They promise them freedom, while they themselves are slaves of depravity—for “people are slaves to whatever has mastered them.” (2 Peter 2:19)

In 1973 the American Humanist Association released the second iteration of its Manifesto. In it, was a call for freedom:

We reject all religious, ideological, or moral codes that denigrate the individual, suppress freedom, dull intellect, dehumanize personality. We believe in maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility.

It sounds as American as Ma and apple pie. Beware!

Who defines this “freedom”? Who defines “social responsibility”? The answers are becoming painfully clear.

Using a linguistic sleight of hand, the Manifesto “rejects all religions” while embracing its religion of “maximum individual autonomy consonant with social responsibility.” Consider what the Manifesto says about sexuality:

While we do not approve of exploitive, denigrating forms of sexual expression, neither do we wish to prohibit, by law or social sanction, sexual behavior between consenting adults. The many varieties of sexual exploration should not in themselves be considered “evil.” Without countenancing mindless permissiveness or unbridled promiscuity, a civilized society should be a tolerant one. Short of harming others or compelling them to do likewise, individuals should be permitted to express their sexual proclivities and pursue their lifestyles as they desire. We wish to cultivate the development of a responsible attitude toward sexuality, in which humans are not exploited as sexual objects, and in which intimacy, sensitivity, respect, and honesty in interpersonal relations are encouraged. Moral education for children and adults is an important way of developing awareness and sexual maturity.

Who do the humanists presume will do the “moral education for children?” On what standards will they determine what is acceptable or exploitive?

The answers are becoming painfully clear.

There has long been concern about how the United Nations has expanded its reach into prescribing the nature of human existence, the autonomy of all people, and the embrace of absolute freedom. Specifically, there is concern that the United Nations seeks to circumvent parents in granting “freedom” to the children.

When I heard these concerns 40 years ago, I dismissed them. Parental authority over children not only has biblical support (Deuteronomy 6:7; Proverbs 1:8-9; 22:6; 29:15; Ephesians 6:1-4), but societies have historically recognized and respected the role of parents in raising their children. It seemed obvious that parents are responsible for raising their children and are often held responsible when their children misbehave.

Today, the craze for autonomous freedom is poised to plow over every obstacle, including parents who do not fall in line with the social religion. We do well to be vigilant to what is happening around us and how we instruct our children so that they might know the truth and be truly free (John 8:32).