People and nations are often perceived by how they respond in times of crisis. Many times such a crisis is viewed as a “defining moment”; a time when one’s true character is revealed. In the Western world, arguably no country is more synonymous with a lack of loyalty and fortitude in times of crisis than France. On numerous occasions in the last century the French have failed to stand with or for their neighbors or allies in a time of crisis. This perception has become so prevalent that it has extended beyond the nation of France, to the French people. In many cases, dubious characteristics such as cowardice, self indulgence, infidelity and narcissism, have come to be closely identified with the French. This was not always the case: during the mid to late 1700’s there seemed to be somewhat of a kindred spirit amongst the colonists in America and the people of France; as they both struggled to redefine their national destinies. While their pre-revolutionary struggles were very similar, their post-revolutionary paths would become very different.
Both the American and French Revolutions occurred late in the 1700’s and in both cases the people were revolting against what they felt was the oppressive rule of their King. While the American Colonists didn’t necessarily seek to remove the King from the throne, they did seek to break away from his rule. Both revolutions were bitter and costly; and in both cases the power of the oppressive monarchy was usurped. Given these similarities it wouldn’t seem unreasonable to expect that the history that followed would share some marked parallels, but in fact these countries seemed to take almost completely divergent paths. To understand the reasons for this, one must look into the ideologies that fueled the people who fought these revolutions.
Many of the Colonists, who risked everything to settle in America, came because they wanted to be free from the religious persecution that they had faced in their homelands. While there were diverse groups, who settled in various different regions of the country, they were largely unified by their decidedly “Christian” worldview. Though these groups may not have agreed on the meaning of every biblical doctrine, few would have argued that “The Bible” was their authoritative guide. Most of these colonists were willing to remain loyal to the king, so it cannot truly be said that it was religious persecution that fueled the revolution, but this commonality in the view of the colonists played a significant role in the republic that would later be formed. Persecution in other forms, such as unfair taxation, proved to be the spark needed to ignite the revolution and to spur the birth of a new nation.
The French also faced persecution from their monarchy, but their worldview was vastly different from that of the American Colonists. Noted philosophers of the day, such as Voltaire and Rousseau were having a profound effect upon the thinking of the French people, with a philosophy that came to be known as “Enlightenment”. This philosophy identified true freedom as being free of all constraint, including the constraint of religion, family and government. It presumed that there was no “absolute truth” and that each person or group could define truth for themselves. Because of the popularity of this form of thinking, the French Revolution was more of a cultural revolution, which sought not only to overthrow their oppressive government, but to redefine the mores of society. Like the American Revolution, the ideologies of the people had a profound impact on the course of the post-war nation.
It is not unusual during times of war that diverse groups can become united against a common enemy. While the bond between such groups can remain strong during the battle, it rarely results in a lasting unity after that enemy is eliminated. Such was the struggle of the French after they’d successfully over thrown the King. Since “Enlightenment” said that every man could define truth for themselves, there was no unifying vision for the future. Even after the King and his regime had been eliminated, the revolutionists continued to battle with each other for control, in what would come to be known as the “Reign of Terror”. While that reign eventually ended, France has struggled since then to find an equitable and stable government. While there was also some disagreement about the best course for the new republic amongst the American revolutionists, these disputes were handled in a much less violent manner and as the leaders of this new nation hammered out the framework of the constitution, their commonly held “Christian” beliefs became the foundation on which they all could agree. Benjamin Franklin quoted the scripture, “Lest the Lord build the house, they labor in vain” to implore the leaders to set aside their personal agenda’s, to humble themselves in prayer and to seek God’s divine intervention as they developed the constitution. History records that our founding fathers did just that and they went on to produce a constitution that is unprecedented throughout all of human history. James Madison, said of these sessions, “Without the intervention of God there never would have been a constitution”. John Quincy Adams observed that, “The highest glory of the American Revolution was this; it connected in one dissoluble bond the principles of civil government, with the principles of Christianity. From the day of the Declaration, they were bound by the laws of God, which they all and by the laws of the Gospel, which they nearly all, acknowledge as the rules of their conduct”. This makes the words, “We hold these truths to be self-evident” some of the most significant words in history, because as this nation was birthed there was an agreement as to the basis of truth and law and ultimately life itself. That commonly held belief is what created the unity and that unity is what ultimately led this fledgling republic to become the most powerful country on earth.
Interestingly, the dramatic difference in the post-revolution history of these two countries has resulted in the fact that some of Democracies greatest admirers would appear to be French. The very symbol of liberty and freedom (i.e. the Statue of Liberty) was actually a gift from the French and was fashioned by the French artist, Frederic Bartholdi, with Gustave Effiel (the Engineer of the Effiel Tower) erecting the steel framework. Years before this gift, French Sociologist Alexis de Tocqueville came to America to study what made democracy work. He recorded his findings in a book called, “Democracy in America”. After years of studying the various aspects of life in America he concluded, “Not until I went into the churches of America and heard her pulpits aflame with righteousness did I understand the secret of her genius and power”. He went on to conclude that, “America is great because America is good. And if America ever ceases to be good, America will cease to be great”. French historian Francois Guizot once asked James Russell Lowell, “How long will the American republic endure?”, to which Lowell replied, “As long as the ideas of the men who founded it continue to dominate”.
While America has a storied history on the world stage, it has also gone through its share of internal turmoil. After the struggles of war and depression that marked the first half of the twentieth century, the national consciousness seemed poised for a change. Quietly at first, the post-war culture began to change in the early 1950’s and by the 1960’s a full scale cultural revolution was underway. Like the French Revolution, this movement hasn’t been so much about reforming our way of government, as it has been about redefining the standards within our culture. It has seemingly challenged every thread in the fabric of our society, including the most basic blocks of human relationship. Another common trait that this revolution shares with its French counterpart is the secular humanist philosophy behind it. Though this philosophy goes by many titles (e.g. enlightenment, secular humanism, post modernism…), they all hinge on the precept that the truth is relative (i.e. there is no such thing as absolute truth); which means that each individual has the ability to define truth for themselves. While this way of thinking would seem to be very liberating on an individual basis, it is highly destructive to the concept of national unity. John Adams observed that, “We have no government armed with the power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion”. If we were to attempt to incorporate this philosophy into our constitution, we’d need to say something like, “we don’t hold any truth to be self-evident”. While that may seem to be extreme, I believe that within this philosophical framework, it would be accurate. This philosophy has subtly invaded our way of thinking to the point that polls (taken over the last twenty years) indicate that between two thirds and three quarters of Americans now believe that the truth is relative (e.g. what’s truth to you, may not necessarily be truth to me). If these numbers are accurate, it is clear that many Americans have failed to understand the implications of this ideology.
The concept of a law is that a society agrees to set a limit, boundary or constraint on what is acceptable within that society. The agreement on where that limit should be set hinges on some common standard by which to measure acceptable behavior. For our founding fathers, the Bible was used as that standard. While not everyone in this country was Christian at that time, the principles of the Bible were accepted as the basis for law. With that established standard, the U.S. Constitution was forged and has proven to be the model document for enduring freedom. As our national philosophy has shifted, we have begun to challenge our constitution; often upon the basis that it limits an individuals personal liberty (i.e. constrains my personal ability to define what is truth for myself). When such a challenge comes, one must go back to the foundational truth that formed the basis for the law in order to make a judgment; but in the absence of an “absolute truth” there is no way to refute the claim. It is the nature of a law to limit a persons individual freedom and without an agreement on what is the basis of truth, every law is susceptible to be struck down in the same manner. Little by little our constitution is being dismantled because it is viewed as being too limiting of individual freedom and quietly the unified vision of our country is disappearing. If our goal is to elevate individual freedom to the point that every man can define truth for themselves, than there is no standard that could ever be enforced, which by definition would create a state of lawlessness. If the goal is simply to eliminate the Bible as the standard for behavior, than what standard is to be used in its place. As in the French revolution, this cultural philosophy always seems to find agreement in what it doesn’t want, but is unable to fuel any unified vision for the future. Dismantling our constitution in this manner is similar to dismantling the house you live in before you begin construction on a new one.
The sad irony of America’s ongoing Cultural Revolution is that we already have the model for what this ideology (i.e. secular humanism…) will reap in our society. It is doubtful that any American would be willing to trade France for their post-revolution history or for their current national identity; yet isn’t that what we’re doing with our future as we intentionally abandon the principles which made this country great, in favor of the philosophy that made France what it is today?
Bjcorbin's Blog 
Fruit Flavored
February 12, 2010 by bjcorbin
As a father, I care about what my children eat and as such, I’ve become a lot more attuned to what’s written on the packaging of the food I buy for them. One of the patterns that I’ve noticed is some of the interesting claims associated with items that are fruit flavored. One box proclaims in bold letters, “Real Fruit Flavors”, while a check of the ingredients reveals that it contains no real fruit. This of course begs the question, “Where does the ‘Real Fruit Flavor’ come from, and what exactly qualifies it as ‘Real’?”
Another good one is the drink that says “Contains No Pulp”, when the ingredients list clearly shows that there is no actual fruit juice used to make the drink. These examples sort of make me grateful for the factual label that boasts “Made With 10% Real Fruit Juice”; but it also makes me wonder when only 10% of the real thing became something worth bragging about. As I pondered these and other allusions to “real fruit”, I sensed the Lord begin to speak to me about the church that bears His name.
Indeed the scriptures are full of references to fruit and fruitfulness, and undoubtedly God means for it to be a key component of every believer’s walk. Jesus went so far as to tell us that He is the vine and we are the branches, and that any branch which does not produce fruit will eventually be cut off and thrown into the fire. Not only does this tell us that producing fruit is not optional, it also let’s us know that we don’t get to decide on the variety of fruit our lives will produce. After all, the branches don’t dictate to the tree what kind of fruit they bear.
I believe this is significant, because God isn’t interested in simply producing any fruit; He’s after a specific kind of fruit, which He describes in His word. John the Baptist challenged the Pharisee’s, who undoubtedly viewed themselves as being very fruitful, to produce the fruit of their supposed repentance. Paul defined for the Galatians the fruit of the Holy Spirit, which in essence is Christ’s character, revealed in His people. In today’s church there seems to be much that is considered fruitful, even though it doesn’t seem to fall anywhere near these orchards.
Years ago, I was in one of those jumping & shouting church services, which we Charismatic’s, and our Pentecostal brothers, seem to enjoy so much. It was loud, and there seemed to be a lot going on, when the man on the platform made the declaration that “Lives are being changed!” And as much as I hoped that was true, I sensed a check in my spirit; so I inquired, “What do you see Lord?” I immediately sensed the response, “Christmas Trees”.
After wrestling with what that might mean for a few minutes, I sensed the words, “lots of gifts, no fruit”. As I prayed throughout the rest of that service, I felt like the Lord said that we often mistake motion for movement (i.e. progress) and that we often settle for change (generally of our mood or circumstance) instead of seeking transformation. Only genuine transformation has the potential to produce real fruit, and only real fruit contains the seeds of reproduction.
As I meditated further on this lively scene, the Lord gave me a vision of a chicken running around without its head and He said that even though the chicken still gives the appearance of being full of life, it was truly dead the second it became detached from its head.
Sometime later, a sister in the Lord gave me some interesting information on “hybrid” seeds, which I believe is pertinent to this discussion. A hybrid seed is one that is produced by artificially cross-pollinating plants and they were developed to improve the characteristics of the resulting plants (e.g. better yield, greater uniformity, improved color…). While in some ways this has been very successful, in other ways it has been counter productive. As opposed to natural seeds, hybrids tend to require a great deal of fertilizer, water, herbicides and pesticides to achieve the desired outcome; and more importantly most cannot be relied on to reproduce viable seed for a second generation of plants. That means that the farmer must buy new seed every year.
It seems that the western church’s efforts to make itself relevant to the culture have in many ways compromised the gospel message, and I wonder if the seed we’re trying to sow hasn’t become something of a hybrid; one that is high maintenance and unable to reproduce itself.
Jesus told His followers that the way people would be able to identify them was by the way that they loved each other, which is essentially a manifestation of the fruit of the Holy Spirit. I doubt that many would claim that the church in America is living anywhere near that standard. He later told them that the way they could differentiate between real and false prophets would be by their fruit; yet in today’s church, giftedness & personality seem to have become a viable substitute for a sincere expression of Christ’s character.
While there is still much being done in the name of Christ, Jesus warned that not everything done in His name would be found acceptable. He taught that it is only the fruit that is bore out of a direct connection to Him that really matters. We who proclaim the name of the Lord Jesus can tell the world that we have been grafted to the tree of life, but until they see some worthwhile fruit in our lives, our message will likely remain an abstract to them. Like a grape flavored drink, it may remind them of grapes, but there is nothing of the grape contained within it.
Rate this:
Posted in Commentaries, Opinions | Tagged Christ's character, compromised gospel, fruit of repentence, fruit of the Spirit, hybrid seeds | 1 Comment »