THE MORAL DECAY OF CANADA
MORAL RELATIVISM, INCLUSIVISM,
AND TOLERANCE
The Route to Inclusivism and Relativism
The Christian Concept of Tolerance, Inclusivism, and Relativism?
Inter-Societal Function For the Christian
Some may remember the old hit song, "What in the World’s Come Over You?" Well now those who believe in the Gospel of Jesus Christ as presented in the Infallible Word of God – the Holy Scriptures – are asking, "What Has Come Over the World?"
Christians countries have seen the defined picture of "right and wrong" as described by Almighty God all but disappear from their society. In fact, it is now impossible to claim the term Christian for any of the previously so known societies.
Not only has the concept of God’s Law as presented by Jesus Christ been usurped and replaced by governments claiming the need to be "multicultural" but also the replacement is a compendium of non-law that has no basis in anything other than in the current mind and thought of unpredictable humankind.
The sense of a defined morality based upon Judaeo/Christian values has been replaced by a hodgepodge of nothingness based upon nothingness. There is nothing concrete and absolute in the mind of today’s world. And yet, that same world sits back in awe and wonderment at the lack of morality and social concern in the majority of human minds.
The deprivation sinks further into the abyss of oblivion as the world attempts to define what it refers to as non-violent relationships between peoples that have only served to create even greater propensities toward violence among the nations. The problem is that these attempts to redefine the concepts of non-violence actually contribute toward the increase of tendencies toward violence. As definitions become more blurred due to seemingly altruistic concepts and ideas frustrations tend to rise both at the grassroots and the leadership levels leading to conflicts which might otherwise have been avoided by more defined and recognised mutual differences.
The result is that the world is in a far greater turmoil due to the attempts of the irrational forces of community and cultural blending and shaping than it would have been had such defined differences been acknowledged. The "new society" tends to try to ignore differences and blend thoughts into an "acceptable" mishmash that forces the sense of difference to seethe below the superficial mutual acceptances. On the other hand, in a world of defined difference, such are out in the open, discussable, and healable.
Over the past century and a half the world has toyed with many theoretical concepts of society that have not worked. In fact, the moves toward perceived utopias have only served to bring the world into greater and greater conflicts that have actually threatened, and continue to threaten, the very existence of community on the planet earth. Capitalism, Communism, Socialism, Tyranny, Democracy, Kingdom, Theocracy, etc. have all failed in one way or another to provide conflict free utopian lives for the inhabitants of those communities.
Now it is time for the world communities to sit back and consider what has come over the world. Then, it is necessary to look forward to working under Almighty God to offer healing to a world society that is sick and wallowing in the mire of its own creations. It is certainly time for the world to reconsider that which was Created by the Creator God and to truly seek out His Purposes in His Creative Force.
Humankind has wasted far too much time in the idolatrous activity of seeking the panacea of the human mind over against the Will of God in His Divine Creation. For some reason, the historical story of the Sin of Eve has been completely eliminated from the human mind that continues in its efforts to supplant or redefine the Will of God. The lessons of the Garden of Eden have been totally ignored as humankind continues to try to find its own "better way." Now it is time to regroup and look to Almighty God’s best way in Him who is "The Way, The Truth, and The Life!"
The Route To Inclusivism & Relativism
In the not so distant past the world was well defined by varying and different cultures and religions. It was known that there was a great cultural difference between North American, South American, Western European, Eastern European, Middle Eastern, Near Eastern Far Eastern, African, Pacific South Seas, etc. cultures. While knowledge of the varying cultural groups by other cultural groups was often minimal it was known that the differences were present. Even when each group thought its own culture to be superior to that of the other groups, the line was respected unless there was a desire to conquer that culture for one political reason or another.
A similar situation existed concerning the religions of these cultures. The Christian Faith was always seen by the west to be superior to those of the other cultures by the western peoples. However, it was acknowledged that what was then known as Mohammedanism (today’s Islamic Faith) mainly in the Middle East and integrated with Christian and Hindu faiths; the Hindu faith existing mainly in the Indian Region; Buddhist Faith in the Near and Far East with a smattering of Mohammedans and Hindus interspersed amongst it; and the many generally "spirit" faiths of the African Tribes; Shintoism in Japan; etc. These were all recognised as being regional faiths with only the Christian and Mohammedan Faiths being systems requiring proselytism whereby an active effort would be undertaken to convert other s to that faith.
However, following the Second World War’s ending in 1945 travel and communication began to grow in leaps and bounds. The world since that time has become a smaller and smaller place where communities know more and more about each other and are forced into a situation whereby there is an inherent need to interact with each other regardless of the intrinsic differences that exist between the peoples with regard to race, culture, and religion.
This has brought to the fore a need to develop a means whereby these differences can be recognised and dealt with in a non-violent way. However, as humankind is wont to do, the solution was thought to be in the mind of man as opposed to the mind of God. In fact, because each culture brought its own gods to the table, the Western mind decided that it would be best to keep God out of the arena of human interaction. In 20/20 hindsight the foolishness and idolatry present in such an action (let alone the total lack of faith and trust in Almighty God) can be clearly seen by those who are committed to the Will of God in Jesus Christ. For those who are still foolish enough to think that man "has a better idea" than God, the fallacy still is their pursuit and the failure is still their wonderment.
The inclusivist/relativist road has been, and will remain, a bumpy and intolerable path for all concerned – especially those who are serious about their culture and religion. Those who have been advocating such a road are frustrated because the results they have been expecting are not occurring. Yet, in continued blindness they still pursue the "impossible dream."
This "impossible dream" is one that has been suggested over the years for varying purposes. It was not long ago when sociologists were suggesting that the way to eliminate racial prejudice based upon skin colour and ethnicity is to simply blur the lines via intermarriage and cross-culturalisation. In this system, as skin colours bean to blur and ethnic or racial backgrounds became intertwined there would be no significant variations between people. And, hence there would be no basis for discrimination since all would be moving toward sameness.
As it became clear that the blurring of the races was not going to work, these same sociologists, not to be easily put-off, determined that a sense of multiculturalism would suffice on order to accept the established genetic lines while bringing people into a more full acceptance of each other’s cultural and religious backgrounds.
In order for this to occur, it was necessary to develop a concept whereby everyone saw the other’s cultural and religious positions not only as being within their right to hold to them but also as being equally good and correct as their own. This would require an acceptance of ways that would normally seem inferior to one culture as being equally good and acceptable. It would further require the religious stances of one culture to be seen by the other as being equally good and acceptable. Such a concept could seem rational and acceptable to anyone to whom faith and background were wishy-washy to start with.
Since this concept is based upon the language of sociology, to one who is willing to accept that language as a base platform from which to develop these theses, there would be no problem in making such statements of equality, correctness, and acceptability. Since the language of sociology is, in itself, a morally baseless language other than that of the greater good of each human individual within a society insofar as that good does not harm society, to be able to compromise one’s views of anything is quite easy to do. However, such is not so for persons to whom the basis of faith and the concept of Creator God is strong and inviolable.
The problem for a Christian comes when one is faced with being out-of-step with society or denying what the God of the Holy Scriptures says to humankind via His Inviolable Word – the Holy Bible. The humanistic concept, one to which even many who purport to adhere to Jesus the Christ tend to hold (none of us is totally free from the influence of humanism) , would require a Christian to see the Muslim faith of Islam as being equal in value and goodness and an alternate road to salvation. However, the Christian who accepts the Holy Bible as being the Holy Word of God Divinely Inspired by God’s Holy Spirit and given to man as the repository of life giving direction is faced with the exclusivity of Salvation Only in Jesus Christ and the absolute need to take that faith to the four corners of the earth. The goal of the Christian Faith is to bring others out of error into truth, out of sin into righteousness, away from false gods to the worship of the One True God.
In walking in this dichotomy it becomes clear that the vision of right and wrong is a real problem. Christian Faith based people who follow the One True God Who has said that He is an unchanging God and His moral law is fixed, firm, and unchanging find it impossible to see anything that is contrary to Almighty God’s expressed Will to be viable, correct, or acceptable. To accede to such would be to say that the God Who says there is One Way to Him is wrong and that other ways are simply alternative routes to the same end. And there is no way a follower of Jesus could possibly accept such a statement.
But, society as a whole has either bought into the lie or has quietly determined to ignore it and let it go by. But this latter is not possible. Politicians, the courts, special interest groups, etc. all tout there own version of multiculturalism as being the way for all to get along. In order to affirm the "rights and interests" of minority groups who hold political sway the politicians will pass any legislation that affirms such even when that violates their own principles of including the rights of all in society. The courts, not wanting to appear tied to any individual moral structure in administering the law seem to constantly fall on the side of Satanic immorality in their judgments concerning the rights of individuals no matter how absurd or immoral their actions may have been. Every time a special interest group gains one victory there is an immediate cry for more "freedom" to violate established moral principle. No moral system, regardless of its faith base (Christian, Judaic, Islamic, etc.) is safe. The goal of the "special interest group" seems to be to have all systems of morality not only rendered impotent but also driven into oblivion through making such tenets illegal in society.
In order to justify this awesome break from moral standards two things became necessary. The first is the concept of inclusivism that purports to provide everyone with all the benefits and freedoms of every other person. However, the reality is that when one set of rights and wrongs is included it is conversely true that the rights and freedoms of someone else must be excluded. And, when the conflict is identified, the rights and wrongs of the special interest group in the name of being inclusive of all people often overthrow traditional right and wrong. Thus, the result is never inclusive even if the principle is to include all.
The second principle is that of relativism. No value is seen as being intrinsically right or intrinsically wrong. Judgement is passed upon a taking into account of all the circumstances surrounding and action. Then, the best concept of right or wrong is put forth as being the right or wrong in that circumstance and under that particular situation. The goal is to express the greatest freedom of the individual without hindering or damaging the involved community. Under this system an individual thing could be judged right in one societal community and wrong in another.
It is not rocket science to see that these concepts that are based upon the language of sociology are not going to produce a definable right and wrong. Rather they are merely going to fail in an attempt to make everyone happy in their own concepts of right and wrong.
The gods allowed by the followers of the new social system of tolerance, inclusivism and relativism are those whose faith and worship do not bring their tenets into the public realm.
Faith is relegated to a personal set of beliefs that may be held and talked about within a place of worship or within a private gathering of like-minded individuals. It is fine and OK to believe whatever an individual wishes to believe just as long as it is kept within the individual and that specific group. Faith may even affect the way an individual or group behaves in public. But, that faith and its tenets may never be brought into the public realm as a governing force.
Further, to attribute to the god of any faith absolute moral values or exclusive ways to eternity is totally anathema under the new social system. To so affirm such attributes to any god is seen as lacking in tolerance, denying the viability of another person’s god, and not being sensitive to the multicultural environment of Canada – or the world.
No god is exclusively real. All gods are of equal value and righteousness. Every god is to be allowed the claims of its followers by every other faith system. In effect, the concept of god is relegated to the minds and hearts of their believers. Since they are not allowed into the public realm it is easily seen that the architects of the new social system are really not interested in any god and are doing all in their power to eliminate the ephemeral concept of god from society.
Following a god is acknowledged as being the right of an individual. But that individual is also seen as being one who is not strong enough on his own. Therefore, such a faith structure may be good for him. But, since no god is for everyone, no god can be seen as having any influence upon society as a whole.
This can be seen in the legislative system where politicians take great pains to ignore faith tenets and rights and recognise the rights of radical fringe groups over the morality of any faith or group of faiths. The same can be seen in the court system where it has been blatantly stated that the bible is a passé book and irrelevant in today’s society. Further, in following the decisions of even the highest courts in the land it is easy to see that any concept of the morality of any god is totally and completely ignored by those idolatrous individuals who have set themselves up as the gods of society. And the people of society, even many of those who claim a faith basis for their lives, are constantly ignoring the tenets of their faith while in society stating that their faith position is private and personal and to be for their own guidance and direction without being seen as effecting society.
Thus, in reality, from the view of the designers of the new social system, no god fits into their plans. Any accession to the concept of god is condescending and seen as a temporary necessary evil to eventually be eliminated by having been relegated to the fringes of society. It is not difficult to see that Satan has done his work well. He and his legions of demons are working in a totally unseen capacity to take all gods and The God (I Am that I Am) out of relevancy and eventually out of existence.
The Christian Concept of Tolerance, Inclusivism, and Relativism?
One who is given to Almighty God in the Name of Jesus Christ and lives by the power of the Holy Spirit encounters an inherent difficulty with the new social system. Such is not a wonder because, as has been shown, Satan functioning through that system is working to the elimination of any real concept of the One True God existing in the world. Satan is concerned with allowing people a form of religion while denying the power thereof. IN this way a religious system that is lukewarm but powerless that God will spew out of His mouth is encouraged. It is against such a backdrop that Christians are asked by God to stand firm for Him in the face of all the evils of the new social system.
The Christian Faith is an exclusivist faith. Christians believe the words of Jesus that He is the only Way to Salvation. Despite the teachings of some theological trends within Christianity faithfulness to Almighty God as He has given Himself to us in Jesus and as clearly and infallibly illustrated to us through His Inspired Holy Scriptures demands that Jesus be seen as the only and exclusive route to Eternal Life. No alternative is allowed by these scriptures when they are read as intended in their writing.
While many will argue against the infallibility of God’s Holy Word in attempts to allow for alternative routes and alternative lifestyles such cannot be accepted by those who wish to follow the truth in Christ. Jesus treated the Scriptures of what we know as the Old Testament as being authoritative and infallible. The Scriptures themselves attest to the unchangeable nature of God and His Divine Inspiration of these same writings. So, t deny such inspiration is also to deny God Himself.
Further, these Holy Scriptures that are known as the Holy Bible are not writings about God. They are not matters of debate about the existence, person, and being of God. Rather, the Holy Scriptures of the Christian Faith are, in themselves, the Holy Words of God delivered through men to His people. They are not speculations open to argument. Rather they are proclamations and self-revelations challenging humankind to understand God’s revealed will and being from them. Mankind is intended to use the Holy Scriptures to grow in understanding of God’s Will from them not to revisit and revise them such that they idols of men’s minds can be glorified.
Hence, the Christian cannot accept the inclusivist view in matters of faith. The Christian is commanded by Jesus to take this One True Way of real Life to the entire world – teaching and Baptizing in the Name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. There is to be concerted effort to convert people from the ways of eternal death to The Way of Eternal Life!
The Christian is also called to be a tolerant person. But tolerance is not defined in the way that revisited and revised definitions of tolerance portray it. Christian tolerance brings the message of the Good News in Jesus to the whole world in all its exclusivity. But true Christian Love demands that the hearer of the message be given real freedom to accept or reject the Word of God without any form of temporal punishment. So often in history Christians have failed in this matter by compelling people, even whole communities, to forcibly accede to Christianity. Such an approach would fly in the face of the Will of Almighty God Who gave the gift of Freewill to all His created human beings. The Christian, acting in the love of Christ, delivers the message of the Gospel and allows the individual the right to free choice. Christian tolerance recognises the right of an individual or group of individuals to choose against Christ and strives to live in concert with such persons.
Christian tolerance strives, insofar as it depends upon the Christians, to live at peace with all people. This does not mean accepting that which is against the Holy Word of God as being valid and acceptable for salvation. Rather it means being willing to continue to live side-by-side with those who have chosen death over life in the hopes that maybe, just maybe, by the conviction of the Holy Spirit, through the life, words, and actions of the Christian, the sinner may be brought by the Holy Spirit to repentance and salvation.
Of course, the world, and those friends of the world within the Church, would see such a concept as arrogance. They would accuse such Christians as seeing themselves better than anyone who does not walk in their way. And, unfortunately, such can have an element of truth depending upon the manner in which such is put across. In the sense that the Christian is saved to Eternal Life there is certainly a truth in the fact that such a person is better off than those who have rejected Jesus. However, in the sense that co-existence in this world carries on, the saved Christian is still called to function on a basis that is equal with those who have chosen Eternal Death in an effort to bring them from death to life through the Holy Spirit’s actions.
Thus the exclusivist, tolerant Christian, looks to the problem of relativism. Relativism states that no moral right or wrong is absolute. Rather everything is judged relative to the circumstances of the situation and the general moral structure of the community. ON the other hand, Christian Scripturally based morality is that which has been established by an unchanging God whose words will never cease and is the same yesterday, today, and tomorrow. Because of this definitive stance on unchanging moral values that can only come from Almighty God the Christian cannot accept the relativistic position with regard to right and wrong.
In His Divinely Inspired Word God has established His principles for the interaction and lifestyles of His Special Creation of Humankind in this His Divine Universal Creation. To pretend to be able to alter or change any of God’s moral directions, or any other directions not abrogated by Jesus, is to replicate the sin of Eve who succumbed to Satan’s suggestion and attempted to be like God by taking to herself that which God had reserved for Himself – determination of right and wrong.
Inter-Societal Function For the Christian
Canadian Christianity is thus faced with the problem of being in a country within a world governed by the wiles of Satan. While the prevailing social system is based up the concept of inclusivism as long as such does not infringe upon the perceived freedoms of the same Christianity holds to an exclusivist view of Salvation. So the Christian can only accept one as being saved if that person can point to having given his life to Christ in repentance for sin and receiving grace through the bodily Resurrection of Jesus.
The Canadian Christian is faced with a society that demands that everyone view everyone else’s views as being equally valid and acceptable. These relativistic and inclusivist views are acceptable to Christianity only in so far as they do not attempt to force the Christian to deny the precepts of God in Jesus Christ. While the societal views require that faith positions be a matter of personal acceptance within the faith structures or the family environment, Christianity requires the Christian to take such views into his everyday life wherever he may be.
Thus, the Canadian Christian will never be able to accept any governmental, judicial, or societal effort to silence the Word of God that must be presented within that Christian person. While the Christian must be tolerant in that the right of others to disagree with the Christian stance he may not allow any of these forces to compel the acceptance of non-Christian positions as being tolerable within Christianity – even that which is lived in the realm of societal standards.
The Christian is compelled by the Great Commandment of Jesus to stand for that which He has taught, to teach it to ALL the World, and to bring others into the Baptized Life of a Christian. Such a position is evident in Holy Scripture from the beginning to the end. Hence the Christian has no choice.
The Canadian Christian has no problem coexisting with those who hold to the modern societal values – or lack thereof. Respect for individual rights and the acceptance of one’s personal choices even when they violate the Will of Almighty God is an integral part of the Christian moral code. Where the Christian will have a major difficulty is when those rights of others attempt to force the Christian into a position that requires a choice between the Will of God and the dictates of man that contradict the Will of God. IN this case, the Christian has to choose for God and trust that the norms of modern society will include the Christian stance. And where such is not the case, the norms of society must be rejected. Coexistence is also impossible where there is an attempt to force the societal values that contradict Christian values upon Christians. In this latter case, Christians must opt to serve God over man and stick by the Will of God.
Hence Christian life in modern society exists in peaceful coexistence save where modern societal values that are not conducive to Christian faith are considered as required of the Church. Christians should always live and coexist peaceably with secular society in so far as secular societal norms will allow such. But, when so forced to choose, Christians must always choose Gd over man.