Thinking and Speaking Christianly

2 Corinthians 10:1-5

A. Bodily walk v. 3

See 2 Cor. 6:4-5

endurance

afflictions

hardship

pressures

beatings

imprisonments

riots

labors

sleepless nights

times of hunger

We have to live in the world but we don’t have to think the way the world does. The fact we don’t think that way is demonstrated by how we handle the hardships life throws at us, the choices we make day by day, the priorities we set in our lives. In the event we do the same things the world does, it is important to understand that we do them for different reasons and with different goals.

What self-respecting activist couldn’t go down through the list above and honestly say “Been there, done that”? Abortion activists of both sides, gay rights, civil rights, animal rights, women’s rights, anti-war activists, the list goes on. Yet while some of these represent legitimate issues which need resolution, the reason why they are important and the tactics used to bring about a solution are much different for the Christian.

B. Spiritual warfare v. 4

See 2 Cor. 6:6

purity

knowledge

patience

kindness

the Holy Spirit

sincere love

It’s spiritual warfare, warfare not waged in a fleshly way. This should not be understood as eyes rolled back passively waiting for the Spirit to move sort of warfare. Nor is it an aggressive “I command you in the name of Jesus” to do something methodology used by deliverance ministry types.

The Christian recognizes that the enemy is sin and Satan who uses to his advantage the corruption of sin. Satan has effectively persuaded millions of people that defective systems of thought and ways of thinking are perfectly legitimate. In other words, he has convinced them that a non-biblical worldview is not only acceptable, it is preferable and one which should be imposed on those who have a biblical worldview.

See “Competing Ideologies in the Classroom”

The battle is being waged on the field of ideas. We must understand that our enemies are not simply adding their ideas and ideologies to the mix and leaving it up to the individual to choose what he wants to believe. Rather, they are determined to persuade others to subscribe to their system of thought. This is true of Muslims, evolutionists, secular humanists, postmodernists, and all the other “ists” who are enemies of God.

C. Intellectual weapons v. 5

See 2 Cor. 6:7

message of truth

power of God

weapons of righteousness

It’s warfare not waged in a fleshly way, yet we are fleshly creatures; God uses human resources “enhanced” by the power of the Holy Spirit to have a spiritual effect. The weapons of which Paul speaks are those that require use of the mind. Even our bodily walk requires direction from our mind, directing us in ways of behavior pleasing to God. The weapon which will be effective in “pulling down strongholds” or the “demolish[ing of] arguments” is a sanctified mind.

Notice it is arguments and not individuals who are demolished; our weapons of righteous thinking and apology must be directed at unbiblical arguments and worldviews or systems of thought.

The end which these weapons were to subserve, and to which they were adapted, is announced in “pulling down strongholds“. They are the instrumentalities by which the world, or the god of this world, endeavors to obstruct the progress of God’s cause and the cause of salvation. ὀχύρωματα, ochuromata, signifies castles or fortresses. They are things intended to serve in the mind as strong holds do in warfare. Lange

Truth always prevails over error – it may not be immediate but since God is the author of truth, He and it will prevail. Therefore we should not be hesitant to use God’s truth to proactively challenge wrong-headed thinking, questioning invalid arguments and erroneous conclusions. At the same time we must remember that such thinking and reasoning is not the product of stupidity but rather blindness.

2 Corinthians 4:3-4 But if, in fact, our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. Regarding them: the god of this age has blinded the minds of the unbelievers so they cannot see the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God. HCSB

Lange goes on to state:

As the first and most prominent of these strong holds, he mentions λογισμόύς, logismous, intellectual bulwarks which were probably not so much projects or hostile plans as unevangelical thoughts or fixed conclusions of human (Hellenistic or Judaistic) philosophy, in direct opposition to the Christian faith.

These are the ideas that friends, neighbors, coworkers express to us in casual conversation; they are what is portrayed in the average movie or sitcom or reality show. It is important to recognize, though, that while the actors following the script may not have a particular agenda, the script writers and producers often do have the explicit and stated purpose of persuading viewers to subscribe to their viewpoint.

The ancient maxim goes, “Nature abhors a vacuum”; that does seem to be true with people and worldviews or their systems of thought. If we, using biblically sound reasoning, demolish their arguments and pull down the stronghold they are using for defense, we must provide them with something in return. If our ideological enemies are to become our friends, they must let go of their old way of thinking and adopt a new system of thought. Consequently, our strategy must include a presentation of Gospel truth for the explicit purpose of evangelizing – think Home Improvement – their old, rundown, failing shelter is replaced with a solid structure able to give real protection.

Paul envisages the final stage in the annihilation of an ancient city. After storming the gates, overcoming the defenders, tearing down the walls and buildings, the cities inhabitants are carried off as prisoners of war. In relationship to Christianity, he sees opposing ideas in the world so totally defeated that they become subservient to the gospel.

[W]e should not think that Paul means that Christ will overcome every random thought we have. Rather, he has in mind thoughts directed toward a purpose, a philosophy. Also, ultimately it is not just philosophies that become captive to Christ but the people attached to them. “Obedient to Christ” means to accept the gospel of Christ as true and to honor Christ as Lord. College Press NT Commentary



<!– @page { margin: 0.79in } P.sdfootnote { margin-left: 0.2in; text-indent: -0.2in; margin-bottom: 0in; font-size: 10pt } P { margin-bottom: 0.08in } P.cjk { font-size: 10pt } H1 { margin-bottom: 0.08in } H1.western { font-family: “Arial”, sans-serif; font-size: 16pt } H1.cjk { font-family: “DejaVu Sans”; font-size: 16pt } H1.ctl { font-family: “DejaVu Sans”; font-size: 16pt } A.sdfootnoteanc { font-size: 57% } –>

Competing Ideologies in the Classroom

The following material is found in Understanding the Times by David A. Noebel published by Summit Press in 2006; p. 262, 268-269, 272-273, 277-278.


The public school classroom provides a forum for the dissemination of Secular Humanist sociological ideas. Collins explains the role of the teacher in this regard: “To me, teaching is much more than the passive transfer of technical skills from teacher to learner. Rather, teaching has political implications that reach far beyond the classroom.”1 Dunphy describes teachers as “ministers of another sort” in an article entitled “A Religion for a New Age” published in The Humanist. He calls on teachers to use their classrooms to “convey humanist values in whatever subject they teach.”2

Secular Humanist documents appear to contradict Secular Humanist practice. John Dewey recognized the value of the classroom to promote Humanistic ideas. Humanist Manifesto II, however, defines the the boundaries between religion and the classroom: “The separation of church and state and the separation of ideology and state are imperatives.”3 Humanist Manifesto 2000 states that “Humanists everywhere have defended the separation of religion and state. We believe that the state should be secular, neither for nor against religion. …We believe that th estate should allow a wide plurality of moral values to coexist.”4

Dewey viewed Secular Humanism as a religion in his book A Common Faith. In fact, the American Humanist Association is a tax-exempt 501(c)3 religious organization. Free Inquiry printed the Guide Star Page that stated, “This organization [American Humanist Association] is not required to file an annual return with the IRS because it is a religious organization.”5 In a true sense, then, teachers promoting Secular Humanist ideology in the public classroom are in fact promoting the religion of Secular Humanism.


Education’s role is delineated in People’s Education: “The basic task of communist education and overcoming the survivals of religiousness in our present condition is to prove to the pupils the complete contrast and complete irreconcilability between science, the real and correct reflection of the objectively existing world in the consciousness of people – and religion as a fantastic, distorted and, consequently, harmful reflection of the world in the consciousness of the people.”6

Thus education is seen as a valuable tool for shaping ideology, a tool employed to create citizens more likely to cooperate with and fit into the Marxist notion of the ultimate society. Once capitalism and bourgeois society are destroyed, students will be educated to detest an distrust religion and to embrace a materialistic view of the world.

William Z. Foster’s Toward Soviet America published in 1932 provides a comprehensive view of Marxist ambitions for education in a future communist America. Foster writes, “Among the elementary measures the American Soviet government will adopt to further the cultural revolution are the following: the schools, colleges and universities will be coordinated and grouped under the National Department of Education and its state and local branches. The studies will be revolutionized, being cleansed of religious, patriotic and other features of the bourgeois ideology. The students will be taught on the basis of Marxian dialectical materialism, internationalism and the general ethics of the new Socialist society.”7

Foster continues, “Science will become materialistic, hence truly scientific; God will be banished from the laboratories as well as from the schools.”8 Foster’s view of the role of the church in a communist America is equally chilling: “The churches will remain free to continue their services, but their special tax and other privileges will be liquidated. Their buildings will revert to the State. Religious schools will be abolished and organized training for minors prohibited. Freedom will be established for anti-religious propaganda.”9


Cosmic Humanists are willing to work within the existing educational system to encourage a limitless society. In fact, Cosmic Humanists tend to choose careers within education. According to Ferguson, of all the New Age professionals she surveyed for The Aquarian Conspiracy, “more were involved in education than in any other single category of work.”10 By teaching children the proper attitudes toward themselves and their consciousness, New Age educators believe they can create a generation capable of ushering in the New Age.

In an article entitled “A Religion for the New Age,” John Dunphy explains how Cosmic Humanist educators use their positions in the classroom to promote their worldview. He writes, “I am convinced that the battle for humankind’s future must be waged and won in the public school classrooms by teachers who correctly perceive their role as proselytizers of a new faith: a religion of humanity that recognizes and respects the spark of what theologians call the Divinity in every human being. These teachers must embody the same selfless dedication as the most fundamentalist preachers.”11

The implementation in public schools of Values Clarification, sex clinics, moral relativism, biological evolution, Cosmos, and globalism indicated that Cosmic Humanist proselytizers have succeeded in establishing a foundation for their new faith.


Anderson explains the goals and methods Postmodernists adopt in regard to education: “[Postmodernism] rejects the notion that the purpose of education is primarily to train a child’s cognitive capacity for reason in order to produce an adult capable of functioning independently in the world. That view of education is replaced with the view that education is to take an essentially indeterminate being and give it a social identity. Education’s method of molding is linguistic, and so the language to be used is that which will create a human being sensitive to its racial, sexual and class identity.”12

Anderson outlines major shifts in focus in the Postmodern classroom in contrast to the modern classroom: “Education should emphasize works not in the canon, it should focus on the achievements of non-whites, females, and the poor; it should highlight the historical crimes of whites, males, and the rich; it should teach children that science’s method has no better claims to yielding truth than any other method and, accordingly, that students should be equally receptive to alternative ways of knowing.”13

Postmodern education teaches that all truth is relative, all cultures are equally deserving of respect (although Western culture comes under severe criticism), and all values are subjective (although racism, sexism, classism, and homophobia are universally evil.

…Richard Rorty, Professor of Comparative Literature at Stanford, writes, “When we American college teachers encounter religious fundamentalists we do our best to convince these students of the benefits of secularization. I think these students are lucky to find themselves under people like me, and to have escaped the grip of their frightening, vicious, dangerous parents.”14

1Collins, “Perceptivity and the Activist Potential of the Sociology Classroom,” 341.

2John J. Dunphy, “A Religion for a New Age,” The Humanist (January/February 1983): 26.

3Humanist Manifesto II (Buffalo, NY: Prometheus Books, 1980), 19.

4Paul Kurtz, Humanist Manifesto 2000: A Call For A New Planetary Humanism (Amherst, NY: Prometheus Books, 2000), 30.

5Free Inquiry (Fall 2002):40.

6People’s Education (Moscow, USSR), April 1949. Cited in Sleeper, A Lexicon of Marxist-Leninst Semantics, 101.

7William Z. Foster, Toward Soviet America (New York, NY: International Publishers, 1932), 316.

8Ibid., 317.

9Ibid., 316.

10Ferguson, The Aquarian Conspiracy, 280.

11The Humanist (January/February 1983): 26.

12Walter Truett Anderson, 114.

13Ibid, 18.

14Bramdon, Rorty and His Critics, 21-22.

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s