Ye Shall Have A Theory About The Truth And It Might Make You Free
ost believers, upon hearing words similar to the title of the present article, would immediately dismiss such doctrine as foolishly ambiguous. Unfortunately, the Spirit which lurks behind the thinking that would manifest a “theory” or “interpretation” of the truth, is alive and well in the church, as theProcess of Dialogue has already produced such a perspective.
Perhaps the perfect example of this understanding is the Purpose Drive Church (PDC). Many conservative believers sense something is dreadfully wrong with the mindset of the PDC (or they’ve been told as much by their religious mentors), but very few can articulate the objections. Others utilize Spiritual shorthand in their evaluation, so when Barack Obama asked Pastor Rick Warren (the “Purpose Driven” author) to join a Buddhist priest, as well as a Muslim Imam in his inauguration ceremony, they concluded the Spirit in Warren was quite comfortable in those Antichrist quarters.
However, dismissing Rick Warren, or relegating his Purpose Drive Lifeinstruction to a faulty theology, without understanding the underlying premise, is useless, as the Spirit which indwells that worldview is aggressively working on every one of us through the agency of virtually every institution we encounter on a daily basis. Accordingly, we continue in our efforts to help sincere believers understand the massive threat, and how they can combat it.
One way to help us in analyzing this “Process,” which is animated by theDialectic, is to note the similarities in its various manifestations. For example, we recognize the Purpose Driven Church emphasizes the word purpose – cleverly utilizing the word as it is the purpose which “drives” such an institution. Similarly, the same Spirit is at work in the worldview that producedObject Oriented Education. Once again, it is the object (read the objective) which energizes the program.
Some years back, another globalist initiative called Goals 2000 came on the scene, and conservatives were alarmed when they became aware of some of the concealed aspects of those “goals.” Much more recently, another monstrously ungodly program called Agenda 21 was developed, with the operative word “agenda,” serving as a euphemism for the “purpose” of the program.
The Dialectic, also known as the Dialogue To Consensus, is a way of thinking which was programmed into most of the baby boom generation, so almost all of us were raised with this influence, and it now permeates every aspect of our lives. The change was usually progressive and universal, although there were occasional moves that were rather abrupt. For instance, in the public school I attended, I enjoyed history more than most of the other subjects, but suddenly one year, history was replaced with Social Studies.
I had only begun to learn about history – both US History, and World History – but without warning the curriculum was all about societal concerns and social issues – and a big part of the new subject was related to group dynamics. In the group environment, although anything is supposedly open to discussion, students quickly learn that voicing any absolutes (such as a belief in creation during a biology class in which the consensus has previously embraced evolution), will cause the individual to be alienated from the group.
In the above Darwinian example, if an individual challenges the assertions of the instructor, he or she will be publicly ridiculed (or humiliated) before the group – in order to sustain the “harmony” of the consensus. Eventually, the dissident will either cease to voice such absolutes in order to continue a relationship with the collective (under coercive threat of non-graduation in an educational environment), or they will ultimately be identified as a lower order thinker, and ejected from the group.
In other words, the group dynamic requires the group be preserved (thus retaining the relationship of all parties within the group), and the absolute truth is neutered in the process. An important corollary to this is the fact that the group goals are related to the consensus, which are reached by the group.Thus, what is right, or true, is defined by the consensus which exists within the group.
As this Process, codified in the 1930’s by European intellectuals, sociologists, and educators, was embraced in American education in the post World War II era (the baby boom) and, after it leavened our entire generation, it naturally seeped into the churches, and the result was to program the populace to avoid absolutes. We began to hear trite slogans, such as the following:
“I don’t feel we should be dogmatic about non-essentials.”
As a prophecy figure, I regularly encounter a variation of the above in statements concerning eschatology, especially in the ongoing narrative over theological controversies, such as the Rapture.
“As Christians, we shouldn’t be dividedover issues as unimportant as the timing of the LORD’s return.”
Statements of this nature are routinely offered as justification for a lack of response to assertions ofScriptural fact, or what one wag called “a sort of get-out-of-debate free card” for theological difficulties. The truth is, those who parrot such simplistic slogans are inadvertently indicating a deeper malady has infected them – and it is now all around us. Indeed, an erosion of absolute truth is in view and, by compartmentalizing anything contrary to one’s own position as the ephemeral “non-essential,” the Biblically based concept of absolutesare effectively rendered irrelevant.
Thus, the “non-dogmatic” title phrase “Ye shall have a theory about the truth, and it might make you free,” is an exaggerated version of a very real phenomena.
Ironically, the now hackneyed statement which discourages the assertion of absolute truth by relegating it to the junk heap of “non-essential,” is a modern version of the following:
“In Essentials Unity, In Non-Essentials Liberty, In All Things Charity.”
This motto, as well as its contemporary variations, is thoroughly Dialectical and, since it’s attributed to the Catholic Augustine in the 5th century (some say it’s of Protestant origin via a Lutheran theologian named Mederlein in 1626), we see this pattern of seeking to retain relationship at the expense of absolute truth, did not originate with the educators who successfully moved it into the American educational mainstream back in the 1950’s. In short, although the Socialists of Europe have successfully implanted the Dialogue To Consensus into the American culture, this Process has been in the world far longer.
In fact, if we examine the components of the centuries old “In essentials unity” slogan, we’ll see it is actually Spiritual poison.
The “essential” element is said to be the “unity” of the faith which, in Augustine’s day, meant fidelity to the institution of the church. In other words, it was “essential” that believers retain their relationship with the group. Had the Protestants followed this maxim, there would have been no Reformation.
In fact, by defining anything contrary to the existing consensus as “non-essential,” during the period of the inquisition, anyone who insisted uponabsolute truth was found to be heretical, and burned at the stake. So much for Augustine’s supposed charity.
Another example is in order. In ancient Sodom, we learn the group dynamic had justified the practice of gang rape and, not only was it perfectly legal, the men of Sodom had come to consensus that such behavior was right and proper:
“And there came two angels to Sodom…and entered into [Lot’s] house…But before they lay down, the men of the city, even the men of Sodom, compassed the house round, both old and young,all the people from every quarter” (Genesis 19:4).
As Lot, who recognized the higher, absolute truth that such behavior was “wicked,” stood to oppose the desire driven mob, he became the object of their anger, for seeking to thwart their agenda.
“And they said, This one fellow came [to Sodom] to sojourn, and he [presumes to] be a judge: now will be deal worse with thee, than with them” (Genesis 19:9).
Although Lot had chosen to live in Sodom, giving the distinct impression he acquiesced to the lifestyle of the city, he turned away from the consensuswhen “all the people” sought to violate the higher truth – the absolute truth of God – which was unrelated to the consensus’ definition of what was right and true.
As Lot broke with the Sodomocracy’s flawed “truth” based on sensuality (the word consensus has senses at its root), he manifested precisely the same pattern seen in Revelation, as the Word of God tells us when anyone turns away from the purpose driven group described therein, he or she becomes their collective target:
“And [the spirit] had power to [energize] the image of the beast, that the [consensus] should both speak, and cause that as many as would not [obey the collective will] should be killed” (Revelation 13:15).
Although most believers scoff at such assertions, the entire world, including the “church,” is already programmed to avoid the “dogmatic” truth, in order to preserve the “unity” of the group, so they can retain the relationship with the consensus.
“For as a snare shall it come on all them that dwell on the face of the whole earth” (Luke 21:35).
Thus we find the “truth,” which is defined by the consensus, will ultimately be manifested as the purpose (or goal, object, agenda, plan, etc) of the group – and anyone who separates themselves from this agenda, will find themselves on the receiving end of the wrath of the spirit which energizes the collective.
-- James Lloyd
The present work addresses what the book of Revelation refers to as a Spiritual construct, which is described as The Image Of The Beast. It is created by those who dwell on the Earth, as they follow the design created by the False Prophet, who shows the world how they should live. For more, see the 2 Hour studio CD MAKING THE IMAGE OF THE BEAST.