The Great Reset will destroy our present culture (social justice and Critical Race Theory), ensure that our children master the new one (global citizenship skills), and give us a newly-minted myth for us to believe (why the Great Reset will save us all). Yes, the Great Reset is a social, cultural, and religious revolution. It is dangerous to Christians everywhere.

The World Economic Forum (WEF)[1] says that now is the time to replace our current economy with “a new social contract that honours the dignity of every human being.”[2] According to its leader Klaus Schwab:[3]
To achieve a better outcome, the world must act jointly and swiftly to revamp all aspects of our societies and economies, from education to social contracts and working conditions. Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed. In short, we need a “Great Reset” of capitalism….
[T]he pandemic represents a rare but narrow window of opportunity to reflect, reimagine, and reset our world to create a healthier, more equitable, and more prosperous future.[4]
However, this plea has also been called an agenda for tyranny. The foreign minister of Brazil addressed the United Nations to say:
[T]otalitarian social control is not the remedy for any crisis.
…
Those who dislike freedom always try to benefit from moments of crisis to preach the curtailing of freedom. Let’s not fall for that trap. Totalitarian social control is not the remedy for any crisis. Let’s not make democracy and freedom one more victim of COVID-19.[5]
What is this Great Reset? We’ll find that it’s yet another attempt to establish socialism. In this scheme businesses will be persuaded to voluntarily accept government control. We’d silently shift into accepting a socialist economy, along with the rest of its agenda, without even realizing it.
This article will approach the Great Reset in this manner:

Remind us that the Bible judges socialism and finds it wanting.
Describe the main components of the Great Reset.
Show how it’s being brought to us by evangelizing the willing, and coercing the unwilling.
Discuss approaches for opposing its goals and its evangelism strategies.

Socialism and Christianity don’t mix.
The Great Reset has a sneaky idea. “Woke” company managers will convince their shareholders that the government, along with social activists, must be given veto power over what the company does. Even though no law requires this surrender, the shareholders will be pressured to recognize their new masters.
This demand for corporate change amounts to a cultural revolution. Business managers, shareholders, and the general public are being conditioned to accept community control over companies. We’re being led into economic socialism without them even using the ‘S’ word. After all, the dictionary says that socialism means community control:
socialism:  n.  1. a theory or system of social organization in which the means of production and distribution of goods are owned and controlled collectively or by the government.[6]
Before we examine the revolutionary Great Reset, we need to remember what God says about government, property, and ownership. That’s because the Great Reset demands socialist change. And socialism not only steals people’s property, but also their freedoms.
Regarding property and ownership, God’s quite OK with people owning things. And if some of them become billionaires then good for them. Property and ownership are explored in the author’s article Is Capitalism Immoral? Here are some of its highlights:

God gave Adam and Eve the right to own things.
Mankind practiced capitalism from the very beginning.
The New Testament affirms private ownership.
It is OK to be wealthy.

Some people claim that Christianity endorses government socialism because the early church in Jerusalem practiced communalism. However, their sharing was strictly voluntary. Again, from the article:
Early in the Jerusalem church its people pooled their goods for the common good, selling property and land for the needs of the saints (Acts 2:43-45; 4:32-35). Yet communal life wasn’t the norm for Christ’s church. For example, Paul encouraged to the Corinthian church to prepare a gift they promised for the benefit of the Jerusalem church (1 Corinthians 16:1-4; 2 Corinthians 8:2, 6-8). If the Corinthians were living communally then Paul could have simply asked the elders about the gift. This means that members of a congregation may choose to act communally, but they aren’t obligated to do so.[7]
People have the right to either keep their stuff or give it away. But when a government insists that we share, especially with itself, that’s called taking or stealing.[8] Socialism, along with its communist endgame, insists that individuals have no property rights, and that everything belongs to the community. When government and activist “stakeholders” claim the right to control a business, they’re using the socialist playbook to steal from the business owners.
Although the Great Reset seems to concentrate on economic matters, its goals also require a cultural reset. Ever since Karl Marx published his books, socialist advocates have waited for an opportunity like this one. The Great Reset implements a socialist culture, having these features:

Hatred towards God. Socialist theory says that that there is no God. Serving the community of mankind gives meaning of our lives.
Removing the religious. People who believe in God are enemies of socialism. They must be pursued and marginalized, even extinguished.
Preventing reactionary thought. Lest people get dissatisfied with socialism, a socialist state must identify possible internal enemies. This means continual spying on its own citizens.

Lots has already been written about how these socialist “features” repress individual freedoms. Rather than repeat those arguments here, look to those articles. For example, the author has these previous articles on socialism and Christianity:

The Great Reset is just repackaged socialism, and it’s dangerous to Christian culture. Even so, we still must learn something about it. We must be familiar enough with it its terms to recognize when it’s being pushed upon us.
The Great Reset in a nutshell.
The World Economic Forum conferences, sometimes called the Davos meetings,[9] attract a lot of billionaires, political leaders, and social activists.[10] Having invented the Great Reset, it isn’t surprising that their speeches keep circling back to it. The Great Reset has these basic components:
WEF chief executive officer Klaus Schwab described three core components of the Great Reset: the first involves creating conditions for a “stakeholder economy”; the second component includes building in a more “resilient, equitable, and sustainable” way—based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics which would incorporate more green public infrastructure projects; the third component is to “harness the innovations of the Fourth Industrial Revolution” for public good.[11]
Through the “stakeholder economy” and “equitable and sustainable” components, businesses are to bind themselves to the overall plan. The technology component describes what governments will do to innovation when, and if, they get control of everything else. We can ignore this component for now.
According to the WEF, countries should put aside national interests and cooperate as one. As Schwab said at the 2022 World Government Summit, “Our futures are intrinsically connected and that requires collaborative responses.”[12] This echoes the United Nations plans of Agenda 21 / Agenda 2030 / Sustainable Development Goals,[13] which also call for refashioning a new society and a new economy.[14] Broadly speaking, both the UN and the WEF want a socialist command economy accompanied by vast social changes.
The Stakeholder Economy steals control of businesses.
In the “stakeholder economy” shareholders technically own a business but can’t direct it. Decision making is surrendered to outside parties.
Underpinning the notion of “stakeholder capitalism,” a concept that has taken the C-suites of some of America’s largest companies by storm, is the idea that a company should be run for the benefit of all its “stakeholders,” a conveniently hazy term that can be defined to include (among others) workers, customers, and “the community,” as well as the shareholders who, you know, own the business. It’s a form of expropriation based on the myth that a corporation that puts its shareholders first must necessarily put everyone else last. … Stakeholder capitalism is not only a threat to private property, but also, by not much of a stretch of the imagination, to individual freedom.[15]
Once the company commits to pleasing these outside parties, it’s effectively giving them veto power over company decisions. The community now controls the company. Note that because these stakeholders aren’t shareholders, they’re playing games with other peoples’ money.
Schwab says that stakeholder capitalism “would not change the economic system, but rather improve it to what he considers to be ‘responsible capitalism’.”[16] Responsible capitalism covers the same ground as stakeholder capitalism:
Responsible Capitalism requires a fundamental integration of the needs of the wider community, care for the communities in which the business operates, environmental initiatives and support for the arts and culture, with the business’s goals and processes. Above all, it is about how successful business leaders apply the principles of moral and social responsibility in the running of their business, combining social commitment with business acumen and innovation, and building a coherent philosophy in which the company’s success is judged over the long-term by criteria that include sustainability, equity, and moral justice as well as standard financial benchmarks.[17]
When the community looks to a business to act as its nanny (“care for the communities”), provide it with entertainment (“support for the arts and culture”), and act as a soldier in the culture wars (“sustainability, equity, and moral justice”), then that business has been expropriated from its rightful owners to become a toy, a misused community plaything. That’s a long way from the idea that “the business of America is business.”[18]
Justin Haskins, writing for The Hill, calls these changes global socialism.
At a virtual meeting earlier in June hosted by the World Economic Forum, some of the planet’s most powerful business leaders, government officials and activists announced a proposal to “reset” the global economy. Instead of traditional capitalism, the high-profile group said the world should adopt more socialistic policies, such as wealth taxes, additional regulations and massive Green New Deal-like government programs.
“Every country, from the United States to China, must participate, and every industry, from oil and gas to tech, must be transformed,” wrote Klaus Schwab, the founder and executive chairman of the World Economic Forum, in an article published on WEF’s website. “In short, we need a ‘Great Reset’ of capitalism.”
…
Or, put another way, we need a form of socialism — a word the World Economic Forum has deliberately avoided using, all while calling for countless socialist and progressive plans.[19]
Through stakeholder capitalism, Schwab and the WEF want businesses to become community-controlled cultural warriors, expending themselves for the sake of a socialist future.
Measuring your wokeness through metrics.
Schwab’s second core component is “building in a more ‘resilient, equitable and sustainable way’ – based on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.”[20] ESG metrics are presently just a public relations gambit. That is, some advocacy outfit publishes rules that it thinks a targeted company should live by. This campaign works when:

Company management already conspires with the advocates.
Company management is afraid of losing public opinion support if they do fight.
Company management is weary of fighting.

Of course, even when a company gives in it doesn’t win. The metrics will continually be changed, pushing businesses to fulfill new political goals. Says Schwab:
The second component of a Great Reset agenda would ensure that investments advance shared goals, such as equality and sustainability.
…
Rather than using these funds, as well as investments from private entities and pension funds, to fill cracks in the old system, we should use them to create a new one that is more resilient, equitable, and sustainable in the long run. This means, for example, building “green” urban infrastructure and creating incentives for industries to improve their track record on environmental, social, and governance (ESG) metrics.[21]
These business incentives will be things like “meet these metrics or there’s no more financing, no more approvals for you.” ESG metrics are social and political, not measures of good financial performance. As example, here are some proposed metrics:

Measuring your greenhouse gas emissions
Monitoring your carbon footprint

Read More
Related Posts:

Pure is a good and helpful book that insightfully analyzes the shortcomings of the purity movement and offers a much better, much more compelling, and much more biblically-grounded vision for singleness, dating, marriage, and sex. 

Do you remember the purity movement? Or perhaps it’s better to ask this: How could you possibly forget the purity movement? Though in many ways its aims were noble—sexual purity among teens and young adults—its methods were more than a little suspect and, in the long run, often even harmful. It framed sexual purity as a method that would gain a spouse rather than as obedience that would honor God; it led people to believe that those who had lost their virginity (or who had had it taken from them) were second-class citizens; it led those had maintained their virginity to believe they should expect God to reward them with a similarly virginal spouse and, once married, a wonderful sex life. Though these messages may not have been stated explicitly, they were not far under the surface. Not surprisingly, the movement left a trail of harm in its wake—one that the church is still reckoning with.
Dean Inserra witnessed this movement as an evangelical teen and now, years later, reflects on it in Pure: Why the Bible’s Plan for Sexuality Isn’t Outdated, Irrelevant, or Oppressive. This is not an academic examination of the movement but rather a kind of “now what?” analysis. “The purity culture of my youth launched a type of prosperity gospel wearing the disguise of piety. If I remain a virgin until marriage, God will give me a future spouse who did the same. In fact, they don’t deserve me if they failed to do what I did. The aftermath of this anti-gospel thinking is a trail of human brokenness.” With this trail of brokenness as his starting place, Inserra plots a better path toward purity and a better reason to maintain the Bible’s teaching on sexuality.
Read More
Related Posts:

In his book, ‘The Beauty of the Lord’, Jonathan King makes a wonderful case that Beauty can be properly identified as a synonym for the glory of God. The implication is that Beauty is a divine attribute. King mentions such passages as Psalm 27:4; 96:6; and 145:5,12 which portray images of the crown, kingdom, and sanctuary of the Lord. These passages directly link to the theological concepts of God’s sovereignty and the kingship of Christ. This connection between the glory of God and Beauty is important because it generates a category for us to objectively evaluate whether something is beautiful or ugly.

Technology shapes the character of our everyday lives. Without it, we would have great difficulty getting to work, having our morning cup of coffee, and reading this article. My problem with technology is not that we have it, but that we have allowed it to shape our lives in a way that we barely recognize. What I mean is that technology is no longer a means of Godly stewardship, but that it now establishes its own worldview. 
The technological worldview urges us to buy, build, trade, and relate with the world in a way that resembles a vending machine. I put x in and out comes y. For example, many people go to work not because they know that it will stimulate the economy by producing valuable goods and services, but rather because it will give them a paycheck. Perhaps another example: the contemporary evangelical scene sees people attending church either because of the spiritual experience or to manipulate God by doing their Christian duty. In an extreme example, one could think of the use of pornography in American culture. Such a phenomenon arises out of a technological impulse that demands ease of access to something that—in a God ordered society—takes time, commitment, and genuine relationship to obtain. 
In a word, the technological worldview is bland. It’s ugly; and it’s ugly for some very specific reasons. My point in this article is to show that the only antidote to the technological worldview is a return to the classical and protestant vision of Beauty. 
Art, Technology, and Idolatry
At the outset, I want to make it clear that when I am discussing technology, I do not necessarily mean technological tools. These are things that can be genuinely useful and fall in line with the biblical notion of stewardship. I readily admit that technological tools have a place in God’s world, but it is the worldview behind the creation of tools that we ought to question. 
As I mentioned above, the technological worldview is ugly and in light of statements about beauty and ugliness it’s appropriate to turn to the topic of art. While art can certainly ascend to true beauty, there is an inherent danger in the human pursuit and use of it. In fact, it is the dangerous temptation that art poses to humanity that has aided in the development of the technological worldview. Technology has emerged out of a desire to reach the highest of human potential. While this aspiration is not entirely bad—think of all the lovely devices that you and I use to our genuine benefit—it has also caused us to become extremely self-centered and goal oriented. 
It is for this reason that I have taken to calling the technological worldview “the idol of the self.” This idolatry arises in the sphere of art as well. In his work of public theology, Abraham Kuyper writes about art and its dominion over humanity. While he does not directly correlate his work on art with technology, a retrospective eye sees the point clearly. He argues that, 
The human race cannot exist without a king. Once it has closed its eyes to the glory of Jesus’ kingship, the presence of sin could mean only one thing: humanity would proclaim itself king over nature, the world, and all of human life…what sets the tone and acts as the instrument for the new enthroned-humanities dominion is art, and it is through art that modern life attempts to satisfy its thirst for the ideal.1
Here we can see that the sphere of art and the sphere of technology occupy the same space. They both seek to “satisfy the thirst for the ideal.” By observing Kuyper’s further remarks, we notice an even stronger correlation between the two. He writes, “What art and religion have in common is that they depend on inspiration.”2 Here, Kuyper exposits the defining feature of art, religion, and technology. Even though he does not mention technology, its origin and the arts’ have a strong correlation. 
Both technology and its devices are derived from inspiration. This claim is rather obvious in regard to devices as they require an inventive mind to create them, but technology’s inspiration may not be so clear. Technology, unlike its subsequent devices, relies on inspiration not as a process, but as a fountainhead. The technological worldview presupposes inspiration by inventors, scientists, and the like in order to fuel their creation of inspired art: their devices. Thus, technology is not a virtueless endeavor, as it rises from human creativity to taking the place of religion as the inspired worldview. 
Herein lies the root of the problem. The technological worldview is a form of idolatry. Art, technology, and religion always derive their inspiration from the divine, but that “does not mean that art—or technology—itself acknowledges and recognizes this circumstance.” In its purest form, the quest for technological tools is not an unworthy pursuit in the realm of God’s created order. However, as Craig Gay notes in his work on Christian interaction with technology, it is an abandonment of the Christian worldview that drove the technological worldview into its idolized position.3 
When the technological worldview takes root in a society, it takes on the role of divinity. No longer is technological progress achieved in light of God’s inspiration, but technology itself becomes the inspiration for human creativity. In The Institutes of the Christian Religion, John Calvin writes, “whenever scripture asserts the unity of God, it does not contend for a mere name, but also enjoins that nothing which belongs to divinity be applied to any other.”4 In North America, the technological worldview is widely assumed and left unquestioned. The problem with this disposition is that it passively allows technology to take on the role of inspirator, where the bible attributes inspiration to God alone. It is, therefore, idolatrous. 
Read More
Related Posts: