(4) Muehlenberg vs the culture vandals

Like the late B.A. Santamaria, head of the National Civic Council, Bill Muehlenberg views himself as a soldier engaged in a war:

As in all conflicts, there are two competing sides seeking dominance and victory. On the one side there are those who hold to the Judaeo-Christian world view. On the other side are those who can best be described as secular humanists.

The two sides can be distinguished by the values to which they subscribe:

The former side upholds values like marriage, sexual fidelity, the work ethic, honesty, discipline, self-control, moral absolutes, a transcendent set of rights and wrongs.

The other side more or less rejects those values and instead preaches a gospel of selfishness, hedonism, permissiveness, narcissism, irresponsibility, instant gratification of desire and moral relativity.

And where do we find ‘the other side’?

The latter side tends to predominate in the centres of power, the media, academia, the entertainment industry, the political bureaucracy and so on. (’The Case for Christian Social Involvement’, 1996-7)

The conflict between these forces of ‘good’ and ‘evil’ - conceived as a zero-sum game, where any gain for one ’side’ represents a corresponding loss to the other - dominates Muehlenberg’s political thinking and hence his published work.

He regards himself as being both objective in his treatment of social issues and generous towards his opponents. Thus his CultureWatch website ‘… will discuss critically and soberly where our culture is heading.’ And all along:

… we need to remember Ephesians 4:15, which exhorts us to ’speak the truth in love.’ And we need to remember 1 Pet. 3:15: ‘Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.’ (’Truth-speaking: getting the right mix’, Salt Shakers Newsletter [SSN], Feb. 1997, 3)

Here are a few examples of Bill Muehlenberg ’speaking the truth in love’, taken from an impressive field of contenders:

The [Melbourne] ‘Age’ is notoriously pro-homosexual, with almost daily pro-homosexual reporting and opinion. Of course, with many homosexual activists on staff, this is not surprising. Such is the blatant bias in this regard that one could quite accurately call this paper the Melbourne ‘Gayge’. (’Propaganda Masquerading as News‘, 22 Jun. 2006)

[Alfred] Kinsey of course is the notorious American [sexologist] (1894-1956) whose agenda was to soften up the public to the view that any and every sort of sexuality was permissible … [T]oday we see the result of this social and sexual revolution: broken families, marriage disintegration, a tide of pornography, including child pornography, an epidemic of promiscuity … and a culture that believes hedonism is the highest good, and self-control and restraint the greatest evil. (’Kinsey: the horror story‘, reprinted from Herald Sun, 18 Jan. 2005)

Former Chief Justice of the Family Court Alastair Nicholson was on the [SBS 'Insight'] program, and among other things made the incredible claim that it is ‘an act of cruelty’ to not recognise and legalise same-sex marriage and adoption rights. Of course for years Nicholson has been a strident proponent of various radical agendas …

He went on to say that Christian values on marriage should not apply to the law … Perhaps then we must ditch our laws on murder, theft and lying, to begin with. After all, they are all part of our Christian heritage … Nicholson is simply pushing his radical secular agenda … (’Truth, the Media and Ideology‘, 17 May 2006)

And here are a few examples (from an even stronger field) of Muehlenberg’s ’sober’ discussion of where our culture is heading:

[Once the Victorian Charter of Rights has been passed into law], the whole weight of the state will be applied to make sure there are no dissenters. Thus, people who object to same-sex marriage may find themselves compelled to attend special education sessions to get their thinking straight, or bent, as is the case. (’Sneaking through a radical agenda’, News Weekly, 1 Apr. 2006, 12)

How have the universities grappled with the tragic events of 9/11? Have they learned anything? Have they had a change of heart? Have they given up on some of their radical ways? … [According to author Harvey Mansfield] the strangleholds of political correctness, multiculturalism, leftist ideology and moral myopia continue to reign at Harvard and the academy … Time will tell if anything can shake our universities out of their lethargy, blindness and radical thinking. (’Academia and 9/11‘,15 Sept. 2006)

[Family values] have been under sustained attack since the late 1960s, says Bill Muehlenberg … In that rebellious era, ‘the importance of authority, family, religion were all chucked out in favour of the idea that God is dead, there are no values, we can all create our own right and wrong.’ (Elizabeth Feizkhah ‘Christian Soldiers’, Time Asia, 29 Nov. 2004)

If current trends continue, you may soon no longer [be able to] receive these emails [from me]. Indeed, you may soon find most Christian and family literature banned from public circulation. (Muehlenberg, quoted in Salt Shakers Journal editorial, Dec. 2003, 2)

Shortly after telling readers that ‘[s]peaking the truth in an unloving fashion is just as harmful as being very loving while minimising truth‘ (SSN, Feb. 1997, op cit), Muehlenberg described one of his political opponents as ‘a closet sleazeball‘ (’The powerful pull of pornography’, SSN, Dec. 1996, 8). I think his ideas about ’speaking the truth in love’ and ’sober discussion of the issues’ need about as much work as his prophetic powers:

Now that thousands of Iraqis are dancing in the streets of Baghdad rejoicing in their liberation, will all the anti-war protesters now offer their apologies, having learned their lessons? (Muehlenberg, letter in Melbourne Age, 11 Apr. 2003)

[To be continued. Comments and contributions are welcome.]

Filed in: Christian Right, People