Advanced Civilizations: Cultures of Sacrifice
Peter Singer from Princeton argues that children up until the age of two do not possess full moral status, and parents would be able to choose to euthanize them.3 Michael Tooley, Professor Emeritus from Colorado University, pushes this to about five years old. Now that we have grown used to sacrificing the defenseless young, why not move on to the defenseless aged? The catchy new motto could be: Every grandma should be a wanted grandma! Culture has advanced itself back to infanticide and euthanasia. In Canada, euthanasia accounted for 3.3% of deaths in 2021, and they are currently wrestling with euthanasia for the mentally ill.
What are the signs of a culture advancing from basic survival mode to a developing culture? Is it an alphabet and written language? Is it farming and improved technologies for higher quality and more productive farming? Is it industrialization? Very likely, each of these or all these combined demonstrates advancement in culture. One of the things that never occurred to us as being an important sign of advancement was the practice of human sacrifice! That is until we read Study Points to Human Sacrifice in Europe. The article discusses strong evidence of human sacrifice in a period dated between 26,000 and 8,000 B.C., or what is called the Upper Paleolithic. The author, Heather Whipps, writes:
Investigating a collection of graves from the Upper Paleolithic (about 26,000 to 8,000 BC), archaeologists found several that contained pairs or even groups of people with rich burial offerings and decoration. Many of the remains were young or had deformities, such as dwarfism.
The diversity of the individuals buried together and the special treatment they received could be a sign of ritual killing, said Vincenzo Formicola of the University of Pisa, Italy.
What, then, do these findings indicate to Heather Whipps?
Human sacrifices have never been apparent in the archaeological record of Upper Paleolithic Europe, though they pop up much later among more complex ancient societies, such as the Egyptians. The Maya and the Aztec would also cut out hearts or toss victims from the tops of temples, historians say.
What sort of human beings were apparently being sacrificed? Well, it seems that a good portion of them were defenseless children and/or handicapped individuals and people with physical challenges or deformities. Some were pre-teens, and one of the allegedly sacrificed individuals had congenital dysplasia. Another adolescent was a dwarf. The common theme here is that these sacrifices involved children. Why were they sacrificed? The writer doesn’t really go into that and, incidentally, does not seem bothered overmuch by the findings. There was no horror reflected in the foregoing remarks. However, what is asserted is that the presence of human sacrifice indicates a more advanced society than the simple hunter/gatherer type society that was previously envisioned. The author conjectures:
The new findings could mean the hunter-gatherers were more advanced than once thought.
Even putting these two ideas “advanced civilization” and “child sacrifice” together is rather breathtaking in its callousness, is it not? Until quite recently at least, most of us would never have considered a society that practiced human sacrifice “advanced.” We would instead have called it barbaric.
If, however, child sacrifice does indicate an advanced civilization, then certainly Western culture has “advanced” quite rapidly in recent decades as it sheds the Christian worldview. It seems to us to be advancing ever more quickly today as godlessness holds increasing sway over our culture. Let’s take a quick look back and track our “advancement.”
American Feminist leader Victoria Woodhull, who in 1872 became the first woman to be nominated for president by a political party, stated:
Thus society, while expending millions in the care of incurables and imbeciles, takes little heed of or utterly ignores those laws by the study and obedience of which such human abortions might have been prevented from cumbering society with their useless and unwelcome presence. Grecian and Roman civilizations were, it is true, deficient in the gentler virtues, the excess of which in our day is hindering the progress of the race rather than helping or ennobling it. They, by crushing out the diseased and imperfect plants in the garden of humanity, attained to a vigor and physical development, which has never been equated since. And in so doing they were entirely in accord with nature, whose mandate is inexorable, that the “fittest” only shall be permitted to live and propagate. She is a very prodigal in her waste of individual life, in order that the species be without spot of blemish.
Not so our modern civilization, which rather pets its abortions and weaklings, and complacently permits them to procreate another race of fools and pigmies as inane and useless as themselves.1
-
A Minute With the Minutes On Overtures 23 & 37
These numbers suggest that the “no” votes on the highly-contested, SSA-related overtures were disproportionately those of teaching elders. Of course, the reverse can also be assumed, that a disproportionate number of the “yes” voters were ruling elders…. Does this suggest a disconnect between pew and pulpit (RE/TE)? Or is it a metro/blue suburbs vs. rural/red suburbs disconnect? Or southeastern vs. the rest of the country (assuming more REs attend from the southeast)? There are likely many theories, no one of which explains all.
The recorded “no” votes on the controversial overtures 23 and 37 from the last Presbyterian Church in America General Assembly (PCAGA) are now available in the just-released minutes of the 2021 summer assembly. Recording of votes is optional and generally indicates strong feelings or convictions on a given issue or measure. One conclusion that might be drawn from these numbers is that teaching elders (TEs) in the PCA are far more likely to have strong feelings about these overtures than are ruling elders (REs).
Overture 23 had 1855 votes cast. It passed 1438-417 (71% for, 29% against). 137 “no” voters recorded their votes (33% of those against). Of that 137 only 18 (13%) were ruling elders. Ruling elders made up 25% of all commissioners (616 out of 2115 total elders).
Overture 37 had 1826 votes cast. It passed 1209-617 (66% for, 34% against). 177 “no” voters recorded their votes (29% of those against). Of that 177 only 18 (10%) were ruling elders. Again, ruling elders made up 25% of all commissioners.
These numbers suggest that the “no” votes on the highly-contested, SSA-related overtures were disproportionately those of teaching elders. Of course, the reverse can also be assumed, that a disproportionate number of the “yes” voters were ruling elders.
This is speculative, but if the recorded TE:RE “no” vote proportions are an accurate representation of all “no” voters it might be reasonable to suggest that approximately 55 ruling elders voted against overture 23 out of 616 in attendance. For overture 37 the number of total ruling elder “no” votes might have been around 62 out of 616 in attendance.
Does this suggest a disconnect between pew and pulpit (RE/TE)? Or is it a metro/blue suburbs vs. rural/red suburbs disconnect? Or southeastern vs. the rest of the country (assuming more REs attend from the southeast)? There are likely many theories, no one of which explains all.
The recorded “no” votes can be found on pages 89-99 of the 2021 GA minutes.
Brad Isbell is a Ruling Elder in Covenant Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Oak Ridge, Tenn. This article is used with permission. -
Compromise Comes into the Church
In the same sense, why does a minority insist on allowing the false teaching of ordaining self-described homosexual men to be pastors and church officers in the PCA? Why don’t they simply seek ordination and service in a denomination that is already set up to welcome them?
In 1967 the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America (PCUSA), in an attempt to compromise with the culture, changed the wording of its Confession of Faith. A key statement from PCUSA’s Confession of 1967 is as follows:
“The Bible is to be interpreted in the light of its witness to God’s work of reconciliation in Christ. The Scriptures, given under the guidance of the Holy Spirit, are nevertheless the words of men, conditioned by the language, thought forms, and literary fashions of the places and times at which they were written. They reflect views of life, history, and the cosmos which were then current. The church, therefore, has an obligation to approach the Scriptures with literary and historical understanding. As God has spoken his word in diverse cultural situations, the church is confident that he will continue to speak through the Scriptures in a changing world and in every form of human culture” [Book of Confessions 9.29].
That statement directly contradicts Scripture.
“All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the servant of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work” (2 Timothy 3:16-17, NIV).
“Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet’s own interpretation of things. For prophecy never had its origin in the human will, but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit” (2 Peter 1:20-21, NIV).
If Scripture is nothing more than “the words of men,” then Scripture can be twisted to fit any agenda. Matthew A. Johnson, Chairman of the Board of the Presbyterian Lay Committee stated:
“The Confession of 1967 was the first step of many in a departure from the historical standards of the Presbyterian Church (USA) as expressed in the Westminster Confession of Faith. It took the denomination from relying on Scripture as its source of authority to everyone doing what was right in his own eyes.”
And that is exactly what happened.
A pastor in the National Capital Presbytery, Mansfield Kaseman, was charged with apostasy because he denied Christ’s sinlessness, bodily resurrection, vicarious atonement, and deity. When the case was heard before the Permanent Judicial Commission of the General Assembly Mr. Kaseman was acquitted. He was allowed to remain in good standing as a pastor in the PCUSA and allowed to continue teaching heresy. By acquitting Mr. Kaseman, the Judicial Commission itself became complicit in apostasy as well.
With the door open for pastors to teach as they pleased without regard to the Word of God many churches voted to withdraw the PCUSA. Many joined the newly formed (1973) Presbyterian Church in America (PCA), which affirmed that the Scriptures are the Word of God and affirmed the Westminster Confession of Faith as containing the system of doctrine taught in the Scriptures.
However, now almost fifty years after the formation of the PCA it finds itself tempted to compromise with false teachers. At the PCA’s 2021 General Assembly, one of the issues appeared to be a growing number of PCA church officers who self-identify as homosexual. These men claim to be committed to celibacy and refer to themselves as same-sex-attracted as their “sexual orientation.”
In July 2018, Memorial PCA in St. Louis, pastored by Greg Johnson, hosted the first Revoice Conference celebrating “Gay Culture.” Since that time Pastor Johnson has continued to participate yearly in Revoice conferences in order “to support and encourage gay, lesbian, bisexual, and other same-sex attracted Christians.” In his recently published book, “Still Time to Care: What We Can Learn from the Church’s Failed Attempt to Cure Homosexuality,” Pastor Johnson writes about “the relative fixity of sexual orientation” teaching, as his subtitle implies, that the Holy Spirit cannot change his “sexual orientation.”
Because of Greg Johnson’s association with the Revoice Conference, several presbyteries, sessions and individual PCA members requested Missouri Presbytery (MOP) to investigate his views. MOP claimed that there was not enough evidence to formally charge Dr. Johnson for his views and teachings.
I am reminded of the situation in Micah’s day when he asked: “What is the disobedience of Jacob? Isn’t it Samaria? (Micah 1:5).
In the same vein I ask: What is the disobedience of the PCA? Isn’t it Missouri Presbytery?
We must remember that the Scripture repeatedly refers to homosexuality as an abomination (Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:27); that the Scriptures teach that pastors and other church officers are to be above reproach (Titus 1:7); and that Christians are a new creation in Christ, by the incomparable power of the Holy Spirit, and are no longer in union with their old sinful nature (2 Corinthians 5:17). And now the PCA General Assembly is currently considering two overtures to amend its Book of Church Order to clarify that those being considered for church office, who insist on self-identifying by their continued union with their old sinful nature, are not qualified to be ordained.
At this point the outcome of this debate is unclear. Despite overwhelming support for the proposed amendments at the General Assembly, it is clear that there is a small but determined group of pastors and elders working to defeat the proposed amendments. Some have even strongly suggested that if this minority prevails in preventing the amendments from being approved, there may be a fracturing in the PCA.
Referring to Micah again when he asked: If the people wanted to worship Baal why not simply go to the temple of Baal and worship him there? Why insist in bringing that abomination of false worship into the Lord’s Holy Temple?
In the same sense, why does a minority insist on allowing the false teaching of ordaining self-described homosexual men to be pastors and church officers in the PCA? Why don’t they simply seek ordination and service in a denomination that is already set up to welcome them?
Richard Loper is a member of Chapelgate Presbyterian Church (PCA) in Ellicott City, Md. -
“He Gets Us” Isn’t Offensive. It’s Just More of the Same.
Written by Samuel D. James |
Saturday, February 25, 2023
I won’t lose sleep over “He Gets Us.” I hope a multitude of people hear the ad and follow the gospel breadcrumbs all the way to the Lamb’s table. But there are reasons to not do stuff like this, too. And in a cultural context like ours, there are levels of discipleship and spiritual formation that might come harder for those whose first encounter with Jesus was based on a roundabout self-actualization.If you’ve watched any televised football over the past 6 months, there’s a good chance you’ve seen one of these ads. It would be tiresome to “dissect” any one of these. The premise of all of them is the same: Jesus is more like us than unlike us, despite the church-ified picture you may have gotten of him. Of course, it’s one thing to piously say this. It’s another thing to show a picture of a tattooed Hell’s Angel, or a refugee family, or homeless people on the screen, and narrate how Jesus lived this kind of life too. It’s effective in its element of surprise. The average American probably thinks of Jesus as either a ghost or a priest, not the downtrodden or outcast a few doors down. The phrase “He gets us” summarizes an entire evangelistic invitation. You can trust Jesus. He won’t judge where you come from, cause you and him come from the same kind of place.
There’s nothing aggressively wrong with the ads. They’re not overtly theological in nature; they’re too short to really confuse anybody; and all in all, their premise is true. Jesus “knows what is in man” (John 2:24) and he is sympathetic to the struggles and sins of his people (Heb. 4:14). Further, the idea that Jesus has more in common with a person we’d rather not look at than one we would is entirely biblical (Is. 53:2). The ads can be a bit glib, overstating the continuity between, for example, Jesus’ indictment of the unbelief and hypocrisy of the Pharisees, and a leather-wearing counterculture. But that’s a distinctly American Christian mistake to make, and in the end, they do reflect a reverence and affection for Jesus.
But I get why some people are uncomfortable with them. Personally, I could do without a mass media campaign like this. I think the bottom line is that these ads are inoffensive, but that’s mostly because they’re forgettable. They don’t do anything more than put the name “Jesus” into living rooms. What’s more, they seem to establish Jesus’ goodness as a measure of how “seen” by him we feel.
Scripturally, you can’t divide Jesus’ sympathy for us from our plight as sinners. He “gets us” not because we ourselves are close to what he’s like, but because we are far away. That Jesus gets us is a profound act of mercy, not coolness.
Read More
Related Posts:
