Oppressive Truth and Liberating Madness

Tags

America, Astrology, Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, LGBTQ+, Life, Occult, Paganism, Science, Sexual Revolution, Society, Submission, Transgenderism, Truth

There were, in the Vox.com article I referenced yesterday, a couple of paragraphs not directly connected with what I was discussing, but which invite analysis on their own (de)merits.  The interviewer asked why things like astrology, “traditionally considered more feminine and kind of taboo”, are enjoying more mainstream appeal these days.  And Chani Nicholas (who you may recall has the dubious distinction of being styled “head astrologer at O Magazine”) answered as follows:

I think what’s happening is everything that the patriarchy has tried to kill and withhold from us, we are reclaiming. White supremacist colonial patriarchy says that there’s only two genders and there’s only one science. There’s only one way to have sex and there’s only one way to be in a relationship. It’s stripped us all culturally and personally of the richness and the diversity of life. And I think we’re just sick and tired of it. We know it’s a lie, and the devastation that those systems have caused is showing its ass.

Because who the hell fits into those fake, made-up systems? Nobody. They don’t represent us. Everything that the white supremacist patriarchy has tried to hold back is now coming forward and being like, “I don’t think so. I get to dig up my own space.” And astrology is part of that. All liberation movements are parts of that. From everything like being able to see body hair and stretch marks and acne — these very simple things are just so human.

What an instructive pair of paragraphs.  Here is a (post)modern worldview, in all its defiant incoherence.  Where to begin in pulling apart this tangle?  Here’s an effort to pull a little bit at the threads:

1. Observe first the framing of everything in the buzzwords of popular ideology.  On the one side you have not just “patriarchy”, but “White supremacist colonial patriarchy.”  On the other you have “richness”, “diversity”, and “liberation movements”.  The bad guys and good guys are delineated with appropriately emotional terminology, rendering careful thought rather superfluous.
   1. That being said, one must appreciate her candor in admitting that science supports the gender binary.
   2.  Astrology, of course, is lumped in with the liberation movements.  It’s something that gives us self-realization, and it’s something we’ve been robbed of by the evil “White supremacist colonial patriarchy”.
      1. Did you think that it was science that had disabused us of the ignorant notions of astrology?  You probably thought that because science is, it would appear, a tool of the “White supremacist colonial patriarchy”.
2.  But here is the ideological center of the tangle: truth is evil and oppressive.
   1. For Nicholas has to defend the absurdity of astrology–and a particularly (post)modern western version of astrology, one concerned with self-realization and self-actualization, the kind of astrology that very much belongs in Oprah’s empire.
      1. So she shows how her ideology is a part of the self-actualization program ripping apart western civilization, especially as realized in the sexual revolution.  Astrology and the sexual revolution have in common that they are part of a self-actualization movement, or revolution, or rebellion, that is opposed to science–that is, opposed to truth.  Truth has been oppressing them for quite some time.
   2. But how can you denounce truth?  How can you convince people to get on board with your rebellion against scientific fact?  You have to somehow delegitimize science.
      1. Start with a good ad-hominem.  Switch from your real target to a bogey-man sure to get an emotional reaction from your audience.  The enemy isn’t really science–it’s “White supremacist colonial patriarchy”!
      2. Then comes the assertion of basic relativism.  The WSCP has not only suppressed astrology, it has also suppressed transgenderism and has insisted “there’s only one science”
         1. The only sense I can see in this last and crucial phrase is that scientific findings, in such fields as astronomy (which goes against astrology) and biology (which goes against transgenderism), don’t matter because there can be other sciences which reach other conclusions.  Since the enemy is WSCP, there is, presumably, some feminist or non-western science that is more friendly to some of these ideologies–her notion, not mine.
      3. The rest follows on the gelatinous foundations of this relativism.  There is no right or wrong in sex and relationships.  Richness and diversity is found outside the rigid order of a worldview that thinks there are boys and girls and that they’re meant for each other.  Such a worldview is harmful, and accurately describes no one.  But now we have liberated ourselves from the WSCP, and can embrace the astrology and other self-actualization we’ve been so long denied.

The poison of such ideology should be all too clear.  Liberation from the truth, freedom from reality, is otherwise known as madness.  If chaos is what we see in such a liberated society, we should not be surprised.

But there is another option.  We could ally ourselves with reality, submit ourselves to the truth, and let science inform our worldview.  We could see in the order and rationality revealed by astronomy the grand handiwork of a divine Creator.  And, finding His revelation, we could submit to that as well.  We can submit to appropriate authorities and discover the secret of freedom, or we can pursue liberation to the point of chaos.

True freedom is possible; but in a culture of chaos, freedom and rationality will require the willingness to be strenuously counter-cultural.

 

The Yearning of the Soul

Tags

Astrology, Atonement, Christianity, Culture, Gospel, Hope, Humanity, Jesus Christ, Life, Media, Nonsense, Paganism, Society, Truth

G.K. Chesterton has been frequently quoted as having said something like, “The first effect of not believing in God is that you believe in anything.”  Apparently Chesterton did not write that phrase, though the idea is true enough to what he elsewhere communicated.

In any case, it is a startling idea, and one that helps explain the resurgence of paganism, witchcraft, and astrology in the (post)modern era.

For astrology is all too alive and well in America today.  Our civilization, that prides itself on its technology and scientific advancement, has, to a startling degree, returned to the most nonsensical spiritual practices.  But the reason for this is obvious–pagan spirituality tells us just what we want to hear.  Paganism is amorphous, obsequious, relativistic, and self-indulgent in all the ways that true Christianity is not.

Consider this telling interview at Vox.com, The existential lure of astrology (sic–we shall pass over their abhorrent lack of title capitalization with no more than the wagging of a disapproving finger).  Chani Nicholas, “head astrologer at O Magazine” (?!) makes the self-indulgent appeal of astrology quite transparent.

For the (post)modern gospel is that you’re great just the way you are, and accepting yourself in all your goodness is the first step towards building a better world.  Or:

As Nicholas sees it, the more we accept ourselves for who we are, the more we can show up and effect positive social change, both in our immediate relationships and our communities. Astrology is one tool, she argues, for getting to know ourselves, what drives us, and how we can be of use in the world.

For all its mushy sentimentality, that is much easier to deal with that the gospel of Jesus Christ, which tells us that we are corrupt, condemned, and need to be redeemed by faith in the Son of God who gave Himself for us; that we need to repent and follow Him, being transformed by the sanctifying power of the Holy Spirit, both to be useful for God’s redeeming mission in this world and to attain eternal life in the world to come–rather than suffering the wrath of God.

You see, mushy and sentimental self-acceptance is just easier and less offensive.

Astrology, Nicholas admits, appeals to our basic narcissism.  Having put it so bluntly, she tries to add a positive spin:

But also, there’s a deep need for self-actualization, and a deep need to know that we’re worthy of that.

Which is really just an embrace of our narcissism.  The sad news is, there’s no hope to be found in that direction.  Self-acceptance is only the determined satisfaction with what is obviously false and illusory–the idea that I’m alright just how I am, and don’t need God to fix me.

But Nicholas understands that there are deep matters at stake in the pursuit of spirituality, even if she misses the truth:

When we self-actualize, we’re much less interested in all the outer things and we’re much more interested in the quality of the moments of our life. That’s actually where the soul is yearning to go.

No, the soul is yearning for God, and will never be satisfied with the self.  She completely misses the solution, but she has something of a handle on the problem:

I think we’re really lonely. I think we are really afraid. I think that we live in a world that feels increasingly less stable and less known. And I think we need to know ourselves as a counter to being in this place. We need to deepen our relationship to knowing who we are, and astrology is one way to do that.

We are lonely, and afraid.   The world is unstable and filled with darkness.  But knowing ourselves can never bring joy, security, stability and light, because we’re part of the darkness of the world.  Sin has darkened the human heart.  We cannot find light in our own hearts, because the light of the world comes to us from outside ourselves.

Jesus is the light of the world.  Jesus said, “I am the light of the world.  Whoever follows me will never walk in darkness, but will have the light of life” (John 8:12, NIV).

We have a yearning of the soul, a deep yearning, because we were made by God to be in a right and loving relationship with Him, to be holy and to love the God of holy-love.  But sin has plunged our hearts and our world into darkness.  So we yearn and grope for what our souls long after, but which we can no longer see.

But false hopes will never satisfy our souls.  The stars can’t guide us through the darkness of sin.  There is no inner light to be gained by self-acceptance.  These things only lead to death.

Jesus is the light of the world.  He has brought light into our darkness, and life to the dying.  He came to show us the way home, so that we could have fulfilled the great longing of our souls.

In His life He showed the light.  In His death He made atonement for our sins, satisfied the wrath of God, and bridged the gulf that separated us from our maker.  In His resurrection He offers us the hope of life, if we are united by Him with faith.  In Christ, we are made whole and brought home to God.

In Christ is fulfilled the yearning of the soul.

 

Two Things…

Tags

America, Censorship, Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, LGBTQ+, Media, Secularism, Society, Truth

…worth taking in from Rod Dreher at The American Conservative:

1. His insightful line, “Sexual permissiveness is the prosperity gospel of progressive Christians. Nadia Bolz-Weber and Creflo Dollar are working against the Gospel in equal measure.”
2.  If you’re willing to risk feeling a bit depressed, he shows a bit more specifically how the whole tolerance thing is going.

How Tolerance Works

Tags

Anthropology, Culture, Culture War, Facebook, LGBTQ+, Media, Social Media, Society, Tolerance, Transgenderism, Truth

…or doesn’t, as the case may be.

First you bring in a new ideology, say, one that’s manifestly absurd and overturns the most basic facts about humanity which have been understood by every culture throughout all of human history.  But you say that this new ideology is deeply important to some people–a few people, which makes them a vulnerable minority who must be protected, but an increasingly large number of people, which demonstrates that however contrary this ideology is to science and common sense, it must be true.

You insist that people tolerate this ideology out of love and kindness to those who are different from them, out of charity and humility, and out of regard for a persecuted and misunderstood minority.  Somehow, you convince influential people to begin tolerating, then advocating for the tolerance of, what is obviously untrue and ultimately misanthropic.

Then, with a critical mass of social support, you begin bullying opponents of the new ideology into silence.  When someone speaks out against the nonsense you’re promoting, you arrange that anti-bullying educational efforts will be used to get their teachers, peers, bosses, etc., to call them bigots, discipline them, and possibly fire them.

In a late stage of the effort, between the general social stigmatizing of reasonable opinions and making such opinions actually illegal, private social media platforms begin declaring that speech against the new ideology is totally out of bounds and must be silenced.  There can be no discussion, because to even disagree about this ideology is hatred.

Tolerance at its finest.

Resisting God

Tags

Authority, Bible, Christianity, Church, Discipleship, God, LGBTQ+, Morality, Sexual Revolution, Truth, United Methodists

Respect for God’s authority has fallen on hard times in large sections of the American church.  Combine a culture that idolizes youthful rebellion with a loss of confidence in the Scriptures, and you have the perfect setup for being blown about on the winds of ever-changing social mores.

Consider this report from last year about a class of young people at a Methodist church who declined to pursue confirmation because the UMC voted to keep biblical sexual ethics.  The pursuit of justice–defined by the world, in opposition to justice as defined by God–led them to decline being confirmed into the church.  Conforming to American society won out over confirming themselves in the faith.

But when you read their letter, you see that while declining confirmation is their piece of youthful protest, the basic sentiment was not theirs at all.  It was their church which inculcated in them this confusion.  They have been catechized into immorality–what surprise, then, that they do not want to be confirmed in a church that maintains some vestige of biblical morals?

As for the leaders of that church, who catechized these young people into the sexual revolution, a certain passage about a millstone comes to mind.

But the overall lesson is one that every church and every believer must confront; true discipleship means obedience to God, absolute regard for His authority.  Those who take the way of true discipleship will be hated by the world.  But those who conform to the world’s standards can never truly be part of the church of Jesus Christ.

Way of Death, Gift of Life

Tags

Abortion, America, Celebrities, Celebrity Culture, Christianity, Culture, Evil, Forgiveness, God, Life, Media, Pro-life, Sin, Truth

One of the most noted features of the Golden Globes ceremony last week was the speech by actress Michelle Williams, who used her acceptance speech–as is now frequently done by entertainment elites–as an opportunity for political advocacy.  Specifically, Williams decided to promote abortion.

From The Christian Post:

Williams, who won Best Performance by an Actress in a Limited Series or TV Movie for her role on “Fosse/Verdon,” told the crowd Sunday evening that she was “grateful to have lived at a moment in our society when choice exists, because as women and as girls, things can happen to our bodies that are not our choice.”

“I’ve tried my very best to live a life of my own making and not just a series of events that happened to me, but one that I could stand back and look at and recognize my handwriting all over it — sometimes messy and scrawling, sometimes careful and precise, but one that I have carved with my own hand.”

“I wouldn’t have been able to do this without employing a woman’s right to choose,” she added.

The reality behind these euphemisms is that Williams seems to be indicating she killed one or more babies, that she wouldn’t have been able to achieve the success she has as an actress without doing so, and that she thinks it was a good trade.

The fact that such statements are unsurprising and supported by a large percentage of our society is a telling demonstration of the moral degradation of American civilization.

But look also at how central the framework of choice is to the way Williams presents it.  This is just one piece in a life lived by her own self-determination.  She’s made a concerted effort to live “a life of my own making”, she wants to be able to “stand back and look at it and recognize my handwriting all over it”.

That’s what sin is about.  We do not wish to live according to God’s good design, to be what He has created and called us to be–we wish to be our own masters, and to remake ourselves in the image of our choosing.  The terrible irony is that self-determination is only disguised slavery to sin.

And the way of sin is the way of death.  It is no surprise that the desire to lead “a life of my own making” can involve taking away the lives of innocents.  And the way of self-determination brings no fulness to those who follow it.  A Golden Globe is a hollow thing; fame and fortune are fleeting.  In the end, all that matters is whether you have served yourself, and given your life to Christ and found in Him life eternal.

As sinful men and women, we cover our lives with our own handwriting, in lines of sin and guilt; but Christ can wash it all away, and give us the true and abundant life.

Slow Surrender

Tags

America, Christianity, Cultural Engagement, Culture, Culture War, Freedom, Homosexuality, Legislation, LGBTQ+, Life, Same-Sex Marriage, Society, Truth

There’s legislation that’s been under discussion for sometime and was recently introduced to the House of Representatives under the acronym FFA.  FFA ostensibly stands for “Fairness for All”, but it might more accurately be given as “Freedom Freely Abdicated” or “Frankly Futile Appeasement”.

It is, in brief, an attempt at compromise between religious liberty and the sexual revolution.  It offers classification of sexual orientation and gender identity as protected categories in civil rights legislation, in exchange for exemptions for religious institutions.

Those wishing for a more extensive explanation of what this means and why it’s a bad idea may see here, here, here, here, and here, and hear here.  I will only offer a few summary points:

1. As a rule, compromise with the sexual revolution is a bad idea.  That’s because it’s a revolution, not a gentle and measured reform.  It does not tolerate dissent.  For the sexual revolutionaries, compromise–when accepted at all–is always a stepping stone.  They see it as ‘a good first step’ in their direction, not a binding treaty.
2. This particular compromise is actually surrender of the key point we’re supposedly disputing at the moment.
   1. To some extent, all compromise with the sexual revolution is surrender of the truth; before the sexual revolution got rolling, America had an understanding of human identity and sexuality that was an approximation of the truth in most ways.  We’ve been surrendering to falsehood ever since: pornography, divorce, promiscuity, abortion, homosexuality, and so on, have each in turn been a surrender of the truth.
   2. What FFA offers is to effectively surrender the truth about the distinction and complementarity of the human race.  God created us as man and woman, with a proper orientation of one for another.  Christians maintain that we are not bigots in opposing homosexuality and transgenderism, because these are not legitimate identity categories, they are illegitimate denials of the truth about humanity.  FFA offers to surrender the basis of the Christian argument, and instead merely reserve the right to be bigots.
3. There appears to be no real danger of the FFA passing.  Plenty of conservatives are against it, and the liberals aren’t even interested in this compromise, having much more ambitious plans.  So the real thing to note is not that this legislation is gaining traction, but that far too many conservatives, many of them evangelical Christians, somehow became convinced it was a good compromise.

I know that secularism has been bulldozing its way across American society for the past sixty years, and that the sexual revolution pushes its agenda with tremendous coercive force.  But slow surrender is neither a courageous response nor a promising strategy.

It’s about Jesus

Tags

Advent, Christmas, Homosexuality, Hope, Jesus Christ, LGBTQ+, Liberalism, Nativity, Progressive Christianity, Truth, United Methodists

“You’ve got to call out evil and lift up justice,” said one of the ministers in defense Claremont UMC’s nativity scene that pictures Joseph, Mary, and Jesus as a separated immigrant family.

The hypocrisy of such a statement coming from a church that has traded courageous defense of God’s righteous law for promoting popular immorality is noteworthy.

But more specifically to the point, Christmas is not about social agendas.  Yes, the gospel has social implications of all sorts.  But the implications follow from the gospel.  We dare not make the gospel message subservient to social issues.

The great message of Christmas is that God has reached down to us in our darkness and given us light; He has sent His Son to become man, in order to be the Savior of the world.  Christmas should always be a season of giving and generosity, of caring for the poor and oppressed and the stranger; but it is such a season because on that first Christmas our Savior was born.

Let the nativity be about Jesus.

Speaking Truly About Mary

Tags

Advent, Angels, Christianity, Christmas, Discipleship, God, Jesus Christ, Liberalism, Life, Mary, Progressive Christianity, Truth

The Patheos Progressive (i.e., liberal) channel has, for some bizarre reason, highlighted an article written in 2015 by Nancy Rockwell entitled “No More Lying About Mary.”  It’s hard to think how they could more effectively show that they needn’t be taken seriously; the article is one of the most striking demonstrations of bad biblical scholarship I have ever encountered.

Rockwell brings an aggressively feminist reinterpretation of the story of the Annunciation, accusing more standard (and faithful) accounts of lying about Mary.  The irony, of course, is that Rockwell’s account is full of untruths; I do not accuse her of lying, for lying requires that one know what one is saying to be untrue.  That distinction is one she would do well to bear in mind, but slandering Christian interpreters is among the least of her offenses.

On Rockwell’s read, the Annunciation as traditionally understood, with its picture of Mary humbly submitting to God’s will, is a piece of patriarchal propaganda that has resulted in a millennium (why only one?) of “female subjugation.”  Rockwell, on the other hand, sees a very feminist Mary:

there is nothing submissive nor immature about her.

Already the problems in Rockwell’s preconceptions emerge.  Submission to God is connected with immaturity?  The biblical picture is quite the opposite.  Mature believers, men and women alike, submit wholeheartedly to God, whereas submission is a great struggle for the immature and worldly.  It is precisely in her ready submission to God’s plan that Mary’s deep and beautiful spirituality shines.

Rockwell proceeds to badly misread Gabriel’s approach.  Instead of recognizing that Gabriel’s message is that God has favored Mary, Rockwell understands the message to be that God has been impressed with Mary because of “the grace that is distinctly hers.”  In Rockwell’s eyes, “This is a courtship scene.  The angel is wooing her, on bended knee, a suitor–not a constable bringing a decree.”  Maybe in some artistic renderings, but Scripture paints no such picture.

It is Mary’s grace that has attracted God’s attention.  And what is this grace?  It is what Luke shows us in her conversation and her actions–courage, boldness, grit, ringing convictions about justice.  Not submissive meekness.  Grace is not submission.  And the power of God is never meek.

It takes some pretty serious eisegesis to arrive at all that.  But, more importantly, our willingness to submit to God is indeed a work of His grace; and Christmas is all about God showing His power in meekness.  Such might also be said about the cross.  Rockwell’s misreading of Mary ends up showing the profound contrast between the gospel of Jesus Christ and the gospel of feminism: the former is about submission to the will of God and God’s power paradoxically displayed in the cross; the latter, in its normative contemporary expression, is about refusal to submit even to God.

Rockwell follows with an assertion of Mary’s boldness and the odd conjecture that she should be associated with adventure rather than domesticity.  Having mislabeled the Magnificat a “political manifesto,” Rockwell goes on to deny that the text claims Mary is a virgin–despite the fact that this is the unmistable meaning of Mary’s response to Gabriel.

Probably the most misguided element in the whole piece is Rockwell’s umbrage at the idea that Mary was in her early teens.  The text does not give her age, but biblical scholars usually suggest that she was around the typical marriage age for Jewish girls at the time; and when your life expectancy is in your 30s-40s, it makes sense to marry young.  But to this standard impression, Rockwell says,

Luke does not assign her a specific age.  And to insist she is under sixteen is to ascribe to God a pedophilic attraction to underage women.

This badly misconstrues not only the situation, but the nature of God.  God is not attracted to Mary–not in that way.  There is nothing sexual about the Incarnation.  But, once again, the feminist impulse appears to underline this gross misinterpretation:

Such details twist Mary’s story and burden Christian women with a sense of selfishness if they postpone childbearing, a psychic demand to put childbearing first in their hearts, for God who seems to want nothing from them but pregnancy.

The anachronism and eisegesis continues apace:

Mary is unmarried when the angel comes.  The angel’s invitation and her independent decision tell us Mary does not need permission of clergy–or her parents–to become pregnant.  God knows Mary owns her own body.  And there is no shame in her decision.  Mary is good news for unwed mothers everywhere.

Questions of clergy and parental permission really have no place in the story.  But probably the most telling statement is “God knows Mary owns her own body”–as though women are independent of even God; but isn’t that the overarching theme?

In the story as actually presented, Gabriel is making an announcement, not a request.  Mary does assent, but there’s no suggestion that she could have really refused; it was a question of her attitude, not of whether or not God’s plan would go forward.

You may read the end if you wish.  It is as sacrilegious as the rest.

This whole piece is a strong example of what can happen when we let our own ideology guide our interpretation instead of listening to God’s Word.  Mary became a feminist, and God became something much less than God.  That is the nature of sin–an effort to dethrone God and take His place.

But all such efforts are doomed to failure.  God cannot be thwarted.  His plan will unfold, and His reign will come in its fullness.  Maranatha.

In the meantime, when we refuse to hear His Word, we lose the opportunity to take His gracious message to heart.  The saddest thing about this article is that the Annunciation is a beautiful story with much to teach us, and if you manipulate it you miss out.  The true Mary is not the feminist icon of Rockwell’s imagination; she is, instead, a shining example of submission to God that all Christians should imitate.  It is in the very submissiveness that Rockwell so denounces that Mary has and will continue to point true Christians to the path of obedient discipleship and devoted allegiance to God.

May we aspire to such faithful submission before the Almighty.

That To Which We Are Entitled

Tags

Abortion, Christianity, Culture, Humanity, Jesus Christ, Life, Media, Rhetoric, Society, Truth

A recent salvo from the cultural left comes this article describing 350 members of the legal profession who filed an amicus brief regarding a supreme court case, in which they share about their abortions.  The basic goal, as even stated later in the article, would seem to be the normalization and de-stigmatization of the horrendous evil of abortion.

One may wade through the typical and deceptive jargon that attempts to make personal determination the central issue, rather than the lives of all the vulnerable innocents these women have killed.  This is the standard lie, and it needs no more comment than that.

What I did find interesting was a statement at the beginning of the article, where one lawyer says,

I was smart and I deserved my career and I deserved to be able to give it my all and to become a mother when I was fully, emotionally, psychologically, and in terms of resources prepared to become the best mother I could be.

The rhetorical and political success of abortion comes substantially through framing it as a right, something that is deserved.  It is connected with personal autonomy and flourishing.  And notice how positively everything is put: she does not say, ‘I deserved to decide whether to kill or give birth to my baby’ but ‘I deserved to focus on my career and defer motherhood until I was ready for it.’  It just so happens that deferring motherhood came at the price of an innocent life.

There are curious comparisons of this attitude with the story of the Fall.  We’re not told Eve thought she was entitled to the forbidden fruit; but she was given the idea that it was something good which God wanted to withhold from her, and she decided to reach out and grasp it.  Abortion advocates tell women that the God-given fruit of their womb is theirs to reject, if they decide it is not good.  In both cases, the basic lie is that we know better than God, and we can make our own path to flourishing.

But the attitude of entitlement moves us even further from the truth.  We don’t deserve to actualize ourselves at the expense of others.  We’re not entitled to kill people who stand in the way of our careers.

When you put it that way, it sounds absurd that anyone could think otherwise.

But add to that a true perspective on what we do, in fact, deserve.  We are sinners, and the judge of the universe is absolutely righteous.  We deserve the wrath of God.  The good news is that if we come to Christ, we receive not the just sentence we deserve, but mercy instead.

We shouldn’t be too quick to demand what we’re entitled to.  There’s no life that way.  But a society that trades the pursuit of righteousness and mercy for self-actualization and the pursuit of an increasing list of supposed rights is prime soil for a culture of death.

Christ is the answer.  Christ is the way, the truth, and the life.