How to marginalise and discredit the well-founded truth in a whole civilization (yes, hyperskeptics, I am looking straight at you: "J'Accuse . . . !")

 

On January 13, 1898, the famed novellist Emile Zola published a powerful open letter to the President of France, J'accuse. This was because, on investigation, he realised that a Jewish French Army officer, Dreyfuss, had been framed and sent to Devil's Island unjustly on a false charge of spying for the Prussians (one that was fed by institutionalised antisemitism and hostility substituting for sound evidence). 

Eventually, after much struggle, Dreyfuss was exonerated and freed, but France's justice system has forever after, been tainted by gross miscarriage of justice sustained for years on end. 

And, now, as 2025 AD dawns, it is time to say, again: J'Accuse . . .!

For, 

Dear Intelligentsia,

 of that civilisation formerly called Christendom and dating its calendar AD, in the year of our [risen!] Lord, but now usually styled as Western Culture -- and dating CE: "the common era"; for no defensible reason, you have betrayed your duties to truth, to right reason and to warrant, so that our civilisation is now embarked on an Acts 27 voyage of folly leading to shipwreck . . . 

 Yes, for no good reason, you have turned your backs on the One True God, our Risen Lord and Saviour, and have professed yourselves to be bright, wise and utterly rational, even as you have turned to paths of patent, patently ruinous folly -- just as Paul warned against in Rom 1. For capital example, let us ponder for a few moments a certain utterly ill-advised bus advertising campaign of a few years back, sponsored by Richard Dawkins et al:

Yes, this joins his earlier own-goal:

Examples could be greatly multiplied . . .  they are Legion . . . 

Let's just give one more for the road, this time from Dan Brown:

We could trace out a lot of history, but instead, let us summarise what we face, deeply entrenched, crooked yardstick based institutionally enforced but fallacy-riddled plausibility structures. Here, let us cite Wikipedia, testifying against known ideological bent:

In sociology and especially the sociological study of religion, plausibility structures are the sociocultural contexts for systems of meaning within which these meanings make sense, or are made plausible. Beliefs and meanings held by individuals and groups are supported by, and embedded in, sociocultural institutions and processes. 

The flip side of this coin, is, that dominant worldviews tend to be embedded in cultural institutions, forming a mutually reinforcing power structure: an entrenched worldview comes with a cultural agenda. That means, that for a case where business as usual is oppressive, fallacy riddled, morally bankrupt, unsustainable and perhaps outright tyrannically evil, such may be backed by entrenched power that will make alternatives seem ridiculous (or outright absurd), or may even react to them as perceived threats to those who wield power. That means, marginalisation at best, outright scapegoating and persecution at worst. That may well mean, things have to go over the cliff before change is able to advance beyond the far fringes. But, a damaged culture at the foot of a cliff is now in severe distress, struggling for survival.  Ponder, how Europe struggled for the better part of a thousand years after the collapse of the Western Roman Empire. Hence, the discussion in sustainable development circles of a few years back, on mainstreaming backed by grant money, academic centres, projects, funding, conferences and media engagement to shift the balances of perception, power and policy-making.

In short, the much derided seven mountains of influence missiological mapping model -- 

yes, it is about how the gospel, discipleship, revival, answers to apologetics and ethical challenges and godly reformation may advance in a given culture given its dominant worldviews and associated cultural agendas [cf. here, Augustine's City of God against the Pagans] --

. . .  is right on the money:

Where, so bad is the snide dismissiveness, that we should compare a chart by Cengage, showing key institutional frameworks for society, which lists some now very familiar institutions:

Sigh, this one is so bad, we need to look at it from another angle, macroeconomics, here using the famous five sector model:

Here, Government, families [as "households"], businesses [as "firms"] all appear explicitly. The media is a major sector, under Government and Firms. Education is again, public and private. Arts, cultural activities, entertainment and sports appear under all three. Science and Technology again appears under all three. Finance is a major sector under both the private and governmental spheres. Where, too, where big money is, creeping corruption and linked moral bankruptcy of power classes are always a threat, often ending in Ac 27 style voyages of ruinous folly for the ship of state and wider community. Ideology, philosophy, the individual and his/her identity (so, too, religion and religion-substitutes) again appear across all three -- just ask any practising politician or Newspaper Editor.

Such should be so obvious, there shouldn't be a need to belabour the point. Sadly, there is, because it is key to any sound evangelisation, discipleship and reformation strategy but is harshly spoken against "everywhere." It is denounced as far right fundy theocratic imposition. It is held to be bad charismatic movement theology. It is derided as a species of amillenialism (in a day still dominated by pre-trib, pre-mil popular theology). It is seen as American neo-colonialism, and more. 

All of that is wrong: we have here a reasonable, useful mapping model originally championed by Loren Cunningham and Bill Bright, and acknowledged as valid by Francis Schaeffer. To whatever extent it might be taken up by the ill advised or imbalanced, that is no more the fault of the core point than is abuse of building drawings and maps by terrorists to be blamed on such drawings or maps. Just as, we would find it silly to see someone blaming the alphabet, grammar books and the dictionary for someone who abuses our language to promote error. (In the end, I suggest -- as a provocative hypothesis/food for thought: it is hard to escape the force of the point that this 7M mapping model/metaphor, based on obvious societal facts and developed for gospel-related analysis, is in key part objected to because it provides a vivid alternative to fundamentally [neo-]marxist views and agendas that are so deeply embedded in the Caribbean. In short, BAU vs Alt. turf war.)

Enough.

Now, let us ponder the related, Acts 27, cliff's edge problem:

When business as usual, politics as usual, government as usual, media as usual etc are heading for the cliff, it is time to find a sound alternative and turn back!

That starts, with the gospel, anchored on the Risen Christ, for Christ is our Cornerstone:

If you are struggling with the credibility of the gospel (given ever so many hyperskeptical attacks), perhaps, this video may help:

If you are struggling with the objectivity of moral truth [foundational to restoring the natural law], this may help:

If you are struggling with basic logic (yes, things are THAT bad), maybe a bright red ball -- let's call it A -- on a table might help:

We see a world W, partitioned, W = {A|~A}. Law of identity, A is itself, A, i/l/o its core characteristics. LEM: any y in W is A or else ~A, not both nor neither. LNC: no x in W is both A and ~A under the same sense and circumstances. This is for starters.

There are so many more points . . .

We could go on, but this substitute PC is a bit of a pain -- I dropped my main one and face a black screen of death, I have ordered a second screen in half a year (the original one was dying, flickering) -- so, let's pause for now, more to follow. 

J'Accuse . . . ! END, FOR NOW