Part of the blame game that has been used by secularizers is to accuse the church of terrible deeds. It is true that terrible things have been done in the name of the church but it is reasonable to make a distinction between the gospel and what is done in its name. It can hardly be held that Jesus was a promoter of war, the burning of witches and the suppression of women. Indeed, Christian pacifism is based on Jesus walking into the final conflict and prohibiting his disciples to defend him. Phrases like “love your enemies” and “those who live by the sword also die by the sword” are hardly instigations to violence. We may not, of course say the same of Islam. Although we all regret and confess religious intolerance and violence done in the name of God that does not empty the gospel of its truth.

I would like to defend my point about secularism being responsible for the violence of the 20C. The second world war was perpetrated in the name of blood and soil by the Nazi, a pagan idea. Communism was a direct outworking of the radical Western Enlightenment which placed mankind in the place of God. The idea that religion is really the problem is a lie perpetrated by the secularizers to hide their own complicity in the woes of the 20th C. We need go no further than an examination of the French terror to see that secularization is not all sunlight and roses. The problem with secularism is that it lacks a deep theological critique of itself and thus falls easily into all kinds of idolatry. In our days those abound: managerialism, free market capitalism, the idolatry of the self, human rights as a replacement of justice, life as lifestyle. These are all distractions from what are called to seek: the face of God.

Kenny... I was NOT saying 'Slavery is ok' I was attacking (justly so) your sweeeeeping generalization. That link is VERY worth the pixels, but if u are in 'don't confuse me with the facts, I have my mind made up' mode, then of course, it will not be very effective in your personal pilgrimage towards truth :) I was saying that 'your' statement was so shallow, and simplistic, and should never be uttered as u uttered it in a forum intended for balanced and intelligent comment.
I cannot show you 'one verse' which says "slavery is bad", nor can I show you a verse which says "free your slaves" (as a matter of fact, Islam does have something along those lines) I can show you a verse which in the context of the day would remove completely the harshness and cruelty of slavery and turn it into something more akin to a family relationship than forced servitude. You can search urself about it seeing as u think my links are worthless.

The whole tone of the New Testament is so anti slavery, and anti injustice of any kind (as is the Old, see Isaiah) so your point is in my opinion moot. Pol Pot was the epitomization of naturalistic atheistic communism at work. He was actually quite faithful to his presuppositions. There is NOTHING in this world apart from the Word of God, which has any authority to condemn acts such as his, and this includes your opinion ....which has no more authority than 'the next blokes'. Can you point to any ?

As for the rest, I refer you to Sells post just prior to this one.

Peter, there you go again, being carefully selective in the examples you use to justify your indefensible generalizations. There is a well respected argument that much of the impetus for the Third Reich was the triumphalism and vindictiveness contained in the Treaty of Versailles. To carefully skip this step and move directly to the earthy nature of Nazism as the cause of WWII is like blaming the bullet rather than the gunman.

I suppose that to a hammer, everything looks like a nail, but why do you insist on seeing absolutely everything through the lens of Christianity? The proposition that communists are godless, communism is a harsh regime therefore harsh regimes are the product of godlessness is a failure of logic at primary school level - yet this is what you propose... "[c]ommunism was a direct outworking of the radical Western Enlightenment which placed mankind in the place of God" Could there not be just a tiny corner of the Revolution that was based on the dignity of the working man? Or is that to you merely another aspect of the radical Western Enlightenment?

And can you not see the circular nature of your proposal that "[t]he problem with secularism is that it lacks a deep theological critique of itself" Well, as my young niece would say, duh.

Pericles

By your appellation, you may well be one of those who consider all times between the Greek Classical age and the "dawning of light" of the Enlightenment, as being an age of darkness. The reality is that over the last 2000 years ago a movement that came to be known as Christianity formed and has moved through history in alignment with the magnificient unfolding of human consciousness, that has accelerated over the last 160 years. This unfolding of a newer era (the last 60 years) is happening so fast the blood has drained from our collective brain.

The age of our human story you have committed to the scrap heap started when something extraordinary happened 2000 years ago, with a band of men and women, generally "outsiders", re-gathering after the unjust and cruel death of a man whose message touched them and who they believed was still with them. Just as I can believe today; of course this is a great insult to rational man, as he is narrowly constituted today, but maybe not for your ancient Greeks.

Peter's article needs to be read thoughtfully to appreciate its message. If we ignore it, then the Bishop's mitre will indeed continue to be passed onto the various heads of Tribunals, Counsellors and indeed of late, football executives, as they endeavour to correct and make good our naughty, silly, unloving ways.

BTW: some facts of the bloody secular 20th century....

Survival of Fittest, as a corruption of Darwin's Theory of Evolution, was a mantra for the ruling elites and their militarism of early 20th Century. A credible secular truth, with a vicious sting in its tail for the ordinary bloke in the early 20th century.

The secular Italians vetoed the Pope from the planning of Treaty of Versailles; perhaps a small voice of Christian forgiveness and mercy would have benefited the next generations of the ordinary bloke.

MJB

Democracy: government by the people or its elected representatives; the practice of the spirit of social equality;

Theocracy: government by deity or priesthood.

As many writers here have made clear, the religious right seeks theocracy not democracy. Like the communists and fascists before them, they seek to replace democratic process with a narrow dogma based on unquestioning idolatry of 'scripture'. Not content to leave the judgement of 'sin' to God, these theocrats seek to use the state to make this life Hell for all those who don't share their beliefs. Witness the long history of religious activists using government policy to punish those whose 'lifestyles' they disapprove.

While it's certainly unreasonable for any state to ban the religious from participating in democracy, the state does have a valid role in protecting democratic freedom by forbidding the state to impose religion.

Those of us who value democratic principles should be very cautious about the apparent convergence of the economic right (money/the market is God) with the religious right (material wealth is sign of Godliness). The priesthoods of both schools crave control and fear liberty, and thus represent a potent danger to democracy.

Homo NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO
hope that got your attention :)
'We' don't want 'theocracy' in the social/governmental/political sense... we want the prophetic voice made plain and clear,and brought to bear on behavior just as Nathan rebuked David as per Sells article.
Our calling is to be 2 things SALT (to preserve) and LIGHT (to show the way) no matter how arrogant or wowserish that might sound, may I say "As for me and my house, we are on the Lords side" (that was what Joshua said when the Israelites had been partying around the golden calf when the 10 commandments were given and Moses gave them a 'clear and present choice').

Morgan, u vote Green ?! (calls the witch burning team).. grrr..that explains a lot :) the 'godbotherers' are in fact, a significant proportion of this world brudda.... your mob, the 'secularists, agnostics,atheists' etc, consitute the massive number of around 14% So, with all respect, please stop referring to 'us' as if we are some fringe minority.

But Morgan, u did actually come up with some rather compassionate sounding material in one of your posts, and ultimately, no matter what our positions may be, a caring approach to our adversaries is a worthy goal for all of us, it's CERTainly a Christian ideal, though in the heat of passionate debate, this may not come thru, especially on some well known issues.