Question: Dr. Morey, we at The Christian Thinker do not believe that anti-intellectualism is
exclusive to our time; we believe this obstacle must be overcome in every generation and in every
culture. We believe this because man’s nature is set against the “intellectual” truth of God. It is
easier to distract the mind than it is to think with the mind. You have often referred to anti-
intellectualism in your books. Perhaps, you can tell us why anti-intellectualism poses such a threat to
the stability of the Church?
Dr. Morey: Theologians and philosophers used common words and phrases, the meaning of which
depends on how each individual author defines those words. The term “anti-intellectualism” is a good
example of how a phrase can have different meanings.
To the rationalist, anyone who holds to the Reformation principle of sola scriptura is “anti-intellectual”
in the sense that Scripture is placed above the human intellect, i.e. above human reason. Anyone who
believes that the Bible is the final authority in all matters of faith and morals is “anti-intellectual” in
this sense.
When a rationalist wants to dismiss Christian thinkers like Schaeffer or Van Til, he will hurl the term
“anti-intellectual” as an ad hominem slur on their character. Thus the phrase “anti-intellectual” is often
used in an emotive sense as a way to dismiss a theologian with the wave of the hand. While it is a
cheap shot, it does avoid having to deal with the arguments of your opponents.
On the other hand, those who look to God as the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty,
view rationalism as “anti-intellectual” in that absolute truth and morals are not possible if you make
man’s intellect (i.e. reason) the Origin and Measure of all things. If you begin with yourself, you will
eventually fall into the abyss of the unrelated and quagmire of relativism.
One of the themes of Jonathan Edwards’ Great Awakening was the insufficiency of human reason and
general revelation.[1] When Princeton Seminary was established, in his inaugural speech, Archibald
Alexander argued against the exaltation of human reason above the authority of Scripture.
“We must unequivocally deny to reason the high office of deciding at her bar what doctrines of
Scriptures are to be received and what not.”[2]
Instead of bowing before the idol of reason, Alexander stressed that we must,
“insist that all opinions, pretensions, experiences, and practices must be judged by the standard of
the Word of God.”[3]
In his speech, Alexander stated that the two greatest threats he saw in his day to the church were
rationalism and mysticism. The Bible was the final answer to both errors.
Today, once again, the errors of rationalism and mysticism dominate the Evangelical and liberal
theological landscape. Be it the rationalism of William Lane Craig or the mysticism of James Taylor,
either road does not lead to the one true God who has spoken in Scripture.
Rationalism cannot justify its own validity on the basis of human reason because one man’s reason is
another man’s idiocy. What is or is not “intellectual” is more psychological than philosophical. You
may “feel” a certain doctrine is “intellectual” in the morning, but, by Noon, “feel” it is “anti-
intellectual.”
Rationalism has generated the seeker-church movement, the emergent and emerging church heresies,
the Open View of God, the New Exodus, the New Perspective, and a host of other plagues that have
harmed the Body of Christ. The root problems are rebellion against the authority of Scripture and
reasonolatry. Pro. 3:5-6 warns us “do not lean on your own understanding.” Instead, we should lean
on divine revelation.
The consistent theist views the human “intellect” as the gift of God which He created to receive truth
and morals from the Creator. Man was not created to be a truth-maker or a morals-maker because he is
not the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning or beauty. God is the Origin and Measure of all things.
Thus to be truly “intellectual” is to submit to divine revelation.
The other error that faces us today is mysticism. Instead of looking within themselves to their intellect,
the mystic looks within himself to his feelings (i.e. “heart”) to tell him right from wrong and truth from
error. Scripture tells us that the heart is continually evil (Gen. 6:5) and "out of the heart come evil
thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, and slanders” (Mat.15:19). Pro. 28:26
warns us that only a fool would trust his heart to tell him truth and morals.
Mysticism has produced the madness seen on TBN, which we have nicked named “The Babylonian
Network.” The “health and wealth” prosperity movement’s extravagant claims of healings, revivals,
resurrections, gold fillings, limb replacements, holy laughter, vomiting, dancing, visions, dreams, 90 ft.
Jesus, and tongue speaking have made “Christianity” a subject of derision on Saturday Night Live!
Positive thinking, positive confession, blab it/grab it, contemplative prayer, imaging, inner godhood,
and other New Age ideas have filled stadiums and hell.
To the theist, it is the rationalist and the mystic who are guilty of “anti-intellectualism” in that by
beginning only from themselves, with themselves, and by themselves, they have destroyed any hope of
ever finding truth, justice, morals, meaning or beauty. The Apostle Paul put it this way, “Let God be
true even if it means that every man is a liar.”(Rom. 3:4)
Question: I find your perspective on anti-intellectualism most compelling. Where most would be
inclined to refer to anti-intellectualism as merely a mystical and emotional threat, you have touched
on the reality of another kind of anti-intellectualism (one not as easily seen); the anti-intellectualism
of the rationalist who hides behind the appearance of truth and logical consistency. And yet, he is so
man-centered in his thinking that he refuses to think Biblically. If ideas do not conform to his self-
ascribed theory of knowledge then [for him] they cannot be true; scripture is judged at the bar of
human reason. So, if I have understood you correctly, then you are saying, that reason must always
be subject to scripture?
Dr. Morey: It is important to begin by noting that the biblical Hebrew and Greek languages do not
have a noun that is equivalent to our English noun “reason” because there was a different anthropology
(i.e. view of man) in the Bible that has nothing to do with the modern Western European Renaissance
view of man.
Our modern English word “reason” is a noun that refers to an idealized and romanticized faculty within
man that is infallibly capable of discovering truth and morals apart from and independent of God and
His Law/Word. It is loaded with philosophical baggage that grew and developed with the twists and
turns of Western European philosophy. The science of hermeneutics warns us not to take such modern
ideas and insert them into the ancient Jewish Scriptures.
The Rationalists during the Renaissance looked within themselves and abstracted and absolutized the
ability of man to string ideas together in such a way that one idea seemed to lead to another idea until
we come to a conclusion. The rules/laws of what was or was not a valid string of ideas came from
Aristotle via Aquinas. The validity of these rules/laws was not questioned until recent times, which is
why there are now non-Aristotelian rules/laws.
These rules/laws sometimes contradict each other or are self-refuting. For example, one rule says that
all appeals to authority as the basis of truth or morals are invalid. Yet, if you ask on what basis is that
rule itself valid, it is based on the authority of Aristotle!
The Renaissance Rationalists capitalized the letter “r” in “reason” and changed it to “Reason.” The
capital “R” emphasized that they viewed human “Reason” as the Origin of truth, justice, morals,
meaning, and beauty. Using the error of reductionism, they reduced all knowledge to what was
obtainable through thinking as opposed to any knowledge coming from experience or feelings. They
assumed that reality must conform to what they thought it to be because the real was the rational and
the rational was the real.
When explorers returned from Australia for the first time, they described an animal that had a bill like
a duck, fur like a beaver, claws like a bird, lived in water, laid eggs, and yet was a mammal. The
Rationalist pronounced that such a creature could not exist. When later explorers brought back the
skins of these animals, they were denounced as clumsy frauds created by sewing together body parts
of several different animals. Only after a live duckbilled platypus was taken back to Europe did the
Rationalists finally admit that such a strange creature existed.
Reasonolatry reached its climax during the French Revolution when an actress was carried into the
Notre Dame Cathedral and enshrined as the goddess of Reason. Everything must conform to the
demands of the goddess of “Reason.” Everyone (including God) must stand before her judicial Bar and
she alone decided right from wrong, good from evil, truth from error, the ugly from the beautiful, etc.
The authors of the Bible never heard of the Renaissance concept of “Reason.” Their view of man was
different. Man’s thinking about things was not absolutized into some “thing” that existed within man.
Faculty psychology, in which man is divided into reason, experience, and feelings, is a modern Western
philosophic concept that was unknown to the biblical authors.
In the Bible, man “reasoned,” i.e. thought and argued about things, but he did not have a “Reason” per
se. This is why the verb “reasoning” has parallels in both biblical Hebrew and Greek but there is no
noun that refers to what the High Renaissance called human “Reason.” Thus the prophets and apostle
never referred to the “demands of Reason,” the “bar of Reason,” etc. and never claimed that their ideas
were “reasonable” or “rational,” i.e. in line with what Renaissance man thought was true and good.
When I am asked, “Is Scripture above Reason or Reason above Scripture,” I begin by saying that the
question assumes there is such a thing as “Reason.” Now, I can pick up the Bible and hold it in my
hand. Thus I know it exists. But I cannot hold “Reason” in my hand because it does not exist. It is a
mere figure of speech or metaphor for man’s limited, fallible, and often mistaken attempt to string ideas
together in order to arrive at a valid conclusion.
But stringing ideas together according to someone’s rules/laws does not mean that you will always end
with truth. Something that is correct twice a day is to be preferred to something that is never correct.
Does that sound “reasonable” to you? That proposition meets Aristotle’s rules/laws. But this means
that a stopped watch is to be preferred to a watch that runs a minute slow or fast! The rules/laws that
Aristotle set up would have you wearing a stopped watch!
Having taught both high school and college students, I do not have any romantic ideas that all men and
women have an infallible thing inside of them called “Reason” that enables them to discover truth and
morals. IQs differ and, be it math or logic; most students struggle to get it right. While I believe in
reasoning, I do not believe in “Reason.”
The Renaissance concept of Reason led to the rise of Rationalism. But it collapsed as a philosophy
because it could not justify itself according to its own rules/laws. While Rationalism no longer exists
as a viable philosophy in Western thought, its language, such as the “demands of reason” and the “bar
of reason,” etc. still haunt the halls of academia as the ghosts of a long dead European epistemology.
God, not man, is the Origin of truth, justice, morals, meaning, and beauty. The biblical view of God,
the world, and man is absolute and infallible. God is there and He has not been silent. He has spoken in
the Written and Living Word. If we begin with God, we will end with truth and morals. But, as the book
of Ecclesiastes demonstrates, if you begin only with yourself, by yourself, and from yourself, you will
end in “meaningless, meaningless, utter meaningless.”
Question: Dr. Morey, your answer touches on an important point, the fact that we should not
merely assume definitions outside the context of scripture. As Christians we have a set of
presuppositions, which should ultimately determine the outcome of our definitions. It is not enough
to simply speak of “reason” as an abstraction, but we must define what reason is. Indeed, we must
always define what we mean when we use a word to explain a concept. This brings us to the idea of
the non-believer’s linguistic construction; can he or she really find objective meaning in words if
those words are founded on a “blank” conception of reason? Is it possible for the non-Christian to
defend the authority of his or her definitions? And after all, isn’t every theoretical position
dependent upon the authority and sustainability of the words which make up that system?
Dr. Morey:
A. We must remember that “words” are only linguistic symbols used to express ideas. The symbols
change from language to language because they are relative to time, culture, religion, and worldview.
Thus “Dios” in Spanish or “God” in English are different symbols but each refers to the same idea.
Thus systems are not built on “words” per se but on the ideas those symbols express. “Words” are not
objective but relative to the speaker or writer. For example the word “is” can have fourteen different
meanings.
B. All systems (theological, philosophical, scientific, mathematical, etc.) begin by assuming certain
ideas are true. These ideas are called “foundational truths,” “axioms,” “first principles,” or “givens.”
A “system” is a chain of ideas that is supposedly derived from or deduced from the foundational ideas
when applied to various issues. But not all systems are created equal. Some are good, some bad, and
far too many are ugly.
C. Some systems are inconsistent and include ideas in the chain that contradict the foundational ideas.
For example, Joe assumes that evolution is a fact and that man is only an animal. But he also believes
in human rights, equal rights, women’s rights, etc. But, if man is only a primate, he cannot have any
rights beyond that of any other animal. This is why Skinner wrote Beyond Freedom & Dignity. Given
his foundational ideas, a consistent humanist cannot believe in “man” any more than he can believe in
God. Man died the day God died.
D. It does not matter if someone responds that he does not believe in presuppositions. He has just
given you his presupposition!
E. The Christian should derive his foundational ideas from the Bible - not the world (Rom. 12:1-2). It
is not hard to see what they are. Genesis chapters one through three give us the three ideas that the
authors of Scripture use throughout the rest of the Bible to interpret all of life.
1. Creation ex nihilo,
2. The radical Fall of man into sin and guilt,
3. Redemption by grace.
F. These three foundational ideas form the basis of the biblical worldview. From Genesis to
Revelation these three ideas are brought up over and over again as the basis of, or rationale of, this or
that doctrine. For example,
a. In terms of Creation, because all people are created in the image of God, all people have dignity
and worth. Man is not junk.
b. In terms of the Fall, the universality and inevitability of sin is the result of the imputation of the sin
and guilt of Adam’s sin to all his posterity. All have sinned and all are falling short of the glory of God.
c. In terms of Redemption, the Father designed and initiated a plan of salvation for sinful man through
the vicarious blood atonement of His Son in which He could be just and the justifier of those who
believe in Jesus. Salvation is by grace alone, through faith alone, in Christ alone, according to
Scripture alone.
G. The non-Christian has his own presuppositions or foundational ideas. In order for a Christian to
challenge the unbeliever’s belief system, the Christian must look beyond surface ideas to the
foundational ideas such as Monism, rationalism, evolution, etc. We need to lay the axe against the
roots of unbelief instead of picking its leaves. As long as the roots survive, the leaves will grow
back.
H. Someone can be a “Christian” in his “heart,” but humanistic in his “head,” i.e. his worldview is
humanistic. This happens when a professing Christian has foundational pagan ideas. For example,
many “Christians” assume the humanistic dichotomies of mind/matter, form/essence, nature/grace,
nature/freedom, etc, when they believe in the secular/sacred dichotomy. For example, art is divided
into sacred art and secular art. But all of life is sacred according to Scripture (1 Cor. 10:30). The
Lordship of Christ is over all of life. There is no “secular” realm of life where God is absent.
I. Christians must become epistemologically self-conscious of their foundational ideas and bring them
into conformity with Creation, Fall, and Redemption.
Question: Dr. Morey, the role of scripture is, no doubt, central to your method. What does it mean
to believe and apply the authority of scripture? And, if you would be so kind as to explain, why is
this authority superior to all other authorities?
Dr. Morey: The definition of the word “authority” is the first task before us. For something or
someone to function as an “authority” over you means that the thing or person is “greater” than you in
some sense. The “lesser” must always bow before the “greater.”
Second, we must make the distinction between “power” and “authority.” Someone may have power
over you but no authority to exercise such power. For example, a rapist may have the power to violate
you sexually because he has a gun to your head. But, he has no authority to have sex with you. The
state has God-given authority to levy just taxes but no God-given authority to steal from you by unjust
taxation. You have to have God-given authority to exercise power.
Third, there are different spheres of authority. God ordained the state, the family, and the church as
three sovereign spheres, each with its own set of delegated duties and the divine authority to fulfill
those duties.
The spheres overlap in a few places. For example, my son is a citizen, my child, and a member of my
church. The state has the duty and authority to protect his life and health. Thus I cannot, as his father
or as his pastor, put him to death. But the state cannot interfere with my duties as a father or as a
pastor. Thus I have the God-given right to educate my son in the ways of the Lord, and I have the God-
given right to discipline him as a church member if he falls into heresy or immorality.
But one sphere must not usurp the authority of the other spheres. The state cannot usurp the spheres of
the family or the church. Thus the state has no God-given authority to tell fathers or pastors to
contradict their duties as given in Scripture. When the state told Peter what to preach, he refused to
submit to the state (Acts 4:19-20). The church has no authority from God to control the government or
the family. The family has no divine authority to take over the state or the church.
1. The State: The state has God-given “authority” (i.e. legal power) to tell you what to do and not to
do in all matters pertaining to the common good. It does not require you to respect, love or even like
government authorities. While we respect the office, we may despise the man or woman who holds it.
a. The state has the authority (i.e. legal power) to make laws and levy taxes on you. The state can set
the speed limit and require all kinds of permits.
b. The military officer whose rank is above your rank has authority (i.e. legal power) over you. This
means that he can order you to do things that he feels are necessary. He has the power and the
authority to send you into harm’s way. It is not necessary for you to even like your superior officer.
You simply have to obey his orders.
c. The police have the power and the authority to order you to do things. When the police tell you to
stop, you acknowledge their authority by stopping.
d. Judges and the courts have “authority,” i.e. power over you. They can send you to jail and even put
you to death.
e. In the area of state education, someone is an “authority” if he is your teacher and you are his
student; if he has higher degrees in the area than you; if his peers acknowledge him as the expert on the
issue. The student should acknowledge the authority of his teacher by doing what he says in terms of
papers, projects, tests, etc.
f. Your employer or supervisor at work has “authority” over you. They can hire or fire you. They tell
you the work you are to do.
2. The Family: In marriage, the husband is the head of his home. Thus he has God-given authority
over his wife and children. The parents have God-given authority over their children. We reject the
heresy that the state owns our children. They are given to us as a stewardship to raise in the fear and
admonition of the Lord and we will be held responsible for this task on the Day of judgment.
3. The Church:
a. First, councils, creeds, confessions, theologians, constitutions and bylaws, ecclesiastical courts,
denominational leaders, church discipline, pastoral decisions, official resource works, etc. have God-
given authority to rule over the doctrines and morals of the members of said church. The pastor/elders
are “over” the members and the members are to obey and to submit to their doctrine and discipline
(Heb. 13:17). Members are to highly respect them in love for their work’s sake (1 Thess. 5:12-13).
b. Second, the Reformation doctrine of sola scriptura says the Bible is the final authority in all
matters of faith and practice in the sense that it is the last court of appeal and the final judge of truth
and morals. We do not believe in solo scriptura but sola scripture.
c. Third, this means that, while we acknowledge lesser “authorities” in the church (i.e. its councils,
creeds, confessions, constitution and bylaws, past and present noted theologians, church history,
standard reference works, elders, pastors, etc.), the Bible is the greatest authority and it alone is the
final test of truth and morals. When a church contradicts the clear teaching of Scripture it is apostate
and becomes a false church.
d. Lastly, while we acknowledge the God-given authority of the state, the family, and the church to
function according to their respective spheres, the authority of Scripture is absolute above all three
spheres because it is the verbal, plenary, inspired, infallible, inerrant, written word of God. What
Scripture says is what God says (Rom. 9:17, 25; 10:11; 11:2; 15:10). Scripture does not change and is
unaffected by contemporary cultural or philosophical trends. It is the rock on which we stand and the
beginning and end of what we believe and how we live.
Question: Dr. Morey, what do you think about compromise? More specifically, when should we as
Christian’s compromise? I mean, haven’t many believers been wounded by the “politically correct”
Christian who is afraid to offend or stand against the grain and atmosphere of the world? Haven't
many Christians been wounded, by those who profess faith in Christ, but refuse to stand for
Christ?
Dr. Morey: What do I think about compromising truth or morals? To compromise truth or morals is a
betrayal of the Lordship of Christ. It is sheer wickedness and high treason against the King of glory.
Today, personal peace and affluence has tempted many theologians and pastors to compromise truth
and morals. The applause of the world, the riches of Egypt, and the pleasures of sin for a season have
corrupted many. The lust for popularity, friendship with the world, and the fear of rejection has
stumbled many. The way of the cross is hard and few there be that take that road today.
A well-known seminary professor came to my home and offered me the position of Head of their
practical theology department. They particularly wanted me to set up an Islamic Studies Department to
handle the cults and the occult. The only fly in the ointment was that I had to sign a statement that I
believed in a certain prophetic doctrine that was in their statement of faith. Faculty members had to
sign it each year. When I pointed out that I could not sign the statement in good faith, they where
surprised. The professor explained that he did not believe the doctrine either but signed anyway. I
objected that this is the game played by liberals. He looked at me and said, “Morey, if you don’t
compromise, you will never succeed.” I replied, “I would rather be a failure in the eyes of man, and
pastor a small church, than compromise my faith by signing something I did not believe.”
The true child of God is a soldier of Christ who announces to one and all, “I will not retreat; I will not
sell out; I will not back down; I will not compromise; but I will fight on in the service of my King until
He calls me home. To this end, I will run the race set me before me looking unto Jesus, the Author and
Finisher of my faith.”
Question: Dr. Morey, you mentioned Islam, and this brings me to another point. Many readers will
be familiar with your book Islamic Invasion- I find it interesting that you wrote about the threat of
Islam long before it had been recognized. I wonder if you might tell us what you see as the historical
threat of Islam- the threat that Islam always presents to a civilization?
Dr. Morey: We are witnessing what is historically called a “people movement.” It happened to
Europe once before when millions of Muslims moved into Europe and turned churches into Mosques.
If you remember your history, Islam took over Eastern Europe and Southern Spain. If you do not know
what I am talking about, you must read Jihad in the West: Muslim Conquests from the 7th to the 21st
Centuries by Paul Fregosi.
How did Europe solve the problem of the massive immigration of Muslims into their lands? They went
to war and forced them out by the sword. The kings and queens of England, France, Spain, Austria,
Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, Transylvania, Hungry, Greece, etc. did not stop the forceful ejection of Muslims
until all of Europe was free of Islam. The Muslims were forced back to Africa and Turkey.
Gleason Archer and I teamed up and wrote a book on the issue and we agreed that unless the
politicians do not stop all legal and illegal immigration of Muslims, it is only a matter of time before
Islam becomes the majority religion and Sharia law displaces Western law. Freedom of religion and all
other freedoms will be gone. By the year 2050, Europe will become at least 50% Muslim and, some
say, 60%.
I do not believe that the present politicians of Europe, Canada, America, South America, Australia, and
Sub-Sahara Africa have the will or the courage to forcibly expel millions of Muslims from their
countries. The election of Obama has emboldened terrorists around the world. The insanity of political
correctness is destroying the last vestiges of our Christian heritage. The legalization of gay marriage
will lead to the legalization of Muslim polygamy. We are witnessing the death of the West with our
own eyes.
This issue is intensely personal to me. My speaking against Islam and warning about Jihad has led to a
terrorist attempt on my life, being put on a death list by Hamas, and the Pakistani secret police
infiltrating my ministry in the attempt to get me to visit Pakistan - where I was to be killed. Thankfully,
the FBI warned me in time to prevent my murder.
The seminary in Pakistan, which honored me with a D.D. in Islamic Studies, was taken over at
gunpoint and the Board and faculty thrown out. The government put in Muslim sympathizers who first
denied that the degree had been given. But pictures of the ceremonies with Carl Macintyre being
present refuted that lie. The Pakistani Christian community still stands with me against the terrorists
who stole the seminary.
The Christian world has yet to understand the threat we face. Seminaries are not training pastors to
deal with Islam. Bible colleges do not have courses on Islam and how to convert Muslims. The church
is asleep while Islam is growing.
I had the opportunity to discuss this issue with Patrick J. Buchanan after his book The Death of the
West: How Dying Populations and Immigrant Invasions Imperil Our Country and Civilization, was
published. I gave him Islamic Invasion and Winning the War Against Radical Islam. He was surprised
that I had written on Islam’s threat to Western Civilization in the 1980’s. He appreciated my
documentation that Allah was originally the pagan Arabian Moon god, al illah. We both agreed that
Europe is doomed. I also interviewed Bat Ye'Or who wrote Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis. She also felt
that Europe is doomed.
I attended a high security “invitation only” meeting on Islamic Terrorism with government and private
experts on terrorism. I was honored by several attendees as one of the few scholars who warned about
this in the 1980’s. An FBI agent congratulated me on exposing several important terrorists who were
either arrested or deported. I told them, “I am thankful that you guys are now getting the death threats
that I use to get all the time. Since I am no longer alone in sounding the warning of terrorism, the
Muslims no longer concentrate just on me. Thanks.”
The only thing that can save us now is a New Reformation. To this end I have been laboring night and
day for almost forty years. I will continue to fight Islam and promote a New Reformation until my last
breath. The first Reformation took place when Islam invaded the West. May God grant us another
Reformation as we face another Muslim invasion.
Question: Dr. Morey I was somewhat aware of your Islamic persecution for taking a stand, and
have always had a deep respect for your work and courage. I don’t think people quite understand
just how easy it is to be targeted by Islamic extremists. My prayers are with you, in that I hope the
Christian community catches onto this great threat. What can you tell those Christian who are afraid
to confront Islam? What can you tell future generation who may face the greater force of this threat?
Dr. Morey: Many years ago, Dr. John Frame encouraged me to write a book on the fear of God. It
took me ten years to do so as there were more pressing issues to address. But the book Fearing God
was finally published. It analyzes all the Hebrew and Greek words for “fear” and exegetes all the
pertinent passages where “fear” is found in Scripture. Several key passages come to mind in answer to
your question:
1. God commands us not to panic when the wicked threaten to assault us.
Do not be afraid of sudden fear, nor of the onslaught of the wicked when it comes (Pro. 3:25)
2. If you let the fear of man control you, it will bring you into spiritual bondage just as surely as
the cords of a snare entangle a bird.
The fear of man brings a snare (Pro. 29:25)
3. The first antidote to the poison of the fear of man is to trust in God. The word “trust” means to
place your ultimate confidence and hope in the Lord and to rest in that confidence that He knows what
is best for you and your family. The sovereignty of God is the rock on which the child of God stands.
Solomon goes on in Pro. 29:25 (via Hebrew parallelism) to say, but he who trusts in YHWH will be
exalted.
4. The second antidote to the poison of the fear of man is the fear of God. To the degree you fear
God is to the degree you will not fear man. The smile of God must be more important to you than the
frown of man. Jesus warned us,
And I say to you, “My friends, do not be afraid of those who kill the body, and after that have no
more that they can do. But I will warn you whom to fear: fear the One who after He has killed has
authority to cast into hell; yes, I tell you, fear Him!” (Lk. 12:4-5)
5. As I document in Fearing God, the triumph of the Transcendental Movement in New
England during the 19th century led to the feminization of American Christianity.
-- God was feminized by denying the doctrine of hell. Thus there was nothing about God that we
should fear him. The love of God excluded the fear of God.
-- Jesus was feminized by depicting him as an effeminate white male with a pale complexion and
womanly hair. He was so “sweet” that he would never harm a fly. He would never throw anyone into
hell and there was nothing to fear from him.
-- Hymns were feminized by sentimental unmarried women hymn writers who used erotic imagery
and language to describe their relationship to Jesus. They sang of “falling in love” with Jesus, resting
in his arms or bosom, Jesus was their “lover,” etc. Sticky sweet love songs to Jesus could just as
easily be sung to your sexual lover. “You light up my life” is a modern example of “hymns” that are
erotic in nature.
-- The clergy was feminized. Preaching hell fire and damnation sermons was frowned upon. People
were not rebuked for sin or warned of hell. Pastors were reduced to reading poetry at the Ladies
afternoon tea. Laws were passed forbidding pastors from holding public office or fighting in the
military. Manly pastors who dared to discipline sinners in the congregation were slandered as “mean”
and “unloving.” “Meekness” was interpreted to mean weakness.
-- Christian men were feminized by the heresy of passivism. They were told that they could not be a
policeman or a soldier because Christians were forbidden to use physical violence. Evangelicals
resigned from the police force and handed it over to the Irish whose Catholicism did not condemn the
use of force. Hunting, boxing, and other manly arts were frowned upon as unchristian. Men were told
that Christians could not defend themselves even when assaulted!
The reason I give this historical survey of the feminization of Christianity is that it gives us the context
that explains why modern pastors and laymen refuse to confront Muslims. One pastor told me, “Morey,
you’re crazy for getting the Muslims upset. They will kill you and your family. I would shut up if I
were you.”
For years only Anise Shorrosh and I did public debates with Muslim apologists. Attempts were made
on our lives. Acid was thrown at our cars. We had to travel under false names. We were threatened
with death. One Muslim even wrote a book in which he said, “Dr. Morey, are you ready to die for your
faith in Jesus Christ?” The FBI and the police had to be called upon at times to protect us. But we
feared God more than we feared the Muslims. They could only kill the body but could not harm our
souls.
Modern feminized Evangelifish are afraid of death because they do not believe in the absolute
sovereignty of God, the doctrines of sovereign grace that flow from that grand truth, and thus they fear
man more than they fear God. This is why the Evangelical world has fallen to pieces. No one is bold
enough to stand up for King Jesus and go toe to toe in battle over the truth as it is in Jesus.
Compromise and cowardliness are the rule of the day.
This is why the book I just finished writing, Natural Law and Natural Theology, will be condemned as
politically incorrect because I dare to call heresy heresy and name the heretics who are denying sola
scriptura and promoting sola ratione. The dunghill idol of Reasonalotry is rebuked and God’s Word is
exalted. It is bold, blunt, and confrontational.
I know ahead of time that many will ignore my arguments against naturalism, and ad hominem attacks
will be made against me personally. But this is how Job, Moses, Isaiah. Jeremiah, Jesus, the apostles,
the Reformers, Spurgeon, etc. were attacked. But I trust in the Living God, whom I serve day and night,
that He will give me the grace to endure whatever the world or the apostate church throws against me.
The smile of God is more important to me than their frown.
Question: Dr. Morey it would be a shame to conclude our interview without finding out about your
study habits. In your book "Practical Christianity" you tackle just about every major and
controversial issue of the Christian life- this includes thought as well as practice. Your answers are
intelligent and well researched. How do you proceed when you set out to write a book?
Dr. Morey: The gifts and calling of God often go hand in hand. Because my family moved every
year of my early life and I went to six different elementary schools, three different junior highs, and two
different high schools, I excelled in academics instead of sports. I was an “egg head” with pens and a
slide rule in his shirt pocket and not “cool” at all. Teachers made me their “pet” because they could
always count upon me to answer their questions if no other student would or could.
In the 10th grade three things happened. I rated 3rd year college level in reading and comprehension; I
was chosen by Yale University to be part of their S.M.S.G. advanced mathematics program; and I
“found grace in the eyes of the Lord.”
My father was an agnostic when sober and an atheist when drunk. He was horrified that I had become a
Christian and told me that if I did not renounce religion, he would throw me out of the house. Thus at
the age of 16, I packed my bags and left home. I had to choose between my family or Jesus. I chose
Jesus.
Being raised a skeptic made me question the evangelical world. I was thrown out of Columbia Bible
College for the sin of intellectualism and for asking too many questions. When Professor Sanders
claimed in class that he had lived without sin for two years, I raised my hand and asked, “May I talk
with your wife?” When he asked why I wanted to talk with his wife, I said, “If you have sinned in the
last two years, she will know.” He became furious, turned bright red, and yelled, “You are not allowed
to talk with my wife.” He was the one who pushed for me to be thrown out.
I found that my questions were not answered at CBC and I was castigated for merely asking them. I
began to doubt Christianity, as no one could or would answer my questions. There were four men who
literally saved me from going liberal: Walter Martin, Gordon Clark, Francis Schaeffer, and Cornelius
Van Til. These men took the time to answer my questions and did not put me down for asking them.
They became my heroes and role models.
Of my four mentors, Francis Schaeffer was the best. Edith made my wife and me feel at home at L’
Abri in Switzerland. She sent me out to pick snails off the trees and out of her garden so she could
cook them. There was a wonderful retired opera star that was staying there. I will never forget
Schaeffer assuring me with tears in his eyes that it was not wrong to ask questions. True humility is to
acknowledge that all good in you and all the good done by you, you owe to God and to others.
The study habits of my heroes were such that they did not stop researching an issue until they had the
answer. They were all prolific writers and worked day and night to defend the faith. My modus
operandi is as follows.
Step 1
I fly to Washington, D.C. and read everything in the Library of Congress on a given subject. This is
why it takes around two to three years to produce a major works such Death and the After Life,
Islamic Invasion, Battle of the gods, The Trinity, etc. I do not stop until there is nothing more to read
on the subject.
Step 2
I organize the research material into files. For example, all the photocopies on Arianism would be
placed in its own file folder.
Step 3
Once all the research has been filed, I work on an outline that is pedagogically arranged in such a way
that each chapter naturally leads to the next chapter. You cannot understand chapter three unless you
first understand chapters one and two. Thus the chapters interrelate and work in unison driving the
reader to the conclusion.
Step 4
Once the chapters are “mind- mapped,” I get up around 4:00 AM each morning and begin writing. I use
the files to plug in the citations I gleaned from the Library of Congress. It takes around one or two
years to write the manuscript, depending on the size of the book. My new book, refuting Natural Law
and Natural Theology, took me two years of research and two years of writing. It is around 500 pages
in length. One chapter is over 65 pages and has 148 footnotes with multiple references cited in each
note.
Step 5
I rewrite and edit the manuscript three times and then give it to several scholars to proof read. Once I
have all their suggestions and corrections, I rewrite it one last time.
Step 6
The finished manuscript is handed to the publisher for them to format, add indexes, and prepare for
publishing.
Several men have accompanied me to the Library of Congress to learn how to research a topic. I am
sad to say that they got tired by the third day and quit. They could not take the unceasing grind of
research. But I love it.
Question: Dr. Morey, what advice do you have to give to those of us who believe in asking
questions; to those of us who believe that the life of the mind is important, who believe that we must
defend the faith and witness for Christ at all costs. What can you share with future generations of
the Church? How can we fight for truths survival?
Dr. Morey: After Walter Martin died, I was asked to speak in his place at a major apologetic
conference in Rockford, IL. The title of my lecture was, “The Cost of Discernment.” It has proven to
be very popular for those who have been attacked for asking questions and defending the Faith.
1. There is a personal cost. Truth becomes all consuming, and the most important thing in your life.
You cannot simply accept what people say without checking it out.
2. There is a family cost. Your wife, husband, parents or children will attack you. They will tell you
that you need to be more “positive” and “accepting.”
3. There is a financial cost. You will spend countless thousands of dollars on books, references works,
DVDs, CDs, etc. in your pursuit of the truth.
4. There is a friendship cost. Friends will desert you because you are too “negative.”
5. There is a church cost. You will find it hard if not impossible to find a church that shares your love
of apologetics. Many pastors will not like you and may view you as a troublemaker. They will pray
and hope that you will move on to another church. They value money, buildings, and numbers while
you value truth, justice, and righteousness.
6. There is a reputation cost. You will be maligned, slandered, and put down as mean, nasty, unloving,
unkind, etc. You get tired of fighting the good fight.
7. There is a professional cost. Since you will not compromise; call good evil and evil good; are bold
to condemn heresy; name names; and warn people against false popular false teachers, you will not be
hired at most seminaries or called to pastor big churches.
8. There is a spiritual cost. Your spirit will be grieved over all the heresy being taught today. You are
tempted to become depressed and discouraged. You live in an age where truth is not valued. No one
seems to understand why you care about truth and holiness.
Thankfully, the godly have always faced this same situation: We are,
“Afflicted in every way, but not crushed; perplexed, but not despairing; persecuted, but not forsaken;
struck down, but not destroyed.” (2 Cor. 4:8-9)
We must keep in mind 1 Cor. 15:58,
“Therefore, my beloved brethren, be steadfast, immovable, always abounding in the work of the
Lord, knowing that your toil is not in vain in the Lord.”
The smile of God is all you need to endure the frown of man.
Footnotes-------
[1] Thabiti M. Anayabwile, The Decline of African American Theology, (Downers Grove: IVP, 2007),
ibid, p. 24.
[2] Archibald Alexander, A Sermon Delivered at the Opening of the General Assembly of the
Presbyterian Church in the United States May 1808.
[3] Ibid.
Soli Deo Gloria
Dr. Robert Morey
www.faithdefenders.com
The following interview was conducted by B. K. Campbell
 |
