By a vote of 65 to 28 the United States Senate confirmed David Ogden as deputy attorney general. Ogden served in the Justice Department during the reign of William Jefferson Blythe Bubba Clinton. He also had a thriving private practice defending the likes of Playboy and PHE Inc., a purveyor of “adult” materials.

In United States v. American Library Association, Ogden filed a friend-of-the-court brief for the library association arguing that the Children’s Internet Protection Act violated the First Amendment by compelling libraries who are suckling from the federal teat to install software on PCs blocking access to pornography. After all, the world would surely come to an end, and fundamental human rights violated, if a derelict couldn’t ogle porn at the local library.

Ogden has also shown himself willing to go to the mat to defend the practice of sodomy. In Watkins v. United States Army, Ogden argued that GLBT types should be allowed to serve in the military. He wrote, “Prejudice against lesbians and gay men in the Army is likely to be reduced by encouraging contact between homosexuals and heterosexuals; and there was no rational basis for the Army’s exclusion of gay people.”

He is clearly a big believer in a “living, breathing” constitution. In 1986, again defending homosexual sodomy, Ogden wrote, “Constitutional interpretation cannot be limited to ascertain the way a particular law would have been viewed by the Framers. While constitutional principles do not change, the society and individuals in whom they are applied do, and our knowledge about that society and those individuals improves with time.”

There is more, but unpacking Mr. Ogden’s bizarre legal theories isn’t the point. Rather the point is to show how fundamental assumptions about life and reality play themselves out.

Above Mr. Ogden provides an example of Darwinism applied to legal theory. In this view, law is not something transcendent or permanent, but rather like clay to be molded by elite lawmakers and judges. The law is thus constantly evolving, but largely for the furtherance of elite objectives. Indeed the propagation of the Sexual Revolution is largely used as a tool to advance totalitarian and statist objectives wherein the “right to privacy” becomes a weapon to disrupt family and sexual order and erode traditional liberties in the name of autonomy.

Darwinism is also at the heart of pornography. Porn is fundamentally religious in nature, but the god in view is not the triune God of scripture. Rather pornographers are worshipping at the altar of chaos. For the ancient pagans, chaos was systematically ritualized into life through festivals and fertility cults. Chaos was the source of fertility, potency and primordial power. It was regenerative, in some sense the source of life.

Through the mythology of evolution chance and randomness have re-entered modern life, again becoming the source of change, power and life. And through the evolutionary paradigm chaos has again become a prominent feature of contemporary life.

If chaos is fundamental to life then a penchant for primitivism soon develops. The primitive man allegedly operates outside the law, is beyond good and evil, and thus becomes a hero to revolutionaries such as Rousseau and Margaret Mead. Soon thereafter a revival of paganism, astrology, witchcraft and magic follows as a culture seeks power in chaos.

Primitivism and chaos also spawn political movements devoted to the ideology of revolution. It is no accident that pornography flooded France prior to the Revolution.

That pornographers have the support of lawyers and government officials who claim to be “liberals” is no surprise. The Obamaites are, after all, quite eager for “change” and are revolutionaries at the core. In the 20th century liberalism had a flirtation with collectivism. The goal of contemporary liberalism is the empowerment and divination of the state. But for the state to become imperial in scope all mediating institutions must be destroyed. Families, communities, sub-national political entities—all must be flattened by the crusading state allegedly acting in the name of individual liberty.

Pornography, then, is little more than an expression of devotion to the gods of chaos and revolution. It seeks to uproot and destroy standards of morality and law. Likewise it is a dagger aimed directly at God’s primary institution, the family. Legislation alone will not stem the tide of filth flowing into the culture like an open sewer. Rather the assumptions, hidden and open, of pornographers must be unmasked in tandem with evangelization and a rigorous transmission of a comprehensive Christian worldview.

In his latest film, Clint Eastwood takes up the issue of multiculturalism and what transpires when cultures and different ethnic groups are slammed together in the same geographic  area. The overall theme of the movie is the question of which American culture will new Americans assimilate into. Will different cultures coming to America assimilate into an America created by the conservative values represented in Walt Kowalski (Clint’s character in the film) or will the different cultures that are arriving on America’s shores at the beginning of the 21st century assimilate into an America created by the criminal values as represented in the gang banger characters of the film? A important sub-theme of the film is the role of Christianity (particularly of the Roman Catholic variety) in shaping Walt Kowalski’s “greatest generation” America.

There are at least four cultures that are represented that are coming into constant friction of greater or lesser intensity throughout the film. The first culture is what we will call the American culture of the greatest generation. This culture is represented by the elderly Walt Kowalski. Kowalski is a Polish-American who loves his beer, is a veteran of the Korean War, and is the epitome of all things non-politically correct. Walt has lived the American dream as it was expressed in the 1950s. Walt spent his life working hard to earn everything he owns, which is exemplified symbolically by his 1972 Ford Gran Torino. This culture loves America. The film-makers reveals this by the constant panning of the American flag that flies outside Walt’s house. This “greatest generation” American culture is also characterized by the honored American theme of self-dependence and rugged individualism. In this culture people take care of themselves and this virtue is revealed in how they take care of what they own. Walt’s house and lawn are immaculate. Walt, while not dressing flashy, is always dressed and groomed in such a way that reveals that he takes care of himself. Walt’s fondness for guns is also part of the idea that this American culture takes care of itself. This self-dependence is also revealed in Walt’s intense disregard for his family trying to shoehorn him into a retirement center. Finally, Walt exhibits the idea of duty that typifies this culture in the movie. Walt did his duty to his country. Walt fulfilled his duty to his wife and family. Walt fulfilled his duty to his work at the Ford plant. One gets the sense that it is this sense of duty that finally compels Walt to overcome his xenophobia to help his neighbors. This “greatest generation” culture is shared not only by Walt the Pollock but also by Kennedy the Irish Mick Construction boss, and by Martin the Dego Wop Barber.

The second major culture in this movie is also American but it stands in contrast to the “greatest generation” American culture. We will call this culture the gang banger culture. Like the first culture this culture is likewise participated in by people of varying cultural backgrounds. Hmong, Blacks, Whites, can all be a part of this gang banger culture. This culture is typified by rancid music, criminal selfishness, mindless violence, and a feral wolf pack mentality. This is exhibited in the film by the violence visited upon the Hmong, Thao and his sister Sue, as inflicted by the differing ethnic gangs (First Mexican, then Black, and finally Hmong).

Eastwood (who directed Gran Torino) puts these two cultures in violent clash using the Hmong community to communicate this clash. The whole thesis of the film is the conflict that is generated by the attempt of each culture to initiate Thao into their respective cultures. The other two cultures represented in the film really serve as grist for revealing this conflict between these two cultures. The question the film deals with in terms of the Hmong culture and the culture of Walt’s children and grandchildren is, “Which culture will these two cultures be assimilated into?”

Neither Walt’s children or grandchildren are really part of Walt’s American culture. The film even subtly suggests that his grandchildren may be closer to the American culture of the gang banger culture then they are to his “greatest generation” American culture. The fourth culture represented in the movie is the Hmong culture. Eastwood uses the Hmong to probe whether or not America can keep being “greatest generation” America despite being populated by people who at the outset of the film show little hope to that end. The Hmong are represented as people who don’t work hard as represented by Thao’s confusion of what it means to be a man, who don’t take care of what they own as seen in their dilapidated houses and ugly lawns, and whose notion of family is decidedly different than Walt’s vision of the family. Can the Hmong people carry on the American culture of the “greatest generation” despite being strangers to the land, just as the Poles (Walt), Irish (Kennedy), and Italians (Martin) before them became Americans despite likewise being strangers to the land in their own time? Over and over again the question is assimilation. Is traditional America lost and passing away like Walt and his Gran Torino, or can these new cultures be assimilated? Is America destined to become a gang banger culture where assimilation is defined by each ethnic people group Balkanizing themselves into their own ethnic gang enclaves? The film acknowledges that ethnic identification markers never go away completely but it seems to ask whether or not despite these markers ethnic aliens can be assimilated by embracing a few simple American values so that America might retain a culture, that while diverse, can still operate cohesively.

There is a sub-theme that Eastwood explores in this film as well and that is the issue of Christianity. In the end this film seeks to be Christian even if the understanding of what Christianity means is misguided. Combining this film with Clint’s previous film, Million Dollar Baby, it seems that Clint is not pleased with Roman Catholic Christianity but this doesn’t mean that Eastwood has given up on some form of Christianity. Gran Torino gives us a character that is typical of so many in the clergy class today –- that of a clueless young Roman Catholic priest that stands in stark juxtaposition to old man Kowalski. Walt Kowalski describes the Priest as an,

overeducated 27-year-old virgin who likes to hold the hands of superstitious old ladies and promise them everlasting life.

The enmity that Eastwood has for the Church and the priesthood is set in bold relief to the respect the film shows to the film’s Hmong Shaman. Clearly what is being communicated is that the animistic Hmong Shaman is more insightful about the soul than is the Roman Catholic Priest. I would complain about this except unfortunately my experience of American clergy suggests that this could be true.

The RC priest has all the answers of life and death, but he is clueless about what life and death is. Walt has little use for the priest and when he finally does go to the priest for confession you get the sense that the confession is more about Walt’s duty to his dead wife (an idea developed earlier in the film) than it is about his duty to God. Indeed, his disrespect for the priest is so great that his real confession comes in the scene after his confession to the RC priest. In that scene Eastwood sets up the cinematography so that it is a repeat of the previous confessional scene with the exception that Walt confesses a sin that he didn’t mention to the priest -– it is the one sin that has haunted him deepest his whole life -– and the confession is made to 17-year-old Thao.

The film ends with an embrace of a prevalent but still twisted version of Christianity. It is twisted because in good RC fashion Walt commits an act that is dedicated to self-atonement. In the end Walt isn’t at peace, despite his insistence to the priest, and the only way he can think to find forgiveness is to provide for himself a blood atonement. Walt, with his sense of duty, attempts to pay for his own sins. Make sure and notice the last camera shot of Walt Kowalski in this movie.
Underneath all of his hatred for the Church Walt finds himself at the end of this movie trying to be Christian in the way fallen man understands Christianity.

Gran Torino is one of the best films I’ve seen in a while but it is profoundly sad. Sad because American culture will not be rescued by a return to a few basic American virtues. Sad because Walt’s “greatest generation” America is probably never coming back. Sad because Clint Eastwood has such a profound misunderstanding of Christianity. Sad because Clint Eastwood has such a profound understanding of the ministerial corps. Sad because Eastwood is so close to being right about a number of things but in not being close enough Eastwood is miles away.

If you go see Gran Torino keep in mind that it is rated “R” for a reason.

While Americans increasingly distrust and detest the politicians and assorted babblers among the chattering classes, they are prone still to swallow the mythology of science. According to the purveyors of this myth, with science all things are possible. Sickness, disease, even death can be abolished. Life can be created along with new organs, arms and legs grown by these magicians in lab coats. All that’s needed is your tax money and a complete lack of scruples.

On March 9th, President Obama issued an executive order allowing federal funds to be used on the experimentation of babies. This represents the complicity and imprimatur of the United States in the Mengelesque destruction of life in the name of “science.” (Yes, I’m aware that Nazi references are typically out of bounds as a tool of debate. But do you have a better name for this?)

It may sound strange, but this mindset is a product of Darwinian presuppositions. Evolutionists are attempting to reverse God’s order in creation. The orthodox Christian affirms that a sovereign, omnipotent God created the universe. Evolutionists turn this on its head by insisting that an autonomous, omnipotent impersonal force, i.e., Chance, led to the development of a new sovereign god—the scientist. While initially enthroning blind chance and cosmic purposelessness, the evolutionist eliminates God and by default man evolves toward divinity. No longer constrained by a transcendent law man is then beyond good and evil, beyond morality, and therefore can justify murder in the name of science.

“The percentage of Americans who call themselves Christians has dropped dramatically over the past two decades, and those who do are increasingly identifying themselves without traditional denomination labels, according to a major study of U.S. religion being released today.

‘There is now this shift in the non-Catholic population – and maybe among American Christians in general – into a sort of generic, soft evangelicalism….’

The survey substantiated several general trends already identified by sociologists: the slipping importance of denominations in America, the growing number of people who say they have “no” religion and the increase in religious minorities including Muslims, Mormons and such movements as Wicca and paganism.

“If people call themselves ‘evangelical,’ it doesn’t tell you as much as you think it tells you about what kind of church they go to,” Silk said. “It deepens the conundrum about who evangelicals are.”

Reported In Washington Post
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/08/AR2009030801967.html

One reason I found this article interesting is because last Saturday, while attending a Classis meeting one speaker spoke glowingly of the falling of denominational boundaries. This article parallels that kind of attitude.

1.) One wonders if there is a pattern being followed here. Is it the case that people are going from denominational specific to evangelical generic only to go from evangelical generic to “no religion”?

2.) Understand that when people give up denominational specific for evangelical generic (whatever that is) what is happening is the creation of a lowest common denominator (LCD) Christianity. In this kind of LCD Christianity, Christianity becomes more a mood or ethos than it is a belief system. In this kind of LCD Christianity all doctrine except for the cheesiest doctrine that can be poured into amorphous symbols that can be used to create a pseudo unity is dispensed with. This kind of Christianity is easily manipulable and because that is so there is a stampede to get to the position of gatekeepers in the “churches.”

3.)A faith that cannot control its meaning and definition is not a faith that anyone need to take seriously.

4.) The denominations themselves are contributing to this phenomena as they all seek to build “big tent” mega-Churches. A mega-Church cannot survive unless it can be doctrinally diffident. It would not be saying to much to say that the mega-Church movement is the perfect container for the kind of people this survey tells us exists. I have yet to read of a mega-Church that was doctrinally precise.

5.) This de-denominationalizing of America combined with generic evangelicalism also explains the explosion of spirituality in America. As said earlier when doctrine is moved away from the result is Christianity by mood. It is spirituality that creates mood. We must keep in mind though that this spirituality is person variable. Just as there is no set doctrine so there is no set spirituality. Individuals mix and match their spirituality preference choosing to match spirituality plaids with spirituality stripes if it fits their mood. All this to say that this movement is very subjective.

6.)Consistent with our current theme, we insist that there is no way to be a “non-religious” person. All because people say they have no religious preference doesn’t mean that they aren’t religious. Instead what it means is that they are not self conscious about the religion they are practicing, or it means that they are not practicing a recognized and established religion. Still, this does not mean that they are not religious in the sense of organizing their lives around a ultimate priority.

In the previous post we looked at different variations of Collectivism as it incarnates itself in political and economic arrangements. In this post we want to make the case that it is no more possible to be a Satanist and a Christian than it is to be a epistemologically self conscious collectivist and a Christian at the same time. This is absolutely key to emphasize at this time since there are those in the Reformed world who seem to suggest that it is of no moment or matter whether or not one is a socialist or whether or not a country is socialistic. I wish some Reformed Theologians would stick to theology proper and give up broader political analysis.Collectivism exists. It exists everywhere. It is not an imaginary bogeyman that right wing nut case Christians have invented so they could have windmills to tilt at. Indeed, the notion that collectivism is the figment of hyper active imaginations could only be advanced in a cultural setting that is drenched in collectivism. We are so saturated with collectivism we don’t even see collectivism anymore as collectivism. Instead of seeing collectivism as collectivism we tend to see it as just the way things are. Collectivism has become the constant hum in the background of our thinking that help us keep time in all of our endeavors. Because this is true our vision of what it means to be “Christian” as been cast in collectivist terms. Christians are so collectivistic / socialistic in their thinking that they don’t realize that the current danger that is greatest to the Christian faith right now is one form of collectivism or another.

For proof of this I ask the reader how many sermons he has ever listened to that deal with the idolatry of collectivism in one form or another? Has the reader ever heard a sermon attacking the idol of collectivism in education? In government? In economics? Has the reader ever heard a sermon exposing the consequences to a people who fall in worship of the idol of collectivism? Has the reader ever heard a sermon that clearly posits the anti-thesis between the authority of the idol of collectivism and the authority of King Jesus? Has the reader ever heard a sermon revealing how the idol of collectivism tries to provide a salvation that only Jesus can bring? The greatest danger to the Church and to Christianity today is the idolatry of collectivism and yet we have some of our best and brightest in the Reformed world pooh poohing the necessity to speak to this subject in our pulpits.

It is not possible to be a epistemologically self-conscious simultaneous supporter of collectivism and Christianity because these two faiths are set in antithesis to one another. In the former, autonomous man in his corporate expression through the mechanism of central planning (a euphemism for sovereignty if there ever was one) seeks to take up the sovereignty of God, while in Christianity man recognizes that only God is sovereign. In collectivist arrangements the state is seeking to be the institution that provides redemption from the sin of want and austerity for its worshipers – and in doing so the collectivist state, as god, redefines both what sin and salvation is. In Christianity, on the other hand, only Jesus can provide redemption from sin – and as such both sin and redemption as defined biblically. In collectivist arrangements man is considered as mass and the individual is lost. In Christianity each man is created with the image of God imprinted upon them and thus has value.

Edmund Opitz has seen this clearly:

“As History’s vice-regent, the Planner is forced to view men as mass; which is to deny their full stature as persons with rights endowed by the Creator, gifted with free will, possessing the capacity to order their own lives in terms of their convictions. The man who has the authority and the power to put the masses through their paces, and to punish nonconformists, must be ruthless enough to sacrifice a person to a principle…a commissar who believes that each person is a child of God will eventually yield to a commissar whose ideology is consonant with the demands of his job.

Opitz thus concludes,

“Socialism needs a secular religion to sanction its authoritarian politics, and it replaces the traditional moral order by a code which subordinates the individual to the collective.”

We would only add to Opitz’ observation that the religion that drives Socialism is called Humanism.
In collectivist arrangements the state owns the children and so all children must be “educated” in the matrix of the state. Further, in collectivist arrangements it is by education that individuals and society experience regeneration. In Christianity however God owns our children and the parents are stewards of God to raise their children in the way of God’s new and better covenant of grace. Further, regeneration in Christianity is a sovereign work of the Holy Spirit quite apart from the state’s educational matrix. In collectivist arrangements the ultimate value is the glory of the state for in the state we live and move and have our being. In Christianity the ultimate value is the glory of God for in God we live and move and have our being. In collectivist arrangements the state is the ultimate authority and any god must submit to the state, while in Christianity God is the ultimate authority and the state must submit to God. In collectivist cultures the state uses guilt as a means of manipulating the people and atonement is achieved sado-masochistically, while in Christianity Christ takes away our guilt so that we do not have to involve ourselves in purges of self-atonement. In collectivist arrangements the state is the creator, giver, and arbiter of human rights, while in Christianity God is the creator, giver, and arbiter of all that is inherently human and all that comes from being human. In collectivist arrangements coercion is the foundation of exchange and commerce while in Christian arrangements the golden rule is the foundation of exchange and commerce.

Collectivism is to the church today what Gnosticism was to the church in the second century, which is to say it is a subtle heresy that gains so much traction in the Church because it is such a quality counterfeit. In point of fact much of what collectivism is, is Christianity sat on its head. It is Christianity through and through with its own doctrine of sin, regeneration, redemption, and glorification. It has its own church, its own sacraments, its own savior and priests and confessionals and catechism and hymns. The place it differs from Christianity is that it puts man on God’s throne and seeks to throw God out of his universe.

Because all of this is true one cannot be both a committed collectivist and a Christian at the same time and anybody who suggests that collectivism is of no moment or matter that it should be addressed by Christian pastors in Christian Churches is at best a fool and at worst an enemy of the Cross.