Psychology without faith is lame

This post is a reworked version of a post from August 2010.

Last day I was quoting Einstein as having said “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." I want to apply some of the things I was saying about the Faith/Science debate to the Psychology/Faith debate. As with Science, what is presented in Psychology is not always right, and because of this some Christians have thrown out the baby with the bathwater, rejecting all of Psychology period. But also, as with the Science faith debate, the main contradictions in the Psychology / Faith debate occur because the data is interpreted in terms of anti – theistic presuppositions. So again it is not Psychology or Faith (as some argue thinking it is possible to choose just one of the two) it is Psychology plus Faith. And again the question becomes “Which faith, an atheistic faith or a theistic faith?” Do we interpret the data (observed phenomena) in terms of our anti-theistic presupposition or do we choose a theistic interpretation? My view, as I argued earlier is that “The Bible has the best solutions for life” (March 2012).

Let's take guilt as an example. The existence of guilt is an accepted fact. Now some will say the problem is that Christians (and the like) are going round talking about sin, and laying guilt trips left right and center. The solution, in their mind, is to shoot all Christians. Christians on the other hand say that guilt (as opposed to shame see April 27 and May 10th post) is real, and that it comes as a result of doing something that we know deep down is objectively wrong. The solution, in this view, is to be forgiven by the only One (God) who has the right and the power to forgive, and who also had the ability to cleans us from all unrighteousness (see 1 John 1:9).

Having said this I need to admit that we Christians have not always spoken the truth in love, and this is wrong, abhorrent and it grieves my (and I believe His) heart. Presenting truth in judgmental self righteousness is wrong. On the other hand, if what we believe is true, then not to present the practical solutions the Bible gives to those who will listen would be unloving. We are told to be always ready to give an answer to the hope that is within us. We are not told to force our opinions on those who are not listening! So you see it depends which faith is true, atheism or theism. This is the real issue here!

As with all other branches of research/knowledge, we need to be aware that confidently expressed Psychological solutions based on the wisdom (and presuppositions) of man are not always correct. What is true, is that Psychological research can give insight in our understanding of human nature in general, and the nature of our psychosis in particular. Having said this, I firmly believe that any principles that Psychology discovers that work, can all be found in the Bible. And of course the Bible got there first. I have written more about this which again can be for for example in “The Bible has the best solutions for life” (March 2012).

There is indeed much that could be said. But to come to the title of this post, Psychology without faith is lame. I am of course referring here to the Christian faith. Part of what I mean is that understanding what is wrong, is not the same as fixing it. In addition, we may know perfectly well what we aught to do to fix things, but the wherewithal to do it is more often than not, missing. Nicky Gumbel (of Alpha fame) says it over and over “Yes, but how?” Paul, seeing the problem complains that the good things he wants to do he does not do, and the bad things, he does not want to do, these are the very things that he does. He goes on to ask who will deliver him from all this and answers for us “Jesus Christ the Lord” (Romans 7:19-25). He and we, need help. We cannot live the Christian life without God's help, and we only have access to this help through faith. We need His help to change, and we need Him to heal our hearts. He is the One who “heals all your diseases.” I know that it is foolishness to the World, but the testimony of so many of His people is that He helps those who are humble enough to ask for it. It is my testimony too. Taste and see that the Lord is good!



Let me acknowledge here, that there are those who do not name the name of Christ who do somehow manage to pull themselves up out of their addictions. They obviously have a will power much stronger than mine! Those I have spoken to though, tell me that they never seem to loose the craving, and that many times – there is a substitute addiction that replaces the one given up! The big problem here, is that even when I can change the behaviour, it does not heal the wounds that many times drove me to the behaviour in the first place. I personally need God to work in my desires, I need His healing in the hurts I have sustained and continue to sustain in life, and I need something from Him in the wherewithal to do it.



These helps are more available than we have begun to imagine. It only comes however as we are vitally connected with God through prayer, godly council and His Word. There are many helpful resources that God has raised up, and continues to raise up at this hour, in and for the increasingly sick society in which we live. Some of the keys He is unveiling in and through His Word can be found, for example in such works as “Healing Light” by Agnes Sanford, or in Leanne Payne's “Healing prayer”, or in “Healing of Memories” by David Seamands. Then there is “Transformation of the inner man” by the Sandfords (see Elijah house ministries), or the Restoring the Foundations work of the Kelstras (RTF), or the Theophostic (God's light) Prayer ministry, or Jack Frost's “Shiloh Place ministries”. All these and others, seek to bring the intervention of God into our recovery and healing as we co-labour and cooperate with Him in and through our ongoing and growing interpersonal relationship with Him.

Another way to say this is that Biblical recovery is to be found in partnership with Him in and through His Word. I have described it elsewhere as a trinity of helps, Bible help (the insight and inspiration we get from it), self help (the part we must play) and God's (the help the tangible leg up we get when we fully participate in this partnership I am describing). I want to quote and then say something about one key set of verses in this regard. The verses are Philippians 2:12, 13 which say “Therefore, my beloved, as you have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling; for it is God who works in you both to will and to do for His good pleasure.”

The “Therefore” connects these verses to the context. It is because Christ who could have taken advantage of His nature as God did not, but instead for our sake and our salvation became obedient in the extreme, that is even to death on the cross, it is for this reason we need to continue to work out etc., etc. If there is anything about us at all, and we had a friend on earth who did something even remotely like what Jesus did for us, we would likely move heaven and earth to live worthy of his sacrifice. We need to see the reality of the fact that Jesus is that friend and to live accordingly. This is the force of the “Therefore.”

The aspect of salvation being talked about here is the deliverance from the power of sin (as opposed to the penalty, or the presence of sin - see Bible Best Solutions II from March). We need to work this through in fear and trembling for many reasons for example because we are lazy, and we reap according to the measure we sow; or because the propaganda of the World too easily chips away at our confidence, and our nature is to drift away; or because the way is narrow and few find it – especially fullness of life in Him; or because we are busy, or wounded, or tired and easily discouraged. We need to be tenacious and stay focused on and connected to Him, in and through His World, in fellowship, in the breaking of bread and prayer (Acts 2:46,47).

But the good news is that when we do our part, He comes in and makes up for what we are unable to do. He is at work changing even our desires (He is at work in us “to will” to do “His good pleasure”) and also in the wherewithal to do what needs to be done (He is at work in us “to do His good pleasure” ). He knows when we are burnt out and need rest and at such times He calls us to Himself to find that rest (Matthew 11:28-30). And it's all found in relationship with Him. We are meant to experience His healing empowering presence. Psychology, even Biblically based Psychology (principles), cannot give us this. It is only found in His presence. In His presence there is joy and peace and hope and love and energy. Psychology cannot give us this either. Man made Psychology does not always work, Psychology that works is in the end Biblical Psychology, but even that without faith and trust in God is lame. Please don't let the propaganda and the groundless atheistic faith based ridicule of the World rob you of (take away) these treasures!

Science or faith, or science plus faith?

As I showed last day there is no such thing as a neutral position in these Faith/Science debates. This being the case the question in the title of today's post is easy to answer, it has to be science plus faith. The big question then, as I said last day is "Which faith?" To say it in a slightly different way, the question becomes "Do we interpret reality in terms of the faith of some type of naturalism, or in terms of some theistic faith?" I pointed to my February post which argues that "The Bible has the best explanation of reality.” But there is another issue here, and it is knowing (on both sides) that logically that our views are positions of faith, how do we proceed in the debate? In other words knowing it can only be Science plus faith how do we hold these two things in tension and still have a reasonable and respectful debate?

As a thinking Christian I have to say that there are time that those who say they are on my side make me want to cringe. It was always the case that not everything religious was good, take the Pharisees of Jesus day for example. It is also the case that many who belong to Him do not love Him with their whole mind. Too much of what is presented is defensive or shallow or just plain wrong. There is nothing new here either. I am thinking of dear old Galileo who was forced by the Church to withdraw his “theory” that the Earth went round the sun. It was said that this theory contradicted the Scripture but the Scriptures nowhere imply this. Mind you astronomers of his day also resisted his theory.

The saying of Einstein comes to mind “Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." We don't know exactly what he meant by this, and it is too late to ask him :-). But there are two dangers here. The first is to believe that Science has arrived and that everything that Scientist say is 100% correct, the second to believe that we have a perfect understanding of the Bible. With regards to the former, there is an interesting book I could recommend “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions” by Thomas Kuhn. One of his main points is that the old guys have to die before their pet theories can be overthrown. Science progresses by two steps forward one step back. The advantage of being old is that you see this over and over even in the course of one short life here on earth. No Science has not arrived.

With regard to our understanding of Scripture there are two errors here too, both warned against in the Bible. In the first Paul warns against those who are “always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth” (2 Timothy 3:7). The context is talking about those who suppress the fundamental truths concerning such things as sin, righteousness and judgement by their unrighteous deeds. In other words about the fundamentals of salvation. The context of the second is spoken to those who think they know it all and are “puffed up” in their knowledge. The saying is “And if anyone thinks that he knows anything, he knows nothing yet as he ought to know” (1 Corinthians 8:2). Christians need take a lesson from poor old Galileo, and learn to say “I don't know.” It is not that Galileo’s Science contradicted what the Scriptures say, it is that it contradicted what was read into the scriptures by the Church of the day. We need to learn not to go beyond that which is written (1 Corinthians 4:6).

In short neither Science nor our understanding of Scripture is complete! Science may seem to contradict my understanding of Scripture or my understanding of the exact way that Scripture is inspired, and on the other hand, since there are times when Science is proved wrong, we are wise on both sides to put certain issues on hold. When we present ourselves as being able to answer every question (again on both sides), we are in grave danger of coming across as pat and shallow and frankly unbelievable and even arrogant. For the Christian we need to understand that this is not the essence of being an Ambassador for Christ (2 Corinthian 5:20). So is it Science or faith, or is it Science and faith? What I am saying is that it is the latter, that certain things need to be held in tension (for example Science and Faith), judgement deferred at times, and that both sides in the inevitable debates, need to learn a little humility!

The myth of neutrality

Have you ever wondered why two people of equal intelligence can come to diametrically opposite conclusions about a given issue. And whoever you listen to first can seem to have logic completely on their side. Recognizing this phenomenon the Bible tells us “He who states his case first seems right, until his rival comes and cross-examines him” (Proverbs 18:17). Why is this, what is going on here?

The phenomenon just described is nowhere more pronounced than the so called Science/Faith or Faith/Reason debates seen and heard for example on YouTube. I say 'so called' because it seems to me that even the titles of such debates are biased. What I mean is that the very titles themselves seem to pit Science or logic against faith, as if one could only choose either one or the other. But consider this, there are Scientists who are theists and there are scientists who are atheists. And some of the most amazing minds of all time have fallen into the former category including Einstein, Newton, Pascal etc.

In terms of propaganda, the humanist/atheist would have us believe that his or her approach is neutral, whereas the theist approach is based on pure faith. But the humanist/atheist is anything but neutral in his or her approach, and those who present themselves in this way are falling into the fallacy of the myth of neutrality. In fact the only one who has even the possibility of being neutral, is the one who says he or she does not know. But even here, because of the possibility of willing ignorance, neutrality is far from automatic. It is rare to find a person who is even truly open, let alone neutral!

There is much to say about these things, but let me say this: Many of the things that are presented as contradictions in the faith/science, faith/reason debates are based on the philosophy of naturalism. This philosophy contends that only natural explanations of the universe are valid explanations of what is. This is the position of many of the so called militant atheists, in particular it is Richard Dawkins' view. In an interview he was asked what evidence he had for his belief that only natural explanations of the universe are valid, and he had to admit that he had none. As the question itself implies, naturalism is in fact, a belief system. If you hold to this position you can only do so by faith, not by reason.

This is of course denied, and various attempts to validate this and similar positions by reason have been made. But as I pointed out in my blog post “Truth, Bible, Propaganda” February 2011, it is a Mathematical theorem that all such attempts must end up in circular reasoning. The theorem in question is Goedel's incompleteness theorem which essentially says that any non-trivial system cannot verify itself. In particular not only is there no rational verification of the (rational) naturalistic view, but such an explanation cannot even possibly exist! This is because the existence of such an explanation would contradict Goedel's theorem. It follows naturally that every World view (and in particular the naturalistic World view) if it is held to be true, is held to be true by faith not by reason. To say this in terms of the title of the post, there is no World view that is neutral, every World view has an underlying unprovable presupposition that when held reflects the bias of the one holding it. I say more in the two posts "Is Reason is the unique pathway to knowledge?" and "I will not believe in, or accept anything that cannot be verified by one of the five senses!" both posts in July 2012.

That neutrality is a myth does not seem to be well known or understood. As a result many even highly intelligent people seem have no idea that their logic is based on (usually hidden) unprovable presuppositions. Perhaps the biggest challenge for us Christian in debate, is to uncover exactly what are the underlying presuppositions/World views that drive the logic of the one with whom we are in dialogue. The point is that these presuppositions are often hidden, many times even from the one with whom we are debating! Even harder is to discover what are the influences that lie behind the formation of that persons World view. Atheists are fond of attributing theistic world views to geography. I have heard Richard Dawkins say “If you were born in India you would be Hindu.” But by that logic Dawkins would be a Christian. Of course he would reply that he is not a Christian because he is a thinking rational human being (implying that theists are not). Does he think that he is the only one who approaches the issues intelligently? Certainly there are many who do simply adopt the faith of the culture of their environment, but to dismiss it all this way can hardly be described as neutral, and it may lack a certain humility.

To sum all this up let me simply repeat that neutrality is a myth. This being the case, those who think that they are completely neutral and that their position is based solely on rationality, are self deceived. Lack of neutrality of course leads far too easily to bias. But surely the beginning of not being biased is to recognize that neutrality is indeed a myth, and then to try and take ones own bias into account in our thinking and decision making. As I have argued earlier the question then becomes “which view best reflects reality?” (see the series of posts starting with “The Bible has the best explanation of reality” February 2012). I will want to talk later about the fact the arguments discuss here apply also to the concept of moral neutrality, and then to refer back to "The Bible has the best solutions for life" (March 2012).

I thought we weren't supposed to judge!

I dealt earlier with the topic of the existence of right and wrong and truth. We might say that we believe the propaganda that all truth is relative, but nobody can live as if that were true. If somebody short changes you at the supermarket, you will not likely accept their explanation that for him (her) 10 - 2 = 4! You will want and probably demand, your $8. The next line of defense in this and other scenarios will likely be “You're judging me, and we are not supposed to judge right?” Well you can even quote scripture to that end “Jude not that you be not judged” (Matthew 7:1). But are we necessarily judging (in the sense that Jesus means here) when we believe (and/or say) that something is wrong?

In believing that something is wrong we can certainly be, and many are, judgmental. But being judgmental has more to do with attitude than with truth. One dictionary defines “judgmental” as having or displaying an overly critical point of view. Another talks about harsh judgement. A judgmental attitude frequently carries overtures of condemnation and can be accompanied by traces (or more) of self righteousness. But this is not the same as simply thinking or stating an opinion that this or that, is wrong. A parent can correct a child without being judgmental, harsh or overly critical. The statement “Johnny it is wrong to take something that does not belong to you,” can be spoken in love, with the best interest of the child at heart. Why would this necessarily be wrong if spoken to an adult?

I like to distinguish between being judgmental and being discerning. I can discern that something is wrong without being judgmental. I understand that the flesh is weak, that we are creatures of passion. I understand how easily a person can fall into adultery, but I am not willing to say that adultery is not wrong. This is surely what Jesus was doing when he spoke to the woman caught in the very act of adultery saying to her “Neither do I condemn you; go and sin no more” (see John 8:11 and context).

It is true that the Jesus tells us not to judge (Matthew 7:1). However in a different context, He also tells us “judge with righteous judgment.” The context of this quotation makes is clear that what He is saying is that our judgement is to be judgment, as opposed to judging by mere appearance (John 7:24). It is the very same word in the Greek, that is used in both of these verses. However, rather than go away saying that the Bible contradicts itself, understand that Jesus is telling us in the first verse not to be judgmental, and in the second that if and when we do judge, we are to do so with righteous judgement. As in English, the same word can have different shades of meaning that can be determined by the context.

So what then is righteous judgement? Is it not at least partially approving things that are excellent (Philippians 1:10) and discerning those things that are not? The meaning is clarified somewhat in Galatians 6:1 where we are told “if anyone is caught in a sin, you who are spiritual should restore him gently.” How can we restore such a one, if we are not allowed to judge (i.e. discern) that they are “caught in a sin” in the first place? But that we are not to be judgmental, is brought out by the last part of the verse which adds “But watch yourself, or you also may be tempted.” A non-judgmental attitude and a humble and gentle spirit go hand in hand. On the other hand, again as this verse implies, being non-judgmental does not mean being without opinion, or spineless or indifferent. Jesus was none of these things when He gave His seven fold “Woe”s to the Scribes and Pharisees calling them hypocrites (Matthew 23:13-29).

So the command alluded to in the title from Matthew 7:1 is not a command to cast away discernment, nor is it a command to shut our mouths period. It is to make sure that when we judge (discern right from wrong) we are to do so without an overly critical spirit, without harshness or condemnation, and without self righteousness. On the positive side we are indeed to judge (discern) right from wrong, but we are to do so only with righteous and just discernment, and in a gentle, humble and non-judgmental spirit!

Tolerance, Cheeks and Tunics

We live in a polarized society, you might even say there is a war going on between the secular and the sacred. By and large it is a propaganda war, with the media heavily biased in favour of the secular. As in most wars there are atrocities on both sides. In a previous post I mentioned the militants in the marketing of evil. On the other hand, much as it grieves me to admit it, not everything that call itself Christian is Christ like. Hypocrisy is rife in both extremes, but one suspects that the depths of Hell are reserved for the religious hypocrite.

What is sure is that Christ directed His most scathing comments at those who claimed to know (and love) God but who propagate and practice hate and bigotry (Matthew 23:13). Christ told us to love our enemies, and as they drove cruel spikes through His hands and feet asked the Father to forgive them. Perhaps He is the only one who always practiced what He preached. He taught us to turn the other cheek, and if our tunic is taken from us, to give our coat too (Matthew 5:39, 40). To be Christ like is to follow these teaching. May the Lord have mercy on us all as we must all fail here at times. On the other hand, there is a (diminished) secular version of all this. It's called tolerance. Now tolerance is surly a good thing, but the version of it demanded by the doctrine of political correctness is a perverted tolerance.

Tolerance has been defined as: 'a fair, objective attitude toward those whose opinions, practices, race, religion, nationality, etc., differ from one's own; freedom from bigotry'. In terms of this definition, Jesus was surely tolerant. But as noted above this does not mean He never criticized others. Jesus judged with righteous judgement and His objective judgement was that the Pharisees were hypocrites. Jesus did not keep His opinions to Himself lest they offend others, nor did this tolerance keep Him from making His strong opinions known to others.

On the other hand, the tolerance advocated by the doctrine of political correctness disallows all of these things. I mentioned previously the strategy of jamming which has to do with disallowing or shouting down any dissenting view. Part of the technique employed here has been to label all disagreement as intolerance, hate or phobia. Hypocritically though this form of “tolerance” preachers intolerance to all who dare to express an opinion that goes against it. What kind of tolerance is this that will tolerate only those opinions with which it agrees? It is as I say a hypocritical and perverted form of tolerance which, in the end, is not tolerance at all!

Everybody's is doing it!

First of all no matter what “it” is, it's not true, “everybody” covers far too much ground. Perhaps the thing on your heart is widespread, but in Biblical terms as the Lord tells Elijah “I have reserve seven thousand in Israel― all whose knees have not bowed down to Baal” (1 Kings 19:18). Elijah was feeling sorry for himself and feeling that he was the only one who was faithful, but God had kept seven thousand who would not go along with the crowd and worship Baal. Similarly in this day, God has kept those who are faithful to Him and to His commandments. It may look like “Everybody's doing it,” but it's not true, not everybody is conformed to the World (Romans 12:2).

Second of all even if it were true, “everybody doing it” it would not make it right, nor would it mean that the choices being made promote a healthy life. When I was growing up “everybody” smoked, and we are still paying the grim reaper for the many related incidents of lung disease. Following the crowd many times does not make for health, wholeness, joy peace or prosperity. Certainly some cultures are more healthy than others but a 51% morality is not God's way, nor does it bring in holiness, righteousness or justice. At one stage (perhaps it still is) it was widely held that education promoted maturity and goodness, that it was ignorance that promoted evil. I used to think that, that is until I became a graduate student. It was here that I learned that the Educated can be even nastier than the poor and uneducated. The only real difference was that Educated nastiness is more subtle, more hidden and more insidious. The fact of the matter is that human nature has changed very little over the centuries of recorded History. Human nature still embraces might as right, people are still basically selfish, and the default still seems to be to go wrong.

We can put a man on the moon, but we still turn a blind eye to poverty and oppression. If you doubt any of this consider that we have enough to feed the world. What is missing is the will to do it, both the collective political, and the individual will. Though some will respond to information about the plight of the hungry, most of us get tired because “we gave last year.” The World is filled with political injustice and we do intervene, but we intervene where it is expedient to do so (for example to protect our supply of oil), and we refuse to interceded where it it not. Might does not make right, political power does not bring justice. Democracy where the outcome is determined by the majority is better than the alternatives, but it only works where there is righteousness and justice. Democracy has worked in the West because whether we acknowledge it or not, it is based on Judeo-Christian values, the value of the individual, the value or rights and freedom, of freedom of speech and religion. But these values increasingly are being eroded by the “everybodys” of our society.

Jesus has a lot to say about the views and values and behaviours of the majority. He tells us “Enter by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and there are many who go in by it. Because narrow is the gate and difficult is the way which leads to life, and there are few who find it” (Matthew 7:13,14). To put it in modern jargon He is saying that the default is destruction. Don't take my word for this, look at where our godlessness is taking us. Already several countries have decriminalized incest, and what about euthanasia? In what way is this different from ethnic cleansing and the Nazi programmes to eliminate undesirables? As many philosophers have said “Without God all is permissible”. This is not to say there are not moral atheists. But there is no sound basis in atheism for morality, for if there is no God who is to say that this or that is wrong? A 51% morality may be broad minded, but it is a shifting sand and it is leading us to destruction. Perhaps everybody is doing it, but if so are we not in danger of being like so many sheep prepared for the slaughter (Jeremiah 12:1-3)?

Propaganda or provision and protection

If, as we (and Jesus) claim, the Bible is true, then much of what the World is telling us is not true. But the problems is that so much of it feels right. As always the Bible is aware of these things. In Proverbs 16:25, we read “There is a way that seems right to a man, But its end is the way of death.” Actually the very same proverb with the exact same wording occurs twice, here and in Proverbs 14:12. When something is repeated in the Bible is it there to emphasize its importance. A thing may seem right or feel right, but feels and seems right, is not the same as is right, and when it is not, it always has negative consequences, it produces (spiritual) death rather than (abundant) life

We might resist admitting that, and we seem to have this capacity to far too easily fool ourselves. Verse 13 of Proverbs 14 in the Message continues the thought of the previous verse “Sure, those people appear to be having a good time, but all that laughter will end in heartbreak.” The NIV renders this “Even in laughter the heart may ache, and joy may end in grief.” I know in the process of coming to the Lord, this verse described me exactly. I wore a mask of happiness, but I was dying inside. Many of us have to learn the hard way that God's ways are best, I know I did. But I also know that it was the heartache that lead me to reconsider my way of life, that and that His Spirit was wooing me.

And when we are in the midst of it all, in denial and rationalization, we are often desperate to justify ourselves. So much so, that in our justification we want others not only to agree with us, but we want to drag them into our erroneous ways. The Bible knows us here too, as it tells that those who do such rebellious things know deep down that they are deserving of God's judgement, nevertheless they approve of others who do them (Romans 1:32).

There are three influences the Scriptures tell us that lead us away from truth and righteousness and hence from the abundant life. They are the World the flesh (sinful nature) and the Devil (Ephesians 2:2-3a). Under these influences good and evil are turned on their head. Three thousand years ago the Lord warned Israel “Woe to those who call evil good, and good evil” (Isaiah 5:20), so none of this is new. Nor is the militancy with which these things are preached. And let's make no mistake about it, “preached” is the operative word. The tyranny of political correctness disallows any and all dissent from the teaching of the "new" morality. Those who disagree are called hatemongers, but one has to wonder exactly who is hating who? Two thousand years ago Jesus made it clear that the World would hate those who live for Him (John 17:14; 3:19).

And the evidence of what I am saying is all around us. We see it in the systematic, powerful, well funded and well organized lobby intent on tearing down the values and beliefs of our Judeo-Christain culture. David Kupelian in his book “The marketing of evil”, documents some of the human resources that have been deliberately committed to this agenda. If we define evil as anything that is opposed to life and wholeness, then we can understand one reviewer of Kupelian's book who wrote “From pitching promiscuity as 'freedom' to promoting abortion as 'choice', the marketers of evil are always selling you something destructive – with catastrophic results. Kupelian shines light on it all”.



In particular Kupelian exposes the Harvard marketing strategy behind some of the propaganda that has turned our morals upside down in North America over the past several decades. The three strategies are desensitization, jamming and conversion. Hitler knew if you kept telling even the biggest lie over and over and over, people would sooner or later start to believe it. This is desensitization, flooding the “market” with the lie, until people accept it. We see it over and over in the media as people of faith are almost always depicted as narrow minded hypocrites. Jamming has to do with disallowing or shouting down any view that is contrary to the one you wish to espouse. Try saying something on open line programs that is not considered to be politically correct, and you will see what I mean. The lag time on these “live performances” allow you to be cut off on the air before you even utter the first word. Conversion has to do exactly with what Isaiah was talking about above reversing good and bad, truth and error. In particular what was formerly thought to be evil is now promoted as good and wholesome and normal, and as throwing off the so called chains of Biblical morality. But what we are being sold is not wholesome and good and normal, it is destructive. We are only starting to reap what we have sown in these “choices” that we are making, and we may need to go a lot further down the road to decline before we are willing to re-examine where we are going.

And decline is where we are going. The “inconvenient truths” we need to lean from the school of hard knocks are inconvenient indeed. Into all of this God speaks his “no's,” And He does it in love, for He says these things for our provision and for our protection. More to come!