Likewise, he asserts that “conspiracy theories” take away attention from the “true and very real conspirators,” the Muslim terrorists, and the “islamo-fascist” conspiracy. Now Morey obviously does not know what fascism is; and he also does not know that fascists are “conspiring.” He is simply aping what he has been told.

Studying conspiracies leads one to neglect “the two reasons why they were left on the planet” (evangelism of unsaved and education of the saved). This philosophy of history, as a mere waiting-room for eternity in which to evangelize the lost is a truncated and ultimately anti-Christian view, though shared by many fundamentalists.

(Note that Morey evidently supports the “war against islamo-fascism,” and thus himself see more than just the two reasons earlier given “why we were left on the planet.”)

He criticizes the slanderous tendency of some conspiracy theories, but by insinuating that all conspiracy theorists are intentionally trying to deceive, he shows himself to be a slanderer of the saints, and guilty of the very thing he accuses them of.

Morey is as shallow on conspiracies as he is on the only other subject I have read him on, Islam. A few observations.

1) Aside from his abortive attempt to define or characterize conspiracy, he goes on to show he cannot even use the word properly by calling Abel’s murder by Cain a conspiracy. How can one discuss conspiracies intelligently if he is even able to use let alone define the word?
2) Morey is really attempting to define conspiracy theorists rather than conspiracies. Conspiracy theorists, says Morey, are those who believe that secret forces run the world. Thus defined he can use his theological expertise to demonstrate that this contradicts biblical teaching that God controls all things. To borrow from Lewis Carroll, there’s glory for you.

3) Part I of the video gives the impression that there are no conspiracies, but part II goes on to say that just about every human political endeavor involves conspiracies. Which is it?

4) I loved the the first minute or so of Morey’s first appearance. It was filled with as much vitriol and ad hominem as the Saturday Night Live ’s “Point-Counterpoint” between Jane Curtin and Dan Aykroyd. Aykroyd used to always begin with, “Jane you ignorant slut.” (For those who are unfamiliar, see here for audio of one of their “debates.”)

5) We can glean one important lesson from this otherwise unhelpful presentation. Despite the fact that the City of Man is continually conspiring against the City of God, Jesus is King and will conquer all his enemies. (Well, this is not quite Morey’s lesson. He speaks generally about providence and not about the power and authority of Christ’s rule.)

6) As to your question, just patiently and kindly point out the errors, distortions and rhetorical tricks. We are all dupes at some level so don’t get too frustrated by those who can’t see what seems obvious. And besides, it often takes more than arguments to move one away from old and comfortable positions. To have a genuinely Augustinian view of the world will take something like a gestalt switch for most Christians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ODrjpxoJVmk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1sBRWFeV4lE&feature=related

TJH and MB: How do we reach people who’ve been brainwashed by men like Morey? How would you counter some of his arguments?

Pardon the label, but this is excellent applied Presuppositionalsim. I have a great interest in taking presup methods outside of apologetics, specifically into reforming culture—which is simply to say I’m interested in obeying Christ.

However, one of the challenges to your thesis coming from those inside the Reformed world is the faulty historiographical methods that are out there. Here’s a choice comment by Frame, writing about Richard Muller:

“His statement that philosophical theology ‘must not utilize Scripture or churchly standards of truth: it rests on the truths of logic and reason’ (p. 139) is horrendous. I am amazed that such an intelligent writer can pen a sentence like that while endorsing presuppositional apologetics! The whole point of presuppositional apologetics, a biblical point in my view, is that in all areas of life we must ‘utilize Scripture and churchly standards of truth.’”

Full article here: http://www.frame-poythress.org/frame_articles/1994Muller.htm

I’ve often been puzzled at some of my Christian brothers who grant the myth of epistemological neutrality in defending the faith with unbelievers, but yet assume neutrality in other areas of their lives, say in giving their kids to the government where they can still learn “religiously neutral” subjects, or in reading history as if it is religiously neutral.

Another challenge, frankly, comes from some faculty members at Westminster Ca and guys like Lee Irons, who advocate the same sort of neutrality, not in historiography (though they might), but in reforming culture in general. We need to use natural law for those areas life (culture and politics) which are under “common grace” and not redemptive. Just some thoughts. Gotta run for now.

Again, good post. It’s giving me ideas for my MA thesis!