The Humanist Gospel of CCM, the Definition of Grace, and the Inward Turn

After forcing myself to listen to the local Evangelical station, I was again struck by the constant refrain found in the latest CCM songs - themes that were not present in the music back in the 80's. Over and over again the singers talk about believing lies about themselves and how now they understand they are wanted, special, etc.

To understand the shift I thought of some questions or statements and how today's theology (expressed in music) understands and answers them.

Mysteries Overcome by Philosophical Discipline are not Mysteries

https://www.challies.com/articles/difficult-does-not-mean-cryptic-and-mysteries-arent-meant-to-mystify/

Challies is a popular figure within New Calvinist/Evangelical circles. He rightly denounces the counterfeit mysteries that seem to be so popular in Evangelical and Charismatic circles - the Bible code books, visions of heaven and hell, hidden prophecies tied to contemporary politics, or perhaps the latest 'key' to understanding the Dispensational End Times scheme. There are plenty of examples we could point to and Challies rightly denounces this tendency.

But then he said a few things that I found to be troubling.

Motherhood Through a Materialist Lens

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/MqvIddYMMEk

This video 'short' appeared on the NPR website promoting a podcast. The clip is only about a minute long but the implications are sweeping and eternal. Materialism is a religion and its becoming pervasive in society as its implications are being worked out and applied. It is creating a new world and a new kind of person.

A Fool, Her Money, and Empirical Fantasies

I was in a coffee shop and noticed a copy of the Sunday edition (13 April 2025) of the New York Times. While perusing it, I came across a large ad placed by one Eileen Hamilton. It contains two columns, one reads 'Putin' and the other 'Hitler' meant to tease out analogies and make direct comparisons. It got my attention.

The Materialist Default

https://www.npr.org/2024/06/20/nx-s1-5013626/scientists-are-looking-for-signs-of-resilience-in-the-gut

Right-wing media is unpalatable in its assumptions and its bias and yet the mainstream media is becoming increasingly difficult to tolerate as well. From all the talk of 'people of who have babies' and the like to the overwhelmingly materialist assumptions, I find myself having to look elsewhere. Motivated by its political agenda and the corruption of money, FOX consistently lies and manipulates the truth and even the nature of reality. But the mainstream increasingly just relies on false presuppositions and when it comes to health, science, and even sociology, the materialist assumptions dominate - often leading to absurdities.

The False Church Baptising the World's Wisdom

Listening to American Family Radio (AFR) I was struck by something 'Bishop' EW Jackson said. When I'm down in a certain area I can pick up AFR and it seems like his show comes on while I'm in the car eating my lunch.

Jordan Cooper, SSPX, and the Collapse of Civilisation

https://justandsinner.libsyn.com/a-response-to-an-sspx-priest-on-luther

In this podcast Cooper provides a capable defense of Luther and his legacy and offers some helpful critiques of Roman Catholicism and the Protestant Reformation's opposition to it.

Confused Ethics and Evil Library Displays in Pennsylvania

Northwestern Pennsylvania has been the site of a recent controversy that is starting to appear in some national media outlets. A school board member referred to a pro-sodomite library display as evil and as you might imagine this generated a significant backlash prompting both support and calls for his removal.

Capitalism and John Robbins

https://lucidmarbles.wordpress.com/2012/05/22/capitalism-and-john-robbins-no-argument-from-scripture/ 

I heartily recommend this article which takes John Robbins to task. The protégé of Gordon Clark, Robbins (who died in 2008) and the Trinity Foundation have long promoted a particularly rabid form of Christian Capitalism. In addition to his Clarkian projects, Robbins worked for Texas congressman Ron Paul in the 1970's and 1980's and has connections to the Heritage Foundation. He combines his Right-wing political and economic theories with Clark's philosophical-theology labeled under the misnomer of Scripturalism.

How Should We Then Live Part 8: The Age of Fragmentation (II)

I think it safe to say that Europeans developed a deeper concept of life and thus art – and they felt a deeper and more reflective pain regarding the changes that had overtaken the West.

An Anglo-American wrote about The Wasteland but I think the Europeans felt it more poignantly. Likewise Romanticism came to America but (in my estimation) it never took hold as it did in Europe. Primitivism, the frontier, individualistic anti-Puritanism and the grand spectrum of nature played a part in American Romanticism but it was not deeply retrospective and if anything progressive and therefore of a very different (though at times still pleasing) character.

How Should We Then Live Part 8: The Age of Fragmentation (I)

Watching this episode I was reminded of something I have referenced before – spending time in Europe with American Fundamentalists. In general I found that American Fundamentalists (often from the Mid-West or South) did not always appreciate the richness of Europe and its culture. Their palette struggled with the foods, the ubiquitous alcohol put them off, the arts and culture struck them as high-brow and their own patriotism (and frankly provincialism) caused them to constantly look down on other nations and cultures – and in many cases things they didn't understand. They didn't enjoy their time and I certainly did not enjoy my time with them.

How Should We Then Live Part 7: The Age of Non-Reason (II)

Schaeffer rightly critiques men like Sartre for their utter inconsistency, especially in terms of applying their philosophy to life and ethics. Moral rebels suddenly become moral on certain questions and yet they cannot account for these things – let alone the terms and concepts they use.

How Should We Then Live Part 7: The Age of Non-Reason (I)

I've often thought about the opening segment of this video, Schaeffer standing on the beach and drawing circles in the sand. Each represents a unified theory, comprehensive system or worldview. Because (Schaeffer argues) these circles or systems are rooted in man they fail and another philosopher comes along, crosses out the circle(s) of his predecessors and develops his own – and so on.

How Should We Then Live Part 6: The Scientific Age (II)

This brings us back to the beginning of the episode and the questions surrounding Galileo, Copernicus and others. Schaeffer is adamant that the divide is not between science and religion but between Biblical science and Aristotelianism which had been embraced by the Roman Catholic Church.

How Should We Then Live Part 6: The Scientific Age (I)

This was a complicated episode with fairly weighty ideas being thrown out at a fast clip. I struggled to take notes without pausing. As such this episode and probably the next will also require two parts in order for me to review and respond to the material. Additionally in this episode I wish to interact on a slightly more involved level with some of the arguments assumptions made by Schaeffer. These are really important issues, especially today and these touch on some very basic and fundamental questions about the nature of knowledge that I think are critical when considering the nature of Biblical authority. I think Schaeffer and his followers have missed the mark on this latter albeit critical point.

How Should We Then Live Part 5: The Revolutionary Age (II)

We then turn to the questions surrounding the French Revolution. Schaeffer argues that the legal basis of the Glorious Revolution and the events of 1776 were rooted in the Reformation while the 1789 Declaration of the Rights of Man was rooted in humanism. That's a very interesting claim which can be contested on both ends. I've already addressed the Anglo-American side of the question but in terms of the French document, given that Jefferson was consulted and Lafayette was one of its authors, one is compelled to question Schaeffer's claims. The fact that Lafayette who played such an important role in the US rebellion, was friends with Washington and other founders and was one of the chief architects of the French Revolution presents (at even this very basic prima facie level) a serious challenge to Schaeffer's narrative.

How Should We Then Live Part 5: The Revolutionary Age (I)

The episode on the Reformation was fairly basic in its concepts and presentation. On the contrary this episode is flush with ideas, concepts and historical reference. There's a lot to consider and interact with and it's no small task to attempt to do so in a concise manner. These are topics I've touched on elsewhere and have extensively developed in other essays. In many respects this episode represents a summation of much that I've critiqued and interacted with over the past 15-20 years.

How Should We Then Live Part 4: The Reformation

In some respects this was a simpler episode keeping to more basic but recurring and even redundant themes. Schaeffer assumes that his audience is already familiar with the basics of the Reformation narrative and spends hardly any time laying out its chronology. I was surprised however to hear how he postured his narrative. He argued the Reformation was the breaking away of the Reformers from the Roman Catholic Church. Additionally the movement represented a turning away from the humanistic elements of medieval Catholicism.

How Should We Then Live Part 3: The Renaissance

Continuing his themes regarding humanism as expressed through art and culture, Schaeffer is clearly torn. For him the 15^th-16^th century Renaissance was a veritable glory. Clearly he loves the period and yet is torn apart by it because in many respects its values are in opposition to the Reformation culture he champions.

How Should We Then Live Part 2: The Middle Ages

This episode struck me as in some respects the most confused of the series. Schaeffer vacillates between praise and condemnation of The Middle Ages and in several places entangles himself in a series of non sequitirs and incongruencies.