view of heretical groups such as the LDS (Mormons), JW’s (Jehovah’s Witnesses) and perhaps some forms of the Seventh Day movements.  To use our analogy, the piece of meat completely disappeared for centuries, and needed to be restored and reconstituted by 19th century Americans.

Not Surprised

According to a new Pew survey, and as publicized by news organizations such as CNN, the number of Americans claiming “no religion” has reached 1 in 5, the highest ever.  Anyone who has observed the culture in the last few decades should not be shocked by this number.  In fact, the number in all likelihood is actually higher, since many of those who officially “affiliate” are still “practical atheists,” meaning that their supposed faith has no bearing whatsoever on their daily lives, and that their religion is a completely private affair.  God is weightless in this type of Christianity.  If a Christian is better defined as one who is active in the church, takes scripture seriously, tries to live an upright life, and tries to implement and practice a comprehensive Christian worldview, the number is actually probably reversed.  In other words, only 1 in 5 are actually committed Christians.  Since the Pew survey also includes other religions and heretical groups, the number might actually be optimistically 1 in 8.  Of course many secularist and atheist organizations are ecstatic, thinking that this will lead to some sort of secularist utopia, where man can worship himself (read some of the Christian-bashing comments on the bottom of the story if you feel up to it).

In typical post-Christian (and post-modern) fashion, many of these “non-affiliated” call themselves “spiritual but not religious,” a statement symptomatic of the highly individualized “personal religion” that is in vogue currently.  The number is even higher for young people, with numbers in the 30-40 percent range.  Interestingly, the “header” on the top of the CNN page involving this story includes an article of how the “spiritual not religious” statement is in reality an intellectual cop-out, and is worth a read.  With this in mind, here are a few thoughts (not necessarily systematized, as this is pretty fresh):

1. Apologetics is and will continue to be extremely important for the church, especially in the education of the young.  The vast majority of Christians who are still making an attempt to be faithful, are woeful when it comes to “knowing why you believe what you believe,” and in many cases fail to even successfully articulate basic Christian doctrine (such as the Trinity, person of Christ, etc…).  Young people can see through the latest and greatest programs and gimmicks, so let’s give them some meat and teach them how to defend it.  If your response to questions about the faith is “that doesn’t matter as long as you have a personal relationship,” you may be making the problem worse.  Educate thyself!

2. The church (especially those classified as “evangelical”, although other orthodox Christians as well), in order to “reach the culture,” has preached such a stunted view of Christianity that this is a highly predictable result.  When it is preached constantly that “all you need is a personal relationship,” and that “personal study” is the be-all/end-all, every person becomes a pope unto himself.  Who needs the church, the creeds, the councils, the fathers, Greek, etc…when it is just me and my Jesus over a cup of coffee?  What is amazing about this is how many assert this version of evangelicalism dogmatically while saying “we don’t need dogma/doctrine” without missing the irony of the statement.

3. This is also why grounding one’s self in historic Christianity is a position of strength, as it inoculates you from being “tossed about by every wind of doctrine” (Eph. 4:14).   Become biblically literate, know the Creeds and Councils, and live and defend them.  Do NOT just do this because “we’ve always done it that way.”  Keep in mind the axiom of the late Jaroslav Pelikan, “Traditionalism is the dead faith of the living.  Tradition is the living faith of the dead.”  We have a living faith that has been dearly bought by blood, sweat, toil, and tears.  Receive it and pass it down faithfully, “tearing down every argument that sets itself up against the knowledge of God” (II Cor. 10:4).

4. Faithful orthodox Christians will become increasingly unpopular and unwelcome in the culture.  Modern chauvinists will try to marginalize, persecute, and ridicule those of us who hold to the faith and worldview that results.  The culture will continue to deteriorate as the West undercuts the foundation that made it great in the first place.  We should rejoice when we are subjected to this however, and be ever more bold when opportunities arise.

5. Orthodox Christians everywhere, who are already starting to cooperate together (in movements such as the Manhattan Declaration), should start taking seriously the idea of forming cultural alternatives, not just aped versions of what passes for culture today.  You may be viewed as a reactionary, “anti-progress,” “old-fashioned,” or whatever label that usually comes with such things.  The great classical Christian culture of the West is now counter-cultural, and this is a good thing.  Our own heritage in the West can be a witness against the West.

Anyone else care to comment on this story? Possible Solutions? Experiences?